Story Of Lucius And Marcus Brutus

When in Rome

In ancient Rome, there were essentially two destinies for a young man of a powerful family: you either become a great man, or you kill one. But are the two mutually exclusive? Some men are so inherently evil, from Hitler to Caligula, that they stain the reputation of humanity, and their elimination would result in a definite improvement in society. Of course, morality is relative, and doubly so in ancient Rome. One individual, by the name of Lucius Brutus, raised an army against his own king, exiling the entire royal family.

To this day, Lucius is regarded as a champion of freedom and the founder of the glorious Roman Republic. Yet Marcus Brutus, another man who detested monarchies and feared for the well-being of his people, gathered likeminded rebels and dispatched of Julius Caesar. Despite having similar motives for his actions, public opinion for the two Brutus’ could not be more different. In fact, Marcus has the distinction of being one of three people Dante considered evil enough to be chewed in the mouth of Satan for his treachery.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: Rome

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The 9th circle in Hell is reserved for traitors, yet Lucius Brutus is deemed a revolutionist and receives accolades from millions throughout history. What causes this distinction? Ultimately, there are several factors that differentiated the actions of Lucius and Marcus Brutus.

The first factor in understanding the difference in the aftermath of the two rebellions is discussing who was rebelled against. Lucius Brutus and his fellow countrymen denied the rule of a man near universally regarded as a tyrant.

Livy speaks of “the arrogance of the king himself and the wretched forced labor of the people who were plunged into ditches and sewers and forced to clean them out. The Romans, conquerors of all the surrounding peoples, had been changed from fighting men into workmen and stonecutters.” (Livy 1. 59) We are led to believe that the citizens of Rome under Lucius Superbus suffered from a lack of pride in both themselves and their country. A similar example is Germany immediately following WWI. The german people were destitute following the war, and much of their nationalistic pride had evaporated, thus setting the stage for a charismatic leader to lead his people to new heights. In Rome however, in addition to a depressing social setting, there was also a catalyst for social change in the form of the King’s son, Sextus Tarquinius. The rape of Lucretia by Sextus, which lead to her suicide, not only spurned Marcus to action, but united the young men of Rome against the royal family. Livy records Brutus as saying, “By this blood, most chaste until it was defiled by a prince, I swear and take you, O gods, to witness that I will pursue Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, together with his wicked wife and all his children, with sword, fire, and indeed with whatever violence I can.” (Livy 1. 59) A combination of a poor social climate and unjust actions by the royal family resulted in a perfect storm, with Brutus leading a volunteer army against Suberbus, ultimately exiling them from the country.

Similar to Lucius Brutus, Marcus envisioned himself as a savior of his people, ending the reign of an unjust ruler. Like Lucius, Marcus hated the thought of Rome under a monarch, and decided that the current dictator had amassed too much power, and therefore decided an immediate change of rulers was necessary. Unfortunately for Brutus, that dictator was Julius Caesar, the darling of the Roman public. Though he sometimes had his failings, in his citizens’ eyes, Caesar was the military hero who conquered Gaul, and the benefactor of the Plebs. Under the rule of Caesar, the poor benefited from redistribution of land, and various political reforms, one of which abolished the tax system. It seems safe to say that Brutus did not understand the popularity Caesar held with the Plebians, for once Julius was killed, Plutarch states that, “Brutus and his party marched up to the capitol, in their way showing their hands all bloody, and their naked swords, and proclaiming liberty to the people.” (Plutarch Brutus 52) However, the public was extremely moved during Caesar’s funeral, due in part to Marc Antony’s eulogy, and also Caesar’s generous will which, among other things, gave seventy-five drachmas to each man. The crowd was so grieved at the loss of Caesar that they, “snatched the brands that were half burnt out of the pile, and ran about the city to fire the houses of the murderers of Caesar.”(Plutarch. Brutus 52) Although this initial attack failed, and Antony gave amnesty to Brutus and his cohorts, the citizens eventually drove the assassins out of Rome. Brutus thought he was saving Rome from another monarchy, but the reality was he acted on the Senate’s interest, who disliked Caesar for his popularity with the Plebeians, and who feared their power was being undermined. Of the two rebels, only Lucius Brutus truly acted on the behalf of the people. The popularity and general good reputation of Caesar is one of the reasons why public reactions to Marcus’ actions varied so much from Lucius’.

Another determinant for the backlash Marcus Brutus received from his people, and continues to receive from historians, is the manner in which Caesar was dispatched. Even by Roman standards, Caesar’s assassination was a particularly bloody affair. Plutarch describes it by saying, “they so eagerly pressed towards the body, and so many daggers were hacking together, that they cut one another; Brutus, particularly, received a wound in his hand, and all of them were besmeared with the blood.” (Plutarch. Brutus 52) One must remember, these were not soldiers, trained in the art of killing, but rather unexperienced politicians, savagely hacking and stabbing wherever they saw exposed flesh, unable to deliver the killing blow, their daggers stained red, their faces consumed with bloodlust, until finally, Caesar succumbs to death. Caesar’s bloody garment was evidence of the barbaric way in which he was butchered, The barbaric way in which Caesar was butchered heavily affected onlooking Roman citizens. Plutarch writes that at the funeral, Marc Antony “unfolded the bloody garment of Caesar, showed them in how many places it was pierced, and the number of his wounds.” (Plutarch. Brutus 52) The citizens were so outraged in the bestial way in which their benevolent ruler was slaughtered, a riot immediately broke out, with the sole purpose to kill Brutus and the other conspirators.

Conversely, the rebellion led by Lucius Brutus was an organized affair, and avoided spilling any blood, at least according to Livy. Immediately after’s Lucretia’s suicide, crowds started to gather as the men carried her body outside. Livy writes that, “They (the onlookers) were moved not only by the father’s grief but also by Brutus, who reprimanded them for their tears and idle complaints, urging them, as befit men and Ro- mans, to take up arms against those who had dared such acts of hostility. All the boldest young men seized their weapons, offering their service, and the rest also followed.” This armed force followed Brutus to Rome in open rebellion. After his arrival, Brutus gave a speech which so inflamed the people, that they revoked the king’s powers, and ordered Lucius Superbus and his immediate family to exile. The king’s wife was driven out of the city, while Suberbus and his sons, who were camped at Ardea, were forever denied entrance to Rome. The entire rebellion and subsequent change of government into a consulship, was very organized and relatively calm. The near seamless transition of power, coupled with the complete lack of bloodshed, cemented Brutus’ role as savior of Rome in the eyes of the common people.

Few men have so shaped history as Lucius and Marcus Brutus. Yet they experienced very dissimilar consequences to their actions. Lucius, called by many the founder of the Roman Republic, is lauded as equally now as he was then. Marcus, on the other hand, was chased by angry crowds through the streets of Rome, forced to become an exile, and his reputation has not increased since. As seen in two examples, Lucius led a relatively peaceful rebellion against an unjust king, but most importantly, he had the full support of the people. Marcus however, violently murdered a king loved by the public. In what can essentially be seen as an example that proves the ends do not always justify the means, both Brutuses overthrew dictators, yet history only smiles upon one.