IUNI1131 M. Iunius (48) M. f. L. n. Brutus

Life Dates

  • 221?, birth (Develin 1979) Expand

    Develin no. 138.


brother of
P. Iunius (54) Brutus (pr. 190) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Liv. XXXIV 1.2-4, Liv. XXXIV 1.4

father of
? M. Iunius (49) M. f. M. n. Brutus (pr. before 139) (Zmeskal 2009)
? D. Iunius (57) M. f. M. n. Brutus Callaicus (cos. 138) (Zmeskal 2009)


  • Tribunus Plebis 195 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Fundanius and Valerius supported the abrogation of the Oppian law, while the two Iunii opposed it (Liv. 34.1.2-4, 2.6, and 5.1; Val. Max. 9.1.3; Zon. 9.17). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Aedilis Plebis? 193 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Fest. 258 L names with Brutus a Q. Oppius, but is almost certainly referring to these men, since Brutus and Oppius were colleagues also in 191. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Praetor 191 urbanus, inter peregrinos, Rome (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Election 35.24.6 Provinces and armies Liv. 36.2.6-15. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Prepared ships for the fleet (Liv. 36.2.15), dedicated the temple of the Magna Mater (Liv. 36.36.4; cf. Ovid Fast. 4.347), and was possibly the author of the usury law which Cato opposed (FOR 1.28, 166). Cf. Didasc. Plaut. Pseudolus. (Broughton MRR I)
    • p. 731, footnote 53 (Brennan 2000)
  • Legatus (Ambassador) 189 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Though Willems is compelled to admit that this embassy consists in any case of an unusual proportion of senior members of the Senate, he attempts to fit it to his regular pattern (Sénat 2.506) by claiming: 1. that Aemilius Paullus was not the famous member of the family (but see above, note 3); 2. that Lentulus was not the Pr. of 203 but another, the Cos. of 162 (who was too young and whose career, as Münzer has shown, RE no. 214, he has reported incorrectly, Sénat 1.347, no. 216); and 3. that Aelius Tubero was not the Pr. of 201 but someone otherwise unknown. Münzer suggests that Lentulus{365} is a mistake for Cethegus, Pr. 185 and Cos. 181, and since the two men are confused in Liv. 40.18.1 this remains a possibility. However it is unnecessary, for with the identification of Aemilius Paullus the commission is seen to consist of eight consulars or praetorians, and evidently may have consisted wholly of men of curule rank. Therefore in spite of the disarangement of the two final names it seems preferable to identify Lentulus with the Praetor of 203 and Tubero with the Praetor of 201. As we know the names of only three senatorial commissions of ten men during this period and possess the complete list of only this one, the basis for Willems' generalization regarding the pattern remains rather tenuous. (Broughton MRR I)
    • An embassy of ten members sent to assist Manlius Vulso in implementing the treaty with Antiochus and in completing the settlement of Asia Minor (Liv. 37.55.7; 38.38.1, and 40.1, and 44.9-47, and 54.6; cf. Polyb. 21.24.9, and 16.17; see 188, Legates). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Ambassador) 188 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • The ten Legates assisted Manlius in concluding the treaty with Antiochus and the settlement of Asia Minor, and returned with him (Polyb. 21.4-45; 22.5; Liv. 38.38-40, and 45-46). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Consul 178 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Liv. 40.59.4; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 48f., 122, 456f. (reading [M. I] unius, etc.); Obseq. 8; Chr. 354; Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod. Manlius was assigned the province of Gaul, whence he invaded Istria, was ousted from his camp by the Istri, but later recovered it and defeated them (Liv. 41.1-5, 6.1-3, and 7.4-10; cf. Flor. 1.26, who names Cn. Manlius and Ap. Pulcher). Brutus was assigned to Liguria but after the defeat in Istria joined his collegue at Aquileia (Liv. 41.5.5 and 9-12), and returned to Rome to hold the elections (41.7.4-10). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Proconsul 177 Liguria, Istria (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Their command prorogued, they received the submission of most of the Istri (Liv. 41.10.1-5), but after a quarrel the Consul Claudius took over their command (Liv. 41.10.1-5, and 11.1). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Ambassador) 172 Asia, Rhodes (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Livy relates the activities of this embassy under the consular year 171, but in a Polybian passage (42.37ff.) which includes events that date from the autumn of 172 (De Sanctis 4.1.398f.). The phrase in Livy which places their return at the beginning of winter is contradicted by Polybius' statement that they carried on their negotiations during the winter (27.2.12; cf. Liv. 42.52.8, from Polybius). (Broughton MRR I)
    • M. Iunius Pennus (Willems, Sénat 2.501, no. 16) is excluded since he was still in Spain. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Sent to Asia and the islands to urge the allies, and particularly Rhodes, to join them against Perseus (Liv. 42.45.1-7; Polyb. 27.3.1-5; cf. App. Mac. 11.4), and reported the attitude of Rhodes to Rome (Polyb. 27.6.1). See no. a, and note 4. On Postumius, see Münzer, APF 213ff. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Repulsa (Cens.) 169 (Pina Polo 2012) Expand
    • pp. 65-72 (Pina Polo 2012)
  • Legatus (Ambassador) 163 Cappadocia, Galatia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • M. Iunius Pennus (RE 122, Cos. 167) is also a possibility, but Brutus, who had had experience in the East, is a preferable choice. The date of the embassy must precede that of no. c (Polyb.), and both antedate the death of Ariarathes IV in 163. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Head of an embassy sent to settle disputes between Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia and the Trocmi (Polyb. 31.8.1-3). (Broughton MRR I)