Marcius, again, is to be blamed for having made the whole of Rome suffer for what only a part of it had done, while the best and most important class of citizens had been wronged equally with himself, and warmly sympathised with him.  Afterwards, although his countrymen sent him many embassies, beseeching his forgiveness for their one act of ignorance and passion, he would not listen to them, but showed that it was with the intention of utterly destroying Rome, not of obtaining his own restoration to it, that he had begun that terrible and savage war against it.  This, then, may be noted as the difference between their respective positions:  Alkibiades went back to the Athenian side when the Spartans began to plot against him, because he both feared them and hated them; but Marcius, who was in every respect well treated by the Volscians, could not honourably desert their cause.  He had been elected their commander-in-chief, and besides this great power enjoyed their entire confidence; while Alkibiades, though his assistance was found useful by the Lacedaemonians, was never trusted by them, but remained without any recognised position, first in Sparta and then in the camp in Asia Minor, till he finally threw himself into the arms of Tissaphernes, unless, indeed, he took this step to save Athens, hoping some day to be restored to her.

III.  As to money, Alkibiades has been blamed for receiving it discreditably in bribes, and for spending it in luxurious extravagance; while the generals who offered Marcius money as an honourable reward for his valour could not prevail upon him to accept it.  This, however, made him especially unpopular in the debates about freeing the people from debt, because it was said that he pressed so hardly on the poor, not because he wished to make money by them, but purely through arrogance and pride.  Antipater, in a letter to a friend on the death of Aristotle the philosopher, observes, “Besides his other abilities, the man had the art of persuasion.”  Now Marcius had not this art; and its absence made all his exploits and all his virtues unpleasant even to those who benefited by them, as they could not endure his pride and haughtiness, which brooked no compeer.  Alkibiades, on the other hand, knew how to deal on friendly terms with every one, and we need not therefore be surprised at the pleasure which men took in his successes, while even some of his failures had a charm of their own for his friends.  Hence it was that Alkibiades, even after inflicting many grievous losses upon his countrymen, was chosen by them as commander-in-chief, whereas Marcius, when after a splendid display of courage and conduct he tried for the consulship which he deserved, failed to obtain it.  The one could not be hated by his countrymen, even when they were ill treated by him; while the other, though admired by all, was loved by none.