The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great

One of history’s most enduring mysteries, and one I am particularly obsessed with, is where is Alexander the Great buried? Obviously, Alexander has been dead for a very long time, since 323 BCE in fact, and the likelihood of losing his tomb to history was high, but there are historical attestations of individuals viewing his resting place as late as the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, and even some (suspect) accounts into the 16th century. Although some of these attestations can be considered dubious or repetitions of previous writings, there have been over one hundred attempts to find the lost tomb just since the 19th century, using whatever source materials that are available, no matter the reliability. We are going to detail what happened to the tomb throughout history and what are the potential locations for his final resting place.

Alexander died in Babylon on either the 10th or 11th of June in 323 BCE at the age of 32, leaving behind one of the largest empires in history. Alexander, while a great conqueror, did not have the same skill when it came to setting up his empire for continued success, failing to name a clear successor. Instead, while dying, he told his companions that his empire should go to the “strongest.” Of course, this led to fighting amongst his generals and companions, resulting in the fragmentation of his realm. Part of this fighting involved Alexander’s body being used as a tool for holding power, whomever had the body could use it to attempt to claim legitimacy. Alexander’s body remained in Babylon for two years, (stories vary on the preservation methods, either in a barrel of honey or embalmed by the Egyptians) while a proper funeral cart could be constructed for his return to Macedonia. Ultimately, one of his generals, Ptolemy, the future King of Egypt, intercepted Alexander’s body on the way back to Macedonia. Ptolemy diverted it instead to Memphis, Egypt, against Alexander’s wishes, which he expressed to be buried or interred in Siwa, Egypt. Once Alexander’s corpse was removed from Babylon, Ptolemy met the funeral procession in Syria, and most likely either kidnapped the body or convinced the people in charge of the procession, to give him possession of Alexander’s remains. What leaves us to believe it was a hostile acquisition of the corpse is that another one of Alexander’s generals and the man effectively in charge of the remaining empire, Perdiccas, sent troops in pursuit of Ptolemy, and even launched a failed invasion of Egypt to recover the remains.

With that point, we will start with the most likely location of his tomb, Alexandria, Egypt. Alexander’s body sat in Memphis (possibly in an empty sarcophagus made for the last native Egyptian pharaoh, Nectanebo II), temporarily interred until either 298 or 283 BCE, when it was moved to Alexandria. Ptolemy’s son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, created an actual tomb structure for Alexander, around 280 BCE, this is known to scholars as the first site but very little is known about this first site. Finally, under the reign of Ptolemy IV, Alexander was moved to his final resting place (supposedly) in a communal tomb connected to the Ptolemaic burial complex and potentially connected to the palace complex, known as the Soma or the Sema, until he disappears from history, either in the 4th or 5th century CE. Alexander had his own regally built sarcophagus with varying accounts saying his mummified body was either covered in gold plating or a see-through crystal-like material. Numerous well-known people viewed Alexander in the Soma, such as Julius Caesar, Augustus, Caracalla, Strabo, and Hadrian. The emperor Augustus has one of the best insults in history around viewing Alexanders body: when asked by an aide if he wanted to see the tombs of the Ptolemies that surrounded Alexander’s sarcophagus, Augusts replied “I came to see a king, not corpses” showing his disdain for the Ptolemies compared to the aura of Alexander.

So, what happened to the tomb? We are going to only explore the mostly likely theories, which has two parts. First, the tomb was destroyed by a natural disaster in the 4th or 5th century CE. A 365 CE earthquake in Crete, caused a tsunami to hit Alexandria, sweeping deep into the city and destroying or damaging numerous high profile ancient sites. One of these sites destroyed or beyond repair could have been the Soma, but no record of this exists. A second part to this theory, if the tsunami didn’t destroy the Soma, then overzealous early Christians could have. Around 400 CE, an early Church leader, John Chrysostom, gave a homily sarcastically imploring the people (rhetorically) to tell him where Alexander’s tomb is, indicating that it was destroyed earlier. He did this to demonstrate that great pagan sites of worship or reverence were no longer standing, and Christian churches were replacing them. This indicates that during the late 4thcentury, like many ancient temples and sites throughout the Western and Eastern Roman empires, the Soma could have fallen victim to a Christian mob pulling it down and plundering the remains. Usually, once a site was plundered or damaged, it was then pilfered for its building material and used to build homes or new structures, essentially leaving little or no trace of its former existence. A third theory, the Soma is destroyed somehow, and that early Christians/Muslims may have chopped up Alexander’s mummified remains, and the parts worn as talismans or relic like objects.

You may wonder, “well Alexandria still exists, why cannot we locate the former site?” If only it was that easy! However, Alexandria’s fortunes have shifted dramatically over the years, sometimes nearly being abandoned then regaining its population. The city faced flooding, earthquakes, and fires through the years, leaving very little of the Ptolemaic and Roman city standing and has since been rebuilt numerous times. This makes putting together a map of ancient Alexandria extremely difficult and finding the location of a single structure next to impossible. There have been numerous attempts throughout the millennia though, with a large increase in activity in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some scholars even claim that Alexander’s body was moved out of Alexandria to places like Siwa and Memphis, maybe even Greece or Macedonia, even Venice. Dubious stories ranged from digging into the basement of a mosque (illegally) and spying a gold covered or crystal covered body through a hole in the wall, finding an (empty) green and regal sarcophagus that must be Alexander’s (it wasn’t), his body resting under St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice (probably not), to finding him buried in Siwa, Egypt but refusing to show anyone the actual body (there was no body).

One of these “tomb locations” we are going to detail to provide a little context on why the archelogical community takes any new claim of a find with skepticism. Leo Africanus, a traveler in the in the 16th century to Alexandria, described a mosque that had a strange chapel like building in its courtyard, without giving its exact name or location. He claimed that this chapel contained a sarcophagus holding the body of Alexander the Great and he was worshipped by Muslims as a prophet in this spot, attracting visitors from “distant lands.” This account was repeated by several other travelers, almost word for word, in the next century, until another visitor, known only as Evilya Celebi, repeats this tale but claims he was able to study the sarcophagus and that hieroglyphs covered all four sides, indicating its age as ancient Egyptian. He also claims that the sarcophagus was empty and being used as a ritual bathtub by the local community in their religious rites. At this time hieroglyphs were not deciphered and would not be until the Rosetta Stone was translated in 1822, so Celebi could only guess at the meaning of the symbols on the sides of the sarcophagus. A common theme of travelers visiting or breaking into mosque grounds to spy a richly decorated sarcophagus, would be based on this tale for the next few centuries, with local mosques using props to take advantage of a slow economy in order to charge for viewing. Remarkably, however, a green sarcophagus recovered during the Napoleonic conflicts in Egypt during the late 18th century, fits the description of what Celebi describes, being covered in hieroglyphs and drainage like holes drilled into its sides. This sarcophagus would be recovered by the British (along with the Rosetta Stone) and sent to the British Museum, where it would be on full display as Alexander’s sarcophagus for the next 20 or so years. To this day, it still is located in the Museum, only mere feet from the Rosetta Stone, but is mostly overlooked. The reason for this that the translation of the Rosetta Stone allowed us to realize the sarcophagus is not Alexander’s but is most likely the empty sarcophagus created for the last native born Pharaoh, Nectanebo II. Thus ends 300 years of visitors claiming to have visited the tomb and put archeologists back on the hunt, launching the increase in activity to find the tomb in the 19th and 20th centuries.

There you have it, while archeologists are still trying to find the remains to this day, Seeking History has little hope that, while the tomb structure may be one day found, the mummified body will be found with it. Hopefully, some remains of the structure can be found or there will be concrete evidence that will emerge one day as it would be a huge win for history to have an idea of what the Soma looked like, what happened to it, and where the body ended up/how it was destroyed.

The Social War and Its Impact

When most people think of the Roman Republic, they think of two things - a city made of white marble and a map with lots of Europe colored red to denote the boundaries. What if I told you that both of those were wrong? We will not get into the marble bit today (the city was built mostly of brick and the marble that was used probably had color painted on it) but we can talk about how Rome governed the territory it “controlled.” Rome was not ruled like a republic is ruled today with a strong centralized federal government, and an established bureaucracy to carry out vital governmental functions. Instead, it ruled its controlled territory with a distant touch (mostly) and used treaties to make sure that neighboring tribes, towns, cities, and states swore allegiance to the Republic of Rome. This article is about those tribes, towns, cities, and states in Italy that fell under the control of Rome but decided to rebel, leading to an outbreak of war. This war is known to history as the Social War (91 to 87 BCE) and despite its rather benign name, caused an existential crisis for Rome and its governing system.

My favorite history professor at my university used to use the Social War to trip up students who didn’t complete their required reading, she would ask students to answer a question on the first quiz/test around the definition of the Social War and provide multiple choice options that would be around the word “social” except for one: the true answer. If you didn’t complete your reading, you mostly thought this was a war involving Roman society, as the name suggests, but the real answer was that this was a war/uprising of Italian allies of Rome against Roman rule. You may now be wondering why it was even called the Social War. If you are, it is because of Latin, the word for an ally in Latin is socius or socii, which leads to the name Social. Now that burning question is out of the way, let's get to the intensely interesting topic of Roman governing (yes, there was some sarcasm there) and its failure. In order to understand the Social War, we have to first understand two concepts key to Roman life, citizenship, and the military. Both these topics could be articles on their own, and maybe they will be, but not today as I don’t want to you click to something else, so instead you will get a summation (that is still longer than I would like).

We are starting with Roman citizenship – the concept of Roman citizenship is both similar and different to our own. Romans did not understand nor possess the concept of universal birthright citizenship that a lot of countries today have, such as the United States of America. Instead, Romans had a multi-tier class system of citizenship with the highest tier only being acquired if your parents were both free citizens of Rome (born within Rome itself or a city granted full citizenship rights) or was earned through military service in the auxiliary. The key word to note there is “free” as Rome was a slave holding state and economy. Being a free land-owning Roman citizen was a really big deal that gave you full legal protection under Roman law. The second and third tier of citizens were known as Latini (Latin Rights) and Socii (ally/friend) respectively. There are a few more sub or lower tiers that we are not going to get into today as its pretty complicated and varies depending on what period we are discussing, but hey, if you are interested in that sort of thing, let me know and I may do an article on it. Latin Rights was a legal designation denoting a colony or city outside the traditional Roman citizenship boundary but had upgraded legal status. Latin Rights varied from city to city, but for the city’s population, while not full Roman citizens, they had legal protections and rights not granted to other cities or freedman (former slaves and their families). These sometimes included the right to vote, migrate/move around the Republic, have fully protected and equal business dealings with Roman citizens, and the right to eventually gain full Roman citizenship. Socii was a third tier roman class that denoted an individual hailing from a city or town allied to Rome but not granted Latin Rights or full Roman citizenship. This came with some legal protection under Roman law but not always coming with the perks given to Latin Rights citizens. Socii could gain higher class citizenship by serving within the ranks of the Roman military. This military service requirement would play a major factor in the Social War. Rome used citizenship and legal rights as a tool for foreign policy and subjugation, granting different tier legal rights and citizenship to conquered or allied towns/villages/cities within Italy. Rights given to an allied town could also be revoked, this would be used to punish allies that revolted or chose to side against Rome when things looked dire, such as during the Second Punic War and the invasion of Italy by Epirus/Pyrus.

Now, onto the Roman Military – during the Republic days, Rome fought a series of highly devastating conflicts that led to reforms of the military. For several centuries, Rome relied on a levying or raising part-time soldiers of land-owning citizens with allies providing their own forces to bolster Rome’s numbers. But due to wars with Carthage and Epirus causing massive casualties to Rome and her allies, the system of part-time soldiers bolstered by allies, needed to be reformed. The most famous of these reforms is known as the Marian reforms that established professional soldiery and service contracts, creating the legionary system that we all know and love. To be a legionary, you had to be a citizen but didn’t have to own land. This also created an auxiliary system of non-legionary forces, i.e., non-citizens or allies, called, you guessed it, auxiliaries. These Marian reforms were first instituted around 107 BCE (16 years before the outbreak of the Social War) but still were mixed with the old conscription system of levying. It was very uncommon during this time to volunteer for the army as life in the Roman army was tough and exhausting, but the Marian reforms changed the average Roman soldier and auxiliary from land owners who could afford to provide their own equipment and weapons to poor men with state provided equipment. The Roman Republic relied heavily on it’s allies to provide military manpower when Rome experienced a shortfall, this lead to a massive burden placed on the Socii.

So why did I just explain to you the Marian reforms and citizenship rights in the Roman Republic? Because these were the primary causes of the Social War (along with complicated land owning and usage disputed between Rome and the Socii). Come on, pay attention. Allies of Rome not granted full citizenship were still required to provide Rome soldiers (sometimes this meant large percentages within a town/village of young men) to fight wars for a Republic that didn’t allow these towns to participate in the full economic or political process. Resentment grew over time leading to a full-scale rebellion of Italian allies of Rome in 91 BCE. The exact outbreak is disputed, along with much of the reasoning for the war as contemporary sources for the conflict are lost and later sources are writing hundreds of years later, but there is evidence that due to the rapid raising of troops amongst the Socii, that some preparation prior to the outbreak of hostilities had to have occurred. Rome was caught off guard by the quick creation of armies against her and suffered early setbacks with destruction of whole Roman armies and even defections of Roman soldiers to Socii forces. The two Roman Consuls at the time were outmatched by the Socii leading to the death in battle of the Consul, Publius Lupus, and widespread panic within Rome when the battle dead returned the city. But by the end of 88 BCE, Rome was successful in dividing the northern Socii from their southern friends. These victories for Rome were brought about by the command of talented commanders and eventually very famous names within Roman history, Gaius Marius (namesake of the aforementioned Marian reforms) and Sulla (eventual dictator of Rome and enemy of Marius in a later civil war). The war ended in 87 BCE with a Roman long-term victory (there is historical argument that Rome lost in the short term or suffered a stalemate) as it appears (again sources aren’t really clear) that the rebellious Socii received full Roman citizenship or Latin Rights.

The Social War changed the Roman Republic permanently as an influx of new citizens changed the way the government functioned, the Marian reforms utilized by Rome brought about economic changes to the military make up and subsequent changes to the Commander-Soldier relationship (soldiers weren’t paid well so, war loot accounted for a large incentive by soldiers to not desert the army and generals made sure these soldiers received shares of the loot, causing soldiers to be loyal to generals, not the Roman state), and conscription of axillaries turned away from non-citizen Italic allies to foreign conquered entities. Some historians even argue that the instability caused by the Social War led to the downfall of the Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire (that’s your que to play Imperial March).

The Great Date Debate: The Fall of Rome

We all have been told that the Roman Empire fell and most of us may even remember the year of that collapse, but for those that have been out of high school or university for more than 180 days, would you be surprised if there was debate on how and why the empire fell? Well, there is a lot of discussion around that, sometimes civil, and sometimes VERY heated. Now that you know there is disagreement around the how and why, would you be shocked to know that there is even debate around the year the empire fell? If you are, you aren’t paying attention. While most think the Roman Empire to be a straight forward, historical area of study, ancient civilizations (yes that includes Rome) are constantly revealing new things that change the narrative through the wonders of archeology. The fall of Rome is a topic we may approach one day here at Seeking History, but that day is not today. We are going to limit our focus and scope to what I am now calling this topic: the Great Date Debate.

Before we get into the dates, let’s talk about why there is a debate. The main reason is that the Roman Empire split into two at one point (there were further divisions than two but we are going to focus here). During the third century CE, Rome went through a devastating series of civil wars, coups, barbarian incursions, and even partitions of the Empire. Eventually, an emperor rose to power that ended what historians call the Crisis of the Third Century. That emperor, Diocletian, upon taking the reins in 284, realized that the Empire was proving too large for one individual to rule, hence, the preceding century long crisis. Diocletian decided it would be better to split the Empire into pieces, with co-emperors ruling those pieces. He split the empire into East and West, with each piece having a senior emperor, known as an Augustus and a junior emperor known as a Caesar, creating a system known as the Tetrarchy. This system held until Diocletian retired (to farm cabbages no less) and his successors squabbled over the Empire’s ultimate control. Finally, in 395 CE, the Empire permanently split into an east/west system with equal co-emperors ruling their respective empires. While both East and West were the still nominally the same empire, they eventually became to be ruled as entirely separate entities. These entities became known to history as The Western Roman Empire (WRE) and The Eastern Roman Empire (ERE). Fun fact, the East eventually became to be known as the Byzantine Empire, even though they never called themselves that. Until the final days of the east, the people of the ERE called themselves Roman. Moving forward, I am going to refer to these two separate states as either the east/west or ERE and WRE, because it’s a lot to type the full name each time.

Ok, now that you understand the split, let’s talk about dates. There are three dates vying to be called the correct one, so we will start with the easiest, September 4, 476 CE. This date is the most commonly accepted date for the fall of the Western Empire. Prior to the fall, the western realms saw repeated incursions by barbarian tribes and a massive invasion by the Huns that caused destabilization to the Roman State. In 476, Odoacer deposed the western emperor, Romulus Augustulus. Romulus Augustulus was only around ten or eleven years old at the time of his removal and he sat on the throne of the West for just a mere eleven months. In reality, Romulus Augustulus (originally Augustus but changed to Augustulus to denote a child in Latin) was put on the throne by his father, Orestes, who ruled through his figurehead son. Orestes held a senior rank in the Roman military at the time and deposed the emperor Julius Nepos, putting Romulus on the throne. Eventually, however, there was an uprising against Romulus and thus Orestes either by the Roman military or Odoacer’s tribe/forces loyal to him, putting Odoacer in charge of their uprising. There is debate around Odoacer’s origin (some say he was from the Hunnic tribes, a German, or a member of one of the Goth tribes) but we do know that he wasn’t originally a Roman, so we will call him a "non-roman” to keep things easy. Once Odoacer succeeded in ousting Orestes and Romulus, he had Orestes executed but spared Romulus as he was just a child, opting to send him into comfortable exile. Instead of crowning himself Emperor of the West, Odoacer declared himself King of Italy and recognized the ERE emperor, Zeno, has his overlord.

The narrative above is mostly straight forward and gives an end to the Empire that is relatively easy to accept with the end of an emperor in place of a king, so then why is there a debate? Well, the main point of contention is around the legitimacy of Romulus Augustulus. Most historians consider Romulus a usurper whose father deposed the recognized emperor Julius Nepos. At this time, the ERE emperor was able to provide legitimacy to the constantly changing emperors of the WRE by politically “recognizing” the emperor. So, the logic against the 476 date follows as thus: if the “legitimate” emperor, Julius Nepos, was still out there, even if deposed by another, then politically the WRE was still in existence and thus did not fall in 476. So when did Julius Nepos’ reign as the emperor of the WRE end then? That question leads us into the next accepted date: 480 CE.

I know, you are probably asking, does four years between two dates really matter that much? In history, yes, every day matters. I mean, you wouldn’t be reading this now if it didn’t matter. So, who was Julius Nepos? Julius Nepos was a noble sent to the west by the ERE emperor to rule over Italy as Augustus and depose an emperor that the ERE didn’t recognize as legitimate. In 474, Nepos removed the usurper, and ruled for one year before being removed by the above-mentioned Orestes. Julius fled to modern day Croatia, known then as the Roman province of Dalmatia where he lived out his days in peace, eventually dying in his sleep. Just kidding, he was brutally murdered four years later (May 9, 480) by allies of the “emperor” he deposed in 474.

If Julius Nepos was the legitimate recognized emperor of the WRE when he died, then why isn’t the date of Rome’s fall accepted as 480? Well, that’s because there is also debate around his legitimacy, with an argument that when he was himself deposed, he ceased being emperor and became a “pretender” to the throne. Second, the Roman Senate, a powerless but still respected institution by this point, accepted and supported Odoacer as the rightful ruler of Italy when he overthrew Orestes and Romulus, which gave legitimacy and continuity of government to Odoacer’s claim as king. I know, this is all a little he said/she said with who is the rightful ruler and who is not but this is why there is a great date debate.

Now, for the final date in our debate, 1453 CE. If you passed math at the age of seven, you realize that is a near thousand-year jump forward in history. If you are asking yourself “but the West fell in 476 or 480, how are we are able to jump that far forward?” Then, you forgot about the Eastern Roman Empire and I am severely disappointed in you. What happened to the ERE? Over time, it tried to recapture the West with varying degrees of success but emerging powers and major world events slowly chipped away at their territory. The first major nail in the coffin for the ERE (don’t come at me with other events, I know there were proceeding factors that started the decline but they aren’t worth mentioning here) was the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade took the ERE capital of Constantinople in 1201 instead of their goal of Jerusalem and for the first time, the capital of the ERE fell. Eventually, the Latin Empire (centered with Constantinople as its capital) fell in a few decades and the ERE or Byzantine Empire took control again but never fully recovered. Finally, the Ottoman Turks rose up from the Middle East, and (skipping through generations of conflict) laid siege to Constantinople in 1453. The last emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus, famously removed his regal armor and joined the ranks defending the city as it fell on May 29, 1453, putting an end to over 1400 years of Imperial Roman history. Constatine XI’s body was never found, leading to centuries of speculation around if he died there or was able to flee the city. The accepted opinion is that he died defending the city and wasn’t recognized when the dead were collected.

So again, you may ask, why is 476 accepted as the fall of Rome if the Eastern half of the empire survived for another millennium? Well, solid question, and no, I am not being snarky for a change. As I stated earlier, if you asked a person living in the ERE if they were a Byzantine, they would have replied that they were Roman. Personally, to the author of this article, all three dates are fine while no date is perfect. But let us end with this note, what makes the 476 date nice is the irony attached. The legendary founder of Rome is Romulus and the first emperor of Rome is Augustus. It is fitting the final “accepted” emperor of the Empire combines both those names: Romulus Augustus.

The Sundial

Sundials - you may have seen them in your weird aunt’s garden growing up, on some obscure British documentary regarding solar worship, or maybe you are a watch nerd like me and heard that sundials predated modern watches but are shit compared to what we have now. You may be wondering how accurate they are, who used them, and how did they have a religious use. Or maybe you aren’t. Regardless, you now find yourself reading a short article on the history of sundials and some notable examples of their uses. Lucky you! You must be fun at parties.

               So let’s start with what is a sundial – a device with a circular or semicircular disc base, markers for hours or some way to signify time, and with a pointed angled pole in the center known as the gnomon (Greek for pole) that casts a shadow from the sun onto the markers etched or inscribed into the disc base. As the sun moves throughout the day, the shadow of the gnomon tells us what time it is using those markers.

               Ok, so now that you know what a sundial is, let’s understand its uses. There are a number of uses but let’s start with the most obvious: a clock. Our ancient friends created the sundial to be a clock. Humans have been fascinated by the passage of time and as soon as we could count the hours, we have been frustrated with people for being late. The sundial was one of the first, most common clocks and was even used well up into the 19th century to check the accuracy of mechanical clocks. A second use of sundials is in the study of astronomy. Early astronomers, such as the Greek Aristarchus of Samos, created sundials that marked the passage of time and seasons, by studying the sun. A third use of the sundial was for a religious function, they were used to mark important seasonal festivals and for marking the specific times of day used for prayer. An example of this would be the use of sundials during the medieval period to mark when Muslims were supposed to pray. In fact, most sundials from the golden age of Islam indicate times on the sundial for when prayer was supposed to occur.

               Some notable examples of famous sundials are the Egyptian shadow clocks that date to 1500 BCE.  There was at one point a belief amongst historians that even the Egyptian obelisks could have been used as large sundials to measure the passage of time, but this idea has since been discounted mostly. The Greeks seem to have been particularly fascinated with sundials, two examples would be the Hemicycle by Aristarchus of Samos. This sundial not only measured time but also a concept (that goes way over my head) known as seasonal hours depending on the length of the shadow. Another is an octagonal building known as the Tower of the Winds in Athens. The building, completed around 100BCE, had eight “planar” sundials facing the cardinal directions of the compass. The Romans, as always, stole a famous example from a rival tribe, the Samnites. They put this sundial on display in the city of Rome in 290BCE and the first original Roman sundial for the city was not built until over 100 years later.

               So, what killed off the sundial and relegated it to a garden ornament? Well, of course, the mechanical clock. Mechanical clocks started to come around in the 14th and 15th century and as they become more accurate with springs, pendulums, and gears, sundials started to disappear. They were stubborn as hell though, and lasted well into the 19th century to measure the accuracy of mechanical time keeping devices. So, next time that weird aunt with the sundial in the garden invites you over, make sure you regale her with the EXTREMELY exciting uses and past of the sundial.

Cincinnatus

The Roman statesman Cincinnatus is someone in history that most Americans have heard of, even if we didn’t know that we have. The lovely city of Cincinnati (shout out to skyline chili), in the not so lovely state of Ohio, is named in his honor. Like myself, you may be asking “why is there a city named after Cincinnatus in a country that was founded 2200 years after his death?” Well, read on and it’ll be explained - or don’t, do what you want.

Cincinnatus lived from c.519 BCE to 430 BCE in or around Latium and was from a rich Patrician family that had roots dating to the Roman Kingdom. At the time of Cincinnatus, there were both external and internal threats to Rome’s early Republic. The Romans had expelled the Etruscans to form that Republic thus ending the Roman Kingdom that had existed in the previous 200 years. Internal strife was rampant, with a push from the Plebeian population demanding equal rights and a reduction in the power of the landowning Patrician families. Because this tale involves some Roman political offices, we have to dive into those, I won’t get into the intimate details of the Roman Republic’s governing offices (I dont want you to close your browser out of sheer desperation to stay awake) but let’s explain three of them at least – Consul, Tribune, and Dictator.

Consuls were a sort of executive branch of the Republic, elected/appointed from the ranks of the Senatorial/Patrician class. There were always two Consuls, and they served terms of one year. Consuls almost always came from the Patrician families (rich landowning families that loved to trace their lineage to mythological or historical figures). Because the Consuls came from the upper class of Roman society, they tended to pass laws or enact a change that favored themselves and their rich friends. Consuls were considered so important that the Romans marked their years not by numbers but by which Consuls were in power. Then, there were the Tribunes. There were ten Tribunes of the Plebs throughout most of the Republic’s history and these Tribunes were selected to represent the interest of the common people, known as Plebeians (shortened to Plebs). These Tribunes were put in place early in the Republic’s history to check the power of the Consuls and the Patricians, but as is usually the case when it comes to the rich vs poor, its MUCH easier said than done. These Tribunes could call an assembly of the people and propose legislation that, if passed, would only affect the Plebeians. However, their biggest power was their veto, Tribunes could veto acts from the Senate or Consuls. This veto was used throughout the Roman Republic to bring the government to standstills when the Plebeians felt overtly threatened or wanted change. Lastly, there was the title or office known as Dictator. While being the same word that we use today, the word and title meant something entirely different to our Ancient Roman friends. Dictator was usually an office created in extreme times of strife, trouble, or war in order to vest power in one person to solve whatever crisis had arisen. Because there were always two Consuls and a full Senate, the idea was to make sure one person was calling the shots in order to best resolve the crisis and avoid conflicting solutions or ideologies that may be detrimental. Usually, this dictator was a temporary office with a strict term limit, but that term limit could be extended if necessary.

Ok, now that you understand those offices and titles, lets get to the start of the story. So, there was this guy, a Tribune of the Plebeians named G. Terentilius Harsa who led a renewed campaign to check the Consuls’ power, as he felt they had become like kings (Romans hate kings). As it usually happens with super rich people, they didn’t like G. Terentilius Harsa and his attempt to ruin their perks. They used everything they could to stop him, eventually resorting to violence. This violent repression led to a large uprising by the people against the Patricians, eventually resulting in the death of one of the two Consuls of that year. The Roman Senate and remaining Consul, used the military against the people and put down this rebellion. Once the common people had been repressed, the Roman Patricians then led a military campaign against a constant enemy, Italic tribes who didn’t like the Romans and their grabs for power in the peninsula. Things did not go the way the Romans wanted. Now here is where things get a little muddled, while historians do GENERALLY accept that Cincinnatus was a historical figure, it’s extremely difficult to separate his factual life from fiction. As anything with ancient history, there is speculation (a better word than “guessing”) to fill in major gaps. It also does not help that our main sources, like the Roman historan Livy, are not the most reliable as they are writing hundreds of years after these events.

The legend of Cincinnatus goes like this: Cincinnatus lived his life in Rome for quite a while, eventually having some children. One of these children, Caeso, opposed the Plebeian attempts at reform, led by the aforementioned G. Terentilius Harsa, with considerable violence. He would lead gangs through the street and try to drive the Tribunes of the Plebs from speaking or being in the Forum. Because Caeso was not well liked, the Plebs ran him out of town and condemned him to death. His father, Cincinnatus, received the bulk of the punishment since Caeso wasn’t around anymore, and had to retire to a farm, now destitute due to heavy fines. Some time passes and an Italic tribe known as the Aequi (the tribe the Roman’s went to war with after they put down the plebeian rebellion in the previous paragraph) break a treaty and start to march against the Romans. Or the Roman’s marched against them first, it’s a little unclear. The Romans raise an army and are unable to stop the Aequi and were defeated in battle. The threat was now dire, so the Roman people turned to a figure who was humble and honorable (the Romans equate Cincinnatus having to pay that heavy fine and working a small farm himself with being humbled and gaining honor). Representatives of the Roman State approach Cincinnatus while working his fields, asked him to become dictator for a term of six months and to destroy the Aequi threat. Cincinnatus agreed, leaving his farm to lead a newly raised army. So, Cincinnatus leads this new army, and surrounds the Aequi while they were besieging the other Roman Consular army at the Battle of Mount Algidus. Cincinnatus offered the Aequi mercy instead of destruction, and realizing their only other option was to be annihilated between two Roman armies, the Aequi agree to surrender and be ruled over by the Romans. Cincinnatus arrives in Rome to a hero’s welcome, disbands his new army, quits as dictator, thus giving up absolute power, and returns to his farm to work. I should also add that all this was accomplished in only 15 days.

Historians doubt most of that legend as it was presented but that doesn’t mean a story about a guy being handed absolute power to do a job, doing that job perfectly, then giving it up at the first chance to go back to work on a meagre farm is any less appealing to idealistic minds, even if complete bullshit. Many of those idealistic minds happened to be America’s founding fathers. Most of these founding fathers were educated in a way that held up Greek and Roman history as an enlightened and noble period in mankind and thus emulated a lot of the values and government styles. One of those men, George Washington, America’s first president, is directly compared to Cincinnatus. Washington was handed the reigns of a brand-new country, a blank slate, and the power to shape his office in any way he saw fit. But instead of allowing the power to “corrupt” him, he chose to give up command of the Continental Army, the presidential office after two terms, and return to his estate in Virginia. So, because we have a group of men founding a country that were big fans of Rome and its stories, a first president who imitated a legendary/historical figure representing how to handle power, you get a society that names cities after long dead Roman figures, thus Cincinnati, Ohio (and Cincinnatus, New York). I told you it would be explained.