Five Gruesome Deaths in Classical and Medieval History

Have you ever wanted to know who died the worst in early recorded history, or who had a painful and slow death? Are you also a a fan of true crime podcasts or documentaries? If so, this is the article for you. This article will discuss, in Seeking History’s opinion, some of the most gruesome deaths in recorded history. But first, a note on sources: most of these figures are from ancient or early medieval history, so the primary and secondary source material should be taken with some skepticism. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, ancient or premodern sources either have a bias (all written works have a bias, but historical writing especially had a bias in most of written history), political agenda, or were written decades to centuries later, so they must be taken with skepticism and interpreted for what they are - unreliable sources. That being said, these sources can still be used to inform and educate as there is likely some truth within them, or more realistically, are the only sources we have. Now that is out of the way, on to the death and macabre!

Let us start chronology with our first brutal death: Phalaris, who according to history, and let’s be honest, was a real asshole. Phalaris was a tyrant (sort of a title in Hellenistic civilization to denote a leader) of modern-day Agrigento, Sicily, who met his end around 554 BCE. While there is not a ton of information on the man, amongst the things that Phalaris is accused of, is eating literal babies. Phalaris had ambitions to be the sole tyrant of Sicily but was overthrown by another, named Telemachus. Phalaris, while in charge, commissioned the creation of a novel execution method known as the brazen, Sicilian, or bronze bull. Essentially, it was a bull statue, made entirely of bronze but hollowed out and with a door cut in the side. A person would be placed in the bull, while a fire was lit underneath, roasting them until dead. To make the execution more entertaining, the bull was designed in a way that the screams of the victims could be heard, and made to sound, like the roars of an actual bull, while smoke exited through the bull’s nostrils. The irony of the death of Phalaris is that Telemachus executed him by putting him in his own creation to be roasted alive. Sources allege, that later in history, the bull would be used by the Romans to execute Christians.

Second, we have Manius Aquillius who died in 88 BCE. Aquillius was a Roman consul and general who ran afoul of one of Rome’s early foes, Mithridates VI of Pontus. Aquillius did this by being dispatched to Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) as an ambassador to restore a King of Bithynia to his throne after this King was expelled by Mithridates. While Aquillius was successful in restoring the Bithynia King, he screwed up by encouraging the King to then attack or raid Pontic territory. This action led to the start of the First Mithridatic War and ultimately Aquillius’ brutal death at the hands of Mithridates. Once Mithridates struck back against Bithynia and the Romans, Aquillius utilized a legion of Axillaries (local or foreign Roman soldiers, not full legionaries) to attack Pontic forces but found himself against 100,000 soldiers while he only had a maximum of 6,000. Obviously, Aquillius was defeated, and he attempted to retreat to Italy but was captured on the Greek island of Lesbos and sold or turned over to Pontus. Eventually, after a short trial and a detail of his “crimes” against Pontus, he was executed by having molten gold poured down his throat. You read that right. This method of execution would (maybe) inspire the death of Marcus Crassus forty years later, and 2,000 years later, the fictional death of one of the Targaryens in Game of Thrones. You will see this method pop up in history, usually around the deaths of extremely wealthy individuals or those who tried to purchase their way out of a situation, leading to doubt about the true nature of their deaths as it can be surmised that his method may used as a metaphor for a “comeuppance” to the greedy by the source authors.

Next on our list is Saint Lawrence, who met his gruesome end in 258 CE. Lawrence was made a deacon in the Catholic Church by Pope Sixtus II in 257 at the age of 32. Additionally, Sixtus II trust in Lawrence was so great, he put Lawrence in charge of the treasury and the material wealth that the church possessed. In 258 CE, the Emperor Valerian ordered that all clergy and associated people of the Church be rounded up and executed. Pope Sixtus II himself was captured while giving mass and summarily executed. Once the Pope was dead, the Roman authorities, demanded that St. Lawrence turn over the riches of the Church. Lawrence stated he needed three days to gather the wealth but instead, he worked quickly to distribute as much Church property and riches to the poor and disabled as he could. With the church treasure distributed, Lawrence handed himself in to the authorities. So outraged by the actions of Lawrence, the prefect in charge had a large hot grill or gridiron prepared over scorching coals. Lawrence was thrown on this grill to be executed and essentially cooking him whilst alive. The legend goes that Lawrence, after suffering greatly while being slow cooked to death, shouted “turn me over, I am cooked on this side, and eat!” In regards to attributed sayings or quotes, which always must be treated with suspicion, Seeking History really hopes this one is true, as its pretty badass.

Then, there is the death of the Roman Emperor Valerian. Valerian not only suffered a gruesome fate in the 260s CE (the actual year of his death is unknown), but he also suffered humiliation at the hands of his enemies both in life and death. We get our source of Valerian’s death from the Roman writer/historian Eutropius and from the writer, Lactantius (full disclosure, there is dispute amongst modern historians regarding the veracity of the accounts, even debate on Valerian being mistreated at all). Valerian is not a sympathetic figure, even if his death makes you feel as such. He is known for his brutal religious persecution and is responsible for the death of our previous figure, Saint Lawrence. Valerian attempted to force a military victory over the Sassanid Persian empire, a classic enemy of Rome at this time. Unfortunately for Valerian, his campaign did not go well, and he found himself captured by the Persians. There are conflicting accounts regarding what exactly happened to Valerian, so we are going to share both accounts. They do have some details in common, but the physical death of Valerian has two tales. The Emperor Shapur I of Persia, once capturing Valerian, made it his mission to humiliate and humble his Roman counterpart. According to the sources, Valerian was subject to years of captivity and humiliation, at times being used as a human footstool for the Persian Emperor to mount his horse, and living out his remaining days in a cage. Unable to endure captivity, Valerian offered to personally pay a very large ransom for his release, hoping to be cut free to his Empire. In response to his offer of ransom, Shapur I either had molten gold (we’ve heard this story before) poured down the throat of Valerian, or had Valerian flayed alive. Whatever the method of his death, and here is where it gets really interesting, his corpse or skin was stuffed with straw, dyed with vermillion, and put on display as a trophy in a Persian temple. There are claims that years later, the Persians cremated or buried the stuffed Valerian, but it is unknown exactly what happened to his remains.

Our final death is the death of King Aelle of Northumbria in 867 CE. For those unfamiliar, Northumbria was one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that made up what is now England, before the Norman conquest of 1066 CE. Famously, these Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were constantly beset by Norse (Viking) incursions, with most falling to the Northmen. Aelle is famous in history for his defeat and execution of semi-legendary figure, Ragnar Lodbrok, throwing him into a pit of snakes to be killed. This made him a target of the “sons” of Ragnar (not all likely his sons but claimed lineage to legitimatize their leadership) and their “Great Heathen Army.” Aelle’s death has two very conflicting accounts. The first is is the Anglo-Saxon account, depicting his death as heroic, dying in battle against the Sons of Ragnar and the Great Heathen Army. The second account, is the Norse account, depicting his capture by the Sons of Ragnar, and his death by the infamous torture method, known as the Blood Eagle. The Blood Eagle is, probably, our most gruesome death on the list, so if you are into that sort of thing, I am not sorry for making you wait to the very end. The Blood Eagle is a method where the victim was placed in a face down or prone position, then they are cut open from the back, their ribs cut from the spine with a sharp knife or sword, and their lungs pulled through the opening to create a pair of "wings.” All this is done slowly and usually while the victim is alive. Now, we must state that Blood Eagle may not have been real at all and was a fabrication of contemporary or later Christian writers to denote the brutality of the Northmen foe they were facing. But, if true, it has gone down in history as particularly brutal.

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.

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.