Talk:Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I have heard that the US city was not so much named in his honour as in honour of his example, to commend normalisation after war rather than the growth of an aristocracy drawn from veterans becoming an elite. PML.

It was named after an American society and not the Roman directly. — LlywelynII 01:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious though, why was Cincinnatus picked? According to legend, he's simply a humble farmer, but why did the Senate choose him? Surely he must have participated in politics/military before? -- Natalinasmpf 04:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)64.106.112.229Reply

Cincinnatus was an honourable man, an Army/Legion General who was NOT in love with $$$ or power, and the Romans trusted him...because they knew that as soon as he quickly fixed things, he would go back to his farm....a place he loved, especially to his family! Read "The Declaration of RE-Independence" [Cincinnatus is mentioned there], the USA's LAST chance to re-invent itself before self-destruction--->>> http://jimsorrell.proboards33.com or http://thekeeperoftheflame.blogspot.com - but now http://www.scribd.com/Thomas-Jefferson esp. as an alternative better than the breach of social contract as envisaged by AKIP or Yes California Independence - [sorrell.james@gmail.com]19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)~~

Hi Natalinasmpf, Cincinnatus was NOT simply a farmer. All important roman families (and Quinctii were important- see consules) owned vaste properties. (Lucius Quinctius was once consul and twice dictator). But he had a "bad" son; see it:Il figlio di Cincinnato (unluckily not translated yet) and almost all Cincinnatus' properties had to be sold out. Only 4 jugera were left to the Family becauase they were intouchable. Sorry for my basic english. ;) Vale! it:Utente:Horatius

By the way. I didn't find a town named "Cincinnato". In Italy we have only a small village near Anzio (Rome) called Cincinnato. And -obviuously - a lot of Streets, Squares, and so on in almost all towns :D. Vale! it:Utente:Horatius 151.37.228.75 10:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

We don't know. He's a legendary figure and the legend picks up once his son is already a grown and troublesome man. Presumably he was a patrician choice, but we don't know if it was on account of his prior military service, due to his staunch opposition to legal reforms that would weaken the patricians' position, or—either on account of his old age or neutrality among the patrician factions—he served as a consensus compromise candidate. — LlywelynII 02:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the word "dictatorship" an anachronism? A dictator in rome wasn't really what we mean today...

nope. it's the other way around, sort of. Dictator is an honest-to-god latin word. It, like Tyrant, have come to have more negative, despotic connotations today. But they're not anachronistic. Novium 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why was Cincinnatus ar15 taken out. I guarantee you a site with a 100,000 members knows more about there member cincinnatus than the actual roman. DO a google search 8 pages 257 entries. I know why. Cleaned it up.

Cincinnatus the Poster on AR15.com was taken out because the information did not refer to Cincinnatus the Roman. It refered to someone completely different. If you believe that a poster on a large discussion board site deserves to be included in Wikipedia (which I don't agree with), then write a seperate entry about them. But I really don't think it is worth it. And I know that it doesn't belong to this entry. This entry is not a discussion of the name 'Cincinnatus'. It is an entry about the Roman of that name. --Jonathan O'Donnell 06:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The unreferenced fact that Russel Crowe's character in the movie Gladiator, which may have been partially based on Cincinnatus is completely irrelevant. I wish people would stop cluttering articles with senseless pop-culture "trivia". Oleanna1104 13:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wish snobs would stop culling information that makes historical figures relevant to our readers. World takes all kinds.

Now, that said, it does need a citation and not some editor's personal thoughts on the matter. — LlywelynII 03:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article says "According to analysts (he was a farmer etc etc)". Is that right? Shouldn't it be, oh, historians, or scholars, or...? Novium 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that's meant to read annalists. Makes a bit more sense than talking about historians or scholars since in the end they rely on what was written in ancient sources (annals). EmmaRoma 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Presumedly this means in America. I don't think this phrase is accurate since none of the governments of the US write or publish textbooks (none that I know of). Some state governments have officially approved textbooks and of course local governments, such as school boards, buy the textbooks. However, I am not sure why the reference even exists. It doesn't tell you anything about Cincinnatus. What is important is that people draw a parallel between Washington and Cincinnatus even today. What role American governments, or any other governments, have in drawing that parallel is beyond the scope of the article. If people want to explore the politics of American history textbooks they can do it elsewhere.

First the article says: "laws applicable equally to patricians and plebeians", then "laws that would benefit the aristocracy at the expense of the plebeians".

Would someone care to clarify? (Or aren't those statements contradictory?) --StephanNaro (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article says "The name given to Lucius Quinctius was Cincinnatus for his curly hair." That's extremely vague, and I can't find anywhere a Latin word for curly hair that's anything close to cincinnatus. Can someone clear it up? 98.145.79.227 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cincinnatus is itself a Latin word that means curly hair, according to the EB11 article this entry was originally cribbed from. It does seems somewhat dubious, though, since some adjective on birth (-natus) seems more likely. We'd need another source to contradict the EB though. — LlywelynII 02:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I read that Cincinnatus became dictator a second time to put down the conspiracy of Maelius, then somewhere else that Cincinnatus was made dictator a second time to put down a plebian conspiracy. Which one is true if either, and why isn't it put in the section on Cincinnatus? 76.93.210.169 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Both and should be. — LlywelynII 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The word consul in the first line of the article currently links here. I think it should go to this, an article on Roman consuls. Should someone make a change? Tressif (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree, so I changed it. --LCE(talk contribs) 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article says that "The following year" after 461 BC, i.e. in 460 BC, Terentilius proposed what would become the twelve tablets, "which would not become readily accessible in public display for several generations". However, the article on the Twelve Tablets says the first ten tablets were completed in 450 BC. Ten years does not sound like "several" generations. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolda2000 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

"the great Capitolinus": this last noun has a hyperlink but if you click on it you find an article dealing with a historical figure who lived some 200 years later. Either the reference to Capitolinus is wrong or the hyperlink should take us to a different Capitolinus.Campolongo (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The story of Cincinnatus, as laid out here, smells very much like contemporary patrician propaganda to me. Given what is mentioned about his opposition to the plebians, (with his son literally throwing them out of the forum) he clearly had strong ties to the aristocracy. The story about his son being acquitted of military incompetence because, "it would break the old man's heart," also sounds exactly like the sort of gerontocratic cronyism that the Senate was renowned for.

For the 2nd part of your non-RS diatribe, SEE WP:SOAPBOX, Anon. 203.206.179.33 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This random assortment was listed as "sources"—

• Alighieri, Dante, Paradise, Canto XV, ll. 127.
• Ihne, W., History of Rome.
• Lewis, George Cornewall, Credibility of Early Roman History, Ch. xii.
• Pais, E. (1898), Storia di Roma, Vol. I. (in Italian)
• Schwegler, Römische Geschichte, Book XXVIII, § 12. (in German)

—but were completely unused by the text. Kindly restore them to the article as they are used to verify parts of the running text or once there is some commentary about how these works are particularly notable in the history of scholarship on L. Quinctius Cincinnatus. — LlywelynII 02:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the South West in the state of Ohio located in The United States of America there is a city called Cincinnati. and it is named after the Roman General Cincinnatus. 216.48.140.87 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cincinnatus was an opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son Caeso Quinctius's violent opposition to their desire for a written code of equally enforced laws.

-

This sentence is exceedingly confusing, but I lack knowledge of the facts in order to re-write it.

Opposed rights of (plebeians who fell into poverty because Caeso's opposition to plebeian desire for a written code of equality before the law).

Or...

Opposed rights of (plebeians who fell into poverty) because Caeso's opposition to plebeian desire for a written code of equality before the law.

Or

Opposed rights of (plebeians), who fell into poverty because Caeso's opposition to plebeian desire for a written code of equality before the law.

Anyone knows what's going on? Feco777 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply