Horatius Cocles - Skeptical Points of View

Skeptical Points of View

Although the story appears in many different credible ancient sources, such as Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Livy, with variations, many historians have been skeptical of the story.

Tacitus mentions in passing that Porsenna, "when the city was surrendered," did not violate the seat of Jupiter" (the Capitol). This could mean that perhaps Rome surrendered during or after the battle.

Livy viewed the story as legendary; that is, he repeated accounts that he had read unable to vouch for their authority. Livy found the swimming event hard to believe, quipping "though many missiles fell over him he swam across in safety to his friends, an act of daring more famous than credible with posterity." Florus has something similar to say: "It was on this occasion that those three prodigies and marvels of Rome made their appearance, Horatius, Mucius and Cloelia, who, were they not recorded in our annals, would seem fabulous characters at the present day."

To account for his presence in numerous histories T.J. Cornell further presumes that they relied on "unscrupulous annalists" who "did not hesitate to invent a series of face-saving victories in the immediate aftermath of these defeats" such as the presumed defeat of Rome at the Naevian Meadow. Furthermore, "The annalists of the first century BC are thus seen principally as entertainers...." Cornell, however, cites no criterion for distinguishing what narratives of annalists or historians are to be considered mere entertainment.