Edited sentence: " If this assertion is interpreted to mean a theoretical treaty made after the theoretical surrender of Rome in the second battle of the Naevian Meadow (and not the final peace treaty granted to Rome by Porsenna after his renounciation of the Tarquins) it seems to support the assertion that someone named Horatius had no purpose in the presumed surrender.A further isolated statement by Pliny mentions a treaty granted to the Romans by Porsenna "after the expulsion of the kings.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 and, if any are, what circumstances would then lend any credibility to known liars.If this statement is interpreted to mean that Rome surrendered during or after the second Battle of the Naevian Meadow (and not during the subsequent famine), then Horatius' combat at the bridge did not save Rome and therefore seems pointless.Provided the preceding web of speculations is true, the easiest solution to the apparent problem of the non-functional Horatius is that he did not exist.Tacitus mentions in passing that Porsenna, "when the city was surrendered," did not violate the seat of Jupiter" (the Capitol).The history of Rome BC vanishes into entertaining disinformation.To account for his presence in numerous historians T