[OfSanguineFire]

Loads of revolutions have ended with one or more of the warlords involved relinquishing any formal role in the subsequent elected government, in exchange for simply keeping their massive wealth and networks of influence. After all, formal roles bring duties and obligations, so why bother if you don’t have to? The idea of Washington as some kind of saintly Cincinnatus is itself a literal textbook example of early American mythology.

[WalterBright]

I only listed facts, not mythology.

> in exchange for

Washington didn't do it in exchange for anything.

> any formal rule

Washington wasn't offered a "role". He was offered absolute power.

[OfSanguineFire]

> Washington didn't do it in exchange for anything.

How do you know that? Wielding absolute power makes enemies and Washington could have eventually lost everything, just like any number of historical tyrants that his circle, so keen about Greek and Roman history, were aware of. Turning down absolute power while keeping one’s immense wealth and influence can be an attractive choice, and this is the same calculus that has guided other warlords involved in revolutions up to the present day.

[WalterBright]

He also gave up the Presidency after 2 terms, though he was a shoo-in to be re-elected.