Ok, I should start by noting that I know I am greatly redefining “Historical Revisionism”. Specifically, what I mean is reviewing of a well known and admired historical figure in which the persons positive reputation is tarnished or diminished?
Every real, historical individual I have admired seems to have had some “He was really rotten” historical expose written about them. I know it is an easy way for an historian to make a name for themselves and to get some press, but it seems there are no heroes anymore.
Frankly, I can’t think of any. Can you?
PS. I debated which forum to put this - mods please move if I got it wrong.
Kind of what you’re talking about in reverse, but…Vlad the Impaler was and is regarded by Romanians as a protector of Wallachia against the Ottomans and a good-if-a-tad-stern ruler, but they pretty much called him “the Impaler” from the get go. I mean, they didn’t just recently find out about all the impaling.
How about Admiral Lord Nelson? His flaws were pretty well known at the time. Or the Duke of Wellington? The Duke went through significant periods of unpopularity too during his life.
That’s a pretty grimn way to look at the study of history.
Historians don’t go out of their way to tear down the reputation of people and events. They look for a more correct interpretation of an event or individual. Inevitably, one’s own biases or expectations tend to come into play as well. I don’t believe this means that we will never be able to know the truth about the past (although there’s no way you can know everything). I suspect that we asymptotically approacjh the truth and a fair evaluation of people and events.
Revisionism works both ways. No major figure is a hero in their own lifetime - anyone who does anything worthwhile is going to upset some vested interests and make some enemies. It’s only when they’re safely dead that the real person can be transformed into a faultless icon.
The problem is, the lifeblood of historians is revisionism. It’s not a bad word at all to a historian. So finding a historical figure whom nobody has attempted to shine additional light on – warts and all – probably means either confining one’s search to children’s books or mythical figures.
Go out to a book store, and most biographies of historical figures show the bad parts of their characters, but generally show that the people are remarkable for a reason.
In fact, I think the overwhelming majority of historians would agree that there are numerous figures who stand out as being truly great, but great does not imply flawlessness. Lincoln, Churchill, Shakespeare, Washington, whatever greats you can name, you’ll find few good historians who seek to tear them down, but the truth always paints a more complicated picture than one learns in grade school.
This is completely different from seeking to offer a fully-formed analysis of a historical figure and to counter the tendency to hagiography among so many uncritical authors and boosters. It is quite possible to detail and examine the fullness of historical characters without succumbing to reductionist presentism. As Ravenman correctly notes, revision is what history is, and should be, all about.
I think Thomas Edison has probably been subject to an amount- especially in regard to some of the methods he used re competitors. (DC versus AC).
I think General Haig was pretty well hated after the Great War but there are continuing attemps to paint him as victim of the times and the troops given him.
I don’t think anyone has knocked Jesus much. Maybe a few hints that he was whoring around with Mary Magdalene, but I think that’s coming more from the literary world than the scholarly–if for no other reason than because there really isn’t any other source of information on the man than the Bible itself.
I suspect that it is only in primary school and tabloids that unnuanced heroes or villains exist. (Except for Hitler. Even if he was “a smashing bloke, giving 'is muvva flowers and that”, it wouldn’t redeem him, except in the eyes of obvious cranks, who are not in contemplation of the OP).
A historian’s work re-adjusts the subtlety of balance between saint and sinner present in the character of a historical figure (and everyone else) and one or two quotes get picked by Grub Street hacks to pretend (shock! horror!) that the world is inverted and all that we believed holy is cast down. Pure RO at its most marketable.
Someone mentioned Nelson above. When in primary school, I wasn’t taught about his infidelity, vanity, or other sins for obvious reasons. But discovering them doesn’t mean that someone was out to tear down his memory - people alive at the time knew all about his shortcomings. It doesn’t mean my faith in the possibility of courage or nobility has been devastated. It just means I have grown sufficiently to know that “heroes” are complicated.
And this is true of pretty much all legit historical work, to some degree. After all, the primary material historians use is taken from the time of the hero.
John Wayne’s Alamo & Disney’s Davy Crockett series are how lots of people got into Texas history. We still have Texans who view the “heroes” of the Texas Revolution as shining paladins. History just encourages a more well-rounded view.
Bowie was a crook & a slaver. And he was pretty much dying as the Alamo fell–he didn’t rise from his bed with pistols blazing. David Crockett (he didn’t usually go by “Davy”) was an interesting character. The De La Pena diary indicates that he & other Tennesseans didn’t die in the battle, but surrendered. Then Santa Ana ordered them executed–& he died bravely. Nothing to be ashamed of–but some never outgrew their youthful vision of Fess Parker swinging Ol’ Betsy.
Texian Illiad is a good, unbiased look at the Revolution. (The title refers us of that obscure Bronze Age conflict that loomed larger in legend than in history.) Many of the Texians (the latest term for Anglo-Texans) were hardly admirable. Sam Houston was rough & ready–but basically decent. (He didn’t share the anti-Indian policies of his mentor, Andrew Jackson. Later, as Governor of Texas, he lost the job after he refused to swear allegiance to the Confederacy.)
We also had Tejanos who fought against Mexico but were ill treated after Independence. And some of the Mexican generals were honorable; Santa Ana gave the orders for “No Quarter” at the Alamo. And the massacre at Goliad.
Santa Ana also did quite a bit of damage in Mexico during his long, checkered career. Historians have failed to find his warm & fuzzy side.
Muhammad in the west, from Luthers anti-Christ to a somewhat more balanced approach. Richard the Lionheart, the chivalrous Knight of Christendom to the killer of Jews and muslims. Napoleon from hated conquerer of Europe to a great captain of military histiry and bringer of enlightenment.
The problem is, all these historical figures were human, and all humans have flaws of one sort or another.
Some of us find a portrayal of a flawed human doing something great to be more inspiring than a portrayal of some Great Person who could do no wrong doing something great.
