I would dispute the latter, since he’s still best known because of a play written hundreds of years ago. There hasn’t been any modern conceptualization of R3 that’s usurped the Bard’s.
T.E. Lawrence
Fair enough … I pretty well skipped the word “modern” in the thread title, and was thinking mostly of Shakespeare’s portrayal (and Josephine Tey’s to it, which isn’t as well known).
Cyrano de Bergerac – he was a real person and author, but I’ll bet most people would never have heard of him were it not for Rostand’s oplay and the movies made from it (and Roxanne). And, around here, from Riverworld.
Spartacus – he’d be a footnote to history were it not for the Kirk Douglas movie (I don’t think the more recent TV movie would’ve helped. Nor Khachaturian’s ballet)
No whooshing on my part. No idea if I got whooshed. It looked to me like the poster didn’t bother to read and actually comprehend what was being asked. The thread is not about real people who’ve been portrayed in fiction. It’s about people who are best known because of their fictional portrayal. I get more annoyed about this sort of thing than I probably should, but too many times an interesting thread like this gets derailed because someone throws out an example that in no way matches the thread topic, which leads to more people throwing out similar non-examples, until the original interesting topic of the thread is completely lost.
I think you should consider that possibility.
I think I did.
I know.
I know that too.
Such perspicacity becomes you.
I didn’t start it. Batman did.
Please lighten up.
Which is exactly the sort of shit I was talking about. One person gives a smart-ass and not-in-the-slightest funny response which gives license to others to follow suit witrh their own smart-ass and not-funny-in-the-slightest response. It’s threadshitting plain and simple. At least “Batman,” while a stupid and not-funny answer, has the benefit of being fictional.
Cheese it, the thread cops!
Personally, whenever I hear ‘King Tut’, I think ‘Batman villain.’
Ed Gein was a mentally disturbed necrophiliac whose crimes (however bizarre & shocking) are not nearly as well-known as the fictional films he ‘inspired’ - “Psycho” and “the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.”
I imagine that, upon hearing “Napoleon”, most American people picture the typical cartoon depiction of an extremely short man with his hand in his coat – and a symbol for lunacy – before they actually think about the historical Napoleonic Wars.
Or else they think of a dorky kid with poor drawing skills.
Either way, his immediate legacy is drawn from Bugs Bunny moreso than the history books.
Realistically, to be as much as a footnote in history is amazingly good going.
You are a very boring person.
Please go away.
There’s no love for John Baliol? 
I’m with you, Otto, but it’s a lost cause. There is one poster in particular who inevitably shows up in these types of threads with an incorrect response. She hasn’t posted in this one yet but give her time…
Anyway, to stay on topic, how about d’Artagnan?
ETA: Crap. That’s what I get for having to Google the correct spelling.
when he is not singing and dancing through Argentina!
Psst ! hajario, look at the post above you
The names Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett both probably conjure up images of Fess Parker for most baby boomers.
Giovanni Casanova
Marquis de Sade
Seth Bullock, Sol Star, Al Swearengen and other 19th Century inhabitants of Deadwood, South Dakota.
Alexander the Great. The difference between the history of the accomplishments of that man and that joke of a movie with Colin Farrell is preposterous. My mind just boggles at how they could make one of the greatest historical figures of all time look like he was auditioning for Interview With the Vampire for 3 hours?
P.S. Otto, I agree with you. Chez’s answer was totally off-topic and about as far from witty as it gets.