Pretty Boy Floyd
Jim Garrison (of JFK fame)
William Tell
Rob Roy MacGregor
Speaking of Jesus, how about:
Moses
Abraham
David
Muhammad
Custer’s a strange one as there are multiple histories:
-
Heroically making a last stand against hordes of savages
-
An evil agent of the Injun-hating white government
-
A vainglorious fool who rashly charged into a huge Indian camp
After visiting Little Bighorn and reading some, the truth was kind of in the middle.
-
He did make the last stand, although the battle was relatively quick (the length of a meal) and had few Indian casualties. The Indians probably didn’t swirl around the surrounded soldiers, but rather concealed potshots from the coulees and brushes. They were surrounded, but fighting to the death was more of a practical than heroic decision. Death was usually preferable to being captured alive by Indians.
-
He didn’t blame the Indians for fighting back, after taking their land and breaking treaties. He even stated if he were an Indian, he would fight as well. His superiors’ intention was to bring them to the reservations. While not totally admirable, he wasn’t out to kill 'em all.
-
I don’t think he was totally rash in his plan. He was trying to duplicate earlier victories, like Washita, where he caught the Indian encampment by surprise. Quickness was key, lest the village scatter, so he didn’t want to wait for infantry support or gatling guns. Unfortunately, the village was far far larger than anyone anticipated, especially after he split his forces. A common refrain, and certainly not unique to Custer, is trying to refight your last battle.
I can’t address Muhammad, and Jesus is probably rooted in some historical itinerant preacher, even if he’s a composite character in the gospels, but Moses, Abraham and David may be entirely legendary. There’s nothing outside the scriptures to corroborate their existence.
I guess you could say the same thing about Jesus, but he’s closer in time to the first writings about him, so he probably isn’t entirely fictional-- albeit, he very likely was not from Nazareth, and his father was not a carpenter. Those were mistranslations, but ironically, mistranslations-- or misunderstandings in one case of a first century custom, and in the other an Aramaic idiom, that end up being good evidence for a real person somewhere under the layers of legend. The fact that there can be a Greek misunderstanding of an Aramaic idiom suggests that at least one story of Jesus circulated in Aramaic, making it very close historically and geographically, to the Jesus of the gospels.
Why would you say this? The bible pretty clearly presents a fictionalised version of Jesus, and its account clearly far surpasses the actual historical figure’s importance. It’s a perfectly valid answer to the thread.
Why I say this, and why figures like Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha clearly are not appropriate responses to the OP (even though the stories told about them in the various relevant holy books are no doubt largely untrue) is explained in the part of my post that you chose to cut out of your quote. There is a world of difference between myth and legend, on the one hand - stories that are told as true, and are widely believed to be true, even if, in fact, they (probably mostly without anyone’s deliberate intent to deceive) have come to contain many false elements - and, on the other hand, fiction, which nobody, especially not the storytellers, seriously believes or pretends is true.
Furthermore, for such figures (Mohammed may be a partial exception) we have no “true” account of them with which what you chose to call the “fictional” account in the relevant holy books can be contrasted, and their (huge) influence on history is almost entirely through those holy books. There is no accessible “reality” with which these “fictions” can be contrasted; but the OP was clearly asking for cases of such a contrast.
Lisa del Giocondo (probably Mona Lisa)
Meh. I disagree with your distinction between fiction/myth/legend/the bible. The biblical account of Jesus, particularly with regard to the miraculous aspects, is almost certainly a fictionalised version of his life, and granting that there was a historical figure on which this fictionalised version is based, it has far surpassed that figure’s importance. So much so in fact, that little remains with which we can contrast the fictional version and the historical version. Just because the fictional version has been supremely successful in surpassing the historical one doesn’t mean you get to disqualify it.
One person in which the fictionalized aspects of their lives has, in part, trumped the reality is Mozart. He did not die a pauper, he was not a forgotten talent when he died, and he wasn’t a perpetual man-child browbeaten by his wife/father (take your pick - many biographies do, and they’re fascinating to read in how the authors interpret his life to their view.)
Instead, his last year was his most successful financially, all of Europe mourned him and realized they had lost a treasure, and many of the problems in Mozart’s life was brought about by the fact that the man did not know how to handle money and was stupidly arrogant - which isn’t exactly unusual.
Pretty good, though, considering all she really sold was her name since by her own admission The Sound of Music was about 85% fiction. Plus, her family got major name recognition that helped with their ski resort and other business endeavors to this day.
So probably were Merlin, Ambrosius Aurelianus, and several other members of the King Arthur and Robin Hood “cast of characters”.
That somebody of major significance named Arthur existed in Britain ca. 500 has enough evidence for a conviction, though of course strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is probably right out.
Jake LaMotta wrote an autobiography called Raging Bull, not exactly the same thing.
Marco Polo
Yes, I thought it might go a bit over your head.:rolleyes:
Manfred von Richthofen, a/k/a The Red Baron. How many people would even know of him but for Charles Schulz and Snoopy?
Emperor Commodus from Gladiator. Inaccurate portrayal of a historical figure who most people probably know nothing about and so their only impression of him comes from the movie. (I actually like the movie and historical fiction in general, but I think it fits the OP).
Tch. Falling back on insults so quickly? I shouldn’t be surprised. That tactic fits right in with the quality of your argument.
Is John Blackthorne a particularly important fictional character? He wasn’t even the most important character in his own book.
bldysabba, njtt, both of you drop it.
If anyone wants to discuss the connection between Biblical or other religious figures as historical personages vs. how they are perceived by believers, start a thread in GD.
I’m declaring that conversation off-topic in this thread.
Thanks,
twickster
The thread is about historical figures whose fictionalised versions have surpassed them. The discussion njtt and I were having(before he/she decided to switch to personal insult) was whether Jesus qualifies or not. How can that discussion possibly be off topic in this thread? Isn’t that what the topic of the thread is?