Probably not, but I think we can safely rule out Robert Conquest, too.
MacBeth got it worse from the Bard. At least his version of Richard was based on contemporary rumour, and casting actual events in an anti-Ricardian light.
MacBeth was basically made up out of whole cloth. (For instance, Duncan died in battle with MacBeth’s forces, not killed in his bed by MacBeth’s hand - a battle that Duncan started.)
You know it’s threads like this that make me wonder how long before serious historians start saying that Hitler was not so bad.
Barack Obama. Just read Snopes. The amount of stupid shit (accusations) out there that is totally unfounded is staggering.
No, he’s just the most libeled person in current affairs. He’s being kicked around because he’s in office. Just wait a few years. When the next Democrat gets elected President, you’ll start hearing conservatives compare him unfavorably to Obama just like they now compare Obama unfavorably to Clinton and they compared Clinton unfavorably to Carter.
V I Lenin. The man liked cats, so how bad could he be? If he’d been a member of the SDMB he probably would have shown us kitty pictures.
Nero and Caligula are impossible to know for sure, but the amount of libel against them isn’t really that high (it basically just comes from a small handful of old histories of questionable veracity).
Stalin may be a very strong choice, as well as Chairman Mao, considering how much popularity they continue to enjoy in their home countries.
Vlad the Impaler perhaps.
How bad, really, was Machievelli? He gets bad press…but how much did he deserve?
Mudd.
More so the doctor one than the tribble distributor.
I think the ‘most-wrongly accused’ award in that story belongs to Pontius Pilate.
Wow.
Cherry? That’s my favorite.
My sister always wanted grape, but the one thing we could all agree on was that lemon-lime sucked.
I’m going to second Machiavelli. In reality, he was a man who held an extraordinary love for his country and a strong determination to unify it, was opposed to pointless evil and violence, believed in the rule of the people over tyranny, wanted a separation of church and state, and enjoyed writing humorous plays in his spare time. When the Medicis fell out of power, he took an important role in the new Republic - then, when they came back into power, he was brutally tortured for about a month but refused to speak a word. After the torture, Machiavelli was exiled from his beloved city state - and, more importantly, from his passion: politics. He found himself stuck in the countryside, donning his old diplomatic robes and talking to statues of the great rulers from history every night, trying to relive his past. In a desperate effort to gain back the favor of the Medicis, he wrote a rather harsh “so you’ve unexpectedly become ruler” self-help guide (The Prince), which basically contradicted all of his prior works - but which is now all anyone remembers. His efforts backfired, the Medicis hated him even more, and now “Machiavellian” is on par with “psychopathic.”
I mean, really. Bad luck.
What Octarine said. *The Prince *was parody.
Third or fourthing Richard III.
I was thinking of modern people who were ordinary citizens who didn’t deserve infamy. Ray (McMartin Prechool) Buckey was accused of unspeakable crimes against hundreds of children during the “Satanic Panic” 80s, and spent 5 years in prison just awaiting trial, but unlike people such as the West Memphis Three, Ray Buckey was acquitted, something the press never managed to give much coverage after 5 years of salacious headlines. I guess there were enough “accused ofs,” and “allegeds” in the news reports, that it wasn’t technically libel or slander, but he had to change his name to start over after the trial.
I heard an interesting theory recently. It said that Machiavelli wrote The Prince as an exposé. He obviously wasn’t inventing the ruthless politics he wrote about. He was just writing about ruthless tactics that politicians were already using. But by doing so, he was making them obvious.
Now when a ruler tried to use the political tricks Machiavelli had told everyone about, his subjects would recognize what he was doing. And that would make it impossible for rulers to use the trick.
So The Prince was essentially an attack against the Medici. Not by ineffectively denouncing them but by revealing the political tricks they (and others like them) used to hold power and thereby making it impossible for them to use those tricks.
The next Republican nominee for President will get progressives comparing him unfavorably to Reagan.
I don’t know about you, but “libeled” in my mind implies that the accusations and stories are generally false. You agree with here and there about Stalin?
Who are the left wing equivalents of Glenn Beck, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Bill O’Reilly? And by that I mean people who are not only as left wing as these people are right wing but also have the same public access these people are given?
No, that was her. And most historians consider that one of her finest moments.
I was going to mention Elizabeth Báthory, as I’d heard that the horrible accusations against her were fabricated for political/religious reasons.
But the Wikipedia article makes a strong case that the accusations were accurate. The Blood Countess. Jeepers.