Sorry, put a post in the wrong thread.
Imhotep- architect .
The ancient Greek philosophers.
Pliny the Elder.
Leif Erikson.
Roger Bacon.
Leonado da Vinci.
All the famous artists of the renaissance.
Benjamin Franklin.
So i’d say the various military leaders and generals in the ancient world don’t count even if they are not technically royalty they are famous in the same way as royalty (and in almost all cases they were nobility of some kind), not like a modern celebrity
One possible exception was Hannibal who did become kind of a “celebrity” after his defeat, traveling round the courts of the Mediterranean purely on his fame over his early victories over the romans (until the Romans decided this wouldn’t do, and had him assassinated)
In that case we can’t count Imhotep who was part of the royal court.
There is the story mentioned by Pliny the Younger of the man who travelled all the way from Spain to Italy just to catch sight of Livy and who, having done so, immediately returned home.
That seems different to me. Being famous as “Great Ug who defeated the Oggamites at the Battle of the big hill” has existed since the beginning of civilization and is fundamentally a different kind of celebrity than modern famous people. Whereas he was famous as an architect which seems much more like modern celebrity.
Guess it’s a matter of opinion though, and I’m not the OPer
Weren’t sucessful athletes and gladiators treated as celebrities in ancient Rome? They had endorsements, appearance fees, and patrons.
How about Siddhartha Gautama?
I think if we have to ask or google the person then they don’t qualify as famous. I mean, you could have just called out Budda.
Sun Tzu
Pythagoras
Methuselah
Homer
Socrates
Cicero
Lipschitz
Except he was primarily an architect.
Right.
Mythical
Maybe mythical
Slightly doubtful.
A General.
Possibly the first intentional fame-seeker we know of is Herostratus, arsonist of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus.
He also may be the first ever exemplar of the Streisand Effect. Knowing he was after fame, local authorities passed a law forbidding mention of his name. Obviously, it didn’t work.
I think Kings, Queens, and military leaders/warmongers were the only people who could be famous. News travelled so slowly, orally, and most of it didn’t concern common folk, so all they would have known were their local people, the travelling shows and storytellers, who would only go short distances, a loop around the region, returning to each village every couple of months. And most of those stories they were telling would be mythology or ancient history.
“Buddha” is a title that has been borne by more than one person. While Siddhartha is generally referred to as “THE Buddha”, I thought it would be better just to give his name. It would be like writing “the Prophet” instead of “Muhammed”.
Another interesting fact is that the usual picture you see of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is clearly not him, since it’s of a fat Chinese man, probably imitating someone from Chines folklore.
History, as a rigid discipline, only goes back as far as Herodotus in the 5th century BC. For older historical accounts, the Bible is about as good as it gets, so let’s not dismiss Jacob and sons too quickly. Also, Otzi and Lucy are kind of famous now, but likely were not in their own time.
Earliest famous troubador? I’d go with Blondel.
If you go by the Bible, David was a famous musician before he was a warrior and a king.
Hmm, first I have heard of that effect. Seems similar to the “New” Coke debacle.