ADSactly History - Wrongfully Maligned Figures in History (Part 1)
What do Lucrezia Borgia, Vlad the Impaler and Galileo Galilei have in common?
They were all victims, to some extent, of vicious gossip that has overshadowed their real lives and accomplishments throughout history. I know, not what you were expecting, but bear with me.
One of the things that has remained true through the ages is that we love a bit of good gossip. We love knowing the most intimate things about the people who lead us or are, in any way, more famous than us. It brings them down to our level, it makes it easier for us to judge them and find ourselves infinitely better.
Even if those things aren’t necessarily true.
Through the centuries, nasty rumors have run rampant, discrediting everyone from Roman Emperors to renowned scientists. And I thought it would be a fine idea to run down a top ten of unjustly maligned people in the history of the world for the good readers of @adsactly.
Before we begin, I’d like to point out that I’m not trying to justify these people or make them out as angels. They were not. Most weren’t by any understanding good, but they were all a product of their times, not necessarily evil monsters.
Ready? Here goes.
10. Richard III of England
Often portrayed as an evil hunchback with a bad arm and a limp, Richard III was actually nothing like his “on-screen persona”. The first thing you need to understand about Richard is the tumultuous background he was coming from, aka the War of the Roses. His brother Edward had seized the throne from the supposedly feeble-minded Henry VI and when Edward died, his two young sons were the natural heirs.
But you have to understand the “Princes in the Tower” were far too young to rule at the time and their parents’ marriage had been somewhat dubious (given that Edward was said to have been married before), so Richard took the throne instead.
He did lock his two nephews in the Tower, but only to prevent an uprising and, to be fair, any monarch would’ve done that. You can’t have claimants to the throne walking about free… It only goes to show that another claimant to the throne, Henry Tudor, led an uprising two years later and killed Richard, becoming King Henry VII. However, there is no proof he had them killed, as most people think.
Most of what we know today about Richard actually comes from the Shakespearean play by the same name, which was really just Tudor propaganda. Henry Tudor, in turn, had taken the crown from Richard III and to paint Richard as a good guy would’ve been undermining the Tudor dynasty and Queen Elizabeth I. Shakespeare, not wanting to lose his head, obviously wrote a play that was favorable to the ruling family at the time.
9. Cleopatra
This famous Egyptian pharaoh is mostly remembered as a remarkably beautiful woman (not the case), a manipulative seductress and, to be frank, a harlot. But that’s not actually the whole truth.
First of all, Cleopatra came from a long line of in-breeding and although she was more decent-looking than some of her relatives, she wasn’t, by any means, Liz Taylor. Second, while it is true she had relationships with both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, we need to remember that she did so out of necessity.
Egypt was, at the time, in a very bad state – Cleopatra had to fight and kill most of her siblings in order to secure her power and her children as heirs to the throne. Horrible, I agree, but again, you have to understand these people as a product of their times. This was normal back then and wasn’t really a sign that Cleopatra was a monster. If she hadn’t killed them, chances are her brother or sister would’ve killed Cleopatra.
Although people seem very interested in her sex life, they often forget to mention that Cleo was a very intelligent, witty woman, a fiercely protective mother and a skilled politician. She wasn’t a harlot ruled by her desires – that was propaganda spread by the future Emperor Augustus during the last war of the Roman Republic, between him and Mark Antony (Cleopatra’s husband, at the time).
Again, the opposing side had to be discredited, otherwise the war against them would be unjustified. So, Romans were convinced that Mark Antony had been seduced by the evil Egiptian seductress, so there was really no choice but to wage war against them. Didn’t help that Antony abandoned his former wife, Octavia (Augustus’ sister) for Cleopatra...
8. Macbeth
Another one of Mr. Shakespeare’s feats, I’m afraid. The character of Macbeth in the play by the same name is very loosely based on an actual Scottish king. In the play, Macbeth is a power-thirsty villain (spurred on by his even more power-thirsty wife) who kills the old king in the middle of the night, while being a welcome guest in his home.
Didn’t happen.
Macbeth was a Scottish ruler between 1040 and 1057 (more than 500 years before Shakespeare wrote his play, and so the facts had become a bit muddled by then). He did actually kill King Duncan, but not as an honored guest in his home.
King Duncan was killed during war, by Macbeth’s troops. Rarely mentioned is the fact Macbeth had perhaps as much of a claim to the throne as King Duncan, so this horrendous betrayal was really just a rather common medieval squabble for power. It very probably had nothing to do with witches, as the play suggests. Throughout his 17-year-reign, Macbeth was a generous ruler and the kingdom saw relative peace.
However, Shakespeare sort of had to paint him out as being the bad guy, since the King of England at the time (James I) was a descendant of King Duncan, and obviously, his son Malcolm III, who came to power after Macbeth.
So, did any of the people on our list so far shock you? Or do you have any wrongfully maligned figure who didn't get mentioned? Drop us a comment and stay tuned for the next two parts!
Authored by @honeydue
References: Richard (1 2), Cleopatra (1), Macbeth (1)
Click on the coin to join our Discord Chat
Witness proposal is here:
Go To Steem Witness Page
In the bottom of the page type: adsactly-witness and press vote.
Use small letters and no "@" sign. Or, click here to vote directly!
Thank you!
A series and a post of great interest, @honeydue. It will always be possible to unveil falsehoods and discover facets of history that have remained dark or manipulated. Historical research allows us to unravel it in the long run. Their work seems to be based on sources that confirm that solid historical search. I thank you for your contributions to this necessary clarification and for illustrating it to us.
Now, I would not see Shakespeare's works as a properly historical source; I believe that their value lies in being fictional creations that address, with sharpness and aesthetic achievement, topics as universal and current as the struggle for power, ambitions and human miseries.
Attentive to his new deliveries. Greetings.
I wouldn't take Shakespeare as accurate historical facts either ;) He was a man of his time, he lived in a world where, much like today, information was very important and heavily used upon to sway public opinion. And besides, you could just go and say that Richard III or whoever else was a dick, but it was a lot more convincing to have this whole little show, it helped the idea stay in people's minds.
Thank you for reading! :)
Human beings are neither good nor bad, we are human. From fairy tales where we see that stepmothers are witches, when we know that all are not, we must make it clear that there are people who act in a negative way at a given time, but not for that reason are bad and vice versa. From your list I remember Darth Vader who is misunderstood. You know him when he is already in that phase, but if you look in his past discover much more about how he was before. As for real life, I don't know how bad La Malinche or Yoko Ono have been, women who were judged by what their men did. It is very easy to judge people, but as someone said in a previous comment, more people have had a better reputation after death, for not speaking ill of the dead. Thank you for sharing this list, @honeydue. I'll be looking forward to the next installment. ;)
All of the atrocities of WWII. And only one man takes the blame for them all I can't really talk about it more than that. But the ”victors” walked away as heroes and never had to face the reality of the atrocity if their war crimes.
Posted using Partiko iOS
It is sad even in our present dispensation that the influence of those in power can manipulate the history just to cover the ones they favour to side.
So many disgusting, betrayal, injustices, barbaric killings and pitiful stories that twist the history of mankind.
Come the day of judgment and God’s justice will prevail. 🙏🙏🙏
Every human being must have two different sides. the completeness between good and evil is in every individual.
From the characters whose tone can tell us what to say. we can look in the mirror as a person. Look at the reality in our lives and compare stories like characters who tell. Perhaps because in a literature requires a central figure so that the antagonist will always be a bad character and in its characterization certainly makes viewers, readers or connoisseurs join in late and after they finish, they will hate antagonists.
Poets overstate because the fact is written not as a document but as a literary work. Of course it's wrapped with beautiful diction.
Thank you @honeydue
Thank you @adsactly
Thank you steemit
Warm regard from Indonesia
Propaganda is a powerful and lasting tool. I'm sure the list of people with great posthumous reputation who don't deserve it is much much longer.
Posted using Partiko Android
It was really interesting reading. Thank you