Written by the Winners: Difference between revisions

Line 13:

* The motto of [[Big Bad]] Makoto Shishio in ''[[Rurouni Kenshin]]''.

* In ''[[Scrapped Princess]]'', Earth was conquered by {{spoiler|the aliens}} who then rewrote history, presenting the heroes of [[La Résistance]] and [[Les Collaborateurs]] as evil and good gods, respectively.

* ''[[One Piece]]'' - Implied to have happened with the {{spoiler|Lost Century, which was apparently removed from history for unknown reasons by the reigning World Government, with the only remaining records of that time being inscribed on indestructible tablets called Poneglyphs. Anyone capable of reading said Poneglyphs... become [[~~Unperson|unpersons~~]].}}

* ''[[One Piece]]'' - Implied to have happened with the {{spoiler|Lost Century, which was apparently removed from history for unknown reasons by the reigning World Government, with the only remaining records of that time being inscribed on indestructible tablets called Poneglyphs. Anyone capable of reading said Poneglyphs... become [[unperson]]s.}}

** This trope is an explicit belief held by Donquixote Doflamingo, who says that whoever wins the current war between the World Government and Whitebeard will be the ones to define what "Justice" means.

* ''[[Saint Seiya]]'' - Cancer Deathmask subscribes to this theory, but was in the wrong side of the conflict. {{spoiler|However, in the Hades arc, he could've been subscribing to this and just been smart for once.}}

Line 56:

* In ''[[The Egyptian]]'' Sinuhe muses that due to Horemheb's rewriting of history no one will ever remember the three Pharaohs that preceeded him: Ay, Tutankhamon and Achenaton. Horemheb was, obviously, less than successfull.

* Addressed but averted in [[Timothy Zahn]]'s ''[[Hand of Thrawn|Vision Of The Future]]'':

{{quote|'''Shada:''' What do you mean by "true" [history]? What does anyone mean by "true"? We all know history is [[Written by the Winners]].

{{quote|'''Shada:''' What do you mean by "true" [history]? What does anyone mean by "true"? We all know history is Written by the Winners.

'''Jorj Car'das:''' History is also written by the bystanders... peoples who had no park or stake in what happened. Would you accuse them ''all'' of lying? }}

* ''The Sundering'' reimagines ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' with an aversion of this trope.

Line 135:

* [[Richard of Gloucester|Richard III of England]] is a good example. While he wasn't the nicest guy around, he was also not the [[Complete Monster]] that the dynasty that succeeded him portrayed him as, either, as the modern research shows. It doesn't help that [[Shakespeare]] was [[Richard III|with the Tudors on this issue]].

* Ivan IV of Russia. Consider at the very least the fact that he actually ''prayed'' for those he sentenced to death. Though, that would not be especially abnormal for his highly religious time. Still, there is plenty of historical debate as to whether he destroyed Muscovite society and caused the Time of Troubles or whether he dug out the foundations of Peter the Great's new Russian Empire (or both). There is also debate as to whether his epithet "Groznii" means "Terrible" in the modern sense of "horrible" or in the Old Testament sense of "awe-inspiring". The fact remains that he has been used as a historical justification for the need of a strong leader in Russian society (see: Stalin).

* A rare subversion can be seen in the Mongol conquests of everything from China to Hungary. In addition to more conventional tools of war, among their most effective weapon was their reputation. They deliberately committed horrific atrocities, and actively encouraged the spread and exaggeration of the stories (which were pretty bad to begin with by any standard). The primary purpose of this was to make their enemies shake in their boots when the Mongols came knocking, breaking the enemy morale, and leading many adversaries to outright surrender without a fight (it was that or be butchered down to the last man, woman, child and dog).<br /><br />The sheer amount of those who chose to surrender due to hearing such gruesome tales may have even saved lives in the long run, at the cost of absolutely brutalizing those that did die. This is a subversion as both winners and losers agree on their version of events--the losers because they were powerless to stop the flow of rumors counter-productive to the war effort, and the winners because it suits them to have a reputation as bloodthirsty warmongers that only give you one chance to surrender before they take everything you own, slaughter your children, rape your wife, burn down your house, use you as a human shield against your own soldiers (often by filling a spiked trench with corpses so that they could ride over it) and then have a good laugh about it, not necessarily in that order.

* A rare subversion can be seen in the Mongol conquests of everything from China to Hungary. In addition to more conventional tools of war, among their most effective weapon was their reputation. They deliberately committed horrific atrocities, and actively encouraged the spread and exaggeration of the stories (which were pretty bad to begin with by any standard). The primary purpose of this was to make their enemies shake in their boots when the Mongols came knocking, breaking the enemy morale, and leading many adversaries to outright surrender without a fight (it was that or be butchered down to the last man, woman, child and dog).

The sheer amount of those who chose to surrender due to hearing such gruesome tales may have even saved lives in the long run, at the cost of absolutely brutalizing those that did die. This is a subversion as both winners and losers agree on their version of events—the losers because they were powerless to stop the flow of rumors counter-productive to the war effort, and the winners because it suits them to have a reputation as bloodthirsty warmongers that only give you one chance to surrender before they take everything you own, slaughter your children, rape your wife, burn down your house, use you as a human shield against your own soldiers (often by filling a spiked trench with corpses so that they could ride over it) and then have a good laugh about it, not necessarily in that order.

* Peter I of Castile is Peter ''the Lawful'' in chronicles written by his supporters and Peter ''the Cruel'' in those written by his enemies. Since he lost the civil war that dethroned him, the second version is the one that has stuck to the modern day.

* Subverted a few times where the events in question were much more important and significant to the losing side than to the winning one.