Written by the Winners: Difference between revisions

** While the [[Flanderization]] of Caligula is surreal enough, it's nothing compared to what his daughter and sister got. (Meassured in surrealness rather then evilness.) The [[Unreliable Narrator|official history]] on the emperor Caligula teaches us that the conspiracy that had him murdered was very brave, wise, and benevolent. Not only was Caligula so evil and mad that he totally deserved to die, his two years old daughter who was murdered at the same time (because she was his only heir and thus a threat to the usurper) was '''also''' so evil that she totally deserved to die. The same history writing tell us not only that all political decisions he ever made was evil, crazy and stupid, but also that many of them was very popular... but that's only because the population is stupid. The later theory was also used to [[Hand Wave]] why empress Drusilla was considered a popular politician... while using unsubstantiated slander to [[Retcon]] her into a mere [[Sex Slave]] of her brother.

** The objective historical truth about Drusilla is that the imperial oath was aimed at her as well as her brother, that the coins of the empire depicted her like they would depict any emperor, that she had a imperial cult around her just like the other emperors had, and that there was a national mourning when she died. Also, that she was married to another man and that her brother was married to another woman. Two of the funny quirks about the rumors about [[Brother-Sister Incest]] is that they 1. Seems to have started after Caligula's death, and thus long after Drusilla's death. 2. That the story was simplified by pretending that Drusilla's husband and Caligula's wife didn't exist, rather then commenting on how ''they'' reacted to the stories.

* [[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).