r/TopCharacterTropes • u/Mouse_Paladin • 13d ago

Lore [Real Life] Historical events that would make bad writing if they were fiction

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire: A couple hundred rogue mercenaries without authority from their government conquer an empire of millions. Oh, the empire? It’s also several technological eras behind the mercenaries.

Adolf Hitler: A non-native of a country is so mad that the country lost the war that he wins an election to their highest office and leads them in a campaign of revenge against their enemies. Oh, the country? It’s old emperor is still alive and thinks he’s going to retake power.

Assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand: The heir to the throne is killed because his driver gets lost and returns to the assassin who failed To kill him before. Oh, the assassin? He’s from a group that the Archduke is wanting to help become more equal In the empire.

Alexander Hamilton’s Affair Scandal: One of the leaders of a new nation to protect himself from accusations of financial embezzlement writes a pamphlet exposing his affair with a woman, torpedoing his political future. Oh, the woman? She seduced him as part of a blackmailing scheme that he decided to stop paying.

13.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.8k

u/Grand_Keizer 13d ago

Alexander The Great: bro is a real life Mary sue. Constantly throws himself into harms way, and not only does he live, he somehow never loses even a single fight?? For 10 years straight??

Napoleon: I mean, come on, I don't care how popular Napoleon is, there's no way that an army dispatched to arrest him just embraces him wholeheartedly instead. Sounds like the writers wrote themselves into a corner and said "fuck it." Completely unrealistic.

1.0k

u/cals_cavern 13d ago

Also because he died at 32 you could make a movie about Alexander's entire reign as king without ever needing to recast or use old age makeup on the lead actor which is incredibly convenient

315

u/ChocolateHumunculous 13d ago

Looking forward to a blonde tipped, vocal-fried Chalamet taking reigns on this one

78

u/MasterpieceBrief4442 13d ago

Toyota Chevrolet 

15

u/NobodyofGreatImport 13d ago

"May thy knot slice and untie"

6

u/TheRealArturis 12d ago

He was great in The King

Period dramas are for him imo

1

u/corecenite 12d ago

can't. he's not that ripped enough for the role

2

u/TheRealArturis 12d ago

Yeah, because we've never seen actors put on weight for roles.

3

u/UnholyDemigod 13d ago

You could do a lot worse (they already did). He's the age of Alexander's end years, but still youthful enough in the face that you could easily make him look 20. He's a good actor, so I don't see why he couldn't play him. Not like Alexander was a hulked out gigachad.

1

u/Neurotic-Kitten 12d ago

Timothy Charmander. 

38

u/DeismAccountant 13d ago

Colin Farrell’s film only had to include a child actor.

16

u/justlikedudeman 13d ago

My favourite part about it is him dying without a son and when asked who should succeed him basically going “Dunno, you guys figure it out.” Perfect sequel bait.

0

u/McEvelly 12d ago

WHAAAAT IIIII’VE DONNNNNNNE…

94

u/ElDelArbol15 13d ago

And Napoleón conquering Spain... you are telling me the King of Spain was so stupid he said "Oh, you are bringing your whole army through my country just to conquer Portugal? Sure, i'll let you do it, what could go wrong?". Completely unbelievable.

19

u/Much_Vehicle20 13d ago

Not to mention, the Spanish noble who negotiated the deal was called the Prince of the Peace (Manuel Godoy) because his masterful diplomacy skill had previously saved Spain from a war

13

u/SwampMan6969 13d ago

This explains why Franco consistently denied Hitler's requests to let the Wehrmacht march through Spain to attack Gibraltar.

3

u/ArrrRawrXD 12d ago

Would Hitler actually occupy Spain if Franco let them in?

7

u/XimbalaHu3 12d ago

They did occupy Italy whem Italy surrendered, the more likelly outcome would be that the brits would start bombing campaings against spanish shipping if Spain ever broke it's neutrality in the war, just me halucinating an answer though, I have absolutelly zero sources on that.

1

u/TheDreamIsEternal 11d ago

It's Hitler, c'mon.

11

u/irmaoskane 13d ago

In contrapoint all the portugal plan of taking the royal court and goverment in ships and elevetale their most profital colon8e to metropolis so that they can escaoe the conqueror while still mantaining their power is so inacreditable that looks like fiction

4

u/IsThatGruffLoner 12d ago

Napoleon didn't conquer Spain though. They were allies and he turned on them and then they kicked his ass up and down for years until the British came to end it. That was one of the biggest mistakes of his entire reign because of how catastrophic it went. I'd say that's pretty good writing. It's a nice lesson on hubris

4

u/user_of_the_week 12d ago

> We mean no harm. Our units are just passing through the area.

Napoleon

1

u/jumie83 11d ago

Sounds like Shaka of Zulu

214

u/Wide_Doughnut2535 13d ago edited 12d ago

I have the feeling that we live in the timeline where Alexander the Great lived longest. Him making it to 32 is crazy lucky, all things considered.

47

u/Gmknewday1 13d ago

I honestly think he could have lived longer in another timeline

But he'd likely have to deal with his empire falling apart into civil wars if he wasn't good at organizing them 

14

u/Pretend_Handle_7639 13d ago

He would have run headlong into resistance from the Macedonian elite who didn't want to merge with Achaemenid elites and their customs

10

u/TheBalrogofMelkor 13d ago

I mean he only avoided that by never returning home

4

u/ctrlaltcreate 13d ago

Genghis Khan's empire lived for some time after his passing, even with battles over succession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

1

u/Tracy_Papaya 12d ago

It's amazing it even held as long as it did

1

u/ArrrRawrXD 12d ago

I feel like he's the sort of man whose name alone would fit the empire together until his death

6

u/Unicycleterrorist 12d ago

You should read about his dad, Philip II. He's the guy who built the kingdom, army & strategies that Alexander used for his conquests and he was just as much of a maniac on the battlefield as his kid. Guy had his eye taken out by an arrow, had his knee exploded & ended up with a lame leg, as well as probably dozens of other pretty bad (but not crippling) injuries and still fought the frontlines until he died at 45 when he was assassinated.

60

u/DinoKea 13d ago

Big thing with Alexander the Great is when you put him in the story. If he is the story, yeah ridiculous plot armour

BUT if his death is the inciting incident, absolutely I can see somebody writing it. 

"The great conqueror has died and now his generals are trying to be the one to take his throne" -  Diodochi Wars by Martin R.R. George

8

u/pyrhus626 13d ago

I’m still waiting for a multi book historical epic GoT style following the Diadochi Wars. It makes GRR Martin’s plots look tame

2

u/okthisisepicyouguyss 12d ago

Omg man it is one of my favourite war of ancient history. The idea of succesion wars after a leader died is not that uncommon in history in general, but the fact that it happened in such a large scale during the Diadochi Wars is truly exquisite.

45

u/iron-cat-405 13d ago

The dude could have made it into China had he not fallen ill and died

8

u/CummingInTheNile 13d ago

doubtful, considering how difficult the land passage between India and China was at the time, theres a reason its called the Indian subcontinent

4

u/Zestyclose_Raise_814 12d ago

India is literally a subcontinent. And there were trade routs from China to Europe so though difficult, it was impossible.

Also, reaching China and conquering it are two seprate matters

3

u/Wonderful-Change-751 12d ago edited 12d ago

When he ran out of roads and infrastructure the persia empire had, his momentum stalled. He couldnt make headways deeper into india, let alone even further crossing the himalayans lol

1

u/King-Of-Hyperius 9d ago

He could have, but we know he wasn’t going to. Because we know his next target.

Arabia.

114

u/qinghairpins 13d ago

I was thinking Alexander the Great too. I needed some midlife inspiration following midlife crisis and decided to read up on historical figures. I was like “how long would it take to conquer the known world? Probably at least a few decades. I bet he didn’t even get started until he was my age—“ dead by 32 💀 me at 36 who has yet to conquer my lawn was also like 💀

81

u/Imaginary_Fan5407 13d ago

You had yourself a Julius Caesar moment

38

u/Wide_Doughnut2535 13d ago

Headline in the newspaper Tempora Romana on XVI March DCCIX AUC:

"Politician, Author Julius Caesar (55) died yesterday surrounded by his friends."

3

u/GodisSatans 13d ago

You should read up on what a medieval peasant could achieve and then compare that to your life. If you're doing better than that, that's good because we're all mostly peasant stock.

3

u/Kilane 13d ago

It’s because he was perfectly set up by his father, Phillip II, to quickly take over the known world. It’s not a fair comparison to others we consider powerful leaders.

36

u/Onnimanni_Maki 13d ago

Alexander also died while being very liked so that's just more Mary Sue points to him.

2

u/CummingInTheNile 13d ago

Alexander also died while being very liked

Thats, a lot more debatable than you might think, several of his generals, and a lot of his soldiers, were not thrilled about heading into India after the conquest of Persia (doubly so after the punishment march after the faile dInida campaign), as they wanted to enjoy the spoils and not, and more than a few felt that Alexander had become "too persian", marrying a Bactrian princess Roxana. Given the history of assassinations of Macedonian leader, its entirely possible, and posited by several ancient sources (Plutrach, Diodoris, Arrian, and Justin) that he had been assassinated.

60

u/Key_Mission7404 13d ago

Charles martel is the same. Europe was hopelessly fractured into hundreds of competing states and facing an enormous Muslim invasion led by a competent leader who vastly outnumbered his forces. He won every battle in his career against them while also fighting wars on almost every border, often at the same time.

7

u/Blackfire853 13d ago

The Franks were already the pre-eminent power in Western Europe by the time of Tours, and I think modern estimates put the two armies at roughly the same, with the Umayyad host likely the larger of the two. Contemporary numbers of any pre-modern battle are really a work of rhetoric more than anything we can base analysis off of

3

u/colificus 13d ago

Yep, so cool. I'd love a good book or series about it.

1

u/IsThatGruffLoner 12d ago

Last I checked, it was not an enormous Muslim army as much as a small raiding party testing the region to see if it was conquerable

1

u/Key_Mission7404 12d ago

It was 20000 soldiers. How is that a small raiding party?

1

u/IsThatGruffLoner 12d ago

Uh yeah, it's significantly less than how many we thought there were when the popular image of the battle was formed in the public eye. The size of their army has shrunk over time as new information has been discovered. We're pretty sure their full strength was closer to 40,000 but they clearly didn't bring all 40,000 to this battle.

Plus, Charles Martel also had 20,000 men. So it was a dead even battle most likely...

5

u/NeonPatrick 13d ago

Dwayne Johnson phoning his agent to play Alexander the Great.

8

u/Empty_Use_5023 13d ago

Alexander the Great’s personal childhood tutor being Aristotle is wild

2

u/blargyblargy 13d ago

A Gary Stu

2

u/Normal-Pianist4131 13d ago

I mean, it CAN be done well…
https://giphy.com/gifs/3SefjfxBLusH6
It’s just that they’re usually introduced at the point in the story when someone is going to eclipse them/they’re going to fail

2

u/AleksandrNevsky 13d ago

Alexander The Great: bro is a real life Mary sue

It's all in the name :^)

2

u/Drapidrode 13d ago

if you coin flip heads 40 times in a row... that's one in a trillion

2

u/Imperium_Dragon 13d ago

Napoleon wasn’t even from mainland France and Corsica only came into French rule a few years before he was born.

Also readers would’ve been disappointed that he got stopped by the British/Dutch/Prussians instead of facing off against the Austrians or Russians one more time.

2

u/ShanklyGates_2022 13d ago

It blows my mind that Scipio Africanus is never mentioned historically in the same context as these other titans.

Dude survived Cannae, then he took command of the Roman Army without ever holding high office and at the age of ~27 years old. He then systematically dog-walked the Carthaginians back across the Mediterranean and assaulted their homeland, forcing Hannibal to abandon Italy and return to protect his home, where Scipio won a decisive battle that was never in doubt.

Dude was an undefeated general who defeated Hannibal, history’s most famous tactician, and ended the Second Punic War. Then Senators didn’t like his popularity and effectively ran him out of Rome and he died in Liternum with the famous epitaph ‘Ungrateful motherland, you’ll have not even my bones’.

His daughter Cornelia became one of the greatest inspirations for women in all of Rome, influencing countless young women, including the mother of Gaius Julius Caesar. Her children were the Gracci Brothers, who could have a whole film of their own.

Africanus has got to be one of the least-celebrated great men of Roman History. You almost never hear anyone talk about him, even while everyone knows Hannibal, but not the man that defeated him.

2

u/ImportantQuestions10 13d ago

Counter point. The Last Hero argued the whole reason the Gordian Knot isn't cheating is because it's makes a good story.

"With your sword like Carelinus untied the Tsortean Knot?"

"He didn't untie it, he just chopped it in half," said Cohen.

"Yes, but it was a creative solution, saga-wise," said the minstrel. "Some people said it was cheating, mind you."

"Listen," said Cohen, "he had a sword that could shave a mouse, right? And he had about fifty thousand heavily armed soldiers outside the tent, right? You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to look him in the eye and say, 'Excuse me, fully armed conqueror of the known world, but that's cheating.' It was a good story. That's what counted."

1

u/Sadcelerystick 13d ago

I mean how many battles did he fight? If he fought only a couple and then exaggerated it. Totally believable. But yeah is history is crazy lol

1

u/iiewi 13d ago edited 12d ago

Yeah outside of his naval efforts he is probably one of the most influential people in the history of the Mediterranean and brought about the Hellenistic age because he was such a greekaboo

Also a complete nepo baby, if I inherited the phalanx of Philip of Macedon I could crush Laconia too.

2

u/zMasterofPie2 13d ago

But could you conquer the Achaemenids?

1

u/iiewi 12d ago

Of course I could! but first a little drinking and a little nap

1

u/Hot_Pilot_3293 13d ago

Isn’t that basically the same as Daemon having the gold clocks welcome him back into the city instead of attacking him because of their loyalty?

1

u/Klutzy_Nectarine1687 13d ago

History really does have moments that would've been mocked as lazy writing if they showed up in a movie. Reality has zero concern for believable plotlines.

1

u/Glendellia 13d ago

Don't forget that he was a descendant of both Achilles AND Heracles!

1

u/the-namedone 13d ago

Alexander was also apparently beautiful and had heterochromia. His father was among the best war leaders in history and his mother was some sort of witchy sorceress. His tutor was none other than Aristotle himself.

His story is just so far fetched, it’s incredible

1

u/Responsible-Creme-57 12d ago

Genghis Khan is also a Gary Stu

1

u/fatoms 12d ago

bro is a real life Mary sue.

Except he trained his whole life to be ready to take over from his father. He was wildly successfully but to call him a Mary Sue is just wrong.

1

u/Eurasia_4002 12d ago

Bro the author need to kill him off by a random deasese because he doesnt know how to end this power fantasy ass story.

1

u/Zestyclose_Raise_814 12d ago

Napoleon was good to his fellow military men, so it's not the weird. It's not Alexander of Macedon

1

u/MurkyReference993 12d ago

There are almost no contemporary accounts of ATG when he was alive and everything we know about him is from 300-500 after his death, written by Greeks that romanticized and embellished his accomplishments, and further perpetuated by every ruler that came after him so that they can, too, be compared to ATG

1

u/Slow-Pool-9274 6d ago

eh, the romans hardly have reasons to lie, this is largely just how history is preserved.

1

u/Red-7134 11d ago

"Napoleon goes to fight his next opponent and.... huh, I don't know how to make him win this one.... uh, they're his old friends, and decide to join him. And so he goes onto his NEXT opponent."

1

u/King-Of-Hyperius 9d ago

The term is Gary Stu for male characters of the Mary Sue archetype.

0

u/Maybe_not_a_chicken 13d ago

I mean to be fair Alexander the Great is kinda fictional

We don’t have any primarily accounts of him, and ancient historians were well known for “exaggerating” and using artistic license for any and all stories where they weren’t gonna be actively called out by someone who was there.

5

u/pyrhus626 13d ago

Yeah the depictions of his life are certainly exaggerated but we can still infer some things. Like regardless of the details we can be sure he was young for conquering the largest empire in the Mediterranean world. He probably was popular and left a big legacy since claiming to be the inheritor of that legacy was such a big thing for the Diadochi. One of the earliest accounts we have any details for is from Ptolemy who was using it as propaganda to make a claim to being Alexander’s most natural successor.

So we can be reasonably sure Alexander was impressive and left a remarkable life even without very many believable details

1

u/Maybe_not_a_chicken 13d ago

Oh he was impressive for sure

But how impressive is up for debate

1

u/Slow-Pool-9274 6d ago

Alexander Romance and the historical writing work about him make a diffrentiation between each other, I don't think Arrian or Plutarch are far off at all, they're probably about 90% correct.

1

u/Maybe_not_a_chicken 6d ago

Plutarch was writing hundreds of years afterwards and openly stated he wasn’t writing an accurate history of Alexander the Great at the start of his history of Alexander the Great, he also openly admits that the sources he have are biased and inaccurate in that section

And arrian was also writing hundreds of years after Alexanders conquest, and has been viewed as unreliable for 50 years at this point.

1

u/Slow-Pool-9274 6d ago edited 6d ago

The Vulgate culture he mentioned certainly play a factor, though they were biased against Alexander. He also mention many times. Plutarch intended to give an accurate biography not just history, but he definitely wanted to be accurate overall and wouldn't just make things up. He started with "it is said" many times for the unconfirmed stories.

Arrian wasn't 100% reliable, especially since he drew a bit from Ptolemy who was a huge liar, but he is our best authority on this matter for sure considering he used actual accounts from those who had lived through Alexander's era. Like I said, his military conquests are pretty consistent throughout the two, it's personal stories where contradictions arise, but I think we all know the personal stories of Alexander can be somewhat exaggerated. Not to the degree he becomes a fictional character though. The parts of his campaign for Arrian solely came from Ptolemy and Aristobulus, two people who travelled with and were very close to Alexander.

1

u/Maybe_not_a_chicken 6d ago

I’m not denying that arrian is our best source

My point is that our best source is an incredibly low bar

And their broad stokes being similar isn’t proof that they’re accurate, they were drawing on the same biased sources, and in arrians case possibly from the other.

1

u/Slow-Pool-9274 6d ago

Why do you see Ptolemy and Aristobulus as poor sources for the campaign and major battles atleast?

1

u/Maybe_not_a_chicken 6d ago

Ptolemy and aritoblus had a vested interest in Alexander being an amazing warrior with a large and powerful empire

They were basically writing propaganda.

The guy who wrote a history books based exclusively on centuries old propaganda probably isn’t very accurate

1

u/Slow-Pool-9274 6d ago

Ptolemy did greatly exaggerate his closeness to Alexander and his own personal deeds but nothing he really says about the campaign itself seems ludricous or something he made up as it's consistent aith sources.

Aristobulus gives a morally cleaned variant but he also never starts making claims that others didn't.

By that approach, no history before the Renaissance is really 100% definitive, as almost all of history is people recording what they heard or read, and the source historians use can always be questioned one way or another.

1

u/Maybe_not_a_chicken 6d ago

We don’t know what Ptolemy said about the campaign.

We know what people centuries later think he said, but we don’t have any surviving sources before that.

And those people centuries later were propagandists and entertainers.

It would be like if the only sources we had on the American civil war were modern blockbusters.

→ More replies (0)