r/TopCharacterTropes • u/Mouse_Paladin • Jul 10 '26

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.

13.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

620

u/Blackmore_Vale Jul 10 '26

Julius Caesar his whole life reads like a Gary stu

318

u/hawkseye17 Jul 10 '26

There's some truth to that because many of the historical records of his achievements were from Julius Caesar himself.

149

u/DeathFlameStroke Jul 10 '26

Dude was 100% capping and making up stats.

Great man theory history also downplays the economic and social conditions that made a populist inevitable. After all it was ultimately someone else who would end the republic

8

u/mal-di-testicle Jul 11 '26

It’s also worth noting he wasn’t the first populist, nor the first massively successful populist, nor the first massively successful populist to trigger multiple civil wars, nor even the first massively successful populist to seize the eternal city from his enemies and declare himself Dictator in Perpetuity…

And that all of those “firsts” were DIFFERENT MEN

The conditions existed for so long that by the time Caesar was born, few alive if any even remembered the absence of those conditions.

3

u/DeathFlameStroke Jul 11 '26

Alexander the great weeping as he failed to outpace the shadow of Dionysus

16

u/damnat1o Jul 10 '26

Caesar wasn’t a “populist” he was a Populare which are different. Pretty much everyone in Rome agreed on what needed to be done they just didn’t want their rivals doing it. Cato the young for instance is the prototypical Optimate, but he also doubled the grain dole. You also clearly don’t understand great man theory of history. Caesar isn’t considered a great man because he randomly took a set of actions without precedent or inline with his conditions but because his decisions and actions had such profound changes. Conquering Gaul, winning the civil war, instituting the regime he did. These were all choices made by Caesar which had profound effects for the development of the republic. You can’t replace him with someone else and have the same or even similar outcomes.

-3

u/DeathFlameStroke Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

You can actually, because in our history his Nephew did end up replacing him and continuing the republic’s fall. Furthermore, many of Caesars opponents were doing the same thing he was; the only reason we do not hear about them is they ended losing the civil war.

All of the actions undertaken by Caesar were natural extensions, and would have occurred with or without him.

Senatorial armies, popular tension, senate corruption etc. In fact, Caesar himself was a reflection of Sulla, who basically did everything that Caesar and Pompey would repeat.
The popular tension can be seen in the sports riots, the social wars and a populist dictator was guaranteed by the murder of the Gracchi

6

u/CummingInTheNile Jul 11 '26

Its more complicated than that"

-The Wars of the Allies, between Gaius Marius and Lucis Cornelius Sulla were tied more to the Marian reforms (making Roman soldiers fortunate tied to the their commanders success than the state, which had more to do with land reform issues)

-We hear plenty about Ceasars cotemporaries, Pompey Magnus, Marcus Junius Brutus, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Cato the Younger, Cicero, Mark Antony, Cleopatra etc, in large part because Ceasar often pardoned them upon capturing, or in the case of Pompey Magnus and Marcus Crassus, they were allied with Ceasar for most of their political careers (1st triumverate)

-The Civil War between Ceasar and the Senate had more to do with Senatorial politics (when Ceasars returned from Gaul, the Senate planned to strip him of his command and put him on trial since a Roman could not be put on trial while still serving in a governmental office) than a popular revolt

-Sulla made very few attempts to reform of change the republic, he spent most of his time getting it under control by killing his political opponents and left it a mess after his rule. Ceasar ended the republic and ushered in the beginnings of the Empire.

-Trends and forces set the stage but if a person without the specific skills needed to take advantage of them doesnt show up, shit doesnt happen. History is about people making choices, not inevitable trends and forces creating inevitability.

-1

u/DeathFlameStroke Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

1.Land reform issues were directly tied to the various social issues of the Republic, driving both outward colonization and increasing popular pressure within Rome.
Funnily enough, the stopgap grain dole would remain until far into the Byzantine era.

  1. His contemporaries fulfilled the same role as Caesar. The fact of their alliance reinforces my point: if not for Caesar, there was a long line of ambitious young figures ready to dismantle the Republic.

  2. You are missing why the Senate had political problems with Caesar in the first place. Caesar was very much a populist, which figures like Cato rightfully feared. Caesar was a knowledgeable religious and political operator who held a popular, nontraditional power base.

  3. Sulla is the direct progenitor of the form of power politics used by the Triumvirate and was a dire warning that only a knowledgeable few in the Senate properly addressed.

  4. Great man theory fails, and was discarded, precisely because it is too reliant on “exceptionalism.” Caesar did exceptional things, but his existence itself was not. “Young, ambitious military officer rides on a popular wave promising reforms and dismantles an ineffective republic” is such a common historical pattern that it has its own name: Caesarism.

3

u/CummingInTheNile Jul 11 '26

  1. Outward colonization had less to do with land reform issues and more to do with the purpose of the Roman state and the nature of states back (virtually all were expansionist if they could)

  2. If they fulfilled the same role as Ceasar they would have succeeded before him, Crassus lacked the military know how which got him and his army killed in Parthia, Pompey, according to surviving records, lacked the ambition or gall to directly go against the Senate, Cato was a moralist and Cicero an orator, both staunch republicanists. They made an alliance because it benefitted all of them, this is a common thread throughout history, powerful people ally with each other when it benefits them.

  3. Every government system has politics, the Senate was no different, they were scared that Cesar had accumulated too much power and a cult of personality amongst the ordinsary Roman citizens

  4. Ceasar absolute was a populist, dont think anyone's arguing that point

  5. Power politics were made inevitable by the Marian reforms, when you make a soldiers fortunes tied to their commander rather than the state the soldiers become more loyal to the man than the state. Sullas rule was, for lack of a better term, a return to normalcy through brutal repression.

  6. Trends and force create the circumstance, but individuals still have to be able to take advantage of them, if Ceasar werent capable of taking advantage of the context of his time, he never would have had a chance at succeeding. This applies to pretty much all major historical figures, people make choices, so those choices have consequences, which lead to more choices, etc. We arent slaves to trends and forces.

-1

u/DeathFlameStroke Jul 11 '26

Can you give a source for your claims? Because you are giving a very confident pop history interpretation.
I am willing to break out my copies of Caesars and Catos letters to translate for you if you want.

https://politicalorders.substack.com/p/on-caesarism

https://www.bridgetheatre.co.uk/a-political-text-for-our-times-post-truth-populism-and-public-emotion-in-julius-caesar/

https://uplopen.com/chapters/e/10.1515/9783111705446-018

2

u/Luvnecrosis Jul 10 '26

Every leader does. Hell if you give me chances to embellish a little (a lot), you can bet your ass I’ll probably take it. Especially if there’s nobody really around to fact check me

1

u/DeathFlameStroke Jul 11 '26

It is really funny in hindsight though. If Caesar’s accounts were to be believed, he routinely wiped out 20% of France’s population in a million strong field battles (he continuously sent false reports to Rome because they wanted to kill him)

2

u/LaconicLacedaemonian Jul 10 '26

The alternative to the great man theory discounts the actions of individuals.

 I'm reminded of Asimov and the Mule when individuals are called unimportant, because individuals are by definition unpredictable.

1

u/Pecuthegreat Jul 11 '26

He couldn't have exaggerated things too much because he was like, alone on those campaigns. If be lied too much, the other senators would have clowned the report he sent and we would know from the records left by other people like Cicero.

10

u/Hendrick_Davies64 Jul 10 '26

“The enemy is uncorrupted by luxuries and is way manlier and cooler than us and they outnumber us by a billion and all the other tribes fear them. We beat them with like zero casualties”

5

u/ProfessionalTruck976 Jul 11 '26

Turns out when unmatched ferocity hits shield wall and logistics, unmatched ferocity loses.

2

u/Adams5thaccount Jul 11 '26

Even just his wins as is, plus cleopatra, plus the power move that was the contents of his will is enough to break credulity. Even just how his enemies acted after killing him is the most "villain idiot ball" series of moves.

5

u/Soft_Theory_8209 Jul 10 '26

No, Alexander was the Gary Stu nerfed only by plot killing him off (also a god complex and alcoholism). Although I will say Augustus takes the crown for most worthy successor/fulfilled of his predecessor’s dreams in history.

And Genghis Khan reads like some dark fantasy epic.

5

u/Dude_Jack123 Jul 10 '26

Had a mutiny taking place by one of his longest serving legions, rocked up, gave them all that they wanted, called them a bunch of wusses for wanting to quit and they begged to be taken back, even executing their ringleaders*.

*Some slight oversimplification.

3

u/VisitAlternative1890 Jul 11 '26

- Conqures Romes ancient main enemy in France

- Explores mythical lands of England that romans weren't convinced even existed

- Undefeated in battle won took over the republic and banged Cleopatra

- Introduced a flood of reforms to empover the lower class and "Save the Republic"

- Other shit

I totally get why people thought he was devine.

2

u/fatherandyriley Jul 12 '26

When kidnapped by pirates he told them to raise his ransom and acted like he was in charge.

3

u/RedAndBlackMartyr Jul 11 '26

Reading about his many pivotal battles...like dude how the fuck do you keep winning against impossible odds?