Is history always written by the victors ?

Post Reply New Topic

I seem to think it isn't always the case as for example, the Romans hated Hannibal and demonised him but when he was defeated, he was called a military genius just like Scipio, than the man who defeated him and the British will still say that Napoleon is a military genius just like the man who defeated him at Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington.

Yes. History is written by the victors. Even when portraying their enemies in a positive light by calling them geniuses, the victors are still the ones writing down the history. You know, it's the Roman and British VICTORS saying these things about their foes after all. It's not about character portrayal, it's about who is writing the story in the first place...

Once an enemy is defeated and they have no potential following that could directly threaten the public support that you have or seek, they're often much more useful as giants and geniuses than as vile cowards. It implies that you're and even bigger giant and wiser genius, and you get to present yourself as graceful and magnanimous as a bonus.

Either way, how could history not be written by the victors? If you're effectively "writing history" (literally or metaphorically), then that alone pretty much means you're the victor at that point.

Would you be prouder to defeat a buffoon or a genius?