Perhaps one of the most revealing heroes to affect attitudes to the past is King Alfred the Great who has had a interesting effect on historiography, during the Victorian era in particular. Championed by historian Edward Freeman as “the most perfect character in history” (Yorke 2003), King Alfred undoubtedly achieved much during his reign. Considered to be the ‘Father of England’ Alfred resisted the Viking hoards and formally organised the military as well as being a model king. He is perceived as being very wise and learned in addition to being a great fighter despite having a debilitating illness, thought to be Crohn’s disease (Yorke 2003). With that said, there is debate over the validity of these claims. Indeed, the perception of Alfred seems like the notion of chivalry found much later in the fourteenth century rather than that of Saxon times, where the reality is that barbarism was commonplace (Yorke 2003). England in the nineteenth century, as did most countries in Europe went through a period of new national pride, and an emergence of a cult of founding heroes arose, those to whom a country owes its existence (Yorke 2003). Victorian historians argued that England’s inception was in the 5th Century AD, after the Romans left. As such, attached a notion of ‘Englishness’ to Anglo-Saxons with Alfred being the champion of this period (Yorke 2003). Alfred who defending his country, constitution and religion. Qualities that were at the forefront of the Victorian mind-set (Yorke 2003). Indeed, it appears that Alfred’s namesake, ‘The Great’ may not be fully earned, rather favourable projection and perception of him by later periods, wishful thinking perhaps? King Alfred serves as an interesting hero to discern attitudes about the past from. Unlike David Hume’s “The first Quality of a historian is to be true and impartial; the next is to be a good story teller”, it appears when people choses heroes to revere, they only practise the latter of Hume’s belief. A willingness to sacrifice actual history for an inflated super human, similar, in essence, to the hero veneration of antiquity.
There exists an African proverb that states “Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter”, no more aptly can this phrase be applied when one considers the militaristic heroes a culture decides to revere and those great people it largely ignores. The American General George Armstrong Custer is considered by many to be a hero and a martyr. But his actions were probably no greater than those of the Sioux chief Crazy Horse, who incidentally won the Battle of the Little Big Horn killing Custer in 1876 (Ambrose 1996). Which of the two leaders is more revered? Custer undoubtedly for the simple fact that and Native Americans form a tiny minority of the population of the United States (Ambrose 1996). People generally chose to revere heroes who they can relate and understand, who fight for a cause or set of ideologies with which they subscribe. Custer played a part of the consolidation of the United States. People do not relate as much to Crazy Horse as he fought for a cause, though probably no less noble, at odds with American manifest destiny ideals (Ambrose 1996). The same can be applied to national heroes. It goes without saying that Lord Admiral Nelson would be more revered in Great Britain than France. British historiography records that he was a great leader and seaman who died for Crown and Country. French historiography records that the Battle of Trafalgar was an inconclusive battle in which a British admiral (Nelson) was killed by a French marksman. This is an interesting attitude to the past, indeed, the figures that people consider heroes are subject to many constraints and external factors, no less their nationality and on which side they fought.
When one considers the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, it is a startling fact that these two have an active fan base, not only to political extremists, but viable historians. It is often said in historiography that the past does not exist, perhaps that is why there can be an apparent humanitarian and emotional detachment from abhorrent acts in history. Perhaps because these atrocities were committed in the past, they feel less ‘real’ than if one were to see Stalin’s purges today on BBC News. Some historians argue that Stalin made mistakes but we should look past his terrible acts to see the transformation he instigated - to change Russia from a backward feudal system to a superpower that would rival the USA in less than forty years. It is an attitude to the past that is disturbing as it is fascinating. Similarly Genghis Khan, a figure who’s genocidal acts in the 11th and 12th Century make those of the 20th Century look small in a purely numerical, utilitarian view (Man 2005). It is a surprising fact then that Khan is considered to be a national hero in Mongolia, with a national celebration of his 800th birthday in 1962 (Man 2005). No doubt if a man were to wreak destructive death and terror, Mongolians would not be as eager to revere him. The reverence of controversial and arguably evil people in history shows a further attitude to the past - the past does not exist, the past is a foreign country, the past is but a good story (Carlyle 1840).
If someone were to name Oscar Schindler as a hero, it would require little justification due to his obvious selfless and great morals actions in spite of huge risk to himself. But what if one posited Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich, it would take bit of an explanation. The enigma that is Dmitri Shostakovich is the focus of one of the most virulent debates in historical musicology since the fall of the fall of the Soviet Union (MacDonald 2006). His music is extraordinarily intensive, enigmatic and ambiguous. Shostakovich has a huge fan base, being one of the most frequently performed of the composers at the BBC Proms (MacDonald 2006). One reason for this is his heroism. He risked his life to write the music he wanted to against Stalin’s censorship. It is thought by contemporary musicologists that his music is a “tragedy-satire” of the Soviet government - incredible considering Socialist Realisms constraints (MacDonald 2006). Leading into another interesting question regarding hero celebration - what yard stick does a society use to measure the greatness and value of a historical figure? The answer is a vast array; moral actions, intellect, genius, courageousness, selflessness. Positive attributes that a given society would find noble. Certain historical figures are celebrated because their [supposed] actions and attributes are those that given societies revere. Consider Jesus Christ, the most obvious example, with a third of the human population considering him a hero. His attributes of charity and are those that a Western society find good and as such, use Jesus as a hero, a yardstick or model person of whom to follow example and emulate. The criteria of what is heroic will differ from person-to-person. The definition of heroic is that of boldness, but it has come to a broader definition in society. Intellect and oration for example. Similar to the Custer/Crazy Horse case, people may consider a hero for a set of beliefs for which they proffer. A good example of this is the author Christopher Hitchens, championed by many interested in politics and religion today as a great, fearless intellectual who stood for freedom and rational thought. Of course, people have been celebrated for genius for a long time, Leonardo Da Vinci from the Renaissance and Ludwig van Beethoven from the Romantic era. But in the mainstream, considering an intellectual or genius a hero is essentially a recent phenomenon. The apparent love of Hitchens by his fans and the outpouring of grief at his death in late 2011 shows that in modern times, intellectualism has become a new yardstick for what people revere and celebrate in addition to the traditional physical criteria such as Hercules, a contemporary example being sportsmen.
In The Uses and Abuses of History (2009), historian Margaret MacMillan argues that hero celebration is a form of nostalgia, or longing for a more noble time and writes about the valuable tool that hero celebration is to leaders. MacMillan uses the example of the cult of Winston Churchill in comparison to the meagre public perception of our politicians today. According to MacMillan, Churchill is generally remembered as a masterful leader who conducted the allied victory during WW2 and not as the planner of the catastrophic Gallipoli assault, or the ailing man who probably stayed in office for too long during the 1950s (MacMillan 2009, 7). It is no enigma then why former President Bush liked to compare himself to the Churchill of WW2 and not the Churchill of WW1 or 1950s. In turn, Stalin compared himself to Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great – major builders of Russia (MacMillan 2009, 7). Leaders have frequently compared them to great people from the past. MacMillan believes that this is to “give them stature and legitimacy as the heirs to the nation’s traditions” (MacMillan 2009, 7). That is to say that this is done in the hope that a leader’s subjects will come see the leader in the same light as the hero.
Overall, it is clear that the heroes that a given society choses to celebrate reveal much about their attitudes to the past. Historically, heroes have played role in the culture of virtually all societies, from prehistoric ancestor worship to contemporary comic book super heroes. As Carlyle says, the study of heroes is “as universal as history itself” (Carlyle 1840). So universal is the act of hero celebration that it shows an intrinsic need for humans to find figures to champion and to emulate. Though assessing the true historical value of a hero is problematic – perhaps through wishful thinking, it is easy to project later ideals onto them such as King Alfred’s supposed chivalry and Custer’s supposed status as a martyr, and as such, historians must be careful when assessing the validity of the hero as factual account. Instead, the place of heroes is to show us the mind-set and perception of the hero in his time and since. What hero celebration does is gives us deep insight into the perceptions of the time and since. In addition to the insight it gives us, the celebration of heroes is a beneficial tool in many other respects such as the revering of nationalistic founders and patron saints aid to a national identity and the sense unity. It is a peculiar fact, but undoubtedly true, that the act of hero celebration tells us more about ourselves than the hero in question.
Ambrose, S. E. Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors (1996). University of New York, New York
Carlyle, T (1840) Lectures on Heroes – Lecture 1[Lecture transcript]
Cubitt, G. Heroic Reputations and Exemplary Lives (2003). Manchester University Press, Manchester
Houghton, W. E. The Victorian frame of mind, 1830–1870 (1957), Ch. 12 (Hero-worship).
MacDonald, I. The New Shostakovich (2006). Plimco Publishing, London
MacMillan, M. The Uses and Abuses of History (2009) Profile Books Ltd. Suffolk
Man, J. Genghis Khan - Life, Death and Resurrection (2005). Bantam Press, London
Pryor, F. Britain BC: Life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans (2003). Harper Perennial, London
Yorke, B. Alfred the Great: The Most Perfect Man in History? History Today Magazine Available at .
Yorke, B. ‘Alfredism: the use and abuse of King Alfred’s reputation in later centuries’, in T. Reuter (ed.), Alfred the Great: papers from the eleventh-centenary conferences (Aldershot, 2003), chap. 21 (on King Alfred, d. 899).