5 Historical Figures You're Picturing Almost Exactly Wrong

The p...

The problem with our perception of history is that, over the years, the combined forces of Hollywood, gossip, and biased sources have come together to form an indestructible Voltron of ignorance that does nothing but shoot historical inaccuracy into our brains. As a result, many skewed images of famous people have been accepted as "common knowledge" in our cultural imagination despite being completely and provably wrong.
And we don't mean little things like everyone getting Shakespeare's hair color wrong. We're talking about the defining traits of the people who made history. For instance ...

#5. Braveheart's William Wallace Was Actually a Rich Landowner Who Wore Armor

J R Skelton

What You Think:
William Wallace has been Scotland's national hero for centuries, but let's be honest: most of us know about him thanks to the movie Braveheart, which makes Wallace out to be a blue-faced, half-naked highlander with all of the murderous, wild-eyed passion of the actual Mel Gibson. However, while the movie obviously took some liberties with his story, it ultimately portrayed the man as an underdog revolutionary leader, which is probably somewhat close to the historical truth, right?

20th Century Fox
Picture a mix between Robin Hood and Che Guevara, only with more swords and less underwear.

He is portrayed as a common farmer, whose father and wife are both killed by the evil king. He is thus forced to put together a rag-tag band of impoverished misfits to fight the evil empire as best they can. And at least one dude gets stabbed in the dick.
But Actually:
First of all, Wallace wasn't an unwashed commoner in a shit-caked kilt. He was an unwashed knight hailing from a privileged family, and he wore expensive armor. As we've explained before, the kilt wouldn't even exist until 400 years after Wallace's death, and in medieval times, plaid wool skirts would have been about as useful on the battlefield as Nerf swords.

20th Century Fox
Though they would have come in handy during those sudden diarrhea attacks.

As a prominent landowner whose father most likely served in the household of King David I, Wallace's killin' getup would have consisted of gauntlets, a helmet, and custom-made plate armor. And once he was appointed "Guardian of Scotland," the de facto Scottish head of state, chances are you wouldn't find a trace of caked shit anywhere on his shiny, metal breeches.
Most of Braveheart's take on Wallace actually comes from The Wallace, a romanticized (meaning: "made up") poem written over 170 years after his death by a poet named Blind Harry. More reliable sources, on the other hand, paint a vastly different portrait of Wallace: that of an impetuous, hotheaded knight, "pleasing in appearance but with a wild look," and sporting a giant beard.

Spisak Bence, Ian Gavan/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images
In conclusion, the movie's casting was perfect, though a bit premature.

#4. Cleopatra Was Not Beautiful

Alexandre Cabanel

What You Think:
Even after 2,000 years, Cleopatra's reputation as one of the most beautiful, sexiest women ever persists more than the throbbing boners she gave men like Caesar and Mark Antony. Hell, Mark Antony was so taken by Cleopatra's beauty that he was willing to fight a losing war with Rome rather than give up her vaguely exotic vagina.

20th Century Fox
"Veni."

But Actually:
If "Hot or Not" had been around in ancient Rome, Cleopatra would have been about a 6, maybe a 7 after a few jugs of some strong Roman wine. See, Cleopatra's ancestors loved them some incest (it is a game for the whole family, after all), and generations of inbreeding had made the Ptolemies of Egypt some famously ugly motherfuckers. Cleopatra was reportedly above average for her family, but even sorta-contemporaries like Plutarch reported that the general opinion at the time was her beauty was "not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her." Coins bearing her image show her as rather butch and hook-nosed, leaving modern historians to describe her with tortured euphemisms like "majestic."

World Imaging
"She also had a great personality."

Despite being kind of "meh" in the face department, Cleopatra was renowned for being able to get into the head (and pants) of any guy she wanted using only her wits. Seduction and manipulation came to her as easily as breathing, and it frightened Romans that a woman, a plain one at that, could out-politician them with nothing but the power of her brain, which ancient scientists weren't even sure women possessed. In other words, it was simply less damaging to their egos to reduce Cleopatra's shrewd intellect to, "She was really hot, bro." Strategy and charisma are male traits, dammit!

#3. The Real Buddha Was a Somber Guy With an Average Body Type

Steve46814/Wikimedia

What You Think:
Go to any Chinese restaurant and you'll have to endure a fat ol' Buddha statue, laughing and smiling as if to remind you of the long-term effects of Kung Pao chicken on the human body. Apparently, after becoming one with the universe, the Buddha felt that all his ideas about "moderation" were dumb and proceeded to really let himself go. At least he seems happy with his destructive lifestyle choices:

GR8DAN/Wikimedia
"I'm not laughing! I'm having a stroke! Call 911!"

But Actually:
The "Laughing Buddha" you're thinking of is actually a happy soul called "Budai," an eccentric Chinese monk known for his joyful, loving personality. He's a popular symbol of happiness, satisfaction, and abundance in China, which is why Chinese restaurants in the West often treat their guests to the sight of a big Budai while they eat. And because "Budai" and "Buddha" sound alike, over time ordinary folks made the mistake of confusing the constantly smiling fat guy for the symbol of Buddhism, the belief system that teaches that happiness brings you closer to enlightenment.

Prabhu, Puducherry/Wikimedia
And what is happiness if not a bucket of KFC and a case of beer?

There is also the important distinction between "a Buddha" and "the Buddha." Siddhartha Gautama was the guy who conceived the philosophy of Buddhism, and he is what Buddhist mean when they're talking about the Buddha. However, because Budai is considered to have achieved Nirvana, he (like hundreds of other monks) is officially designated as a Buddha, just not the original one. They're similar, but you shouldn't mix up the two, because that's like confusing Jesus with Santa Claus.
The real Siddhartha Gautama spent large portions of his life living in both luxury and severe poverty, and the lesson he learned from those experiences was a resounding "screw that" to both of them. The essence of Buddhism has always been The Middle Way and finding a happy middle between two extremes. That's why, despite "skeleton Buddha" statues depicting Siddhartha's lean years being quite popular in Asia, the historical Buddha probably wouldn't want them or Budai to represent him. Someone with the physique of Will Ferrell would be way closer to the mark.