∞VickyWyman

1) Commodus has the distinction of being the first emperor in a long time who was actually blood-related to the previous one. Marcus Aurelias was his father. But Commodus did not murder that father. In fact, they co-ruled for three years. And when Aurelias died, Commodus wasn't even in town. Commodus *was* a tyrant, mostly because he was something of a party-boy and did not know how to deal with the rampant political corruption surrounding him. He was, as someone put it, a gladiator fanboy and fought in the arena, charging the city of Rome staggering sums of money every time he did so. He also had his opponents prepared so that he was less likely to lose, often choosing cripples and half-starved criminals. He was not well thought of for this behavior. It's a little like a US president participating in WWF with the fights rigged. But he was even less well thought of for devaluing Roman currency. He was assassinated in his bath by a gladiator-servant and his death released a deluge of bloodshed and political chaos that continued for many years.

2) The problem with Frank Hopkins is that he wrote his own history. In a time of glamorized western novels, which saw the birth of many equally over-glamorized figures such as Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, Hopkins was just another paperback hero glorified for eastern public consumption. He claimed to have had many thrilling adventures in his book, but the only part that could be varified was that he was a reasonably successful long-distance rider in the United States. There is no record of him participating in such races overseas, in Arabia or anywhere else. His connection to Wounded Knee is a Hollywood fabrication.

3) Allowing for over-dramatizations and some condensing of time, "Patton" is generally a pretty accurate movie.

4) Robin Hood is a conglomerate character, made up from the legends of a lot of highway men. In fact, it was common practice to call all thieves "Robin". So while there was no Robin of Locksley, there was likely a whole flotilla of Robin Hoods, all of them condensed-down into the story of one man which is the one we now remember.

But my question wasn't about Robin Hood. It was about King Richard and of course he wasn't a ideal king. That's a bunch of pseudo-patriotic hooey the Victorians sold themselves starting around the middle of the 19th century. In fact, Richard didn't give a damn about England. He even offered to sell it once. And he spent less than a year there during his entire reign. His antipathy towards the country probably stems from arguments with his father, Henry II, who did in fact give a damn about England. Richard gave control to younger brother John and did not give a damn what that younger brother did, so long as he got money for his crusades. He was also captured and held for a ransom so great, it damn near bankrupted his country. He died before he could return to England. And the thing that finally "set things right" with Bad Prince John was a piece of parchment called the Magna Carta.

5) Johnny Ringo was indeed a member of the Cowboys, an outlaw gang that rustled cattle, committed highway robberies and generally annoyed the people of Tombstone with their drunken antics, but there is no indication that he was a dangerous psychopath. He did come to the attention of Wyatt Earp, since Earp was in fact sheriff of Tombstone at that time, and was pursued along with a number of other Cowboys as part of a general clean-up of the territory. Ringo was later found dead from a bullet wound to the head, but there was no indication of who actually shot him.

In fact, there has been speculation lately that Ringo might have been a suicide. He was discovered without his horse and his boots, so faced a rather grisly fate had he not taken matters into his own hands.

6) The story of Becket has its roots in a political tug of war between Henry II and the Catholic Church that had been going on for years. The Church saw itself as a leveling influence in Europe. One capable of reigning-in the excesses of Catholic kings by threatening them with divine retribution. The Church exerted so much influence, they were in direct competition with those kings and Henry, for one, didn't much like that. When he saw a way of tipping things in his favor, he did not hesitate to place a crony in the post of archbishop of Canterbury.

Thomas Becket was not only a crony of Henry II, he was both a Saxon (the member of a defeated race) and a commoner. --Sometime Henry never tired of twitting him about. And although Becket and Henry were friends, Henry was definitely the dominate personality in that friendship. In fact, he was something of a bully. So when Becket got a chance to get out from under Henry, he did not hesitate. He sided with the Church, who was in every way Henry's political equal.

When this happened, Henry was furious. He had *made* Becket, which --in his opinion at least-- made Becket his creature. Henry was prone to fits of temper just as he was prone to getting drunk, so he did indeed make a veiled request to his lords that they should find Becket and kill him.

Unfortunately for Henry, the assassination blew up in his face. Becket was being declared a saint before his blood was dry on the cathedral floor. The Church was quick to capitalize on Becket and make this rebellious king to tow the line, so Henry was forced to accept his penance.

In other words, the movie was dramatized, but pretty much on point.