Deckman: But often the myth or the songs drive the passions, so you end up with a "feedback loop".

The number of people I've met who think that "Braveheart", for instance, is an accurate depiction of Wallace's life, is worryingly high. It's fine for the myth to be there, and to be celebrated in song, as long as it doesn't take the place of the history. If the myth (and that can include some representations of history) is *all* that people encounter, the myth can morph into an almost unshakeabl "reality".


Jim C said: History can be got from books while myth is invariably the record of aspiration.
History is usually written by winners so who is to say which is more important - or accurate for that matter?

I'd agree with the first sentence but not with the second. Yes, how history is presented is often skewed by those who succeeded in a certain arena, but the basic facts (or at least some of them) still underly the events and make it possible for a disinterested researcher (or an iconoclast) to review and re-present what happened. In some cases physical or documentary evidence may have been destroyed or manipulated by the "victors", but overall, it's almost invariably a fair bet that the original source material is far more accurate than the myth.

It doesn't make a song any less powerful, though. The sentiment behind, say, "John Condon" is still valid, even though we now know from census records and his birth certificate that John Condon was 18, not 14, when he died, that he'd joined the British army before the war even started and that the strong likelihood is that the body in the grave at isn't even his. All put together by diligent research into source material. I'll still sing the song, though.