History ArtisticLicenseHistory / Theatre

** Many of the Congressmen were cut because there were over fifty of them and they just wouldn't fit. Some of Sam Adams' traits were combined with his cousin John, including his eerily accurate prediction of the UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar.

** For starters, Abigail Williams and most of the other accusers were children around 10-12 years old, not in their late teens as they are in the play (Mary Warren was the only one who really was 17) -- Miller himself admitted to [[AgeLift changing some characters' ages]]. Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. In fact, the whole idea that the entirety of the Salem Witch Trials was born from a plot by Abigail is extremely questionable; for one thing, the whole situation is generally believed to have been a lot more complicated and less deliberate than that, but also, if ''any'' one girl could be pointed to as any sort of ringleader or the one who started it, historical records suggest that it was most likely Ann Putnam or Betty Parris, not Abigail. (This would further make sense because Ann and Betty, as the daughters of influential men, would have likely had more influence over the community than Abigail, who was an orphan ward of Betty's parents.)

** For starters, Abigail Williams and most of the other accusers were children around 10-12 years old, not in their late teens as they are in the play (Mary Warren was the only one who really was 17) -- Miller himself admitted to [[AgeLift changing some characters' ages]]. Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. In fact, the whole idea that the entirety of the Salem Witch Trials was born from a plot by Abigail is extremely questionable; for one thing, the whole situation is generally believed to have been a lot more complicated and less deliberate than that, but also, if ''any'' one girl could be pointed to as any sort of ringleader or the one who started it, historical records suggest that it was most likely Ann Putnam or Betty Parris, not Abigail. (This would further make sense because Ann and Betty were the daughters of high-status families.)

** John and Elizabeth Proctor were much more active in trying to stop the nonsense, and this is likely what actually led to them being accused. However, it is true that John was hanged, while Elizabeth was not allowed to be executed as she was pregnant; by the time she had given birth, the hysteria had run its course and she was released.

** For starters, Abigail Williams and most of the other accusers were children around 10-12 years old, not in their late teens as they are in the play (Mary Warren was the only one who really was 17) -- Miller himself admitted to [[AgeLift changing some characters' ages]]. Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. In fact, the whole idea that the entirety of the Salem Witch Trials was born from a plot by Abigail is extremely questionable; for one thing, the whole situation is generally believed to have been a lot more complicated and less deliberate than that, but also, if ''any'' one girl could be pointed to as any sort of ringleader or the one who started it, historical records suggest that it was most likely Ann Putnam or Betty Parris, not Abigail.

** John and Elizabeth Proctor tried very hard to stop this nonsense, but John was hanged long before the craze died, and Elizabeth only escaped on account of pregnancy, being released once the hysteria ran its course.
** Its attempt to connect the Salem Witch trials to the RedScare, which -- in spite of its justification in pointing out some facts -- has opened it up to a counterattack by those who point out that [[BrokenAesop Communist spies in the Western governments were not imaginary creatures]], though the hunts for them did cause considerable collateral damage.

** For starters, Abigail Williams and most of the other accusers (Mary Warren, who really was 17, being the exception) were children, not in their late teens as they are in the play. (Miller himself admitted this.) Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. In fact, the whole idea that the entirety of the Salem Witch Trials was born from a plot by Abigail is extremely questionable; for one thing, the whole situation is generally believed to have been a lot more complicated and less deliberate than that, but also, if ''any'' one girl could be pointed to as any sort of ringleader or the one who started it, historical records suggest that it was most likely Ann Putnam or Betty Parris, not Abigail.

** Hal's single combat with Hotspur at the Battle of Shrewsbury in ''Henry IV: Part 1'' is a total dramatic fabrication. Not only does Shakespeare portray them as the same age when Hotspur was really decades older, but in reality, rather than personally cross swords, both men were felled by arrows to the face (Henry barely survived; Hotspur wasn't so lucky).
** Shakespeare has King John say, "The thunder of my cannon shall be heard" in France. The first English cannons were used at the battle of Crécy in 1346 – 130 years after the death of King John. Cannon are also mentioned in ''Theatre/{{Hamlet}}'' which is set in the 11th century, well before gunpowder was introduced in Europe.

** Shakespeare's portrayal of Henry V as a wild vagabond when he was the heir to the throne is also inaccurate. Henry was always the same duty bound, serious man his whole life.
*** Likewise, Hal's single combat with Hotspur at the Battle of Shrewsbury in ''Henry IV: Part 1'' is a total dramatic fabrication. Not only does Shakespeare portray them as the same age when Hotspur was really decades older, but in reality, rather than personally cross swords, both men were felled by arrows to the face (Henry barely survived; Hotspur wasn't so lucky).

** The Romans in ''Theatre/JuliusCaesar'', who wore nightcaps and used clocks.

** ''Theatre/{{Macbeth}}'' changes Duncan from a young, violent invader to a wise old king, telescopes Macbeth's 17-year reign into two years, creates Lady Macbeth almost from whole cloth, and reimagines the Stuart family tree.
** King James was supposedly descended from Banquo through his son Fleance. ''Theatre/{{Macbeth}}'' was commissioned by James, who paid Shakespeare a king's ransom to write and stage it. [[ExecutiveMeddling Naturally Shakespeare would throw in things that would please James.]] This is also why at the end of the original play, Shakespeare put on another play showing the descent of the Stuarts from Fleance through to James VI. Total nonsense, but James and Shakespeare both liked it.

** ''Theatre/{{Macbeth}}'' changes Duncan from a young, violent invader to a wise old king, telescopes Macbeth's 17-year reign into two years, creates Lady Macbeth almost from whole cloth, and reimagines the Stuart family tree.

** The film version starring Laurence Olivier even admits it is inaccurate at the beginning but basically says they're telling it because it's a good story and keeps history interesting.

* When Creator/WilliamShakespeare tackles history, history usually loses. However, it's hard to fault him given his often-stated intent to entertain people. It's more of a failure when modern writers use Shakespeare as a definitive authority, something he himself might not have appreciated. Shakespeare was patronized by the British monarchy (in spite of ''possibly'' not being a good Protestant). He knew exactly what side his bread was buttered on.

** ''Theatre/RichardIII'' is Tudor propaganda based on dubious sources.
*** It is justifiable enough for Shakespeare to identify Richard as the man who gave the order for the death of his nephews, since to this day we don't know exactly who did it. But he hugely exaggerates Richard's deformity, calling him a hunchback when actually Richard had scoliosis, and inventing a withered arm out of nowhere.
*** Much of what he says about UsefulNotes/RichardIII was already "Common Knowledge" at this point, so it's not all his fault. As hinted above, the guy who deposed Richard III was Henry VII, Elizabeth I's grandfather. So it wouldn't have been a good idea to try and paint a positive picture of Richard III.

* When Creator/WilliamShakespeare tackles history, history usually loses. However, it's hard to fault him given his often-stated intent to entertain people. It's more of a failure when modern writers use Shakespeare as a definitive authority, something he himself might not have appreciated.
** Shakespeare was patronized by the British monarchy (in spite of ''possibly'' not being a good Protestant). He knew exactly what side his bread was buttered on. Creator/DanBrown is offended at being compared to Shakespeare because -- as he points out -- he gets things like geography and clothing accurate. [[DanBrowned Usually.]]

** ''Theatre/RichardIII'' is Tudor propaganda based on dubious sources. It is justifiable enough for Shakespeare to identify Richard as the man who gave the order for the death of his nephews, since to this day we don't know exactly who did it. But he hugely exaggerates Richard's deformity, calling him a hunchback when actually Richard had scoliosis, and inventing a withered arm out of nowhere.

** For starters, Abigail Williams and most of the other accusers (Mary Warren, who really was 17, being the exception) were children, not in their late teens as they are in the play. (Miller himself admitted this.) Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. In fact, the whole idea that the entire situation was a plot by Abigail is extremely questionable; for one thing, the whole situation is generally believed to have been a lot more complicated and less deliberate than that, but also, if ''any'' one girl could be pointed to as any sort of ringleader or the one who started it, historical records suggest that it was most likely Ann Putnam or Betty Parris, not Abigail.

** For starters, Abigail Williams and most of the other accusers (Mary Warren being the exception) were children, not in their mid-teens as they are in the play. (Miller himself admitted this.) Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. (It's also generally believed that if any of the girls was a ringleader, it was probably Ann Putnam, not Abigail.)

* ''Theatre/{{Hamilton}}'' in general strives to be as historically accurate as possible, but squeezing together a person's entire life into a single two-act show was always going to reuire some consolidation, which Lin-Manuel Miranda is pretty open about admitting.
** ''Aaron Burr, Sir'' plays pretty fast and loose with the timeline regarding the beginning of the war (in reality, it had started by now, but Hamilton acts as though it hasn't), and simplifies Hamilton's friend situation greatly: in real life, he really did meet Hercules Mulligan shortly after arriving in America, but he didn't meet Laurens and Lafayette until he joined as Washington's aide, and they weren't really friends with Mulligan. Notably, Chernow was apparently resistant to the latter change, and earlier drafts have Hamilton only meeting Mulligan during this song, but presumably it would've split up the action too much to have another meeting later.
** ''Satisfied'' claims that Angelica doesn't have any brothers and wasn't married when she met Alexander - in reality, she did and she was. Miranda has stated outright that he changed this because he felt it was way more dramatically interesting if she and Alexander really could have gotten together at some point.
** The depiction of the Laurens/Lee duel was also changed a fair bit: it actually happened before Hamilton got married, and not only was Washington not really upset about it, even Lee himself apparently only gained respect for Laurens afterwards. While Hamilton did quit the army at one point, that didn't happen until much later, and it was simply a result of Hamilton's growing frustration at being refused command having reached breaking point. Of course, the duel was necessary to set up the correct way a duel is to be run for contrast in later songs, to give some dramatic reason for Hamilton's departure, and to show off the strained Hamilton/Washington relationship of the time.
** There were actually two elections where Jefferson and Burr ran against one another, in 1800 and 1804. [[spoiler:Phillip Hamilton died in between them]], and it was after the latter that the Hamilton/Burr dueled happened, so for obvious reasons of time and drama they were consolidated into a single election.
** The musical makes Burr ''much'' more remorseful about shooting Hamilton than he actually was. In real life, despite the occasional show of regret, he was fairly cavalier about the duel and its outcome, sometimes even making jokes about it. This change was probably made because Burr is the narrator--he's almost always onstage, and so he can't be ''too'' unlikable or no one will enjoy the show.
** The musical also makes Hamilton far more "progressive" than he was. The show gives the impression that he was as serious an abolitionist as his friend John Laurens, purely on the basis of the real-life Hamilton's involvement in the New York Manumission Society. In truth, Hamilton never once made any serious speeches for abolition publicly nor wrote any articles to such an effect, or ever proposed policies for it, because as historian Eric Foner noted, he cared far more about property rights and elitism than abolitionism. The show also makes much of Hamilton's immigrant origins to make him relatable when Hamilton in fact made it harder for immigrants to settle, and that it was Aaron Burr who was more important on that front.

** For starters, Abigail and most of the other accusers (Mary Warren being the exception) were children, not in their mid-teens as they are in the play. (Miller himself admitted this.) Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. (It's also generally believed that if any of the girls was a ringleader, it was probably Ann Putnam, not Abigail.)

** For starters, Abigail and friends were children, not teenagers as in the play. (Miller himself admitted this.) Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. (It's also generally believed that if any of the girls was a ringleader, it was probably Ann Putnam, not Abigail.)

** For starters, Abigail and friends were children, not teenagers as in the play. (Miller himself admitted this.) Also, while the girls' true motives are unknown, Abigail did not have an affair with John Proctor, so it's a safe bet that it ''wasn't'' a scheme to MurderTheHypotenuse. (It's also generally believed that if any of the girls was the ringleader, it was probably Ann Putnam, not Abigail.)

** For starters, Abigail and friends were children, not teenagers as in the play. (Miller himself admitted this.)

** In the opera, Sultan Murad has one daughter called Asteria. In real life, he is known to have had had several daughters, but none of them by the name of Asteria.

** ''Theatre/RichardIII'' is Tudor propaganda based on dubious sources. Other than Richard's accession and defeat at Bosworth Field, the Bard gets everything wrong.
*** The story of the Princes in the Tower is [[http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=50 questionable]].

*** And read books with pages, as well as the entire events of Caesar's murder, burial, and arrival of Octavius all being compressed into the same day, the actual events occurring within the period of a month.
*** Books with pages aren't as bad a problem as usually assumed -- vellum codexes bound in wood did exist in the Roman times.

** The musical also makes Hamilton far more "progressive" than he was. The show gives the impression that he was as serious an abolitionist as his friend John Laurens, purely on the basis of the real-life Hamilton's involvement in the New York Manumission Society. In truth, Hamilton never once made any serious speeches against abolition publicly nor wrote any articles to such an effect, or ever proposed policies against it, because as historian Eric Foner noted, he cared far more about property rights and elitism than abolitionism. The show also makes much of Hamilton's immigrant origins to make him relatable when Hamilton in fact made it harder for immigrants to settle, and that it was Aaron Burr who was more important on that front.

*** Likewise, Hal's single combat with Hotspur at the Battle of Shrewsbury in ''Henry VI: Part 1'' is a total dramatic fabrication. Not only does Shakespeare portray them as the same age when Hotspur was really decades older, but in reality, rather than personally cross swords, both men were felled by arrows to the face (Henry barely survived; Hotspur wasn't so lucky).

* The verismo opera ''Andrea Chenier'' by Umberto Giordano makes numerous changes to the historical record:

** The opera portrays Chenier as a Girondin and Girondin sympathizer as well as a Republican, and someone who is critical of royalists. The real-life Chenier was a royalist constitutional monarchist who loathed both the Girondins and the Jacobins, served as a writer for the defense of UsefulNotes/LouisXVI during his trial. It's likely that the opera blends Andre with his AdaptedOut brother Marie-Joseph Chenier who ''was'' a Republican, an ally initially of Girondins but later worked with Robespierre during his Festival of the Supreme Being, which presents its own problems.
** The opera also has anachronistic touches such as Incroyables and Merveilluses in Paris during the Terror, when both of them were fashions of aristocratic and bourgeois men and women that were specifically counter-revolutionary in intent and date from the Thermidor and Directory periods. Later productions such as the 2016 David [=McVicar=] one also feature Robespierre prominently involved in Chenier's arrest and execution when at the time Robespierre was absent from the Committee of Public Safety for more than a month as a result of illness (or sulking in protest depending on the historian) and he had no involvement in the latter's death. The 2016 production also attributes a fake quote to Robespierre which justifies Chenier's death by stating, "Even Plato banned the poets from his Republic" which has never been traced to any of Robespierre's speeches.