Augustus
…
The problem is that people want saints rather than heroes.
A hero is someone who achieves greatness by accomplishing something important and praiseworthy.
A saint achieves something while living a pure and flawless life.
It's no wonder that people had to create semi-fictional biographies for the actual saints, purely noble people seldom exist, and certainly not when they are re-evaluated by every subsequent generation according to the new standards of a society.
In addition, people like to tear down the icons of the previous generation, or the icons of the 'other side', as destruction is fun, especially when it comes with an air of self-righteous superiority. So you see people trying to cancel Churchill, Lincoln, Ghandi, etc.
Recognising the flaws of great people is healthy though. It reminds us that we are all flawed, and to be less judgemental as our mistakes don't define us. It also is a good way to understand the changing values of past societies.
I think we should celebrate people's great achievements, and if they did things wrong we can learn about those too.
I think it is important for societies to have inspirational figures, and also those who help tell the story (or perhaps mythos) of a society.
What is celebrated is how they changed society for the better (and they are often really a personification of a much broader series of actors). We don't need them to be saints, and there needn't be a choice between promoting only whitewashed hagiography or them being cancelled.
)
