History and Fiction

      History and fiction seem diametrically opposed. History, by definition, happened. Fiction did not.
History is events, and the objects left behind by people that tell us about the past. Fiction is a story, told to entertain, demonstrate a point (allegory) or illustrate an abstract concept (myths) beyond the current understanding of the audience.
On the surface, this is accurate.
     History is George Washington being Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Fiction is the story about young George cutting down his farther's cherry
tree and not lying about it, which demonstrates his honesty. History is the Romans withdrawing from Britannia in 410 CE. Fiction is the 2004 movie "King Arthur" with Clive Owen and Keira Knightly. 
This is where the phrase "History is written by the victors" rears its ugly head. It is human nature to inflate success, and to downplay (even deny) the accomplishments of our adversaries, especially if doing so makes the storyteller look better. Such stories cross the border between fiction and lying, as they are meant to influence perception of events. Several accounts of battles in ancient Egypt disagree with records from other cultures about who won.
      Somewhere between these two rests "historical fiction". The story told in Esther Forbes' 1943 novel "Johnny Tremain" didn't actually happen. Johnny, the Lapham family, and their silversmith shop never existed, but the wider events that happen around this fictional character during the run-up to the American Revolution did happen, and the personal events of "Johnny's" life are a reflection of things that might have been experienced by a real silversmith's apprentice.