Why isn't there (much of) a medieval super power genre?

[Aeson]

I must be forgetting the time that Spiderman quit the Avengers because Captain America insisted on seizing his favorite sex slave.

If you reduce 'superhero' to 'person with supernatural powers' than yes, every mythological hero in human history is a superhero. This is probably about as useless as describing every person with supernatural powers as a mythological hero. You'd be annoyed if you wanted somebody to recommend a superhero story and somebody insisted that no, really the Iliad is just the best and everything else is totally a ripoff, just as I'd be annoyed if I was looking for mythology and somebody wouldn't shut up about Superman.

More specifically, it seems to me that superhero has a number of important trappings besides person with supernatural powers; things like costumes, fighting crime - not a big theme in Homer - themed powers often described by their name, an apparent propensity for retconning every person ever to die back from the grave, and so on.

More subtly, I think they are generally characters who are deliberately removed or isolated from a familiar world by the fact of their powers. Hence the alternative names, costumes, frequent secret identities and so on. This is not particularly common in mythological heroes, or indeed medieval fantasy heroes, who tend to be entirely integrated into their worlds. Achilles isn't a persona, secret identity or set of powers; he's a singular, particular individual named Achilles, a name attested in Greek going back to Linear B. And his fundamental problems are basically the same as every other Joe Schmoecles at Troy; how to deal with a long hopeless war, incompetent egotistical commanders, and the deaths of friends. In a martial society these are genuinely ordinary problems to deal with. You can extract and generalize these problems pretty directly from the Trojan War to the war of your choice - people use Homer to understand modern wars. Spiderman's problems are really not the problems of any old high schooler. Sure it may feel like the weight of the world is dropped on your head, but it isn't literal.

The OP didn't ask for a 'medievalesque setting with modern-type superheroes,' though - they asked for a 'medievalesque setting with superpowers.'

[Lord Raziere]

The OP didn't ask for a 'medievalesque setting with modern-type superheroes,' though - they asked for a 'medievalesque setting with superpowers.'

Easy to create. Any specific powers? anything that shouldn't be included? Any other preferences? If it doesn't exist, make it.

[TripleD]

I think that's Gawain, not Kay. Kay was the guy who had to run Camelot and never got any free time to go do knightly stuff, since he was apparently the only one Arthur trusted to not run off with the silver.

Double checked, and it was Kay, but only in the old Welsh stuff (when he was known as Cai). He later got downgraded when Lancelot, Galahad, and the other, more well known knights were added later.

[truemane]

I think that the superhero genre is impossible to disentangle from capitalism, democracy social mobility, and, to a lesser extent, mass media. The idea that a mild-mannered reporter is actually a flying, super-strong, world-travelling crime fighter works fine as a fantasy. We can all imagine ourselves as someone IMPORTANT who chooses to be unimportant (but comfortable and safe and warm and washed) in our off-hours, having done our bit to defend the kind life that we, ourselves, get to enjoy.

But that just doesn't jive with feudalism. What peasant serf is going to work 14 hours a day of back-breaking, labour for a noble that just takes a massive percentage for taxes, and then go fighting highway robbers and then go back to Sisyphean turnip farming?

The foundational conceit of the super-hero genre is, really, that society works and is worth defending. It's "truth, justice, and the America Way" yeah? Muggers and robbers and Lex Luthor are anomalies in what is, otherwise, a pretty great world. But there's nothing worth defending with that level of zeal in the Middle Ages.

And I also don't think superhero stories work without television. I think there almost needs to be an in-universe 'objective' record of super-heroic activities for the whole thing to work.

[Eldan]

I'm not so sure about that. Rebel superheroes who fight against tyranny are a thing. And if Batman qualifies as a superhero, wouldn't Zorro? And then, from that, what about the Scarlet Pimpernel? Robin Hood?

[Reddish Mage]

...that just doesn't jive with feudalism. What peasant serf is going to work 14 hours a day of back-breaking, labour for a noble that just takes a massive percentage for taxes, and then go fighting highway robbers and then go back to Sisyphean turnip farming?

The foundational conceit of the super-hero genre is, really, that society works and is worth defending. It's "truth, justice, and the America Way" yeah? Muggers and robbers and Lex Luthor are anomalies in what is, otherwise, a pretty great world. But there's nothing worth defending with that level of zeal in the Middle Ages.

And I also don't think superhero stories work without television. I think there almost needs to be an in-universe 'objective' record of super-heroic activities for the whole thing to work.

The problem with this analysis is that it can’t explain how you actually have original superhero comics written by Marvel and DC that take place in a medieval setting. Moreover, as previously mentioned, animanga has a lot of fantasy settings that draw heavy inspiration from the superheroes.

Finally, superheroes come out in the 1930’s, well before television. Superman was a comic but became a household name from his radio program.

I'm not so sure about that. Rebel superheroes who fight against tyranny are a thing. And if Batman qualifies as a superhero, wouldn't Zorro? And then, from that, what about the Scarlet Pimpernel? Robin Hood?

No. While Robin Hood and Scarlet Pimpernel may be legitimate heroic vigilante stories (complete with secret identities), but they are not super as that sort of story with all its trappings don’t yet exist.

Yes, there is plenty of overlaps between Hercules, King Arthur, Robin Hood, romantic knight stories, and for that matter, Sherlock Holmes. However, there is a difference between a story of heroism, even exceptionally capable heroes and the superhero. The latter was created in the 20th century with some a lot of different specific themes such as a 24/7 double life, a key weakness, a specific association with performing rescues and fighting crime. A similarly super archvillain with rather large ridiculous schemes.

You’ll find all these elements in earlier stories, but they won’t come together in quite the same way.

[hamishspence]

Zorro and the Pimpernel have many of the trappings of the superhero - but without supernatural powers.

Some pre-modern heroes have supernatural powers, but generally lack the secret identities.

It's the combo of the two that makes the superhero as we know it.

[deuterio12]

Zorro and the Pimpernel have many of the trappings of the superhero - but without supernatural powers.

Some pre-modern heroes have supernatural powers, but generally lack the secret identities.

It's the combo of the two that makes the superhero as we know it.

Plenty of modern superheros don't have supernatural powers (batman and iron man for starters, bonus points for they both being insanely popular).

Plenty of modern superheros don't have secret identities either (Fantastic Four, Black Panther, many X-men, wonder woman in several incarnations).

[Eldan]

My point is, though, that it doesn't seem that superpowers are strictly required for superheroes. Batman arguably doesn't have any, even if a lot of his deeds are very unlikely. Technology heroes like Iron Man or (classic) Blue Beetle are maybe super intelligent, but don't really have supernatural powers either, just tech. And there's various characters who are Just That Good, without anything supernatural being really put forward as an explanation, like Green Arrow, Punisher or Hawkeye. And finally magical heroes who learn magic traditions, not really unique powers, like, say, John Constantine.

And that makes the entire border between superhero and not superhero a lot more fluid.

[LibraryOgre]

Of course, arguably, D&D and its derivatives.

Fighters and thieves may fall into the more vigilante types, but Monks? Wizards? Sorcerers? Clerics? Depending on the edition you're playing, they look a lot like superheros.

I mean, consider a 5th edition warlock. They have a couple tricks they can only pull off once or twice per day (spell slots), but they also have a host of minor magical powers (cantrips) and some at-will biggies (invocations). Heck, I set up a He-man/She-Ra Warlock Pact, and it works fine (He-man would be another example of medieval-ish superpowers, though they've got the gamut in there... cyborgs and aliens and all the others).

Look at the 1st edition Monk... they're drawn DIRECTLY from the martial-arts-as-superheroes genre.

Or psychics of any edition.

[Bartmanhomer]

What about Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder? They have superpowers.

[Lord Raziere]

I think that the superhero genre is impossible to disentangle from capitalism, democracy social mobility, and, to a lesser extent, mass media. The idea that a mild-mannered reporter is actually a flying, super-strong, world-travelling crime fighter works fine as a fantasy. We can all imagine ourselves as someone IMPORTANT who chooses to be unimportant (but comfortable and safe and warm and washed) in our off-hours, having done our bit to defend the kind life that we, ourselves, get to enjoy.

But that just doesn't jive with feudalism. What peasant serf is going to work 14 hours a day of back-breaking, labour for a noble that just takes a massive percentage for taxes, and then go fighting highway robbers and then go back to Sisyphean turnip farming?

The foundational conceit of the super-hero genre is, really, that society works and is worth defending. It's "truth, justice, and the America Way" yeah? Muggers and robbers and Lex Luthor are anomalies in what is, otherwise, a pretty great world. But there's nothing worth defending with that level of zeal in the Middle Ages.

And I also don't think superhero stories work without television. I think there almost needs to be an in-universe 'objective' record of super-heroic activities for the whole thing to work.

You haven't read Superman: Red Son, The Authority or other such comics have you? the genre is full of examples of heroes sometimes turning rebel and overthrowing governments, doing some extreme things to change the world for the better, or heroes being jaded or critical of the society they protect and wish they could change more, things like that. granted things like Red Son are alternate universes and The Authority is apart of the Wildstormverse which isn't one of the big two, but there are examples of heroes that look at the modern world and go "this is so screwed up, why can't I change more?".

granted, its unlikely your turnip farmer would go back to turnip farming- thats boring after all and everyone in the medieval ages was bored even if superpowers probably makes it easier. but then some heroes don't really fight for the same things Supes fights for and would have some words to say about society that aren't loving even if they defend it, and they're not always mild-mannered civvies. some are celebrities, some work with the government, and some have situations where they can't hide what they are at all.

as for TV.....no? heroes still work with just spreading rumors and legends, granted they will probably exaggerate the stories over time, but people can still know of them. folk heroes are a thing after all.

granted, any medieval superhero is more likely to end up a knight-errant/ronin than staying in one place, but y'know, different times.

[Willie the Duck]

This is a question that might seem a little odd on the face of it, but bear with me. Medieval fantasy tends to have magic, which for some reason is either very mystical or codified into systems with elaborate explanations.

Modern fantasy can either use that form of magic, or super powers. Super powers are mostly none-repeating, and their explanations are either underexplored or contradictory (X-genes give you random magic powers, so does radiation and old statues.)

Future fantasy has psychic powers, which are usually very codified (everyone has the same powers.) Psychic powers can show up in modern and medieval fantasy.

I think we've shown plenty of counterexamples to all of this. There are plenty of examples from past literature/tales where individuals are a spandex uniform away from fitting the mold of super-power wielder (whether they fit the mold of modern superhero, and whether that conception is unique to the modern context, is something we can continue to debate, of course).

I think the part we will all agree with you is that there aren't all that many current, 20th-2st century fantasy* literature where the characters have powers akin to cape-and-domino-mask superheroes. Likewise, four-color comics rarely set anything but the occasional time-travel arc or flashback-for-unaging-character arc to far before the present.
*by which I mean ones set in worlds that are vaguely pre-electricity, and carrying a sword and castle (or similar) motif

Super powers are fairly rare in medieval fantasy, but I don't really know why. Xanth is the only one I can think of that really goes with medieval super powers. Cyclops makes as much sense as Merlin does in faux-England, and there aren't any issues placing wizards in modern fantasy (although rarely in future fantasy.)

I think this is because the basic conceit of hero 1 has 1-3 well defined and mostly constrained powers is something that sprang out of the episodic and visual medium that is comics. Cyclops as the guy who wears blue and yellow with the unusual faceplate and shoots the red rays out of his eyes (and when they don't work he turns to the lady in the black cape with white hair who has the lightning that comes from the sky or the bald guy who has strobing lines from his head which solve the problem of the day) are all things that, while not specific to four-color panels on a page (obviously, since we now have successful cartoons and movies of the same stuff), were necessitated by the medium.

As to why we don't also now have 'Cyclops, but in faux-England,' mostly I think it is simply that we have people to fit in those places (Merlin, Conan, Strider, Drizzt), and a place to fit Cyclops and Supes and Batman. So each only occasionally pops over into the others' realms, as some kind of subversion, aside, or parody.

[sktarq]

More subtly, I think they are generally characters who are deliberately removed or isolated from a familiar world by the fact of their powers. Hence the alternative names, costumes, frequent secret identities and so on. This is not particularly common in mythological heroes, or indeed medieval fantasy heroes, who tend to be entirely integrated into their worlds. Achilles isn't a persona, secret identity or set of powers; he's a singular, particular individual named Achilles, a name attested in Greek going back to Linear B. And his fundamental problems are basically the same as every other Joe Schmoecles at Troy; how to deal with a long hopeless war, incompetent egotistical commanders, and the deaths of friends. In a martial society these are genuinely ordinary problems to deal with. You can extract and generalize these problems pretty directly from the Trojan War to the war of your choice - people use Homer to understand modern wars. Spiderman's problems are really not the problems of any old high schooler. Sure it may feel like the weight of the world is dropped on your head, but it isn't literal.

Funny I would say that is just what makes the modern superhero part of our modern world. The tropes of secret identities (which is common but by no means a requirement) is a symptom of today's culture, or even more so mid 20th Century culture. One that is different than the cultures of "mythic hero" tropes. And tossing rocks from Ireland in order to drive giants back to Scotland or visa versa (making islands as a side effect) is the kind of fundamental problem every oats farmer had. The idea that modern heros are also tied into the medium is also deeply true. The medium of the skald, the orator, etc of the mythic hero is different than the era of serialized purchase by number non-personalized comics and later movies. Those changes in medium cause changes in the stories told. But yeah...i really do think Marvel, DC, Anime etc are very much filling the role of the "mythic hero" story slot in the modern day....in 1000 years people will have (to us) hilarious opinions of how they fit into our societies and the "very serious" scholars of that future day will argue about the tithes paid to the pantheons at the temples of Disney.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This is idle speculation, but I feel like there's probably some sort of systematic reason why so much manga and anime pivots towards this, probably related to how they're distanced from European mythology and approach it in a different way. Examples offhand: Scrapped Princess, Chrono Trigger, Sword Art Online (may or may not count because of the MMO aspect), Fushigi Yuugi, Rayearth, Magi...

Honestly, the influence of JRPGs probably helped as well, something that US Comics predated.

[Tom Kalbfus]

This is a question that might seem a little odd on the face of it, but bear with me. Medieval fantasy tends to have magic, which for some reason is either very mystical or codified into systems with elaborate explanations.

Modern fantasy can either use that form of magic, or super powers. Super powers are mostly none-repeating, and their explanations are either underexplored or contradictory (X-genes give you random magic powers, so does radiation and old statues.)

Future fantasy has psychic powers, which are usually very codified (everyone has the same powers.) Psychic powers can show up in modern and medieval fantasy.

Super powers are fairly rare in medieval fantasy, but I don't really know why. Xanth is the only one I can think of that really goes with medieval super powers. Cyclops makes as much sense as Merlin does in faux-England, and there aren't any issues placing wizards in modern fantasy (although rarely in future fantasy.)

Is Hercules a superhero? How about Thor, does he count as a medeaval superhero, Marvel comics uses him, and he looks pretty medeaval.

[Reddish Mage]

Zorro and the Pimpernel have many of the trappings of the superhero - but without supernatural powers.

Some pre-modern heroes have supernatural powers, but generally lack the secret identities.

It's the combo of the two that makes the superhero as we know it.

Plenty of modern superheros don't have supernatural powers (batman and iron man for starters, bonus points for they both being insanely popular).

Plenty of modern superheros don't have secret identities either (Fantastic Four, Black Panther, many X-men, wonder woman in several incarnations).

I would hesitate to sum up the tropes that make for a superhero. Instead I would point out the chain of influence. It is usually pretty clear who read Superman and his successors and then went and implemented core concepts in a new work.

It’s also clear that Superman was the first superhero work. The tropes started but did not end with the Actiom Comics.

You haven't read Superman: Red Son, The Authority or other such comics have you? the genre is full of examples of heroes sometimes turning rebel and overthrowing governments, doing some extreme things to change the world for the better, or heroes being jaded or critical of the society they protect and wish they could change more, things like that.

As you put in the next few sentences, These sorts of stories tend to occur in an alternative universe as a "what if" take. The stories are a deconstruction, a wild imagining, not a straightforward successor of the prior stories.

[LibraryOgre]

Is Hercules a superhero? How about Thor, does he count as a medeaval superhero, Marvel comics uses him, and he looks pretty medeaval.

They even give him faux-medieval diction, at times.

And, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but the stories of the Round Table pretty much do the trick of medieval super-heroes.

If you look at the 2e Legends and Lore (which includes Arthurian mythos), look through the characters

Arthur has stats like Captain America, and magic items to make him more powerful.
Merlin is a half-demon with magic.
Lancelot has huge stats, as well, a couple magic items, and is a level 18 fighter... there's little he can't face on his own.
Percival doesn't have special powers, save, perhaps, amazing luck
Gawaine grows more from dawn until noon.

[Iruka]

I would contend that the Baron Munchausen assembles a veritable team of Superheroes during his travels to meet the Grand Turk:

• Super-Speed
• Perfect Marksman
• Super-Strength
• Wind Control
• Invulnerability
• Fire Resistance

You can find similar setups in some traditional fairy tales. The "powers" being at times rather unconventional, like being able to drink unlimited amounts of liquid or freezing the surroundings unles his left ear was covered by his hat.

[Lord Raziere]

As you put in the next few sentences, These sorts of stories tend to occur in an alternative universe as a "what if" take. The stories are a deconstruction, a wild imagining, not a straightforward successor of the prior stories.

And yet, they are still apart of what superheroes are now. do we discard anything that subverts the Sacred First Version? Are we only allowed to define anything by its most tiringly archetypical, cliched and stale iterations, as if they were some kind of platonic form? Thats ridiculous. There is no platonic form from origins. an origin is nothing but a starting point, not something to look for as the prime example. things can move on, and have.

[Forum Explorer]

I must be forgetting the time that Spiderman quit the Avengers because Captain America insisted on seizing his favorite sex slave.

If you reduce 'superhero' to 'person with supernatural powers' than yes, every mythological hero in human history is a superhero. This is probably about as useless as describing every person with supernatural powers as a mythological hero. You'd be annoyed if you wanted somebody to recommend a superhero story and somebody insisted that no, really the Iliad is just the best and everything else is totally a ripoff, just as I'd be annoyed if I was looking for mythology and somebody wouldn't shut up about Superman.

More specifically, it seems to me that superhero has a number of important trappings besides person with supernatural powers; things like costumes, fighting crime - not a big theme in Homer - themed powers often described by their name, an apparent propensity for retconning every person ever to die back from the grave, and so on.

More subtly, I think they are generally characters who are deliberately removed or isolated from a familiar world by the fact of their powers. Hence the alternative names, costumes, frequent secret identities and so on. This is not particularly common in mythological heroes, or indeed medieval fantasy heroes, who tend to be entirely integrated into their worlds. Achilles isn't a persona, secret identity or set of powers; he's a singular, particular individual named Achilles, a name attested in Greek going back to Linear B. And his fundamental problems are basically the same as every other Joe Schmoecles at Troy; how to deal with a long hopeless war, incompetent egotistical commanders, and the deaths of friends. In a martial society these are genuinely ordinary problems to deal with. You can extract and generalize these problems pretty directly from the Trojan War to the war of your choice - people use Homer to understand modern wars. Spiderman's problems are really not the problems of any old high schooler. Sure it may feel like the weight of the world is dropped on your head, but it isn't literal.

Oh, you're missing out. That was the best Spiderman arc.

Now, overall, I disagree. Modern Superheroes deal with modern life. So there's things like fighting crime. But in medival society, crime isn't the main problem facing society. Instead it was stuff like fending off evil nobles, invaders, and monsters. Superheroes have secret identities, so they can deal with the problems of the everyman, and the problems of the powerful. But back in medival days, people didn't want their heroes to deal with everyday problems, they wanted them to deal with exalted problems.

I think that the superhero genre is impossible to disentangle from capitalism, democracy social mobility, and, to a lesser extent, mass media. The idea that a mild-mannered reporter is actually a flying, super-strong, world-travelling crime fighter works fine as a fantasy. We can all imagine ourselves as someone IMPORTANT who chooses to be unimportant (but comfortable and safe and warm and washed) in our off-hours, having done our bit to defend the kind life that we, ourselves, get to enjoy.

But that just doesn't jive with feudalism. What peasant serf is going to work 14 hours a day of back-breaking, labour for a noble that just takes a massive percentage for taxes, and then go fighting highway robbers and then go back to Sisyphean turnip farming?

The foundational conceit of the super-hero genre is, really, that society works and is worth defending. It's "truth, justice, and the America Way" yeah? Muggers and robbers and Lex Luthor are anomalies in what is, otherwise, a pretty great world. But there's nothing worth defending with that level of zeal in the Middle Ages.

And I also don't think superhero stories work without television. I think there almost needs to be an in-universe 'objective' record of super-heroic activities for the whole thing to work.

I would disagree again. I don't think the whole society working thing is needed, and nor is the capitalism, democracy, or mass media needed either.

But it comes down to what you boil what a superhero story down to. To that I ask, what is the difference between Spiderman and Harry Dresden? One is clearly a superhero, and one is clearly modern fantasy. So what is it that makes them so explicitly different?

[Lord Raziere]

But it comes down to what you boil what a superhero story down to. To that I ask, what is the difference between Spiderman and Harry Dresden? One is clearly a superhero, and one is clearly modern fantasy. So what is it that makes them so explicitly different?

Well, if I were to look at the differences:
Spiderman's exploits are known, but Harry Dresdens aren't, not outside the supernatural community. where Spiderman keeps people from knowing about his own identity but supernatural stuff in general is public, Dresden keeps the supernatural going on secret while not really hiding his identity at all, in fact he explicitly calls himself a wizard in his job description and lays out that he isn't an entertainer, people just don't believe him.

so Spiderman gets praise from the public from what he does and gets swing around being actiony, while Dresden only gets praise from people in the know while most people just see him as just another dude and he walks and drives cars like any other joe.

Dresden arguably does more morally ambiguous things, while Spiderman morally speaking is as close to Superman as your going to get in Marvel.

and while Spiderman doesn't really get paid for any superheroing he does, Dresden despite his goodness always makes sure to get a paycheck with the jobs he does.

Spidermans powers are unique, but Dresden due to having powers that other people have are apart of community of people who can do similar things and therefore can teach how to use them and pass on his experience and knowledge.

so if these differences count for anything, its that Dresdens apart of a community, he is apart of something wider and just one person of that community, the only unique part about him is what he uses that power for, while Spiderman is technically apart from the world in his power set in a way that Dresden isn't, because his powers are freak accident, so his entire work to stop villains will only last as long as his lifespan unless that freak accident is repeated with other people. Dresden is apart of something -a supernatural secret community with other wizards- but Spiderman is a lone figure and even if superheroes can be a community as Justice League and the Avengers prove, none of them can really transfer skills and abilities over to each other.

like, if the original Justice League breaks up and dies, its possible that Batman could train a new organization to be the Bat League to continue the fight, but they wouldn't be capable of the same things the Justice League would, the Green Lanterns only have so many rings to give out, and all the other members are pretty much one hit wonders.

the Avengers is in an oddly better situation: Captain america and Hulk could be replicated given enough testing and experimentation. Iron Man is not only replicable, he can be mass-produced if no other hero can, Hawkeye and such will probably pass on their skills to somebody eventually, the only person who really can't be replicated is Thor, for obvious reasons.

The X-Men actually has the most problems with this kind of thing despite being the biggest community of superheroes: each power is unique, so each person needs to be taught differently. There is no method to refine or technique to replicate, and therefore nothing to become wrote or basic, and thus, nothing to build a foundation on. The X-Men will be stuck playing special needs forever, and new recruits will only be obtained via being fruitful and multiplying, with their descendants not getting the same powers as their own, as shown with Magneto giving birth to a speedster and a shapeshifter. meanwhile the future Avengers will someday be protecting the entire globe in Iron Man power armor piloted by an army of soldiers with captain america strength and training to keep fighting in case their armor gets blown off.

so, basically: Harry Dresden is a wizard among the supernatural community who just so happens to have the drive and will to use his powers to protect more than the average wizard. Spiderman is an average nerd who got powers that him set him apart from not just normal people but other heroes as well. there is theme of superheroes being unique even in their own universe in a way that other heroes are not.

[Rodin]

Is Hercules a superhero? How about Thor, does he count as a medeaval superhero, Marvel comics uses him, and he looks pretty medeaval.

I wouldn't count Hercules (or most any classical superhuman) as being a superhero, because our definition of what being a hero means has changed over the years.

Take the Cattle of Geryon, for example. Hercules has to go and steal these cattle as one of the Labors. After a suitably epic journey where he builds the Pillars of Hercules just for the hell of it, he arrives on the island and is attacked by the guard dog, who he kills. The herdsman arrives and sees this dude killing his dog and trying to steal his master's cattle, and is promptly killed as well. Geryon himself shows up as Hercules is absconding with the cattle, and is ALSO killed. He then goes on to kill a couple of Poseidon's sons who try to take the cattle for themselves, then loses one of the cattle. When he finds it, it's been claimed by a king named Eryx, who says finders keepers (which seems fair since the cattle were stolen anyway), but he'll give up the cattle if Hercules beats him in arm wrestling. Hercules does so, then kills Eryx for good measure, and takes the cow back to herd. Things get really fun when Hera decides to scatter the herd for the lulz (and because she hates Hercules), and Hercules instead blames a river and fills it with rocks to make it unnavigable.

By modern standards, Hercules is the villain of that particular story. His actions are rarely heroic in the comic book sense of protecting the helpless and going after evildoers. He's entirely self-serving and doesn't really care what the long-term consequences of his actions are. He is, however, heroic in that he performs Great Works. He slays legendary beasts and shapes the land. That's what makes an ancient hero.

[Rogar Demonblud]

If they actually showed the consequences, most modern heroes would look a lot like Hercules there. For starters, Manhattan is one super-battle away from being a field of rubble with lots of survivors trapped under it all.

[Reddish Mage]

But it comes down to what you boil what a superhero story down to. To that I ask, what is the difference between Spiderman and Harry Dresden? One is clearly a superhero, and one is clearly modern fantasy. So what is it that makes them so explicitly different?

I think the minute you have an essential formula as to what constitutes a super hero story and what does not you are going to find a whole set of stories that seem to violate that formula.

And to this day we think of DC comics and marvel comics stories taking place in a certain sort of universe they build as setting the standard as to what a Superhero is. Hey superhero is the sort of hero that resembles the labeled protagonists in a DC or Marvel comic .

You can’t really say having superpowers is necessary to be a superhero because there are plenty of characters that don’t really have superpowers. You can’t say that hey secret identity is essential because again there are plenty of heroes that do not have that either. Performing individual rescues and fighting crime is among typical iconic superhero activity but not every superhero partake in that either.

You could try to save the whole notion by trying to get even more vague and abstract but then you’ll start to capture heroes that have no connection to the superhero genre such as King Arthur, Hercules, Robin Hood and so on. Even Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon aren’t technically superheroes...they are early sci-fi action heroes.

People who study literary connections seek to find homages and back references to try to define a kernel that shows in a literary tradition. that will show up in comics as well.

[Eldan]

As you put in the next few sentences, These sorts of stories tend to occur in an alternative universe as a "what if" take. The stories are a deconstruction, a wild imagining, not a straightforward successor of the prior stories.

Or with publishers and authors outside of the big two. Marvel and DC are very limited by the fact that all their stories take place in the same universe. I've seen much more imaginative stuff with superpowers seen from smaller companies.

[Rogar Demonblud]

That's because there's less inertia from all the previously published material. Really, the Big Two probably generate a literal ton each year, if you pile each additional issue in a box. That's a lot of mass to fight.

[Bohandas]

The Green Knight of Arthurian legend had healing factor and a secret identity