Liberator Portrayal... Judging a Book by the Cover?

Upon looking through pictures of the liberators on the PowerPoint (Washington, Marat, Toussaint, Bolivar), there are a few things that stick out to me right away when I look at them. The first is that all of them are portrayed with a weapon, but not one that is active. Washington, Toussaint and Bolivar are all portrayed as having sheathed swords. Marat, although not holding a sword, is holding a pen, which was his "weapon", in this case it was the instrument that he used to push for change. All of the men are also portrayed as having a mixture of military and scholarly leadership (again, except for Marat, who fought with the pen). Washington is portrayed as having a desk in a beautiful, well decorated room, while Toussaint is portrayed holding both paper and sword. Bolivar's portrait is set in a beautiful room with a pen and a globe in the background, both symbols of learning and knowledge. Marat, also, is portrayed as having pen in hand, and so we could see him as a martyr for his cause, fighting (with pen) to the death for change, as well as having scholarly knowledge portrayed with pen and paper in hand. In order to portray these men not as conquerors, but as scholars and knowledgable leaders, they must not be portrayed as warriors fighting, but instead as leaders working towards a goal. In order to portray this, having a balance of military power and knowledge in the portrait is a must. In the case of Marat, he has fought for his cause by being a martyr.

So why is each liberator portrayed the way they are? By portraying these men where their greatest achievements happened (sadly for Marat that was in the tub), it imposes upon future generations several traditions, one is that they should be scholars as well as military leaders and the other that they should lead without extravagance, as none of the liberators in the portrait are dressed very extravagantly. In dressing nicely but not with extravagance, they are showing that they are not wealthy aristocrats that have decided to seize power for themselves, but that they are citizens who have stepped up and wish to lead for the good of the people, not the gain of personal wealth.

I'm being long-winded, so I'll speed this next one up! The reason these revolutions need heroic figures is that every movement needs a figurehead, someone that can give tangibility to the cause. Without a leader, figurehead or tangibility, a cause would not be able to gain any ground or make any progress. As for what is heroic, I believe there is more than one element that answers that question. The first is personal sacrifice. They have risked their lives and imprisonment (or even death), and well as united people together for a cause. These are the actions that make these men heroes. As for their ideals, that is what makes these men possess heroic minds. By believing in freedom and the lack of corrupt government (whether their revolutions fixed that or not), just having the ideal and helping bring that ideal to life makes these men heroes.