I don't think analogies need to be historically accurate to be useful - and often there is something to the modern usage of them even if the original basis is a

I don't think analogies need to be historically accurate to be useful - and often there is something to the modern usage of them even if the original basis is a misrepresentation. Analogies and parables serve as a shortcut to aid understanding in communication, and that is valuable even if they are entirely apocryphal. Similar examples: * The tragedy of the commons - this is an extremely useful parable to invoke a game-theoretic / social behaviour concept. However, it is apparently historically inaccurate - at small scales, societies were able to protect and look after common lands, because of other societal factors such as reputation; the actual loss of the commons came not from overuse by the unlanded but from people who already had their own land taking more and fencing it off. Nevertheless, in larger scale societies, the principle of over-exploitation of shared resources in the absence of a mechanism to prevent that is a real and valid concern, so the analogy has a lot of value. * The use of probably apocryphal fables like 'The boy who cried wolf' have immediate meaning when it comes to concepts like alarm fatigue. * Many religious analogies have persisted in societies that don't hold the original religious belief. 'Holy Grail', for example, as an analogy for a desirable outcome. * Concepts from popular fiction sometimes become analogies too. "Golden Path" for example. Not every analogy makes sense in every circumstance, but they are useful as a mutually understood shorthand to convey concepts.