"Comerade Oglivy, who had never existed in the present, now existed in the past, and once the act of forgery was forgotten, he would exist just authentically and on upon the same evidence as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar." (47-48)

     This concordance uses allusions to Charlemagne and Julius Caesar, because they were hailed in history as heroes, much like Comrade Oglivy. Comrade Oglivy was forged to be a hero who died in battle, and a leader in Oceania. He was written to be a legend, a perfect citizen, a model for the rest of Oceania to look up to. His story was pompous and grand.
         Charlemagne's story was just as pompous. He was hailed as the father of Europe, and the Holy Roman Empire. He is associated with the Carolingian Renaissance, a rebirth of piety, art, and culture in the Middle Ages. Like Oglivy, he is known as a hero.
      Caesar was just as much of a hero in battle as Oglivy. He had four legions under his command, and he was the leader of an army. He conquered two previously unknown provinces, Illyricum and Gallia Narbonensis.
         However, like Oglivy, there is no evidence besides written words that they existed. Orwell's point is that they could very well have been forged, and that history is not necessarily something to take at face value. The pompousness of their stories compared to Oglivy's shows that through time and human intervention, stories get changed and exaggerated. This also shows how important memories are to history- actual knowledge and truth.

       Sources: "Charlemagne."  Wikipedia. Web. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne>.
                      "Julius Caesar." Wikipedia. Web. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar#Assassination>.