Upvote:4
Indian historians
It appears to be very much dependant upon who exactly the historians are. Scholars of Hinduism and Indian history would appear to be in favour of a historical Krishna, according to Guy I. Beck in his book "Alternative Krishnas"
most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna - that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE
Secular authors
According to Guy I. Beck, most secular or lay authors would however place Krishna in to the realms of myth, legend and perhaps even fairytale.
Many secular or lay authors who have attempted to portray a life of Krishna have also drawn exclusively from the epic and Puranic sources (Menon, Sheth, Frith), yet have usually consigned Krishna purely within the realm of myth, legend, and even fairytale.
Is the Krishna (a god within Hinduism), an appropriated historical figure?
There appears to be no overall conclusive answer and really depends upon which historian is doing the reporting.
Perhaps a little bit of both would explain it. Some say Krishna is historical. Others consign Krishna to the stuff of mythology.