You're talking about two diffferent things. To repeat: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're contending that there's evidence a historical figure named Jesus existed and was a figure of some note in Roman Palestine. Okay, there seem to be some facts to back that up. But to make a leap that he was a supernatural being who performed miracles and rose from the dead...I don't think it's out of line to require a higher standard of proof than for the other historical personages you cite. Nobody's asking me to believe that Caesar's conquest of Gaul was a supernatural event.
Frankly, for a large group of men to be willing to die for a Fact-Claim which they personally
knew to be
false would be "extraordinary" indeed. Especially when all they would've had to do, to escape the sentence of death, would be to acknowledge that Jesus did NOT physically resurrect from the dead... an admission which they certainly would have made, long short of death, if they were in fact lying about the Resurrection. Why die for a fact-claim which you personally know to be false??
The very fact that every one of them went to their grave firmly attesting that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a factual occurrence which they had personally witnessed, constitutes extraordinary evidence.