Not really, because heroes were honoured in cult in ancient Greece, they held a sort of intermediate grade between gods and human beings. In his mythology Heracles is a hero of semi-divine descent rather than an odinary man, and he is marked off from ordinary human beings from his infancy, he strangles snakes as a baby. In truth nothing is known about his origin, it is plain that his mythology ultimately goes back to the Mycenenaean age, but it is impossible even to tell what place or area he was originally associated with; in his myths as we have them he is very much a stock figure rather than a man of idiosyncratic character, and even if he originated as a historical figure (which I think to be unlikely), it makes little difference because nothing of that figure is preserved in the stories that are told of the Heracles of myth.
Imagine if the Tudor age were followed by an age of extreme disorder and Henry VIII were turned into 'Henry', a hard-drinking hard-fighting strongman, in the popular imagination over time, and all sorts of appropriate stories were ascribed to him over a period of several centuries, until nothing were left of the Henry who had many wives and abolished the monasteries, - could one say that this Henry was a real person? The situation was even more complicated with Heracles if he did in fact originate as a historical figure long long ago, because he would presumably have been associated with a specific place originally, but is associated all manner of different places in his fully developed mythology, and became a sort of magnet for stories not originally associated with him, and inspired bards to invent all kinds of new stories. So in the final resort I have no hesitation in saying: our Heracles is purely mythical.