Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who else do you think has more accurate and objective accounts of ancient history than ancient historians? Modern historians who've synthesised the work of ancient historians and figured out, insofar as possible, what actually happened. Like, the sources are generally _contradictory_, and contain things which cannot possibly be true, and often supernatural elements. > You really think that an internet rant is a bet…
That blog post is not scholarly work. It's one guy's opinion - rather, one guy's internet rant . Rants are no good sources of information and I wish I didn't have to explain why, but they are primarily aimed at emotions rather than the intellect. If you want to read modern analysis, then read scholarly works, not blog posts on the internet. And it doesn't matter who the author is, a rant on the internets is a rant on…
Sure, something is coming off as an internet rant here. To most of us, tohugh, it's not that blog post.