4 ms·
Provided the author <is> constrained by the facts, that's a perfectly reasonable position. If he ignores facts unhelpful to his view he'll be seen through by as
by vixen99 5y ago
Provided the author <is> constrained by the facts, that's a perfectly reasonable position. If he ignores facts unhelpful to his view he'll be seen through by astute critics.
- sofixa 5y agoThe author in question is a fairly renowned historian with multiple serious books and podcasts ( in which btw he makes a point of correcting himself when listeners point out mistakes, usually of the bad pronunciation or mistaken year variety), and has a reputation to maintain.
- Tainnor 5y agoI greatly admire Mike Duncan and I have listened to every episode of his History of Rome _and_ his current Revolutions podcast, as well as read the book this article is about, but ... I think the assertion that Mike Duncan is "a fairly renowned historian" needs some qualifications. For one, I don't think he has a history degree. And while he seems to be very good at compiling various sources and summarising them in a way that is accessible to the general interested public (and I do agree that he doesn't pretend everything is simple when it's not, and that he corrects his mistakes), that doesn't mean that he does original research, or if he does, that this research is in any way peer-reviewed by the larger community of historians. This is not a bad thing, but it's something to keep in mind when reading a book that tries to paint a particular narrative. (And I did really enjoy reading the book, FWIW)