all history from 2000+ years ago is bad history. neither the chud nor the cuck vision of classical antiquity is anywhere near accurate. entire decades get extrapolated from a few surviving bits written a century after the events. every sentence in every history book about that era implicitly comes with "We assume that..."

Well at least we can filter out the Jeffrey of Monmouth's though.

That's an absurd false dichotomy. I'm assuming the historians are the cucks in your analogy? As the author points out, many of the "chuds" haven't even read translations of Greek or Latin texts, while historians can read the text in the original. The main skill historians have is exactly the strawman you've set up to knock down. They understand the limits of our knowledge of ancient societies, and the "chuds" do not.

You are holding historians to an epistemological standard that I am confident you don't hold anybody else to. Whether intentionally or not, you're muddying the waters to undermine their expertise. Why?

> neither the chud nor the cuck vision of classical antiquity is anywhere near accurate

Which version continuously looks for new data to test its vision of classical antiquity? Which version changes its vision over time as it acquires new information?