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?

>I'm assuming the historians are the cucks in your analogy?

only the grifters who are in business of re-imagining history for the modern audience.

>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?

why shouldn't I? historians do not deserve unconditional veneration, no one does. for every serious historian there are two dozen creative writers who can produce a thousand pages about everyday life in in Egypt 6000 BCE.

history is a very soft science. ancient history in particular is equivalent to trying to divine how the stars and planets millions of light years away look based on fifty bytes of real data from a telescope.