>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.