[YeGoblynQueenne]

Of course. So let me make a further suggestion: read modern historians (or read them too).

I don't know who are the authorities on Sparta and ancient Greeece. But don't get your opinions about those subjects from an internet rant aimed at shocking people who only know Sparta from its depiction in 300 and who can legitimately not tell apart the hyperbole and the fantasy from reality.

Read "history", in general. Don't just read some guy's blog post, even if he's a historian. Even if he's an expert. If you're going to trust the opinion of experts, consult proper scholarly work and read more than one expert.

Does all that sound too unreasonable, or, like an other poster said, like I'm suggesting you "do your own research" (like the anti-vaxxers)?

[rsynnott]

The author is an academic historian. And it’s not… saying anything very controversial. It’s pretty much the mainstream view on Sparta.

I mean, obviously reading more is better. But this is a perfectly fine resource and links to lots of further reading. This blog is a far better thing for a normal person to read than the stuff you linked; it basically represents current understanding, whereas some of what you linked, while important sources _because we don't have all that many sources_ (historians have to take what they can get; for an extreme example see the Historia Augusta...) are bordering on fanfiction.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Well, now I don't know why you are being downvoted. Here, have a compensatory uppie. dang says that's part of being a good citizen around here.

Edit: re fanfiction. I honestly have no idea what you mean. Fanfiction? Who else do you think has more accurate and objective accounts of ancient history than ancient historians? Do you think modern historians have some kind of crystal ball that they can look through the mists of time and see with clear eyes the things that happened 2000 years ago?

Ancient historians were not very accurate or even honest, or objective. What better sources are there? You really think that an internet rant is a better source for historical knowledge than ancient authors? I mean, if you really think so I am really going to bang my head on the wall very, very hard in complete despair. This is the internet?

[rsynnott]

> 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 better source for historical knowledge than ancient authors?

Unless you're willing to single-handledly reproduce a century or so of analysis, then, yes, reading this blog post (or a modern history text on Sparta) will give you more context on Sparta than reading the ancient sources. A _huge_ amount of work has been put into understanding ancient history, and ignoring it and just going for the ancient sources is nonsensical.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

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 the internets, not a source of knowledge.

[CRConrad]

> That blog post is not scholarly work. It's one guy's opinion - rather, one guy's internet rant.

Sure, something is coming off as an internet rant here. To most of us, tohugh, it's not that blog post.