[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.