[hypoqtech]

> For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't.

Might this not be because we don't have sufficient information on Bronze Ages battles to know the context behind them? Whereas in a relatively modern-day battle we'll know about the primary aggressor, their rationale, etc. which are all a basis for further discussion.

[j-bos]

There's plenty of context for Roman battles and those discussions rarely degenerate into shouting matches, compare with [insert modern conflict here]. Even for today's conflicts, many of the shouters demonstrate a personal lack of context.