Asking again, because I only got one response. Whats the consensus

>>2195688
shit

>>2195705
Do you have any arguments to back that shitpost up?

it depends on what he's writing about. nothing he's written is particularly academically rigorous but his writing style is engaging. for example rubicon is a good book if a little self indulgent. shadow of the sword is extremly controversial, maybe due to subject matter, maybe due to the fact Holland can't read the primary source languages.

take all pop history with a grain of salt, especially when it appears to take the form of a narrative.

>>2196170
He may come of as a pop historian, but his sources are tight.
And its not like he looks at primary sources and makes an interpretation, he rather collects solid interpretations and publishes them in an approachable book.

"In the Shadow of the Sword" is a pretty badass name for a book.

>>2197648
>And its not like he looks at primary sources and makes an interpretation
He does actually, it's just that he inserts them right in the middle of when he's making sourced statements and it's hard to know the difference unless you follow the notations.

at the good end of pop history