Is tom holland a good historian?

le bump

>>2767687
He's alright. He writes popular history which is aimed at relative plebs. He's a good gateway drug, but he's not exactly a particularly eminent scholar. If you're a newfag he'd be a decent entry point but otherwise I would move on to greats like A.H.M Jones or Osborne.

>>2767687

this
>>2767892
>He's alright. He writes popular history which is aimed at relative plebs.

as no one really cares about deep history, so I'd say Tom maximizes and minimizes his history books, that is; he writes serious books then writes popular books to make money.

>>2767687
In the Shadow of the Sword, is a more serious look into history that doesn't really appeal to the normie, that was a great book, whereas Dynasty was just regurgitated crap aimed at the type of person who watched the Tudors or similar sexed up bullshit.

>>2767687
It's called the Netherlands you dingus

>>2767892
Can you be more specific than Osborne?
There ar multiple historians with that last name