The proof is the presentation, not the accreditation. RL is more correct more of

The proof is the presentation, not the accreditation. RL is more correct more often than any other working historian and for reasons I’ve explained elsewhere. He does have a bias, but that bias plays into his neutral assessment of all cultures in all regions in all ages. Given that the interpretation of history does include value judgements, you might choose between RL’s concern for the citizenry and their condition, and my concern for the ruling class and their institutinos and economy. So all history is opinion because it requires value judgements. So for example, if you study marxist history it’s a value judgemetn but it’s also scientifically impossible to bring their judgement into being. If you study the founders their optimism was unwarranted. If you study the egyptians you will not likely grasp that it was a stagnant civilization that went nowhere. etc, etc.

Reply addressees: @bigt2000 @whatifalthist