history rules. try to combine history research with archaeologic research / insist on updated history
theres a lot of tradition VS archaeological evidence, a good example is the history of norway (since i live here) most norwegians know the traditional history: this king hårfagre (hairfair) promised some blonde hottie to unify norway, and KABOOM he unified it on a pile of dead vikings.
in updated litterature this is now refered to as a lengthy (and much more realistic) civil-war period, and much less "kaboom"
theres a lot of nifty convenience in history, especially in older history, where the tedious details have been replaced by poetic simplicity. how do we know if the epic simplicity of many of the ancient battles, are really true? what if julius' conquest of rome was in fact much more complex and long lasting, and so on.
_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''