Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm a bit confused by your comment because the article doesn't seem to be presenting any kind of revisionist history.


I wish there were some revisionist theories, but to propose a revisionist theory you need tons of work and very credible studies to back it up ... to simply say "hey Ramses was a bad guy" is much easier, it won't attract attention of any credible historians who may try to discredit it but it will get published and may even give you an opportunity to write a pop-science book, so you can go from a poorly paid "one in a million" historians to hopefully "an author of the popular science bestseller".


>to simply say "hey Ramses was a bad guy" is much easier,

But the article doesn't say this.


It's his revisionist version of the article.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: