Pseudo-history, and related issues

[Jona Lendering]

But I wonder how something like this could make it into print. I mean, don't historians have peer review like other academic disciplines?

Peer review is the problem, in this case. Scholars usually judge themselves, and there are hardly any checks whether people think logically. Philosophy and logic are not common subjects when historians are educated; in Germany and the Netherlands, theory is part of the curriculum, but I am not sure that it is common in the Anglo-Saxon world.

A partial explanation is that ancient historians used to be educated as classicists (e.g., Cartledge), so they can explain everything about the exact meaning of an with an optative in a clause, and have not sufficient time for the theoretical foundations of their discipline.