Pseudo-history, and related issues

[SigniferOne]

In his book on Themopylae, he maintains that the Persian Wars were decisive for the birth of western civilization. If we assume, for argument's sake, that there is indeed a connection between Greek and our own civilization (e.g., some kind of cultural paradigm was created in Greece that is still in existence), we must also prove that this would not have come into being if the Persian Wars had resulted in a Persian victory. The arguments for this thesis were for the first time put forward in the nineteenth century (Persian victory = eastern obscurantism, mysticism instead of rationalism, no democracy, no science).

Yes what's wrong with that view?

And by the way, the arguments for Western exceptionalism were not first put forward in the 19th century, but have been present for centuries prior, starting at least with the 17th century Jesuits who travelled around the world teaching other countries Western science, or perhaps the battle of Lepanto, if not even earlier than that. The tracing of modern West from antiquity starts with Petrarch in the 1370s, and makes its entry to full historical usage in 1458 when Flavio Biondo records the schema of antiquity, the dark middle ages, and the modern world that he says was only in his time emerging. 19th century was in fact the last century where Western exceptionalism was stated, not the first.

Note, for instance, that during the Persian age, the scientific method (empircal cycle etc) was invented in Babylonia, that Mardonius allowed democracy to continue in Asia, et cetera. Counterfactual explanations are almost never correct.

But note that this itself is revisionist history and is not part of the normal historical consensus. You may have reasons for believing what you do, but it is very much open to discussion (though not in this thread). The underlying point is that these topics are just a difference of opinion between historians. Why accuse them of dishonesty, just from being in disagreement with you?

Everyone feels frustrated when their ideas are controverted and disregarded (who doesn't?). That doesn't mean all other people are dishonest and there is some deep philosophical crisis that is eating at the healthy apple of history. I agree with your review of the Iranian book though, but that to me is not even something worth refuting. He is clearly in the tank with the Iranian regime to paint Iranian history in nationalistic colors. Cartledge and Holland however are a different story. They are done a disservice by being lumped with Farrokh.