Pseudo-history, and related issues

[SigniferOne]

Possibly. But what's interesting to one is boring to another, and too many (or not enough) facts and footnotes is somewhat of a subjective judgment, too. It can be distracting to have an inch of text, and three inches of footnotes sometimes. Other times, one wonders "where the heck did they come up with that?"

Still, I don't think you'll deny that history, particularly interest and reading of history, is at an abysmal state in the West. I can't help but think that these 'normal' academics are precisely to blame for that. And they also create demand for these various quacks to come in and fulfill that desire for interesting history with their fanciful frauds. I find it hard to believe that if historians still cared to write like Gibbon the quacks wouldn't recede by a large percentage.