Just like how only the better made pottery or stone writings of history have survived to be studied, only the better written histories of that time have survived. So our perspective is skewed that they had no bad historians, but they probably had just as many egotistical opinion driven writings as we do now. They are all just the dust we found in the various hearths.
I’d like to think our standard of proof has increased, but that really doesn’t seem to be the case if you pay attention to the news
Academic historical analysis is so wildly different from 24/7 news headlines.
Just like how only the better made pottery or stone writings of history have survived to be studied, only the better written histories of that time have survived. So our perspective is skewed that they had no bad historians, but they probably had just as many egotistical opinion driven writings as we do now. They are all just the dust we found in the various hearths.