That doesn't seem to support "Carlin is discredited by most serious historians in general." Reading that comment, it sounds like I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything. Which seems fine? And the closest thing I can see to a specific criticism there is "oversimplification of the Roman Republic." Which I'm not even sure is a criticism. I generally expect lay history to oversimplify things.
Also... that comment was written 10 years ago.
I also follow and read r/askhistorians. I love it.
Also... that comment was written 10 years ago.
I also follow and read r/askhistorians. I love it.