History is written by winners, losers and bystanders. Each perspective is different, and each participant and witness has a different level and kind of interest in the proceedings, a different ideology, a different cultural bias.
Everybody does that, whether they won or lost a particular battle.So they praise their own party and degrade the opposing party to the maximum possible extent.
The only difference between winners and losers is that those who have struck a decisive enough victory have the power to impose their version of events, their own philosophy and cultural bias (as well, very often, as their own language and religion) on the losers, and the oppressed/occupied minority keeps its cultural/national identity alive in secret, waiting for an opportunity to regain its independence. That doesn't mean its chronicle is any more true than the dominant nation's - it's just different.
Maybe. But someone can be wrong without being dishonest.So, from such content, if someone, like this author, has identified a pattern and has thought further based on such content, the whole thing becomes a complete lie.
You can't get 100% accurate picture of the past, ever. Even if you had time travel, you'd bring your own beliefs, perceptions and prejudices to whatever you witnessed.As reliable and 100% correct history is difficult to be found, it is quite a useless effort to form speculations based on this sort of historical patterns.
Patterns are easy to detect. Look up at the clouds. Do you see a horse, a sailboat, a wedding cake, a dinosaur...? Humans see pattern in everything - sometimes it's inherent, sometimes it's potential and sometimes it's imaginary.