I've been down a rabbithole on 9th century Anglo-Scandinavian history for the past six months, and all of this is so unbelievably accurate. 😂
And then for bonus points, ask yourself:
Why is this author so invested in making King Blorbo look good?
(The answer is usually that they're a nationalist, engaged in the project of constructing a glorious national history.)
Or, why does this author have inexplicable beef with King Blorbo?
(Could be that they're from a culture King Blorbo colonized and terorrized, and they're rightfully fed up of hearing about how cool he was; could be that King Blorbo is the one about to get colonized, and this author is priming you to feel that he had it coming.)
But, you might be saying, King Blorbo died 1100 years ago! Why does it matter whether he was good or bad? Who cares if some historian is doing some shady scholarship to retroactively polish (or tank) his reputation?
Welll, because if they get their version of history entrenched in the cultural consciousness, that is going to shape how we understand the world around us, and how we deal with the current issues that are a direct legacy of that history. That's how you get Victorian scholars cherry-picking Anglo Saxon history to build a myth of British exceptionalism, to justify British imperialism, and American right-wing personalities canonizing Lincoln and the Founding Fathers for the same damn reasons.
History isn't dead, and whenever an author clearly wants you to feel a certain way about King Blorbo, good or bad, you should be asking why it matters to them, and what the implications are if you do.