This I disagree with...Anyone can publish a book nowadays saying anything. Books are no better by defalt than web sites. You need to examine everything critically and his sites and data is well sourced and matches other data for other sources that I have read.
Books that are successful are generally those which have been well researched and draw logical conclusions. The noticably exceptions to this are books that bring up radical ideas, and they are dealt with by fellow researchers.
Books are also, generally, peer reviewed, especially from someone like Keegan (to which the above quote partially referred to). John Keegan is a university Professor, and thus if he published a load of rubbish, it certainly would be in his interests to do so.
Websites on the other hand are dubious in the fact that there is no system of peer review. Thus any person with any view can publish anything he/she wants, throughly researched or not. Until a system can be developed where material on the internet is reviewed by qualified people, anything you find on the internet must be read with caution.
Any thoughts on this?
) can make a website, in order to make them feel important. This takes credit away from the good ones.
From the Shire