Hi, I am planning on reading Rubicon and Dominion by the author Tom Holland. However I can see there is some disagreement about his historical accuracy. Therefore I'd like to know:
A) Is Rubicon historically accurate and if not is there a better book that covers this period?
B) Is Dominion historically accurate and if not is there a better book that covers Christianity's influence on Western society?
C) Are any of his other books worth checking out or conversely, making sure I avoid?
Edit: I've stricken through parts that have been answered as I can see that the consensus around Holland is that he's not particularly reliable and that I should avoid Rubicon.
There is always more to say, but we've discussed Holland's work here a few times before, and you might like to review a couple of those threads while you wait for fresh responses to your query. The discussion in the first, in particular, is quite extensive. Try:
What makes Tom Holland unreliable as a historian?, led by u/J-Force
Flaws in the book In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland?, led by u/shlin28