I agree, they don't need complex analysis. But he isn't giving them: he's giving pretty basic introductions to historiography, which if these videos are intended for people pursuing history in an academic context is every bit as important as providing introductions to history. I'll grant you, Green doesn't always weave these issues into it as smoothly as he might, and in some videos the historical discussion seems to get a bit lost behind the historiographical meta-discussion, while in others the historiography seems to be left by the wayside in favouring of propagating some particular interpretation, but that's a matter of how he pulls it off, not the fact that these issues are addressed in the first place.
If you want him to provide facts and facts alone, then you're going to be mostly looking at tables of average rainfall and maps of potsherd distribution and extensive extracts from primary documents (probably in the original language, too, because translation is itself a form of interpretation), and a lot of other stuff that is totally unhelpful to his project. To make sense of any of this, to make history of any of this, requires interpretation, and interpretations are always up for discussion. That he acknowledges this, and makes some attempt to address it, is nothing but a good thing.
Bottom line, what's the point in learning about history, if you have no inclination to think about history? You may as well go and memorise Star Trek miscellanea, for all the good it'll do you.
)
