Most modern historians present a milder view of yazid, and consider him a capable ruler, albeit less successful than his father. But yeah you can go trumpeting the validity of your abbasid-state-sponsored history written by devotees, which has never even been fact checked

Look! X is a rebel. They die at the hand of a ruler. Y is the disciple of a ruler, who is gonna wear the robe next. Now, in order to make the most of the death of X, bolster their political support, they will not only exaggerate virtuousness of X, but also cruelty of the ruler

When serious historians view an event, they don't take everyone's word for granted. Most importantly not the word of parties which wud have a strong conflict of interest in an event. Moreover, thru historical analysis, a lot of stuff like pathos-driven accounts is filtered out

Despite his reputation in religious circles, academic historians generally portray a more favourable view of Yazid. According to Wellhausen, Yazid was a mild ruler, who resorted to violence only when necessary, and was not the tyrant that religious tradition portrays him to be

Michael Jan de Goeje describes him as "a peace-loving, generous prince". According to G. R. Hawting, he tried to continue the diplomatic policies of his father. However, unlike Muawiya, he was not successful in winning over the opposition with gifts and bribes.

In view of Bernard Lewis, Yazid was a capable ruler and has been overtly criticized by Arab Historians. Taking the word of Abbasid Historians against Yazid is as good as taking the word of Paki historian on India or a Greek Historian on Persians.

Moreover, in all Muslims, not exclusively Shias, there is a bias in favor of Hussain, that stems from certain Ahadith by Muhammad, that mention him to be the Cheftain of Young Men in Jannah.

When this hadith is brought into the picture, you want yazid to turn out as evil, cause if not, that would be the anti-thesis of muhammad's word and hence his credibility as a prophet.

If you don't understand what this dilemma of devotion vs facts can do to a person and how much it'd have affected the judgement, you can't be helped. Moreover, word of modern historians who have all the technical methods of verifying data is final on this.

Now, coming to the matter of Karbala. Based on an official report sent to caliph Yazid, which describes the battle very briefly, stating that it lasted for no longer than a siesta, Lammens concludes that there was no battle at all but a quick massacre that was over in an hour.

He suggests that the detailed accounts found in the primary sources are Iraqi fabrications, since their writers were dissatisfied with their hero being killed without putting up a fight.

Husayn's revolt's been describedas a premature and ill-prepared campaign by an ambitious person. He writes "He reaches out to the moon like a child. He makes the greatest demands and does not do the slightest; the others should do everything...

As soon as he encounters resistance, it is over with him; he wants to go back when it is too late.
Fred Donner, G. R. Hawting, and Hugh N. Kennedy see Husayn's revolt as an attempt to regain what his brother Hasan had renounced.

The fabled siege of Mecca, happened because Zubair and Husayn had taken refuge there and were incting rebellion. Taking the word of a 6th century Muslim Historian strongly motivated by ideology vs a qualified modern historian is as good as believing a beduoin vs a scientist

This is a subtweet to people who call others to read book yet have not read anything but hagiography themselves.