Tom Holland and his questionable theories

Basically, I've been reading and researching frantically for this paper that I'm writing (incidentally also with school work, which is why I have not been on here very much!) and have come across Tom Holland. He has three rather esoteric and I believe really quite premature theories on Greek history and art that I just wanted to aid here. The first of these is perhaps the strangest of these - he advocates that the idea of the Iron man, Telos, came from a misinterpretation that a writer made from a coin showing the "lost wax" tradition of sculpture, instead believing it to be the representation of some kind of mythical giant made of iron. Not only is the original myth far too complex to have been derived from something so mundane, but the myth itself is also far older than the "lost wax" technique that came in at the earliest in the mid 6th century. His second thesis that I take issue with is his really, quite radical and romanticised view of the conflict with the Archaenemid Persian Empire - throughout his work "Persian Fire", for example, he presents the Hellenic league as being a unified force against the Persian invasion, whereas primary sources, such as Plutarch, emphasise the disparate nature of the alliance between the Persians - to the extent that some ethnic groups and cities' soldiers would not fight on the same wing (reputedly at least...) at the battle of Plataea in c.479! Moreover, Herodotos, by far our main source for the conflict, emphasises the "three fold division" of Greek ethnicity, and it is a basic premise that the term "Greece" as we understand it is anachronistic to use in the modern meaning of the term in the ancient world, yet Holland wantonly ignores this and fails to make the significant point - as almost any popular culture presentation and indeed many academic and popular works of history do - that the Persian invasion force consisted of numerous Greek mercenaries (Memnon of Rhodes, the Greek commander of Halicarnassos Citadel under Darius III for example?). Thus, when Holland states that all Greece was united against the Persian threat, not only is he ignoring one of the most basic elements of Greek history, but also, but this statement, prooves that he only regards Greece in the modern geographical term to constitute Greek in the ancient sense of the word - as Sicily, parts of Italy, Southern France and the Aegean islands, as well as the Ionian cities which Darius conquered in c.511 and made them part of the Lydia satrapy, were all technically parts of "Greece" in the ancient use of the word! This leads me to my third point - Tom Holland seems to be, with his rather romantic theory of Greek unity, ignore and downplay key factors  such as Themistokles' construction of the Long walls and refortification of Athens in defiance of the terms of the Hellenic league, just a few years after Plataea, and in my mind the worst of all is his belief that the movement of the Delian treasury to Athens in c.454 was merely a protective measure to defend it against Persian attack - with Perikles' clearly imperialistic attitudes around this time? It really just baffles me to be honest!