The gods are powerful; it doesn't matter if you like them or think they are "good", what matters is if you don't keep the gods happy, they can mess you up. The priests are the people who are most knowledgeable about how to keep the gods happy, and this ensures successful harvest, success at fighting, safe childbirth, etc.

I recommend reading https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collections-practical-polytheism-part-i-knowledge/ It explains how Mediterranean polytheism worked quite well.

What seems pseudoscientific about it? The article was based on using astronomical events described in the text to determine the timing of events. Astronomical dating is an accepted technique in history, isn't it? (I know it's popular in Near Eastern history and in Mesoamerican history, but perhaps it isn't as accepted in Indian history?)

Are there flaws in the author's interpretation of the astronomical events, or the calculations he used?

The main issue I can think of is that maybe the astronomical information used to date the war (a solar eclipse that occurred in or slightly after the month of Kartika, which ended before sunset, and did not start too early in the day; and that there would have been a full moon very shortly before the war started) does not correspond to reality. For example, maybe the solar eclipse was just "made up" to make the story appear more impressive?

I'm not sure how a historian would determine whether the astronomical phenomena described in the text are real or not.

Does anyone know of some good sources that discuss the relative prices and levels of consumption of different fuels (especially wood, charcoal, and coal) in England over time?

The article provides a citation (to a Wikipedia article, which is better than nothing) for the claim that by [the year] 1000, only 15% percent of England was forested. Then it claims "Consequently wood as a heat fuel was scarce and so beginning in the 16th century we see a marked shift over to coal as a heating fuel for things like cooking and home heating."

This seems very plausible, but it would be great if someone knows of a source that verifies this claim. [In the 16th century, people in England started shifting to using coal more than wood for heating. This shift occurred because wood was scarce (and thus more expensive than coal).]