Same boat for me. I tried to read a highly praised work on the American Revolution and the author went on some lengthy diatribe about a (now deceased) radio commentator's opinion on Vietnam. I closed the book and returned it to the library. Garbage.
I tolerated another book because the author at least had an interesting premise examining the attitudes and motivations behind the AWI, but it too had strongly biased (and even absurd), unsupported claims. Good on some details I had not known, but wonky on interpretation of events. Not quite "woke" but treading close— just not close enough to make me set it aside.
I tend to enjoy older works, even though they've later proved inaccurate. Also, works on specific battles tend be a little less susceptible to politics in either direction, as the author is usually focusing on the military details and tactics rather than any political considerations.
For medieval:
The History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages by Sir Charles Oman. Generally very good, though some of his conclusions/observations are now considered inaccurate.
For ancient:
The original works— Xenophon, Thucydides, Herodotus, Livy, etc..
Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox is a modern work, and excellent.
And for fiction:
Easy. Read anything by Rosemary Sutcliff. Yes, her research was limited to what was known in her lifetime (mid-late 20th century), but still quite good, and her ability to capture the attitudes and cultures ranging from the Roman Empire to the Norman Conquest is exceptional. She also focuses on historical events or retellings of historical accounts and incidences.
Also Stephen Pressfield's The Gates of Fire, a novel presentation of the Battle of Thermopylae is a very good read. Fiction, but with dialog and details informed by ancient sources.
