The actual history of every subject is "more complicated and messier than a lot of standard narratives", but no one has the time and energy to study everything, hence the "standard narratives". If there was one thing I would like to add to everyone's education it would be a caution about the common weaknesses of simplified knowledge.

I disagree with the recommendation of Hirschfeld in the strongest possible terms. I have no comment on his treatment of his real subject, Renaissance astronomy, but his treatment of Greek astronomy is a fairy tale tacked on for the sake of symmetry with the Renaissance. For those who want the mainstream account, I instead recommend the article by Stahl linked in the original post. In fewer pages than Hirschfeld he gives far more detail, an honest account of the extremely limited evidence. In particular, I suggest that one go in asking the question "Did the Greeks hold a geocentric model?" and not get distracted by discussion predicated on the assumption that the answer is known.