Other than the historical facts, this article is kind of a weird read. The author seems to be guilty of the same thing he's accusing the Chinese president, namely using history to support their version of how this might play out.
China is saying, here is a 'story' to help you understand what we're trying to do with the Belt & Road Initiative. In essence, the focus is not on the truth claims of history, but it is a guidepost of what they want to do in the future.
The author on the other-hand seems to be saying, because the history is inaccurate, the corollary is that the Belt & Road initiative will not succeed (which is not a logically consistent argument).