Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35769084)

You just have to preface anything you say that it was thought by some and end it with the suggestion that some sources need to be viewed with discretion. The teaching of history has become based on actually looking at sources by eye witness and contemporary non eye witness(hearsay) and later hearsay.Just because something is written down does not make it a truth.

It's no different than checking facts online today..you have to bear in mind the agenda someone might have in slewing information to convey a certain viewpoint as fact.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769170)

And you really don't think modern day historians haven't done that, really?

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35769223)

As you already know the internet has allowed all sorts of conspiracies to flourish..and viewing the third rate documentaries on the History and Geographic Channels it's never going to be any other way.

After all historians cannot ever be 100% sure.it has to be, could be,might be,possibly may have. It's not an exact subject.There is no right and wrong, only might have been..

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35769253)

I for one don't watch TV, historians can't be 100% sure where the battlefield was but what they all agree on is how he died, in fact I've never read an account that differs to much and I certainly don't tend to hand over my hard earned to to amateur authors mind you if the experts are so wrong then they probably shouldn't be professors of history anywhere let alone at some of our most esteemed universities