It was enough of a mainstream consensus an archaeologist had to write a bloody book refuting it. >modern scholars have their work reviewed by peers The idea t

It was enough of a mainstream consensus an archaeologist had to write a bloody book refuting it. >modern scholars have their work reviewed by peers The idea that a bunch of weebs 2000 years later are more authoritative than someone who was there at the time because "peer review" is is laughably insane. Peer review doesn't even work in physics. In other fields it seems to be a route for spreading mass hysterias and collective insanity. Please name one actual fact about the Roman empire surfaced by modern historians contradicting contemporary historians and abetted by Peer Review. "Nero as misunderstood bunny rabbit" doesn't count, unless you can account for his, say, murder of his bloody mom.