Now, come on chaps, be nice. I may disagree with Keith's statement that all historians agree, for the reasons I have given, but Keith does have a point in that all the historians that meet his criteria, that he has read, do agree. The sticking point is that Keith genuinely believes that all 'Keith's historians' does mean all historians. I do not believe him and feel that it is up to him to prove it. I say that until he has read the works of all living, eminent, etc. historians he cannot prove it. He says that until I disprove it, it must be the truth. Bit like a belief in God really, apart from Keith is not likely to kill disbelievers. I hope...