'Increased knowledge" is only one factor in affecting the opinions held by academic historians, but by no means the only one.   It can equally be true that the views held by historians impact on how the historical evidence is interpreted by them. "Overwhelming consensus'' can be another way of saying 'fashion".

What appears to be the situation is that there are a number of historians whose views are at odds with general opinion, and who believe that this opinion ought to be revised. That is to say they are "revisionist"

Of the three opinions which Keith sees as crucial, the first, that there was "no choice" for England but to go to war is just wrong, and I would question whether any historian would actually say that. What can be argied is that it was the right choice, and that is a matter of opinion on which a historians' view has no particular value.

As for the question whether ordinary soldiers believed they were right to fight, I have never heard any suggestion to the contrary.

So far as the matter of the quality of military leadership goes, it comes down to whether mistakes were culpable and arising from bad judgement, or arose from other reasons. I cannot see why that is particularly significant either way. Alternatively it can be asserted that the slaughter, while regrettable had consequences which rendered it justifiable. That is a subjective view, not a historical judgement.