As I understand it, Historians produce a mixture of fact and analysis of those facts; quite often, they carry an agenda (revisionist history), which adapts their findings to prevailing circumstances- hence the widely varying accounts of the same subjects.
One thing is certain, in order to understand the subjects under discussion, it is necessary to have put in some time into reading them up -
It is not acceptable to scoop up out-of-context quotes to fit pre-conceived notions, ignoring the subject as a whole.
Nor is it acceptable to fall back on claims of "not being a historian" - none of us are, to my knowledge.
It is completely outrageous to express a disinterest in a subject, then continue to argue on the basis of both self-declared ignorance and disinterest, often swamping the discussion out of existence.
THat is what has killed thread and has caused uncivil debate.
We come here to learn and to exchange ideas, not to "win".
Jim Carroll