Richard III was a “great king” who achieved more than the Elizabeths and Henry V

The perception of Richard III as a nasty villain who murdered his nephews is “one of the greatest injustices of history” according to Philippa Langley, a screenwriter who led the search for the remains of the former king.

Appearing on BBC Radio 4’s Great Lives, Langley said Richard III was “most certainly” a great king who wanted to “make life fairer and more bearable” for ordinary people.

Speaking to presenter Matthew Parris alongside Richard III biographer Annette Carson, Langley said: “History is written by the winners. When Richard died on the field of Bosworth [in 1485] a new dynasty was born, and that dynasty had to legitimise itself. And by doing that it had to denigrate Richard, in a sense, because it had to show them as being the new choice…

“He’s been trashed I think, definitely, and then Shakespeare of course comes along in the Tudor era, so we have the popular perception of Richard as the archetypal evil villain. [We have] plays based on [the work of] Thomas More [chancellor in the reign of Henry VIII, who in around 1515 wrote The History of Richard III, which established Richard’s reputation as a tyrant], and then many of the subsequent writers and historians believe that Thomas More is a credible source and a credible witness.

“So, it’s an amalgamation of those three very powerful things that really wrote Richard’s story off completely.”

Langley went on to praise Richard as a great king. She said: “Richard only reigned for just over two years. So what I decided to do was to look at our greatest monarchs and what they have achieved – the Elizabeths, the Henry Vs, the Alfred the Greats – but to give them the same comparator as Richard is to give them 777 days. What did they achieve in the same time frame that Richard had?

“What is absolutely staggering is when you do that [you realise] they didn’t achieve half of what this man did.”

http://www.historyextra.com/news/richard-iii/richard-iii-was-%E2%80%9Cgreat-king%E2%80%9D-who-achieved-more-elizabeths-and-henry-v

Thanks @Brasidas

So Britain has basically been abused ever since Richard III untimely death.

Happy to be of service Captain Jane.
Is very interesting.

The British have one major flaw: they are clueless when it comes to choosing heros. They'll either pick a regicidal maniac like Eliz I, or a war criminal/mass murderer like Henry V.

The fact is that Richard III was one of the best administrators in his brother's (Edward IV) administration, and an outstanding military leader who was brilliant in his campaign in Scotland:

Medievalists.net wrote:In his article, “The Yorkists at War: Military Leadership in the English War with Scotland, 1480-82,” Sean Cunningham examines how Richard, when he was still just the Duke of Gloucester, personally commanded a war effort which humbled the Scots and recaptured the city of Berwick-upon-Tweed. It provides a glimpse into Richard’s abilities and how he was able to become King less than a year later.

The Brits can only see the hump in the man's shoulder and judge him because he had a disability. Pssssf..

Quill, it's obvious you were not educated in England!

nicko wrote:Quill, it's obvious you were not educated in England!

FUCK!! Obviously. I don't fall for the King's line. I know more about England than most Brits, but I have an independent perspective. That's a good thing!

nicko wrote:Quill, it's obvious you were not educated in England!

I am quite interested to here what Me lady thinks Nicko. This is her forte, she has far more knowledge on this era than I do.
Some of Quills views are very wacky on English history and its based on more an old rivalry based reason as to why he does or even mock the English
England and Scotland, his ancestry is Scottish.
So it is just harmless and banter fun when he belittles England or people from its past.

To quill

Henry V will always be a hero to many, due to the conception of winning. Even more so with a victory against the odds. It will be born also of a pride in your nation winning.
Victories bring out some of the best jubilation you see in humans, and it is very powerful when it happens, whether in sports or when you are proud of your nation where it had a King who did win against the odds. It is over your rivals as well. Making it that much more special. It shows that people will be remembered for doing good or doing bad. They also though will be very remembered for also winning. People will ignore Henry brought about economic problems, things like that are of no bearing when you beat your rival and more so when you do it in style.

Brasidas wrote:

nicko wrote:Quill, it's obvious you were not educated in England!

To quill

Henry V will always be a hero to many, due to the conception of winning. Even more so with a victory against the odds. It will be born also of a pride in your nation winning.
Victories bring out some of the best jubilation you see in humans, and it is very powerful when it happens, whether in sports or when you are proud of your nation where it had a King who did win against the odds. It is over your rivals as well. Making it that much more special. It shows that people will be remembered for doing good or doing bad. They also though will be very remembered for also winning. People will ignore Henry brought about economic problems, things like that are of no bearing when you beat your rival and more so when you do it in style.

How does it serve your argument to admit that you--and perhaps all Englishmen--lack any objectivity when it comes to British fables?  It's because I am not English, yet know more British history than most all English, that I can become detached and objective.  The reason why the English accept these myths about their heritage is because they cannot separate genuine research from their national anthem.  Objectivity comes from detachment, not from rooting for the home team.

Henry V, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I...these guys were all bad people.  If one has a history as long as England does, you are bound to churn out a few.  Christ, they can't all be perfect.  Hey...I understand.  I root for the Raiders even in the bad years.  But, I wouldn't call myself the best at objectivity on the Raiders.

Good point, Quill, and it's pretty crucial to strive for objectivity when it comes to historical "heroes" or we just end up with more bad premises in contemporary debates.

For a more recent example, look at Thatcher and Reagan, already mythologized in ways that run completely contrary to historical facts and context.

But our conservative friends are always busy making myths that conveniently place them favorably within a heroic narrative

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

To quill

Henry V will always be a hero to many, due to the conception of winning. Even more so with a victory against the odds. It will be born also of a pride in your nation winning.
Victories bring out some of the best jubilation you see in humans, and it is very powerful when it happens, whether in sports or when you are proud of your nation where it had a King who did win against the odds. It is over your rivals as well. Making it that much more special. It shows that people will be remembered for doing good or doing bad. They also though will be very remembered for also winning. People will ignore Henry brought about economic problems, things like that are of no bearing when you beat your rival and more so when you do it in style.

How does it serve your argument to admit that you--and perhaps all Englishmen--lack any objectivity when it comes to British fables?  It's because I am not English, yet know more British history than most all English, that I can become detached and objective.  The reason why the English accept these myths about their heritage is because they cannot separate genuine research from their national anthem.  Objectivity comes from detachment, not from rooting for the home team.

Henry V, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I...these guys were all bad people.  If one has a history as long as England does, you are bound to churn out a few.  Christ, they can't all be perfect.  Hey...I understand.  I root for the Raiders even in the bad years.  But, I wouldn't call myself the best at objectivity on the Raiders.

What a load of gobbledygook. Most people if indeed patriotic are indeed biased towards events and people they deem heroic, which you will find the very same in America. Your belief you know more is I have to say misguided beyond belief and based on conjecture. My parents are not English, so I stand in good stead to base whether something is biased or not, being as I know so much history. The fact is most historical books are biased towards the writers views, which is why I read more than just one account of an individual or event in history, I read multiple. Though to use the above to make some claim onto the English, is biased  again based on a view you hold of the English and a biased view you have being as you are American. You cannot decide for others who they view as great or heroic, as the reasons will differ greatly as to what matters to each. As to English myths all I can say is you clearly have not read many historical books by English writers .

Also to take a view today of people from the past and base views we have today to a view of seeing them as bad is a very poor understanding of history, where you fail to take in what was known and practiced for the day. Yes will rightly judge it as wrong, but to poorly blanket historical figures as you do shows and proves that you do have a bias. For example you ignore that Henry VIII had a head injury which is very possible the cause of his temperament getting worse to the point he became a tyrant. For a start we can look to valid reasons why he may have become a tyrant. For example we know before his head injury in a jousting accident, he was sporty and generous and after became cruel, vicious and paranoid. This is not excusing his crimes or actions but provides one of many possible reasons to how or why his personality changed. So before you pass judgement on biased views, you my want to judge your own first.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Good point, Quill, and it's pretty crucial to strive for objectivity when it comes to historical "heroes" or we just end up with more bad premises in contemporary debates.

For a more recent example, look at Thatcher and Reagan, already mythologized in ways that run completely contrary to historical facts and context.

But our conservative friends are always busy making myths that conveniently place them favorably within a heroic narrative

See, again a biased view of two people in history, based on your own political views.
You center on what you see as wrongs done by these two people and ignore for example the fact one broke all previous taboo's and rose to become the first female Prime Minister. This inspired many women for the time, where women hardly ever reached the top. To rise to the top, in a very male dominated society, where she as hindered at every turn, was a massive achievement for the time. So what you are actually doing Ben is giving a very biased perception yourself. I do not discount things she did wrong, but whether you like it or not, even more so in your own country she will be remembered as a great Prime Minister, second only to Churchill in America in popularity. So you need to be objective and see both sides as I do.

Original Quill wrote:

How does it serve your argument to admit that you--and perhaps all Englishmen--lack any objectivity when it comes to British fables?  It's because I am not English, yet know more British history than most all English, that I can become detached and objective.  The reason why the English accept these myths about their heritage is because they cannot separate genuine research from their national anthem.  Objectivity comes from detachment, not from rooting for the home team.

Henry V, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I...these guys were all bad people.  If one has a history as long as England does, you are bound to churn out a few.  Christ, they can't all be perfect.  Hey...I understand.  I root for the Raiders even in the bad years.  But, I wouldn't call myself the best at objectivity on the Raiders.

Brasidas wrote:What a load of gobbledygook. Most people if indeed patriotic are indeed biased towards events and people they deem heroic, which you will find the very same in America. Your belief you know more is I have to say misguided beyond belief and based on conjecture. My parents are not English, so I stand in good stead to base whether something is biased or not, being as I know so much history.

As I recall, your family is from Malta…or Italy…someplace in the Med.  But you were still immersed in the culture and education of Britain.  You still had teachers driving all that biased BS into the impressionable, urchin brain.  I'm not being critical; we all have that experience.  You cannot escape it.  Lower grade teachers are our earliest and perhaps most impressionable exposure to things like history and culture.

Brasidas wrote:The fact is most historical books are biased towards the writers views, which is why I read more than just one account of an individual or event in history, I read multiple. Though to use the above to make some claim onto the English, is biased  again based on a view you hold of the English and a biased view you have being as you are American.

Ahhh…pffft, a bunch of relativist bullshit.  One is a relativist until one wants to say something himself, then he becomes an absolutist.  You are a historian…when you write, aren’t you saying this is what it is?  You don’t bathe yourself in dependent qualifications.

Sure, history is always and inevitably done from the armchair.  That’s because time is the one dimension you can’t go two ways along…ergo: none of us were there. That’s why you try to eliminate the influences that give bias.  One of the biases you try to eliminate is that which affects not only your appreciation of history, but your life, your language, the frame of your culture and, well, your whole life.  Who better to study your culture than one who observes from a knowledgeable distance.

There has been a great deal of research on the methodology of inquiry into cultures.  In particular, I am impressed by the work done by Claud Levi-Strauss on structuralism and functionalism.  A functionalist, in anthropology, tries to join and live with the society in order to learn up close and personal what the culture is all about; the problem with the functionalist is that he or she joins with the society and acquires all of the biases—the values, beliefs and symbols—of the culture, and thus loses the independent footing of an unbiased investigator.   The structuralist tries to evaluate from outside, and observe and describe the structure of a certain civilization-- “Modern phonemics does not merely proclaim that phonemes are always part of a system; it shows concrete phonemic systems and elucidates their structure” finally, structural linguistics aims at discovering general laws, either by induction “or ... by logical deduction, which would give them an absolute character.” (Alan Lane, Structural Anthropology, chapt. II).  Conversely, what the structuralist gains in objectivity, as you probably guessed, he loses in the internal familiarity of the culture.

The perfect candidate is the person who has both lived within the society, and stands outside the cultural inculcation with which the culture imbues the individual.  I think Levi-Strauss would smile upon my position: I not only have a doctorate in History of British Political Ideas, but I have lived and taught in the UK.

Brasidas wrote:You cannot decide for others who they view as great or heroic, as the reasons will differ greatly as to what matters to each. As to English myths all I can say is you clearly have not read many historical books by English writers .

Yes, everything is a value ultimately.  That’s why we develop disciplines, with shared sets of values…so we can proceed.  I don’t claim to be British, but I do claim to accept the values of historians.  That way I can climb out of the mire of relativism, and look at British society structurally, but with intimacy.

If anything, I am more polemical when I am being Scottish, as you pointed out above.  But that is precisely when I need not fear relativism.  As one who identifies as a Scot, I don’t have to hang back.  I can be the functionalist.

Well as usual you are wrong about me and make absurd assumptions knowing very little how I do look at history. You did not address the fact you are biased also to who we revere or do not approve of, there is no changing that fact. I have always take a highly critical stance on all history, where I take a very sceptical view, thoroughly research and decide what has a bases to truth.
History has always been made in the main by the victors so this is why you take many different accounts of such events and piece together the truth. The amount of times I have shown such flaws in your claims, where it renders you hypothesis redundant, you always ignore the evidence I present to you.


You have made many outlandish claims on history, I go off what is feasible based on the evidence. Which you never at times factor in and now all we are talking about is measuring dicks. That is dull, so debate the point and stop ignoring the fact many historians are biased from the past, not such much today hough. So who the English wish to see as hero's I provide you with why and you made no comment on this, hence a pointless debate.


So unless you have anything meaningful to this and not us both measuring dicks, there is nothing to debate.

Brasidas wrote:Also to take a view today of people from the past and base views we have today to a view of seeing them as bad is a very poor understanding of history, where you fail to take in what was known and practiced for the day. Yes will rightly judge it as wrong, but to poorly blanket historical figures as you do shows and proves that you do have a bias.

Listen, we all judge. That is what human beings do. Even if I tried to say something without judgement, I would be judging what is worthwhile to say. Even if I were able to speak without values (judgment), I would just be saying nothing. And no one would be listening.

Brasidas wrote:For example you ignore that Henry VIII had a head injury which is very possible the cause of his temperament getting worse to the point he became a tyrant. For a start we can look to valid reasons why he may have become a tyrant. For example we know before his head injury in a jousting accident, he was sporty and generous and after became cruel, vicious and paranoid. This is not excusing his crimes or actions but provides one of many possible reasons to how or why his personality changed. So before you pass judgement on biased views, you my want to judge your own first.

It is a good example. Henry had two such jousting accidents, one in 1516 as well. Do you think it made a difference to the people of his time? If Henry was an asshole, they judged him an asshole. And that's with Englishmen who were living there, and at the time.

It is the job of the historian to bring such details to the fore, but not to distort the truth about Henry VIII. Whatever the cause, in the time and space occupied by Henry in the 16th-century, he was a bad person.

Oh for goodness sake, again nobody is excusing Henry VIII, what historians  look for is reasons to why his personality changed, anyway he is not one in England seen as a hero compared to many others, so unsure why you bring him up.


We have many great historical characters, happy to go through the ones that are seen as English hero's and will explain why they are seen as such to people.

Have a good evening

Brasidas wrote:Well as usual you are wrong about me and make absurd assumptions knowing very little how I do look at history. You did not address the fact you are biased also to who we revere or do not approve of, there is no changing that fact. I have always take a highly critical stance on all history, where I take a very sceptical view, thoroughly research and decide what has a bases to truth.

Well, I'm not writing about you really, so we might move on.

Yes, everybody has a bias, but that is why we dialogue. That is why we write and discuss. Objectivity is always corrigible, and no truth is final. But one of the first biases we should purge is that which is included within the mythology that we learn in elementary school. We learn eventually there is no sleep fairy, that Santa Clause is not real, and we should learn that Henry V was not such a great guy. It's called growing up.

Brasidas wrote:History has always been made in the main by the victors so this is why you take many different accounts of such events and piece together the truth. The amount of times I have shown such flaws in your claims, where it renders you hypothesis redundant, you always ignore the evidence I present to you.

You have made many outlandish claims on history, I go off what is feasible based on the evidence. Which you never at times factor in and now all we are talking about is measuring dicks. That is dull, so debate the point and stop ignoring the fact many historians are biased from the past, not such much today hough. So who the English wish to see as hero's I provide you with why and you made no comment on this, hence a pointless debate.

So unless you have anything meaningful to this and not us both measuring dicks, there is nothing to debate.

You are getting confused. Is that statement about history or about me? If you want to talk about me, I'll drop out; I don't gossip. But if you want to talk about history, or historical methodology, I'm all ears.

Make up your mind.

Didge
My view is and always has been Richard III was a greedy spoilt younger brother who made a power grab at the expense of a vulnerable nephew. He was always resentful for not being popular like his father or 2 elder brothers. He was de factor ruler of the north and could've been a huge assest to his nephew but he wanted more money more power. He even contemplated marrying his neice to make his right to the throne more legit (yuck). He accused his own mother of sleeping around in order to deny legitimacy to his brother/nephew. He hated being over shadowed by his step-nephews.

Was he a humpbacked monster? no total spin from the Tudor mouthpiece Shakespeare?

Do I think he murdered Edward V and Richard of York? Not by his own hands but he certainly knew of it and looked the other way.

I also do not agree with the premise put forward by the researcher mentioned in your OP about comparing his amount of days ruling to other monarchs and what was achieved. What utter hogwash. Time and circumstances were totally different.

gotta go game's gonna start......more later

Quill, you say in your post "santa clause" is not real? You bastard, that really hurts. sob.

Cass wrote:Didge
My view is and always has been Richard III was a greedy spoilt younger brother who made a power grab at the expense of a vulnerable nephew. He was always resentful for not being popular like his father or 2 elder brothers. He was de factor ruler of the north and could've been a huge assest to his nephew but he wanted more money more power. He even contemplated marrying his neice to make his right to the throne more legit (yuck). He accused his own mother of sleeping around in order to deny legitimacy to his brother/nephew. He hated being over shadowed by his step-nephews.

Was he a humpbacked monster? no total spin from the Tudor mouthpiece Shakespeare?

Do I think he murdered Edward V and Richard of York? Not by his own hands but he certainly knew of it and looked the other way.

I also do not agree with the premise put forward by the researcher mentioned in your OP about comparing his amount of days ruling to other monarchs and what was achieved. What utter hogwash. Time and circumstances were totally different.

gotta go game's gonna start......more later

Hello me Lady

This is what I mean about how history is portrayed and what we can read between the lines as lets face it most of the history on Richard has a bias against him.
For a start it is important over a time line. This is why Alexander the Great is classed as great, because of his military achievements in such a short span of time. Not only this how he spread Greek influence throughout the then known world and integrated the cultures. He was no doubt as an individual had some very poor character traits and commited some vile crimes as we would portray them today, but again it was the time frame of his achievements that stands out making him great. So I certainly do not agree with your claim to hogwash.

To me again the evidence does not point to him murdering Edward V and Richard of York, as they had been declared illgitimate and thus been disinherited. This part is important, because at the time many did view they were illegitimate and was widely suspected and had been agreed by parliament. Their father, Edward IV, liked to dip his wick with many women, there is no doubt of this and was probably already married when he married the boys' mother, Elizabeth Woodville. A modern Jury would easily dismiss the evidence laid at his door. This evidence of course is based on two writers. One is Polydore Vergil, who Henry commissioned to write a propagandist version of the History of England. The other is Sir Thomas More, who happily burnt Pordestants at the stake and a stanuch Tudor supporte. Henry VII on the other hand, had a very poor claim to the throne and only to him would the would the Princes had represented a threat. He stood to gain most out of their deaths.


The only person who stood to gain from their deaths would have been Henry VII. Again I believe Henry has left the finger pointing at Richard III to remove suspicion from himself. There is no denying he was ahead of his time and no matter your personal perception of him as an individual, you cannot ignore his forward thinking changes to the English law. He introduced the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" which is still within our law today. So the view of what he achieved in such a short space of time is very valid. Many leaders take time to bring about change, yet he did so within the law system in such a short space of time, of which as seen conrtinues to this day. The fact also is he was a physically courageous man. The wounds on his skeleton clearly demonstrate that he fought to the bitter end at Bosworth. The reality is he was a forward thinking King for the time and it is the bad press writtabout him, which helps people lean towards what I see as the wrong conclusions about him. Again most of the sources are biased against him, which has to be taken into account in unravelling the truth.

nicko wrote:Quill, you say in your post "santa clause"  is not real?   You bastard,   that really hurts. sob.

Odd...most of the time people lament the passing of the sleep fairy.

the tooth fairy is true though isn't it?

Brasidas wrote:

Cass wrote:Didge
My view is and always has been Richard III was a greedy spoilt younger brother who made a power grab at the expense of a vulnerable nephew. He was always resentful for not being popular like his father or 2 elder brothers. He was de factor ruler of the north and could've been a huge assest to his nephew but he wanted more money more power. He even contemplated marrying his neice to make his right to the throne more legit (yuck). He accused his own mother of sleeping around in order to deny legitimacy to his brother/nephew. He hated being over shadowed by his step-nephews.

Was he a humpbacked monster? no total spin from the Tudor mouthpiece Shakespeare?

Do I think he murdered Edward V and Richard of York? Not by his own hands but he certainly knew of it and looked the other way.

I also do not agree with the premise put forward by the researcher mentioned in your OP about comparing his amount of days ruling to other monarchs and what was achieved. What utter hogwash. Time and circumstances were totally different.

gotta go game's gonna start......more later

Hello me Lady

This is what I mean about how history is portrayed and what we can read between the lines as lets face it most of the history on Richard has a bias against him.
For a start it is important over a time line. This is why Alexander the Great is classed as great, because of his military achievements in such a short span of time. Not only this how he spread Greek influence throughout the then known world and integrated the cultures. He was no doubt as an individual had some very poor character traits and commited some vile crimes as we would portray them today, but again it was the time frame of his achievements that stands out making him great. So I certainly do not agree with your claim to hogwash.

To me again the evidence does not point to him murdering Edward V and Richard of York, as they had been declared illgitimate and thus been disinherited. This part is important, because at the time many did view they were illegitimate and was widely suspected and had been agreed by parliament. Their father, Edward IV, liked to dip his wick with many women, there is no doubt of this and was probably already married when he married the boys' mother, Elizabeth Woodville. A modern Jury would easily dismiss the evidence laid at his door. This evidence of course is based on two writers. One is Polydore Vergil, who Henry commissioned to write a propagandist version of the History of England. The other is Sir Thomas More, who happily burnt Pordestants at the stake and a stanuch Tudor supporte. Henry VII on the other hand, had a very poor claim to the throne and only to him would the would the Princes had represented a threat. He stood to gain most out of their deaths.


The only person who stood to gain from their deaths would have been Henry VII. Again I believe Henry has left the finger pointing at Richard III to remove suspicion from himself. There is no denying he was ahead of his time and no matter your personal perception of him as an individual, you cannot ignore his forward thinking changes to the English law. He introduced the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" which is still within our law today. So the view of what he achieved in such a short space of time is very valid. Many leaders take time to bring about change, yet he did so within the law system in such a short space of time, of which as seen conrtinues to this day. The fact also is he was a physically courageous man. The wounds on his skeleton clearly demonstrate that he fought to the bitter end at Bosworth. The reality is he was a forward thinking King for the time and it is the bad press writtabout him, which helps people lean towards what I see as the wrong conclusions about him. Again most of the sources are biased against him, which has to be taken into account in unravelling the truth.

Brilliant thesis.  One put forth before, by Charles Ross, in Richard III (1981), although not summarized as expertly as you, Didge.  The dynasty with the weakest claim to the crown, was neither York or Lancaster, but Tudur, not even Plantagnets...it came out of the bastard line of John of Gaunt, who with his mistress Catherine Swynfort, created the Beaufort line.  Thus, no one benefited more by the death of the sons of Edward IV than Henry VII.  And of course, Shakespeare--the apologist for the Tudurs--wrote the play that most blasphemed Richard, Richard III.

Even had Richard been involved in the death of the two boys, remember the times.  Edward was a cocksman--whence his grandson Henry VIII, of six wives fame, got most of his genes--who fell into the throne because, as a York, he won a minor battle and his father died on the same day.  He was supposed to obey the dictates of the kingmaker, Warwick, but what 18-year old kid does what he is told.  While Warwick was over on the Continent trying to arrange a suitable marriage, here Edward is trying to get into the knickers of Elizabeth Woodville, a Lancastrian and the sister of Lord Rivers, for chrissake!  She holds out for marriage, and the red rose wins.

While kings sire monarchs, their wives give birth, raise and educate them.  **Most important rule, kemosabe**  In short, that meant that Richard was condemned to die should his brother, Edward IV, predecease him and the young prince become king.  See, Seward, Desmond, The Wars of the Roses (1995).  The boys were being raised Lancastrian.  Richard was the heir to the York fortunes.  The the only chance Richard had to live was to grab the throne, which he could do because he was Regent.

The only moral of the story is: Edward III had too many sons.

Hi Quill

This is what is so interesting Quill about much of the history, where you can certainly look with a critical eye on what has been written, clearly finding points that easily contradict the accounts. Excellent points you have advanced further on here, which combined making for a very strong case in my opinion.
Looking forward to Me Lady responding to both posts, as it will make for a very interesting debate.