> I think modern scholars are much more likely to be rigorous
Modern scholars who literally think the Germans didn't sack Rome? I'm pretty sure the contemporary accounts of the Romans who were sacked had a more accurate view of what was going on than some simpering dipshit at Harvard trying to make a name for himself by saying the sky is actually Paisley and the Germans peacefully assimilated.
There's a place for historical revisionism; Nero being a misunderstood bunny rabbit isn't a good place for it any more than "Germans didn't sack Rome." Nice try though.
Which modern scholars think the Germans didn't sack Rome? Are you actually suggesting this is a mainstream consensus?
I am pretty sure that a citizen historian who was brutalized by the invading tribes* has a much stronger incentive to exaggerate and lie than a modern scholar. Not to mention, modern scholars have their work reviewed by peers, and are able to sample multiple sources much more easily because of things like the development of field-of-study rigor and other things like the printing press.
Look at how news stories develop. The first stories are generally not correct. It takes time, perspective, and lots of hard work to piece together enough of the puzzle to try and provide an accurate story.
* German is a bit of a misnomer, given the time period we are discussing.
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.
Modern scholars who literally think the Germans didn't sack Rome? I'm pretty sure the contemporary accounts of the Romans who were sacked had a more accurate view of what was going on than some simpering dipshit at Harvard trying to make a name for himself by saying the sky is actually Paisley and the Germans peacefully assimilated.
There's a place for historical revisionism; Nero being a misunderstood bunny rabbit isn't a good place for it any more than "Germans didn't sack Rome." Nice try though.