Yet one cannot properly reject the weight and details of what historians think. To enter historical debate on a serious basis requires that one also know and consider what professional historians think.
I will consider their opinion only to the extent that they can provide historical evidence to support it.
Beyond that, I prefer primary evidence rather than secondary opinions.
I'm well aware of the historiography. Historians don't agree. You wouldn't expect ideological conformity unless you had a top down system that would not tolerate any dissent from their political dogma. Which is exactly what exists in Academia today. It was not always so.