I find what is written in these threads absolutely fascinating, thought provoking, insightful, and sometimes just plain enjoyable. Much of what is written here seems to be designed to convince readers that such and such a perspective is more accurate and posters marshal facts and figures to prove their point. I wonder though, just how many readers here have ever really had their minds changed by what they have read here or perhaps in books recommended by writers.
I must admit that the most sagacious writers here, the ones who adduce the most logical arguments, the most persuasive and cogent opinions happen to be those who agree with me, but on occasion, I have to admit that some writers have challenged by preconceived notions and have made me uncomfortably reassess my previously held convictions. For example, my assessment of Robert E. Lee as a commander. Having read Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of Lee early in my life I concluded he was the conjoined reincarnations of Washington, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great with a bit of DNA from Charlemagne and Richard the Lion Hearted. I was surprised when I got to the end of the book to realize that the South had actually lost the war.
From much of what I have read here, and much, much more later reading, I have concluded that I may have been wrong and, perhaps in his gene pool, he really was a later amalgam of Pompey and Darius, perhaps a Vercingetorix and Leonidas, more of a tragic figure than a victorious commander.
So what I am asking here is, have any readers have ever been forced to reevaluate long held, cherished convictions based on what they have read here or in books recommended by other readers.?