Something I think ppl who aren’t used to it struggle with when it comes to ancient history is that frequently ‘we do not and cannot know this’ is the only truthful response a historian can give. People severely overestimate how much we actually know about Ancient Rome.
I remember talking to someone at a party once about the debate over Septimius Severus’s ethnicity (whole other can of worms) and they asked if genetic testing of his remains was not a way to settle it and I was like oh. Oh okay you are under the impression we have the physical remains of Roman emperors from the second century AD alright then. (We. Do not.)
Can’t stress how much of high level study of Ancient History is devoted to trying to make sense of what actually factually happened. When I was at university (10+ years ago now) the discipline was embroiled in the lengthy and ongoing process of trying to unpack not just the biases in ancient sources but the centuries & centuries of biases within the field itself. I don’t imagine this process is ever going to Stop. It’s not uncommon for historical accounts to be so garbled & contradictory that it’s not possible to reconstruct the real events behind them.
Once in an introductory lecture one of my professors was talking about this problem and articulated it very simply as 'we know real things happened between real people, but we aren’t sure what they were’. Sums it up really!!