I'm pretty sure that theory is wrong

There's no theory here. Nor is there any convincing such people with all the evidence in the world, anymore than you can convince a flat earther the earth is a globe. They will simply declare it a fabrication and declare all evidences of it fabrication as well.

The Catholic Church could not have invented Roman era coins from South Asia. It never ruled South Asia. And the Brits weren't Catholics, and they ruled India through a period they were pretty anti-catholic. I hope I don't need to prove that the Reformation was a real thing.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/RAsiaSoc/1904/October/Roman_Coins_Found_in_India*.html

The Catholic Church had no reason to construct a building for the worship of pagan gods, built by a worshipper of pagan gods, and rebuilt by other worshippers of pagan gods. Frankly no church has a reason to do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon,_Rome

The inscription on the Pantheon, built by Agrippa and rebuilt by Trajan and Hadrian states "Marcus Agrippa, the son of Lucius, three times consul, built this" https://depts.washington.edu/hrome/Authors/asc1/ThePantheon/pub_zbarticle_view_printable.html

The Church had no reason to leave behind 1st century wooden tablets in pre-Christian Britain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindolanda_tablets

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/02/480407904/hello-from-londinium-oldest-handwritten-documents-in-british-history-discovered

Also worth noting that the first were discovered in the 20th century, and the second items in the 21st. I think its safe to say the Catholic Church's ability to fabricate things in England would have been pretty limited by then.

The simple reality is that there are vast amounts of evidence for the Ancient Romans and their Empire. It consists of the sheer wealth of archaeological remains, not the least of which is the city of Rome itself. It consists of thousands of documents, which are, yes, copies from the Medieval era (though not all Christian. Many are also from Islamic sources. Huge chunks of Roman History and culture were rediscovered by Medieval Europeans). It consists of the very influence of language itself, giving name to the Arab dinar (from the roman Denarius) and terms such as the Kaiser-i-Rum, a title used by the Ottomans (very much not a Christian, let alone Catholic state) and a legacy of the Roman claims of the Byzantine Empire.

The idea that the entirety of Rome was fabricated is about as believable as the idea that the Moon is a fabrication and that New Zealand is a conspiracy theory. Or that birds aren't real.

Apologies to the mods for not giving more academic sources and referencing Wikipedia, but I really do feel like generic simple evidence is the best evidence here. I doubt a peer reviewed article will convince someone who can look at the Pantheon of Rome or read Caesar's Gallic Wars and call them Christian Fabrications. Hopefully this does satisfy the requirements for an indepth answer though and I hope this helps answer you OP.

This was always my problem with the Birds Aren't Real folks. It's a clever bit of performance art/public prankery that outlines how conspiracy theories work, but it's also provided something of a template on how to get attention via an elaborate performance of ridiculous untruth, which is in turn something that can be monetized. It's not just an online thing, notably. I'm reminded of The Church of the Sub-Genius in the recent past and many similar elaborately false ideas that attracted devotees in the past, such as Hollow Earth theory.

I don't think most of us realize that people who go viral, especially on Tik-Tok, have been trying repeatedly to do so with different schticks. Taylor Blake of "Emmanuel the Emu" fame is only one example.

With many of the attempts to build up a patently false idea, I think the original creator and the first few followers are often in on the joke (or are part of the circle of people who profit from the attention) but after that point you get people who are genuinely convinced who become a serious nuisance for everybody else. It's hard to say what the right thing to do is, but ignoring it seems one viable possibility.

I want to get in on this argument, to make a valid point. Not all revisionism is this atrocious. As i will not be citting alot in this responce I will give my educational credintials.

I have a degree in Media Production, from Fullsail Universtiy. As well as a dual major in Philosophy and History, from Marshall Universtiy. My Philosophy focus was on Foucault. My focus in History was Cultural History, and Methods.

While I am not a scholar of the classics or know classical methods. I will say the tiktokers methodology seems to be more on the anthropological side, especially when dealing with atniquity. Which tends to revolve around simple anwsers for complex questions. A good example of this is the Cargo Cults ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult ) which while using this method can lead to true and correct ascertians, when used with antiquity can be cursory, due to the lack of oral historys, or primary documentation.

But to CLAIM that the Roman Empire did not exist, is not only cursory, but down right ludicrous ! There is primary documentation for the existance of Rome, 100% full stop. If you want to disprove this, you would have to use the Historiography of a vetted document to either dispute the document completly or revise its meaning with peer review. This takes a life time of work by several people to establish not only a Historiography but also the dismisal of the past argument. It is not an easy task, and definetly not as easy as saying ( This isn't Latin its Greek. JUST TURN IT BACKWORDS!)

Lets view a Historical argument that someone used the same type of cursory method that this TikToker used and see the result, that not only caused a Historical skizum, but also lead to the literal deaths of thousands of people.

Ferdinand Nahimana (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Ferdinand+Nahimana) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Nahimana) Made a Historical argument that their was cultural/ethnic diference between Hutu and Tutsis in central African countrys as an undeniable fact. While in reality, the historography from the Belgian sources tells us not only that this is untrue, their main distinction between Hutu and Tutsi is Farmer vrs Rancher. The belgians bigotted the two groups against each other to further their Political and Socital control over Rawandan peoples.

Most of Ferdinand Nahimana published work has been removed from the Historography of Rawanda for failure to meet the above method requirments, but can still be found in in Physical form. (IE J-stor has removed all his published works including his disertation from University Paris Diderot. For bad methods and hate speach presumably. One of the catalist for the Rawandan Genocided directly is the Publication of his work By Universtiy of Paris 7. As the works themselves wouold have had to been vetted strongly by the University Paris Diderot tenured staff. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Diderot_University)

My argument and or warning to all, is be careful what you argue historically. It can have real life ramifications that will effect millions.

In our contemporary world most people feel they are far more educated then they are, or vice versa equal to or more knowledgable then the experts. I refer to this phenomena as Scientism , someone else in the comments reffered to it as, last thursdayism. People who use this method say things like "Not Logical" "Non- Scintific" as a reason to dispute an argument. But in reality they dont have a good grasp on what the scientific method is and in that case 100% do not understand logic. These are what i like to call "Sit down and Shut Up" arguments. When you make an ascertian using any method be it, Historical, Scinentific, Anthropological. The audience makes the asumption you have knowledge of the methods and to use proof insdie the methods to prove your argument. When someones proof is "Thats not Logical" and "Thats not scientific." But listen to my unvetted (peer reviewed) argument and in this case (peer review totally disagrees with your asertion) You should know that not only is this person incorrect but they have no idea what they are doing, and believe them selfs superior to all. This is a bully tactic used to make people sit down and shut up.

I plan on getting on this persons tik tok and asking for not only citations, and historiography of this argument. I will keep you posted in the replys bellow what they provide.

​