Which "thousands of experts", are you referring to, exactly?
Sure, there could be many thousands of "expert" historians. My point is, have you personally "examined the arguments and evidence" of those thousands of experts, who you claim have been convinced by said evidence? If not, why are you arguing on their behalf?
>What exactly do you object to?
I'm objecting to the fact that some of them (whose claims I have read in history or Sanskrit courses I studied in school), state things about people and events of centuries ago, as though they know for sure that those things happened in the way they claim - without providing evidence, except for their assertions, which anyone can make.
That's why I have a healthy skepticism about them.
>it wasn't due to lots of Sanskrit speakers vacationing in France.
It may be true or false, but have you examined the evidence for it, if any? If not, how are you saying it categorically, and questioning my doing the same on another point (about historians)?
Who determines that they are experts? You? If so, are you more qualified than them, so that you can determine that they are experts? Where's your evidence for being a better expert than those "thousands of experts"?
Is that supposed to be an argument against it? Have you examined the arguments and evidence, which thousands of experts have examined and been convinced by? What exactly do you object to?