how do historians know that something happened the way they think it did? Couldn't it be something different?

Question

For instance, how do people know for certain that something happened in the way that they believe? Something completely different could have happened. We could also be getting questions we think are easy wrong because people got the wrong information. It takes your perception of what you think is right and completely demolishes it.

Answer 1

As a historical archaeologist, I take the information presented both by written accounts when they exist for an event, and compare them to the physical evidence which exists for the same event. When there is missing information - and there often is - you use information written by other people about the event, even who weren't there, and compare it to things you know already existed. Comparing as much information as possible lets you determine what is the most likely event. When you compare this information, you'll find the things which repeat over different people's accounts, and this is likely true. Sometimes you'll find out later that something is incorrect, or made up, and a good historian will research THAT and find out if that correction is more likely to be true based on other information.

As the above poster noted, a lot of written history is biased, which is why I like taking an archaeological point of view. The physical remains of history are left behind in small, sometimes puzzling ways, but humans always leave their mark on the world. You learn a lot about people who weren't writing by what they left behind materially, and can piece together their lives through that, while you have the written accounts only of the higher classes in many instances.

Answer 2

Historians rely not only on first hand accounts of events, but on documents, diaries, photographs (depending on the period), government reports, church records, etc. The older an event is, the harder it is to get facts, as opposed to interpretations of events. Remember, history is written by the winners, to a large degree, so the accuracy of events on a tomb wall of a pharoh, is a lot less than the documentation of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Answer 3

History, like all things, shouldn't be taken with blind faith. Some events are well documented so to be historically accurate. Other events are based on incomplete records or inferred based on other events. If you care about any particular historical event, you need to know how complete the historical record is verses assumptions made based on other, indirect material.

Answer 4

Yep just as in the Question Which was 1st the Chicken or the Egg Right?

Or if a tree falls in the woods and no one around does it make noise?

Answer 5

The simple answer is, they do not, but only surmise what infact happened depending what motivated them to write the account in the first place.

Answer 6

A little educated guessing wrapped around some bs (not unlike most of the answers you get here)

Answer 7

word of mouth, written records, and a little fantasy make up history as it is today