This probably wont get any answers, but I need an argument to help support my paper?

Question

I'm writing a paper, and I want to say that it is better for a historian to record all accounts of an event, even if they differ, than to exclude an event entirely, just because there are many different accounts of it that do not match.

I need some examples/oppinions of why this is true. I already have a few from Herodotus (because that's who the paper's about), but the whole thing could use a little more depth.

Hope that made sense! Any help would be appreciated, because I could really use it.

Answer 1

Use the Holocaust of the Jews during WW2 as an example. I'm sure that if all the atrocities were accounted for by witnesses, people like the President if Iran would be less likely to argue that it never happened.

Even though there would be so many accounts of the events(because they were happening all over, and to a lot of people), they would help substantiate the fact that it was 1 orchestrated effort to destroy an entire group of people.

Answer 2

Accounts of an event differ because of - subjective perspective, I suppose we could call it. Take as an example D-Day, the Normandy invasion, or perhaps the Battle of Waterloo between Wellington's army and Napoleon's, or Gettysburg. These events were huge enough, and involved so many individuals that accounts are certainly going to differ, simply because so many people experienced them.

Answer 3

Not sure if this will help any but i agree with you about taking all accounts down. You could later on find some evidence that goes with the notes that were the total oposite of what all the rest were. The results could change and people could change their minds. I hope atleast part of that was understandable.
Good Luck!

Answer 4

Maybe a comparison to a distant historical event that was not recorded and is therefore the subject of speculation and even debate as to whether or not it even happened.

You sound like a bright young person, and well on your way to a well-written paper.

Good luck.

Answer 5

I agree with you that it's better to draw on all accounts, but I think you should make an effort to clearly point out where you're seeing conflicting accounts. To just throw together a mishmash of contradictory accounts just makes for a weak paper.
"Some accounts say such and such, while other accounts assert such and such" Something like that is what I'm talking about.

Answer 6

because if they exclude ideas, ect they would be making the people who read ignorant and also because if they dont write about it people wll have no opinion for themselves

Answer 7

Hey .. trying to get me to do your work.... not good !!!! Well i would help you but i forgot most of the info that i learned in history class... but u could pick me as best answer anyway ????? :)