posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 09:46 PM
This has been bugging me for a while. Now, bear with me, because I'm no expert on the subject, this is very much a layman question. And if you feel
like this is a display of ignorance and you could deconstruct my reasoning in 2 minutes, by all means, please do. I wish to clarify my own thoughts on
Anyway, here's my issue : Why is history treated like an exact science? Why is there an established "canon" of history, when by its very nature,
this discipline is highly speculative? Material evidence is scarce and incomplete, but the real problem lies in historical sources. How can we truly
determine the accuracy of a source? We know that, even as far back as classical antiquity, governments were already practising disinformation, and
even borderline Orwellian editing (Damnatio memoriae comes to mind). We don't know how many documents were altered, censored, or suppressed. I'm
willing to bet that conquest often involved massive destruction or editing of the enemy's historical records. And human history is rife with
conflict, one could almost say it revolves around conflict.
To put it in a more coherent way, here's my question :
How can people agree with these assertions :
1) "History was written by the victors"
2) "The classical sources are reliable"
...and not see an obvious contradiction?