Historians piece together information , and verifiy it whare they can , often the same fact will come from 100s of sources and can be attribted "true"
This is why I say it's all hypothetical. Historians are piecing together information that
they believe to be true. Person A could have documented horses only having 3 legs back in 1400, and a historian could come to that determination, but that doesn't mean that Person A was accurate.
Back in 2003 when the Sars outbreak happened, I kept hearing about how it originated in Canada and Canadians were all to blame. I'm Canadian and didn't find out until about 10 years later that it actually originated from China. Thankfully with the use of the internet I was able to determine that. But it makes you question, how did the rumour of it starting in Canada even happen? What if the Sars outbreak happened in 1400? Would Sars have been known as the Great Canadian Outbreak of 1400?
And I didn't say it's all bullshit, I'm saying how can we really know? We're basing it on the honour system.
reply
share
moviechatterer (16326)
4 years ago
"Thankfully with the use of the internet I was able to determine that"
wait what , so history works when you write it? :p
----
" how can we really know?"
multiple sources, extrapolation , science , reasoning , detective work , collating , collaborating , cross referencing and the many many things i postulated were too complicated to go into.
What do you think historians and archelogists do all day?
reply
share
samoanjoes (58601)
4 years ago
They come up with a probable conclusion. Can you 100% say that Genghis Khan died while having sex? Or do you just accept it because that was the probability?
reply
share
moviechatterer (16326)
4 years ago
I hadnt actually heard that one,
but on that specific case i'd say yes there is a huge possibility that is just a story and not actually true,
reply
share