So, whenever I'm in a bookshop (which is often), I like to browse the history section. Trouble is, I don't know if the books are written by reputable historians or crackpots. I have some idea sometimes, for example if it's part of the 'Very Short Introduction' series by OUP, then I suppose the book is reputable, or the 'A Brief History of' series. Or if it's written by someone I already know, like the book I'm reading at the moment by Simon Schama.

But other than that, I have no clue. Might there any way of determining?

I usually go by the blurbs. If they're from things like The Guardian or New York Times I go for it if they're from a magazine or person that may have bias or have none I won't get it.
That's the best I can do so this thread may be of interest to me too.

The two best ways I can think of are researching the author and examining the publisher.

I like to read as narrow topics as possible. I read this book, or the first half of it once,
http://www.amazon.com/History-Europe-J- ... 877&sr=1-3
but I do not care too much for Roberts. Some subjects he is familiar with, but it is not an objective history.

Books with tables and maps are reliable. Start with the penguin sets:
there are a number of them
http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Atlas-Mod ... pd_sim_b_2

wars are pretty well accounted, if you are into wars.

You could easily avoid this in the future by only purchasing books
which are written by reputable historians and who may already have
a teaching post at a university and have excellent credentials. But that
would be rather limiting. Another way round this problem however would
be to simply purchase in respectable bookshops such as Waterstones where
you will probably find more authors that you have never heard of than you have
But why not just take the plunge anyway ? So once in a while you read a bad book
Is that the end of the world ? One of the beauties of books is that one never knows
quite what to expect. Remember too that just because an author is recommended does
not automatically mean that you will like them. For even non-fiction has to be well written

The easiest way is to purchase those books which have been authored (or edited) by an historian from a university and published by an academic press.

Is it possible to write completely objective history? Perhaps I should have asked that in the philosophy forum.

jamest wrote:Is it possible to write completely objective history? Perhaps I should have asked that in the philosophy forum.

I think the trend nowadays seems to be that one should strive to be entirely objective in researching your chosen subject, but that because you must choose something to research in the first place you can never be entirely objective.

Your question was quite vigorously debated by historians in the 60s, most prominently between Carr and Elton - you might like to read their books, What is History? and The Practice of History, for an interesting but fairly dated discussion of the topic. Richard J. Evans's book In Defence of History might also be of interest, and though I haven't read it I've heard it's supposed to be good in its rebuttal of recent Postmodern criticism of historiography.

jamest wrote:Is it possible to write completely objective history? Perhaps I should have asked that in the philosophy forum.

The poster above has many sensible things to say, and I can confirm that Evans' book is an excellent, worthwhile read. As far as your question is concerned, I think it's fairly obvious that "completely" objective history is impossible. Historians, like everyone else, cannot seem to discard their cognitive vices, and instead settle for doing their best to hide and suppress them. Still, I'm unsure why anyone would want a completely impartial history: it'd probably be very boring.

"When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog."

I think it can also depend on the subject as well as the author. I have an interest in military history and often find that some professional historians are worse then the amateur historian who happens to have served in the military, (Though someone like Richard Holmes can give lie to this comment.), because they often do not understand the military imperatives that will influence the decisions that were made.

I think it can also depend on the subject as well as the author. I have an interest in military history and often find that some professional historians are worse then the amateur historian who happens to have served in the military, (Though someone like Richard Holmes can give lie to this comment.), because they often do not understand the military imperatives that will influence the decisions that were made.

Sorry about the duplicate post but the net is slow tonight here!!

I think that the problem with writing objective history, is that history has been 'constructed' by humans... and so what has happened has happened primarily because of subjective opinions and emotions. Therefore, one cannot begin to comprehensively write about such things without trying to get into the heads & hearts of the history makers. Trying to explain human activity cannot be scientific, then, in the sense that there's no 'order' to the way that we bahave as individuals and/or groups. So, any history which avoids the complex human reasons for said history - presenting nought but a list of factual events/dates - is indeed boring... and utterly insufficient.

The best historians are the ones which try to convey the humanity inherent within events, imo. They bring it all to life and make it relevant for you, by enabling oneself to relate to times which seem alien to our own. Recorded histroy has seen alot of change, but not in human nature, I guess.

Ironically then, the best chance of writing objective history is by knowing the subjective reasons behind it. This would mean that the primary criteria for being a good historian would be to have an acutely empathic nature. How would academia vet for such an attribute, I wonder?

jamest wrote:I think that the problem with writing objective history, is that history has been 'constructed' by humans... and so what has happened has happened primarily because of subjective opinions and emotions. Therefore, one cannot begin to comprehensively write about such things without trying to get into the heads & hearts of the history makers.

I think this is a leap. History is at least partly made by people, some of whom are often impelled by subjective preference and emotion, but this needn't mean that we must engage in some sort of psychoanalysis of them in order to understand the past. I do not, for instance, need to ever know what Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were feeling during their lifetimes in order to know their reforms and to apprehend these reforms' significance.

jamest wrote:Trying to explain human activity cannot be scientific, then, in the sense that there's no 'order' to the way that we bahave as individuals and/or groups.

I think sociologists and psychologists may have a thing or two to say about this.

jamest wrote:The best historians are the ones which try to convey the humanity inherent within events, imo. They bring it all to life and make it relevant for you, by enabling oneself to relate to times which seem alien to our own. Recorded histroy has seen alot of change, but not in human nature, I guess.

I regard this as a very dangerous attitude, especially for pre-modern history. An Athenian citizen of the Classical period has almost incomprehensibly little in common with you. His experiences are not in the least relevant to yours and never will be more. The very best you can hope for is a dim understanding of the society in which he lived and an approximation of the culture in which he was participant, and even that is exceedingly ambitious. I also find the idea of an immutable human spirit quite fanciful.

Tracer Tong wrote:

jamest wrote:I think that the problem with writing objective history, is that history has been 'constructed' by humans... and so what has happened has happened primarily because of subjective opinions and emotions. Therefore, one cannot begin to comprehensively write about such things without trying to get into the heads & hearts of the history makers.

I think this is a leap. History is at least partly made by people, some of whom are often impelled by subjective preference and emotion, but this needn't mean that we must engage in some sort of psychoanalysis of them in order to understand the past.

History is about humanity, so how is it possible to understand the past without understanding the mindsets of past generations?
How can we relate to events 2000 years ago, for instance, if we don't comprehend the thoughts & feelings of those who participated in such events? To leave out the human element of any historical account is to leave out the reasons for those events. Further, such insufficient accounts alienate ourselves from said accounts in the sense that - devoid of human thinking/feeling - we cannot touch upon them. It's a cold history. There's nothing to learn from it, except rigid facts which might win you first prize in the local pub quiz.

I do not, for instance, need to ever know what Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were feeling during their lifetimes in order to know their reforms and to apprehend these reforms' significance.

Then you would never truly understand why those reforms came about. Further, you could only judge the significance of those reforms in the light of contemporary experience.

Imagine that the year is 3011 and we're having the same discussion. Racism is now totally obsolete (let's assume), yet you're trying to tell me that you don't need to understand the thoughts and feelings behind the [past] events that have shaped our present [31st century] existence. Sufficient for you [and your readers] is to know that we were once racist, but not now. Yet, how does that explain how our own history evolved? It doesn't, because without trying to explain how and why people from the past held racist views, your own account of history lacks pertinent detail and prevents present [31st century] readers from immersing themselves into the history which you are claiming to be an expert about.

jamest wrote:Trying to explain human activity cannot be scientific, then, in the sense that there's no 'order' to the way that we bahave as individuals and/or groups.

I think sociologists and psychologists may have a thing or two to say about this.

Perhaps, but sociology/psychology is not a truly objective science.

jamest wrote:The best historians are the ones which try to convey the humanity inherent within events, imo. They bring it all to life and make it relevant for you, by enabling oneself to relate to times which seem alien to our own. Recorded histroy has seen alot of change, but not in human nature, I guess.

I regard this as a very dangerous attitude, especially for pre-modern history. An Athenian citizen of the Classical period has almost incomprehensibly little in common with you. His experiences are not in the least relevant to yours and never will be. The very best you can hope for is a dim understanding of the society in which he lived and an approximation of the culture in which he was participant, and even that is exceedingly ambitious. I also find the idea of an immutable human spirit quite fanciful.

You make my point for me. My experiences are totally different to those of my forefathers. Therefore, I can only relate to those experiences if empathy allows.

I also find the idea of an immutable human spirit quite fanciful.

Well, we're talking about recorded history. Are you proposing that the propensity to reason and feel has evolved vastly, in several thousand years? That would seem like a ridiculous Darwinistic proposal.

I think that experience teaches us alot, which has the knock-on effect of changing what we think & feel; but how we think & feel is something which connects all generations of recorded history. This is why I think empathy has a pivotal role to play in accounting for our history.

AndreD is correct, but I'd like to add sources, news reports as it happened and verified by other news sources, and witnesses whose claims can be verified.

When the day comes that the fascist pigs demand our history books be burned, and our schools and libraries filled with new history books re-written by tea baggers, then we're all in big big trouble.

jamest wrote:History is about humanity, so how is it possible to understand the past without understanding the mindsets of past generations?

This is something rather different, since you here seem to be referring to zeitgeists rather than the emotions and preferences of individuals. I suggest you clarify your thoughts.

jamest wrote:How can we relate to events 2000 years ago, for instance, if we don't comprehend the thoughts & feelings of those who participated in such events?

See above. I consider trying to "relate" to events millennia ago inherently stupid.

jamest wrote:To leave out the human element of any historical account is to leave out the reasons for those events.

What is "the human element"?

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I do not, for instance, need to ever know what Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were feeling during their lifetimes in order to know their reforms and to apprehend these reforms' significance.

Then you would never truly understand why those reforms came about.

I'm not much interested in why the reforms came about, at least on the level of individual motive. Plutarch offers a couple of explanations:

Others again say that a certain Spurius Postumius was to blame. He was of the same age as Tiberius, and a rival of his in reputation as an advocate; and when Tiberius came back from his campaign and found that his rival had far outstripped him in reputation and influence and was an object of public admiration, he determined, as it would seem, to outdo him by engaging in a bold political measure which would arouse great expectations among the people.

But his brother Caius [Gaius], in a certain pamphlet,1 has written that as Tiberius was passing through Tuscany on his way to Numantia, and observed the dearth of inhabitants in the country, and that those who tilled its soil or tended its flocks there were imported barbarian slaves, he then first conceived the public policy which was the cause of countless ills to the two brothers. However, the energy and ambition of Tiberius were most of all kindled by the people themselves, who posted writings on porticoes, house-walls, and monuments, calling upon him to recover for the poor the public land.

(Plutarch. Tiberius Gracchus. 8. 6-7)

So perhaps Tiberius was jealous, disgusted or moved, and it is this that resulted in his risky attempts at social reform. I don't really care. I'm much more interested in the structural and supra-individual causes of the brothers' legislation, the concept of which was alien to Plutarch. This is history proper: looking beyond the often irrelevant personalities of historical figures, with which ancient writers are usually preoccupied, to the real stuff of history. If Thucydides can manage it, I'm sure we can also.

jamest wrote:Further, you could only judge the significance of those reforms in the light of contemporary experience.

I don't know what this means.

jamest wrote:Imagine that the year is 3011 and we're having the same discussion. Racism is now totally obsolete (let's assume), yet you're trying to tell me that you don't need to understand the thoughts and feelings behind the [past] events that have shaped our present [31st century] existence. Sufficient for you [and your readers] is to know that we were once racist, but not now. Yet, how does that explain how our own history evolved? It doesn't, because without trying to explain how and why people from the past held racist views, your own account of history lacks pertinent detail and prevents present [31st century] readers from immersing themselves into the history which you are claiming to be an expert about.

I have not said that I am disinterested in causal analyses of historical phenomena. I've merely registered my disdain for the view that proper historical explanation consists in knowing whether the dramatis personae to which we are referring liked "to go riding or take walks...that ended with a sharp sprint and some jumping" (Suetonius. Divus Augustus. 83).

jamest wrote:Perhaps, but sociology/psychology is not a truly objective science.

I don't know what is meant by "objective".

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I regard this as a very dangerous attitude, especially for pre-modern history. An Athenian citizen of the Classical period has almost incomprehensibly little in common with you. His experiences are not in the least relevant to yours and never will be. The very best you can hope for is a dim understanding of the society in which he lived and an approximation of the culture in which he was participant, and even that is exceedingly ambitious. I also find the idea of an immutable human spirit quite fanciful.

You make my point for me. My experiences are totally different to those of my forefathers. Therefore, I can only relate to those experiences if empathy allows.

I don't "make your point for you", because I am disagreeing with you. The point is that no matter how hard you try, you will never empathise with an Athenian citizen of the Classical period-among almost everyone else in history.

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I also find the idea of an immutable human spirit quite fanciful.

Well, we're talking about recorded history. Are you proposing that the propensity to reason and feel has evolved vastly, in several thousand years? That would seem like a ridiculous Darwinistic proposal.

I'm not sure how this response relates to my comment here. Are you sure you've understood the meaning of each word?

jamest wrote:I think that experience teaches us alot, which has the knock-on effect of changing what we think & feel; but how we think & feel is something which connects all generations of recorded history. This is why I think empathy has a pivotal role to play in accounting for our history.

But this is simply untrue: people in the past have thought about and perceived the world in remarkably different ways to you, which explains why their beliefs are often so incongruent with yours.

For instance, you'd probably have no compunction about cutting down an olive tree, on your property, which some religious idiot had declared "sacred". To do so in Classical Athens, however, would risk your life. Still, your execution or exile would be more than acceptable propitiation: what mortal has the right to offend Athena, thereby risking the wellbeing of the entire polis, and go unpunished?

If you think you can empathise with a "forefather" who held such a belief, I wish you the very best of luck!

Tracer Tong wrote:

jamest wrote:History is about humanity, so how is it possible to understand the past without understanding the mindsets of past generations?

This is something rather different, since you here seem to be referring to zeitgeists rather than the emotions and preferences of individuals. I suggest you clarify your thoughts.

Both, really. Having an empathy towards the mindset of any past individual, must occur (if it can occur) within the context of any particular 'zeitgeist', given that much of what and how he/she thinks will be influenced by their own particular society.

jamest wrote:How can we relate to events 2000 years ago, for instance, if we don't comprehend the thoughts & feelings of those who participated in such events?

See above. I consider trying to "relate" to events millennia ago inherently stupid.

Why? Do you lack the faculty of imagination? This faculty is instrumental in the Theory of Mind, of course, whereby effective social interaction and altruism is facilitated. The ability to empathise with how others might be thinking and feeling is an innate quality inherent within nearly everyone, to various degrees. I'm suggesting, then, that a 'good historian' would be somebody attributed with a highly empathic nature, enabled to understand what it was like to be a particular individual within a particular environment. You're talking as though none of us have this ability, whereas my studies have showed that it even exists within animals such as chimps to some degree.

'Relating' to different people and environments is what people constantly do. It comes naturally to them. Therefore, given enough detail, it should not beyond the abilities of certain individuals to be able to relate to events past - given that 'events past' are a reference to particular individuals within particular environments.

jamest wrote:To leave out the human element of any historical account is to leave out the reasons for those events.

What is "the human element"?

As I explained, the real cause of history is the thoughts and feelings of those primarily involved in forging it.

So perhaps Tiberius was jealous, disgusted or moved, and it is this that resulted in his risky attempts at social reform. I don't really care. I'm much more interested in the structural and supra-individual causes of the brothers' legislation, the concept of which was alien to Plutarch. This is history proper: looking beyond the often irrelevant personalities of historical figures, with which ancient writers are usually preoccupied, to the real stuff of history. If Thucydides can manage it, I'm sure we can also.

I'm saying that both these aspects [of history] make for good history. I'm not saying that history should be devoid of actual factual content.

I have not said that I am disinterested in causal analyses of historical phenomena. I've merely registered my disdain for the view that proper historical explanation consists in knowing whether the dramatis personae to which we are referring liked "to go riding or take walks...that ended with a sharp sprint and some jumping" (Suetonius. Divus Augustus. 83).

Well, I'm certainly not interested in the nose-picking habits of Julius Caesar, but to have a glimpse into his mind is every bit as important to me in understanding Roman history as is having an awareness of his dictums and their effects.

jamest wrote:Perhaps, but sociology/psychology is not a truly objective science.

I don't know what is meant by "objective".

Ultimately, the closer we come to narrating the actual reasons/causes for any event, the closer we come to objectively reporting it. However, since human mentality is pivotal to forging human history, this means that having a high degree of empathy is a must for narrating the actual causes of human history. For instance, a comprehensive account of why 9/11 happened, could only come from somebody who was aware of the thoughts & feelings of those behind it. Without said account, we're left with no reason for 9/11 - just the fact that it happened. This is what I class as 'dry' history - devoid of meaning and interest to me because I cannot relate to it. In a 1000 years, historians who cannot relate to the thoughts and the feelings of the 9/11 terrorists (nor their victims), will not sell many books. Only those historians who bring past events to present minds are worthy of my dollars, imo.

The point is that no matter how hard you try, you will never empathise with an Athenian citizen of the Classical period-among almost everyone else in history.

Why not? Armed with sufficient facts and an acute imagination, then I can reject your claim. After all, it is facts and imagination which enable me/us to relate to one another in this very time. Indeed, it is facts and imagination which enable many people to write compelling fiction about our future. Actually, some writers are so good that they are able to immerse their readers/viewers into complete fantasy. Lord of the Rings, anyone? Star Trek? Alice in Wonderland? The Wizzard of Oz?

... How do you imagine that fiction/fantasy can be so compelling? Because, our ability to empaphise with the characters therein - in spite of their alien [to us] environments - enables us to relate to the story. You really need to give this serious consideration, since if our ability to write a good fiction/future is contingent upon an empathic ability [as well as fact], then so too is our ability to write a good non-fiction about the past.

This post is getting a bit long, so I'll leave it at that. I hope that I've thoroughly relayed my thoughts to you. Cheers.

If you want to discuss things like "objective History" and related subjects, it would be VERY good idea to recognize one crucial thing about why people do ANYTHING: to accomplish SOMETHING.

What I mean is, that History is written and studied for a number of very different reasons, and those reasons are the single greatest influential factor in whether a given Historic study is "useful," or "accurate," as perceived by those reading it.

Many of us who study it, simply get tremendous personal pleasure from finding out how things came to be the way they are. We don't study History for "lessons" about how to proceed onward from here, we are just amused by what led us to this time and place and circumstance.

Others study History with the firm belief that "past is prologue," and that what has gone before provides a direction and a force (like a vector in math), which, if recognized and measured properly, will permit successful predictions about the future to be made.

Still others, crawl through the records of what has come before, NOT to understand it, and not to predict from it, but to use the past as an AUTHORITY figure in order to add to their own arguments in favor of, or in opposition to, a proposed course of modern action.

All of these reasons can have their own supporting Histories, and it's often possible that ALL of those Histories are actually accurate, as far as the recitation of provable "facts," and the order in which those "facts" occurred goes.

Trying to make History into a Scientific Discipline is one of those "Holy Grail" things, in more ways than one. Quite aside from the HUGE challenges presented by the inability to "standardize" ANY information, and to formulate a "General Theory of Human/Natural Causation," it's also probably true (as it is for the Grail) that there IS no such real thing, just the vision of it.

Another of the big problems with wishing for a "reliable" History of any subject, is that the nature of the past very much depends on one's point of view. Right now, we are going through HORRIBLE times, for us peasants and alleged middle class types, but this has been a time of Wonder and Brilliance for the CEO classes, as their incomes have skyrocketed higher with every reduction in wages and benefits that they manage to put the rest of us through. It's been a DREADFUL time for Communists.

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

jamest wrote:How can we relate to events 2000 years ago, for instance, if we don't comprehend the thoughts & feelings of those who participated in such events?

See above. I consider trying to "relate" to events millennia ago inherently stupid.

Why? Do you lack the faculty of imagination? This faculty is instrumental in the Theory of Mind, of course, whereby effective social interaction and altruism is facilitated. The ability to empathise with how others might be thinking and feeling is an innate quality inherent within nearly everyone, to various degrees. I'm suggesting, then, that a 'good historian' would be somebody attributed with a highly empathic nature, enabled to understand what it was like to be a particular individual within a particular environment. You're talking as though none of us have this ability, whereas my studies have showed that it even exists within animals such as chimps to some degree.

The point, as I have repeatedly stressed, is that no matter how hard you try, and how much of an empathic person you are, you will never be able to empathise with the vast majority of people of the past. It is difficult enough to empathise properly with those whom you treat as close friends and family. How you intend to go about empathising with my Athenian citizen described above-a character thoroughly alien to you-is anyone's guess.

Moreover, why would you want to?

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:So perhaps Tiberius was jealous, disgusted or moved, and it is this that resulted in his risky attempts at social reform. I don't really care. I'm much more interested in the structural and supra-individual causes of the brothers' legislation, the concept of which was alien to Plutarch. This is history proper: looking beyond the often irrelevant personalities of historical figures, with which ancient writers are usually preoccupied, to the real stuff of history. If Thucydides can manage it, I'm sure we can also.

I'm saying that both these aspects [of history] make for good history. I'm not saying that history should be devoid of actual factual content.

You've not understood the distinction being made here. I've not claimed that history shouldn't be devoid of factual content, though I believe that incidentally. I've questioned your assertion that the sort of explanation Plutarch provides for the making of the legislation is " the real cause of history" ("the real cause of history is the thoughts and feelings of those primarily involved in forging it"). This is simply backwards, parochial and naive.

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I have not said that I am disinterested in causal analyses of historical phenomena. I've merely registered my disdain for the view that proper historical explanation consists in knowing whether the dramatis personae to which we are referring liked "to go riding or take walks...that ended with a sharp sprint and some jumping" (Suetonius. Divus Augustus. 83).

Well, I'm certainly not interested in the nose-picking habits of Julius Caesar, but to have a glimpse into his mind is every bit as important to me in understanding Roman history as is having an awareness of his dictums and their effects.

You'd be lucky to get even a glimpse.

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

jamest wrote:Perhaps, but sociology/psychology is not a truly objective science.

I don't know what is meant by "objective".

Ultimately, the closer we come to narrating the actual reasons/causes for any event, the closer we come to objectively reporting it. However, since human mentality is pivotal to forging human history, this means that having a high degree of empathy is a must for narrating the actual causes of human history. For instance, a comprehensive account of why 9/11 happened, could only come from somebody who was aware of the thoughts & feelings of those behind it. Without said account, we're left with no reason for 9/11 - just the fact that it happened. This is what I class as 'dry' history - devoid of meaning and interest to me because I cannot relate to it. In a 1000 years, historians who cannot relate to the thoughts and the feelings of the 9/11 terrorists (nor their victims), will not sell many books. Only those historians who bring past events to present minds are worthy of my dollars, imo.

This doesn't tell me how you used "objective" in the context in which it was used above.

jamest wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:The point is that no matter how hard you try, you will never empathise with an Athenian citizen of the Classical period-among almost everyone else in history.

Why not? Armed with sufficient facts and an acute imagination, then I can reject your claim.

No amount of facts and imagination will ever be enough. I believe that you are simply not aware of the extent to which such a person differs from you. I did not use the phrase "incomprehensibly little" for nothing.

jamest wrote:Indeed, it is facts and imagination which enable many people to write compelling fiction about our future. Actually, some writers are so good that they are able to immerse their readers/viewers into complete fantasy. Lord of the Rings, anyone? Star Trek? Alice in Wonderland? The Wizzard of Oz?

... How do you imagine that fiction/fantasy can be so compelling? Because, our ability to empaphise with the characters therein - in spite of their alien [to us] environments - enables us to relate to the story. You really need to give this serious consideration, since if our ability to write a good fiction/future is contingent upon an empathic ability [as well as fact], then so too is our ability to write a good non-fiction about the past.

Modern, Western writers craft fiction which is not altogether dissimilar to their own world and characters with which a modern, Western audience can identify and empathise. This is scarcely surprising, and I do not see what it has to do with history. The bolded part is a non-sequitur if ever there was one.

What you're advocating here and above is exceptionally jejune, and I suspect is a position you've blundered into and now do not want to abandon. No historian or philosopher of history of which I am aware (except the occasional psychohistorian) advocates your view, and, as hinted above, even ancient historians are capable of looking beyond the dross you're promoting as proper explanation. Not only are an historical character's personality and cognitive ephemera usually immaterial to historical explanation, especially in the case of the latter, but also, particularly with respect to the ancients, these ephemera are mostly unknowable. Yet you don't stop here: not only do you want to make the peripheral characters and indiscernible whims of your dramatis personae the nexus of historical endeavour, but an impossibly "empathic" understanding of these people is regarded as critical; indeed, without this empathy you seem to believe that interpretation cannot occur at all:

For instance, a comprehensive account of why 9/11 happened, could only come from somebody who was aware of the thoughts & feelings of those behind it. Without said account, we're left with no reason for 9/11 - just the fact that it happened.

Oimoi!