Why do historians disagree?

I'd say it would be because sources can be interpreted differently. Especially with something that happened a very long time ago, there aren't many primary sources, so historians have to rely on material recorded decades or even centuries after the event occurred. If these secondary sources are basing their accounts on contemporary evidence no longer in existence, it becomes harder to establish what is fact, and what has gone awry over the years. It's sort of like a game of Chinese Whispers. Secondary chroniclers don't get the full picture of the event, or misread something, or, sometimes, make something up for the hell of it, so what they're reporting as fact isn't actually what happened. It must be a hell of a time establishing what part of the story got added at what point in time, and whether everything in the secondary account is correct or not. So when you've got several different accounts of an event, each written at a different point in time and each varying from the other slightly, you've got to pick what you think is true, based on other sources, and contemporary ones, if they're available. Different historians will come to different conclusions based on their own opinions, power of deduction and the sources they've used.

exactly, thin lizzy. as a woman, I definitely feel like i identified more with bloody mary, mary queen of scots and queen elizabeth i when we studied the tudors at a level an age ago! the guys in our group didn't seem to be able to get in the mindset, understand some of the emotions, things like that. if you feel like you can understand an historical figure or event, its easier to expand an opinion, and people will always interpret emotions differently to the next person. i think also, as you pointed out in your question, there's always more than one way to explain something based on the evidence that we have about it. although not necessarily considered a primary force in the world of history, there was a time team episode shown the other week about an historian who was investigating the battle of bosworth. historians are facing new evidence that suggests that cannon played a direct part in the battle, and that the location of the battlefield is not where we've all been assuming for all of these years, because of the cannonball that have been found nearby. so i think the differences in era when opinions are formed also play a part, because as new evidence comes to light, opinions change.

Because different things can be interpreted different ways.

There are many people in Britain question whether we won WW2 after all Japan and Germany have both since prospered more than Britain.

When did WW2 end, now there is a seemingly straight forward question, 1945 with the surrender of Japan.

Well yah boo sucks to you with knobs on, because I would say 1989 and the end of the so called Cold war, that merely being a continuation of the War started in 1939. Which incidentally during the mid 1930s many people in Britain thought would be with the USSR. In fact there were still many who thought that up to the declaration in Sept 1939.

So I think both your theses hold water.

The English Civil War, someone published a book in the 90s coming close to the conclusion it never even happened. I believe even the author backtracked on that one a tad, but it does make your point.

It's all a matter of interpretation and the clearest thinkers make the most sense. Where there is any doubt, it keeps the debate alive and makes sure that historians continue to think about it. Inevitably, new discoveries change theories so it is a pretty fluid situation and better than having fixed ideas that may easily be proved totally wrong over the course of time.

that is like technology: you attempt to locate the certainty, how issues rather are/happened. yet you don't be attentive to, you pick and discard tips. some styles of knowledge are greater suitable than different types. data desires to be interpreted. With information perspectives on existence and knowledge the tip end differs too. the point of conflict of words has a max. Few (to no longer say no-one) human beings will declare WW2 started because of the fact Mayans had a feeling of misplacement after the Spanish conquest interior the midsection a protracted time. there will be (lots) greater human beings announcing it replaced into because of the tip of WW1. desire that helped.

Different historians embrace different pet theories. It's almost like a courtroom with the Defense and Prosecution offering different views of the same event and using evidence to back it up.

1

You can put a spin on everything you say.

The historians favour their pet theories.

Usually the winners get to write the history

books.

To avoid being accused of Plagiarism's.

Its because they have different political views !!!! Marxists would portray Karl Marx favourably, whereas nazis would not !!!