Tis true, you communicated my point very well. :)
Some times, there isn't even evidence to support another point of view, especially if one side isn't literate and they all become exterminated.

I suppose. Is this claim being debated? It seems pretty basic to me.
(this thread is now tl;dr)

This is what was debated..
I think it's over with now...
What else do you mean Moco?

What do you mean what else do I mean :P Probably nothing.
But, I do agree with HNM in that everyone will have their own input of what happened, even if someone was actually isolated in seeing it (like a glacier falling or some other isolated natural occurrence). The only person who saw it could tell the story, but then scientists could jump in, etc.

I see where you're coming from.
Problem with history is that for a time..not everyone could communicate their viewpoint because they couldn't read, write or get in contact with the officials..In modern times though you can safely say that there are many viewpoints to an event because we can communicate with each other so easily via social media.

You're underestimating the strength of tradition and stories - they obviously become distorted over time, but many do have some kind of historical base. Just because most people are only interested in the most complete accounts does not mean others do not exist, at all - the opposite, in fact.

Also, surely how accurate our accounts of history are are irrelevant to the fact that history actually happened?

Well, yeah, obviously events occur (the axiom of existence), but it is still up to us to interpret the events and determine their role in our big picture and their existential value to humanity (axioms of identity and consciousness). IMO the real value of history is not applied until we define the higher axioms, and such value is in the eye of the beholder, which is obviously relative.

Another $0.02...I guess.

I like your interpretation Tsyal..That's how I view history as a whole. Especially since I'm studying Historiography which is the writing of history, the impact of historians writing about the past and their methods for using sources and writing history and how they interpret past events.

Stories may be relevant for a historical viewpoint but only when a historian turns them from being a potential source to being a history. Many potential sources are never seen because historians never see them as being relevant to what thay are trying to argue. Since the stories have been passed down for potentially hundreds of years and have probably been altered down the track, a historian is unlikely to rate them as being credible evidence for actual events though..