Is history just myths?

[rachelarcher]

is the history of the victorian era just made up of myths, is there any history, is history just pure fact? If anyone knows any good sources for my questions or and direction i could take, i would be extremley grateful.

Thanks

[JohnPPotts]

History isn't just myth, although the further you go back in time the less reliable it becomes (less scources available, fewer literate people to write stuff down and less free expression for those who could write, at least when it came to publishing). Bear in mind that everyone comes to write with their own prejudices (consciously or unconsciously) so their views will be subjective to a certain extent - just consider what newspapers today make of the Iraqi war. There certainly are pure facts - eg. the Second (Voting) Reform Act was introduced by Lord Derby's 1866-68 Administration, but the facts around events will certainly be "spun" according to who is telling them.

[Octavius]

see the BBC history website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/victorian_britainlj/preview.shtml

 

[Bangkok]

war features prominantly throughout history, and it tends to be written by the victors.  From Victorian times, primary documents are available, together with physical evidence of the scientific and industrial advances. 

[srd]

Of course it is not simply 'just made up of myths', but the very nature of 'history' as a recorded, 'official' version of the past means that there will be an inevitable bias to any one particular version of events.

This as a question of historiography rather than history, and I suggest you approach it by juxtaposing 'history' (i.e. recorded version of events) and 'the past' (i.e. what actually hapened).