Allow me to say that I agree completely with many of the posters here, who have stated that we know little of the "whys" that are attached to the "whats" in History. But history is not all "whys". In many ways, the sequence of events of our past are just as important as why someone (or ones) initiated that chain of events.
I'd argue that we have a pretty good idea as to the sequence of our past, as a species, but that just like today, we have some difficulty gettig into the minds of others, and sometimes, even our own minds.
I can look back, now, and tell you all the reasons that I decided to break it off with a girl at the end of my sophomore year of college, but in no wat would I presume to tell you that what I think the reasons were, at this very moment, were in fact the reasons I was using, then. Furthermore, even if it was a historically interesting event (which it is not), I could at best GUESS as to what she was thinking. I might be able to make educated, logical guesses--but they would still be guesses. We're not mind readers as a species, and so that kind of certainty for WHY is denied to us forever.
However, we can be certain that the event did happen because of the physical, demonstrable consequences. Argue all you want, but I am no longer dating that girl. This leads to the way we guess at "why" using the consequences of an event as a guide.
If the girl I broke up with say, was not a gamer, and a bad kisser, and the woman I 'm engaged to marry IS both a gamer, and the queen of tonsil hockey, one might surmise that gaming and kissing were reasons for the breakup in the past. You can never be CERTAIN that that was the reason, but you have some decent evidence that points you in that direction. This then becomes as close to historical fact on the "why" end as it is possible to get. (as I recall, those were, in fact, the reasons. She probably has a different story...
)
And that's the way History works. I think it's ridiculous to say that we know "jack" when in fact we know as much as we can be reasonably sure about. The beauty of human curiosity is that we keep looking for certainty--though it is unattainable. Yet, with every addition the the list of demonstrable facts, we're closer to learning about why by examining what.
We know rome rose to rule the known world, because it left demonstrable footprints on the world. We KNOW it fell, because it sure as heck doesn't rule the mediterranean, now! For the same reasons, we can be justifiably skeptical (but hopeful, as I suspect many gamers are) that there was historical King Arthur. For all of his literary impact, there's very little "fact" of his life. There was probably a warlord whose stories grew into the literary author, but for right now, we accept that we do not know, and work with the evidence that presents itself.
What I really think the human species has a problem with is the scale of time, not its sequence. We labored for years under the assumption that the world was merely thousands of years old, when as we now believe, it is a great deal older than that. Probably billions of years old. There seems to be a HUGE academic disagreement about the age of the Pyramids and the Sphinx...but we know that they were there before time X, and had an effect on religion Y. No one will tell you that there were no monument-building egyptian dynasties. After all, they left their mark for us to see, and study.
Lastly, to assume that we CAN'T achieve reasonable amounts of certainty about the past means you CAN'T accept the validity of ANYONE'S perception of reality. You only remember that the sky is blue, when I see it as a turqoise, and Bob thinks its green!
History (and reality) really isn't written by the winners, its written by the majority--and just like democracy, we just have to assume that most of the time, most people are right.
(sorry for the long post)
