History is the record of events in the order they occurred.

According to Elton,

history is concerned with change and the particular. History deals with events not

states; it investigates things that happen and not things that are. 1 A historical event

cannot be described without reference to the persons involved and to the place and

date of its occurrence. Although unique and unrepeatable, historical events have one

common feature i.e. human action.

History seeks explanation of the things that happened to men in the past and

to know what it was like to have been the men to whom those things happened. The

historian studying the past is concerned with the later event only in so far as it throws

light on the part of the past and that he is studying. Therefore this essay will attempt

to discuss how historians try to explain historical events.

One of the ways in which historians try to explain historical events is through

the interpretation of the available evidence. Evidence is a fact, or combination of

facts, which provide grounds for belief that a historical event or events actually

happened. A fact is something known to have happened, a truth or reality that is

known by actual experience or observation; in other words a 'provable truth'.

According to Carr, facts are available to the historian in the form of documents,

inscriptions and so on.2

For e.g. Historians rely on recorded facts from diverse sources such as books,

newspapers, printed documents like birth, death and marriage certificates , personal

papers, and other archival records, artefacts, and oral accounts. In addition historical

facts not only question what happened and mere listing of the events in chronological

order it also tries to discover why events happened. In an effort to get at what really

1
ELTON, G. R. The Practice of History (Fontana Press, London 1987) p.32
2
CARR, E. H. What is History (Penguin Books, London, 1961) pp.9-10
happened, historians compare stories from a wide variety of sources, searching for

common elements that corroborate a plausible account.

Another way in which historians try to explain historical events is the

involvement of contingency and chance. Some historians argue that the final result of

the event is therefore dependent or contingent upon everything that came before or

due to earlier events, conditions and consequences of the actions of individuals. They

also claim that history is profoundly contingent in that independent origins of life in

the universe will spawn radically different histories. For e.g. According to Marwick

the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand had brought to crisis point

other forces making for a warlike situation This represented Serbian nationalism

against the Austro-Hungarian Empire.3

Whilst others argue that there exists the possibility of chance where historians

have to accept events that occur by accident. Thereby random events help shape the

course of history. A natural calamity as a flood or an individual succumbs to a disease

or the sudden death of someone can reasonably be accounted as an accident. For e.g.

According to Carr the premature death of Lenin the prominent leader of the Russian

revolution in the early 20th century at age fifty-four had modified the course of history

in Russia.

in practice historians do not assume that events are inevitable before they take

place. According to Carr, nothing in history is inevitable except in the formal sense

i.e. for it to have happened otherwise, the antecedent causes would have had to be

different. For e.g. If the British had removed or reduced several of the harsh

mercantilist policies against several of the American colonist the American revolution

may have not been conceivable.4

3
MARWICK, A. The nature of history (Macmillan Education Ltd, London, 1989) pp.247-248
4
CARR, E. H. What is History (Penguin Books, London, 1961) p.97
 On the other hand, some historians argue that history had a progressive

direction leading to an eschatological end, given by a superior power or in other

words they believe that a historical event is directed toward a particular end. Hegel

claimed that history is a constant process of dialectic clash, where one idea or event

will form the thesis, an opposing idea or event will be its antithesis, and the clash of

the two will result in a synthesis 5

For e.g. Marx adapted Hegel's dialectic to develop the materialist dialectic. He

saw the struggle of thesis, antithesis, and resultant synthesis as always taking place in

economic and material terms. Therefore the continual battle between opposing forces

within modes of production led inevitably to revolutionary changes in economics and

eventually communism, which would be the eventual recreation of an early, literally

6
pre-historic state.

However, another way in which the historians try to explain historical events

is based on the emphasis placed on the collective groups and their motives such as

classes, labour groups and political parties. This approach by the historian is thereby

fast becoming more focus in history. According to Brandon, one historian may stress

political motives- the desire for power and responsibility; another economic- and

forces the hunger for bigger cars, more splendid houses and greater prestige.7

For e.g. the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 was not based on

particular factor such as economic but several structural factors such as political,

geographical and social. Therefore according to Hexter, factor analysis requires the

5
BRANDON, L.G. History: a guide to advanced study (Spottiswoode Ballantyne Ltd, London, 1980)
pp.10-11
6
HEXTER, J.H. The history primer (All Lane The Penguin Press, London, 1972) p.199
7
BRANDON, L.G. History: a guide to advanced study (Spottiswoode Ballantyne Ltd, London, 1980)
p.21
historian to set out factors that made the phenomenon to be explained precisely what

it was.8

Another way in which the historian tries to explain historical events is by the

notion of causation. Causation refers to the act or process of producing an effect,

result, or consequence. Like a detective solving a mystery, historians study the

causation of past events to determine the motives, reasons, reactions, and

consequences that led to their occurrence.

Some historians believe that causation is like a chain reaction i.e. one event

leads in a straight line to another and that to another, and so on. Whist other historical

researchers see causation as a web where each act, decision, and motive intertwine to

create a unique web of intrigue that results into a big event. 9 Therefore the multiple

causation theory highlights that no single cause or factor can offer a full explanation

for a historical event or action.

On the other hand, one of the ways in which the historians try to explain

historical events is based on the comparison of the causes of one set of events with the

causes of other sets. For e.g According to Brandon the motor car was one of the

factors that transformed the social life of individuals in Great Britain during the

period 190106-39.

In addition, another way historical events can be explained is by the motives

and actions of the individuals involved. The leader of Civil Rights movement in the

United States of America in the 1960s was Martin Luther King Jr. whos actions of

8
HEXTER, J.H. The history primer (All Lane The Penguin Press, London, 1972) p.150

9
BLOCH, M. The Historians Craft (Manchester University Press, 1963) pp.191-194
10
BRANDON, L.G. History: a guide to advanced study (Spottiswoode Ballantyne Ltd, London, 1980)
pp.10-11
brotherly love and vision of united nation where all races received equality before the

law helped change the structure of the society.

In conclusion, the study of history is an intellectual pursuit as well as an

autonomous enterprise which thereby contributes to the improvement of man and it

does so by seeking the truth within the confines of the particular.