When Two Sources Tell Different Histories

Two accounts of the same past event can disagree without either being a simple invention. They may differ in when they were recorded, whose perspective they preserve, or what each author considered important.

When you encounter conflicting historical accounts, what helps you judge what to believe? Do you look first for corroboration from other sources, the authors’ proximity to events, whose voices are missing—or something else? And how do you separate a disagreement about evidence from one about what the event means?