It doesn't matter, because history is probably one of the most effective forms of social control. Think about how complicated modern day events are and how difficult it is to shift through the mountains of perspectives to understand the whole picture. Now throw in decades of time difference with fragmented and hard to decipher primary documents, and you end up with a story that has to be interpreted by expert historians/storytellers, installed into the self-identity of generations of students, and used to shame individuals into matching the mythical sacrifices their ancestors supposedly took without any complaint. It's miles ahead of organized religion in terms of persuasiveness because any grain of truth in the historical story is magnified into the only possible truth without nuance or uncertainty. To go against the stories we tell ourselves is to go against all of society itself. If the body tells you to die in stomach acid because that is your role as an epithelium cell, and it's what generations of your ancestors have done, what can you do but die doing your job?
There was a point where I really enjoyed reading histories. Then I dug too deep and found too many inconsistencies, and I realized that if I were to track down every detail to the end I would go mad or worse, be a history PhD. The only way I could recover that original enjoyment was to treat every historical book as a work of fiction and marvel at how well they're able to hack its way into the social subsystem in our brain that allows us to form societies.