I just began reading John Brooks' "Business Adventures", which is a collection of nonfiction stories that take place on Wall St and similar business Meccas. His thesis so far seems to be that many iconic companies became the icons that they are today as a result of a single moment that defined them as such (- each story is about that moment). It’s a great read so far and he definitely seems to be accomplishing what he set out to do. So, the reason I am bringing this up here is because the history fanatic in me can’t help but wonder if historians look at a particular civilization/nation/culture in a similar manner- by that, I mean do historians look for moments that define a culture thereafter, or do moments simply build upon one another, each of nearly equal importance. I recognize that this is a somewhat layered question and can be answered in different and opposing ways, but I am more so concerned with how history as a discipline generally goes about defining a culture and how a culture defines itself within its collective conscious. Is the definition wrought from a single yet heavy handed moment, or do historians generally take into account as much as possible when going about their analysis? I would assume that a superficial definition of a culture could be derived by a single moment, such as the Roman Republic and the death of Julius Caesar. But would you historians say that a more academic perception of an entire culture could be heavily influenced by a mere moment, and as I pointed out, has a moment generally influenced a cultures perception of itself?

I find it odd that the only structural commonality between history, archaeology, and anthropology in undergrad is that they are 'humanities'. Credits from an anthropology course, for example, would not contribute to a honors history degree. That's how it was at my Canadian university, at least.

It would be nice to have courses that mixed two of the three disciplines, or have less delineation in the credit system. A system that bundles credits toward one degree, allowing for broader learning, might be good for undergrad. Any thoughts on this? Apologies if this is off-topic.

It seems to me that in older historical works, there is a tendency to use history to prove a point or build a narrative: German historians creating a history where all civilisations were built up by the Aryan race and destroyed by the Jews would be an example, and different narratives about Charlemagne emphasizing or downplaying his relation to (anachronistic) societies or nations would be another.

So, related to this, two questions:

How did historians justify bending or fabricating the truth to fit their own stories?

Is modern history moving away from this and focusing more on empirical views of history, or are things like personal opinion still considered important to the discipline?