Apologies if this has been discussed before. Does the idea of 'turning points' over emphasise certain moments, while making everything else seem stagnant simply because whatever is happening doesn't have relevance to historians now?

To give two examples; Joan of Arc's victories are seen to be a 'turning point', but does that over-simplify the complexities of the Treaty of Troyes, of minority rule, etc. etc.? Are the developments in the years preceding and after her death often looked at less closely?

A more important example (to me): does the idea and even search for a 'turning point' that enabled industrialisation etc. in Western Europe obscure the study of events that don't seem to have led to empires? Or the study of societies that didn't colonise half the world?

Does the search for 'turning points' (and the assumptions inherent in the trajectory studied) create assumptions that it is difficult for historians to overcome?

I'd be really interested in anybody's thoughts.