This is a great, yet I fear impossible to answer, question. From the perspective of a Romanist, the accuracy of 'recorded' history is a very difficult topic to fully understand. The earliest history of Rome, as represented primarily by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, is usually thought of as anachronistic by modern scholars. We question their historicity based on a number of criteria: the length of time between the information preserved by their sources (i.e. the 'foundation' of the Republic occurred around 509 BC yet the Romans only began writing what we think of as history in the late third century BC). So the question is usually asked 'how would they have known anything of substance about the late sixth century?

The answer is that there would almost certainly have been stories told and re-told about that period in Rome, the historical accuracy of which in the third century is typically doubted. Inscriptions and monuments may have had specific stories related to them that helped to preserve some type of history of the events surrounding their creation, but, again, there is no real reason to assume an unchanging narrative.

The influence of partisan versions of events, such as the supposed patriotism of the Fabii during the period of the Battle of the Cremera (c. 477 BC) (Livy 2.48-50), make us suspect certain elements of the tradition are not necessarily 'accurate'. It follows in much more detailed arguments that, in the Roman case, influential families and their historians inserted historical events into the narrative which helped to portray the family in a good light, whether politically, religiously, or otherwise. Peter Wiseman has published extensively on the creation of the Roman historical narrative as we have it today (http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/classics/staff/wiseman/). Although focused on Rome, his discussions are important for the understanding of what 'history' really is, which can help to answer your question.

Unfortunately I can't help to answer your question in a more general way, but I hope the brief bit I have written above helps. The gist of what I am trying to point out, using Roman history as an example, is that historical narrative can, and should, always be questioned for its historicity. I'm sure more modern historians could probably provide you with a vast bibliography on historical interpretation.