Or more precisely, is what we understand about some historical events possibly not correct because it was transcribed through the lens of the victors with bias?
Do historians have to try to account for this? Or are texts generally taken at face value?
Like if the winning side wrote down "this tribe attacked our homes and raped our women, so we went to war with them and wiped them out", would that be what was understood to have happened if there was no counter evidence available?
There are many counter exemple in History for this statement. The best source from the Peloponnesian war is by far the work of the Athenian (and thus the camp of losers) Thucydides which is considered as a classic in nowadays History.
The Mongol invasions in China or Persia are mostly known from the invaded people point of view as the Mongol somewhat lacked a written tradition.
Obviously, historian always are careful of the sources and suspected bias. It is extremely frequent that the sources exaggerate the number of enemies' strength and casualty in a battle to glorify themselves. Herodote for exemple claimed that during the Persian invasion of Greece, Xerxes led an army of almost 2 millions soldier,a figure which modern historian totally dismiss as it cannot fit any reasonable logistic estimation.