History professor here.

I've read thousands of student exams. Too many to count. Generally speaking, the good essays do contain more information and are structured better than the not-so-good essays. But that's not what makes them good. A good essay is one where the writer focuses not on the "what?" -- names, dates, etc., but on the 'so what?' -- their own analysis of that information.

Being able to parrot back a litany of facts and whatnot is not what makes a good historical essay. As an example, I know a guy who watches the history channel like it's manna from heaven. He's quite proud of the fact that he can rattle off the names of all of the Union generals in the US Civil War. I smile and nod. Thing is -- so what? Instead of ratting off the names, consider finding out why these guys were the generals. Did they share some schooling? A place of origin? Some common friend or other influencer? What does all of this say about the Union military during the war? That's the analysis side, and what's you should focus on in your essay.

I've given As to papers that had little or no factoids. The writers were able to use general terms and large-scale events to both answer the question and provide sound analysis. This is not easy, and your instructor(s) may penalize you for this, but I think this shows a deeper understanding of material than rattling off names and dates.

As an example, this is a question I use often on exams: Describe how the US labor movement changed from the mid-19th to the mid-20th Century. A student could write out all sorts of details about the Knights of Labor, the AF of L, the CIO, and on and on and on with names and dates. And that would show that they studied the material and perhaps learned something. Great. Another student, however, might write about how the movement started as a loose affiliation of local, craft-based guilds and unions interested in self-protection that then morphed into a more national, quasi-class-based movement that sought to unify workers in industrial and craft employment. That second student could then discuss the various political tactics, outside influences, and antiunion tactics that came about. The second student could also describe how the union movement changed massively when the movement switched from control-based unionism to pay- and job security-based. This second paper might not include a single date or name (tho the latter would be difficult to pull off,) and might well earn an A.

I hope this makes some sense. Before your exams, I'd be sure to ask your instructors what they think of this advice. It's possible that s/he would prefer a litany of dates. But I doubt it. Good luck.