Not a historian so I daren't speak of how they choose a subject of research but I can help address a fundamental misconception

. For example, Chinese history I feel a lot of concepts/topics have been discussed and evaluated hundreds of times, that there is already a general agreement of what happened and how it happened. Ultimately, there is little to be added or researched in a sense, that’s the general idea I have.

So for my era of 190 CE to 284 CE, the main source is Chen Shou collecting and editing from the records of each three rival claimants to the mandate of heaven. Funnily enough, they do not always agree with each other (who promised what over Jing in agreement overseen by Lu Su between Liu Bei and Sun Quan for example.). Then there are the other works collected by Liu Song dynasty historian Pei Songzhi from other people of the three kingdoms, later historians and critics who, again, don't always agree with each other. Modern historians have not managed to sort this into a 100% settled narrative from all the conflicts in the texts

Even where we have one primary source or sources that seem all in agreement, modern historians don't always agree with those. Gentry historians writing eunuchs in power is wicked and wrong, the winning Sima's propaganda job against the Cao Shuang regency they overthrew, the last Emperor trope with Sun Hao. All speak of attitudes at the time and of the historians writing but don't give us an unbiased version of events. While modern historians might agree on there being bias among the sources, that doesn't mean they always agree on how much of the traditional charges are true and how much should be dismissed.

There are also gaps in our knowledge. Books lost in chaos and war or simply over time, things not recorded because the state never had the resources to set up a proper history department, things not recorded due to lack of writing. Or things not recorded because it wasn't seen as important for a historian to focus on at the time or was so normal that it never seems to have been noted down. Without that information, how can our information and understanding be complete? A historian who can find new information or a new perspective that gives us a better, if still limited, understanding of the gaps will have helped.

The way we look at history also evolves. Not just moving away from the ancient idea that a dynasty fails because of poor moral character but more modern ideas like the great man theory have fallen out of favour. Research done under the great man theory ideals might be warped around "the great man" and not see things in the proper wider context so fresher eyes might be needed to see the period in a better light, to move our understanding on.

Let me give just three works on the three kingdoms that have helped adjust understanding of the era, each one coming in and giving a new perspective that helps further the understanding of the era.

Rafe De Crespigny's biography of the warlord Cao Cao (Imperial Warlord: A Biography of Cao Cao 155-220 AD), the antagonist of the novel, a man who rose to be the largest power, a figure that got plenty of coverage down the years. On Guandu, a battle between him and his former patron Yuan Shao for control of the north, the narrative has been the same for centuries, the powerful, arrogant and wealthy Yuan Shao vs the humble, more clever, rising man Cao Cao who overcomes major odds to win the day. Rafe De Crespigny points to flaws in the texts about the numbers, the comments of Pei Songzhi and turns it on its head, that Yuan Shao was the one going in as the weaker side, a campaign of desperation to try to stop Cao Cao surrounding of his position.

Michael Farmer wrote on Qiao Zhou ( The Talent of Shu: Qiao Zhou and the Intellectual World of Early Medieval Sichuan) seeks to push back against a traditional bias against southern intellectual life, the novel romance of the kingdoms that distorts many peoples understanding of the era and seek to cast a man known often only for his "treachery" (ie advising surrender) in his proper light. By using Qiao Zhou (the said traitor), heir of regional intellectual tradition, a teacher (including to Chen Shou), a soothsayer, an officer at court including that decision to surrender, a local and innovative historian, Farmer is also able to show the intellectual history of the region (and some tensions in the court of Shu-Han between the locals and the Jing outsiders).

Andrew Chittick discussed the Jing warlord Liu Biao (the Life and Legacy of Liu Biao: Governor, Warlord and Imperial Pretender), a man known for his scholarship, indecisiveness and lack of ambition who, despite the cultural achievements, often gets overlooked. He looked at the strategy, including the regional tensions in Jing, the challenges Liu Biao faced and the gaps between local popularity vs the traditional records. Showing Liu Biao in a more positive and assertive light, someone who created a cultural safe haven and expanded his grip, who had reasons for sometimes not pushing into the north.

So even without new archaeological discoveries (maybe someday Cao Cao's tomb) or some shocking textual discovery, our understanding of the era will adapt and change. Historians will disagree on how literally to take poetry or how far Liu Biao was signalling with taking on some imperial insignia. There will likely always be the challenge of the Romance being better known than the records and how that shapes perceptions of the era.

Not every part of the civil war has been focused on let alone with "and now we all come to an agreement.", there is a lot to cover over those hundred years. Yet this is just one small part of China's history, one culturally important but less than a hundred years of the long history of that country. There are areas that historians can look at to explore in deeper depth or with fresher eyes building on the shoulders of those that came before.

Then there is the perennial problem, history has often been written by a certain gender, class of people and that those outside their sphere and their interests can be often overlooked. That the voice of those often overlooked or forgotten down the centuries are deserving of light and research, not just those often celebrated by the historian in the past but those that are hidden.

I think you might be interested in some of the upcoming panels and talks of our digital conference, showing history is not settled and attempts to shine light on those that have been overlooked, forgotten and marginalized down the centuries.