This is a philosophical question. It's not a historical question.

If you are not familiar with Simulation Hypothesis, you might check out this.

The short version is it seems humans tend to produce some kind of reproduction of ourselves, from ancient cave art to the modern Sims. If you extrapolate from that fact, you will one day find simulations of us that are also producing simulations of themselves.

The logical conclusion is that there are far more simulations in the universe than real entities. Each simulation produces a simulation and et cet. ad infinitum. That makes us way more likely to be simulations than "real" whatever that means in this context.

Now, you can draft a script for, say a movie, that maps on to the sources, and that would certainly be a simulation, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. You're talking about something like creating a computer program that plays out history as it actually happened without the guidance of the programmer.

One of the key points of the study of history is that individuals have agency, and may not always make the decisions we seem to see clearly or expect. The actions people choose are not determined entirely by their race or class or circumstance.

If you are wanting to simulate that kind of human history, I don't see any way it would be faithfully represented in that simulation, since each simulated human would be its own agent and making its own decisions.

I don't think we have the tech to even make that kind of simulation.

And if we did, there's a whole bundle of ethical questions to deal with about making it.

Whether we are living in a simulation or not, I don't think I can endorse creating another simulation on the level of recreating history as we know it. Why would you create a world in which 40 million people died in WW2? If you could create such a simulation, you would be creating something in which those supposedly conscious (if we are conscious) people die on purpose.

The two key points I am trying to make is 1) we can't count on simulated humans making the same decisions as their models, if they have free will (and if they don't, what's the point?) and 2) this is a morally complicated project if you tried to make such a simulation.

Christopher Hitchens was asked once in a debate whether he believed in free will. He responded, "I have no choice but to." I have to agree. I don't see any way a real simulation could be constructed that would allow the simulants free will and faithfully reconstruct the history we know, and I can only believe I am making my own choices and am not a simulation, because the whole universe falls apart if I am.