I apologize for having to rush out this morning - the train won't wait for me. :-) I felt ham-fisted and thick all day long, though, having not addressed what was obvious the moment I was on my way to the station, which is your (Doctor Dolly's) anxiety that the historical narrative which you've just sent to the publisher is, in some way, inadequate and that way because of the perfidy of a historian somewhere along the line.
I can't speak to your specific situation, without knowing which sources you used and why you used them, and this may not be the place to go into all that. If you'd like to explore your particular case more, though, I'd be happy to.
I'm also not sure that I was adequately lucid in my original comment, as well. My statement "I suspect that historical details may be occasionally omitted in the interests of a good narrative, but that's my private suspicion." referred to the material I'm reading, not anything I would write.
Specifically, I'm looking at the role of late medieval climate changes in the Protestant Reformation, so I'm looking at a lot of biased material from both sides of the confessional divide, and this is the 20th C historiography (never mind the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth stuff that was produced in the 16th C). My challenges are in sorting out the writer's biases, and some of them are clearly not nefarious. Some of them I don't have much respect for, in the end.
Whichever, to be able to provide a decent inter-textual analysis, not to mention the Lit Review, I need to recognize each approach. The historians I'm reading would probably, each and every one of them, be able to provide a complete justification for what they chose to select and include in their work. I just find that the confessional differences produce a historical discourse which is so selective that, much like the divide today between some Israelis and some Palestinians, it sometimes doesn't sound like it's addressing the same event.
Coming Back to This
I can't speak to your specific situation, without knowing which sources you used and why you used them, and this may not be the place to go into all that. If you'd like to explore your particular case more, though, I'd be happy to.
I'm also not sure that I was adequately lucid in my original comment, as well. My statement "I suspect that historical details may be occasionally omitted in the interests of a good narrative, but that's my private suspicion." referred to the material I'm reading, not anything I would write.
Specifically, I'm looking at the role of late medieval climate changes in the Protestant Reformation, so I'm looking at a lot of biased material from both sides of the confessional divide, and this is the 20th C historiography (never mind the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth stuff that was produced in the 16th C). My challenges are in sorting out the writer's biases, and some of them are clearly not nefarious. Some of them I don't have much respect for, in the end.
Whichever, to be able to provide a decent inter-textual analysis, not to mention the Lit Review, I need to recognize each approach. The historians I'm reading would probably, each and every one of them, be able to provide a complete justification for what they chose to select and include in their work. I just find that the confessional differences produce a historical discourse which is so selective that, much like the divide today between some Israelis and some Palestinians, it sometimes doesn't sound like it's addressing the same event.