Some people, in their attempt to simplify the concept of history, have actually come up with a new, two-syllable name for it. History is “his story” – story of the past formularized and told by “Him”, the winner. The very fact that this phrase actually sounds like the word history itself may come as an amusing coincidence at first glance. However, upon further examination of the history of mankind itself, we realize there are some elements of relevance and truth in this renaming. History bears minimal resemblance to “story” books in literature, in so far as it does contain fictional and romanticized details, and indeed, in some cases especially in the distant past, history was solely told by the winners. However, history is much more than that. It is at its core an attempt by mankind to map human behavioral and developmental patterns. In today’s globalized and increasingly democratized world, it is for most parts fair, not favoring either the winning or losing side. It must also be noted that a large portion of history is dedicated to examining events in which there is no winner. To liken the retelling of history to an account given in a story book – a work of fiction – is to suggest that history, too, contains fictitious elements and is at best an illustration of a fragmented, romanticized, largely unreal truth. There is certainly a level of relevance in this argument. Let us be honest, who could have come back from the Stone Age and told historians how life was back then? Indeed, when one examines the history of pre-historic Man tens of millions of years ago, it is just an educated guess by a group of scholars on what the past could have been like. Like all kinds of speculations, this one, too, contains bias and the human innate tendency to view the past as a better and simpler time than it really was, certainly tends to inflate the good parts and paint an overly rosy picture. However, one must acknowledge the extensive effort made by modern historians to rely on empirical findings by anthropologists and palaeontologists to formulate a “story” of the past that is closest to the truth. Furthermore, modern attempts at writing history are not individual but are often collective ones that involve a group of historians, thus reducing the risk of bias and oversight. The second premise put forth by the question, that history is told by the “winners” is to some very limited extent accurate, especially when we look at how history was told in the feudalistic, monarchic