#not until something comes up - like a new grave diacovered - that correlates with what the nation says will they pay any attention to it

[iamashamedbcofthis]

I don't think historians would ask nations questions. They would in the beginning but would soon realize that nations are lying their butts off. Nations couldn't possibly be in every location at every important point in history, America wasn't in Wall Street on Black Tuesday 1929, he was in Alaska hiking some mountain with Canada, but he'll say he was in Wall Street. Historians found out once an essay was published citing America and it didn't corelate with what he said to another historian about the crash. Going back to study what he had testified about other events, they found so many inconsistencies, and when asked about it America flat out said he has a bet with Canada on who can have the most essays cite themselves (hence why they happen to be at every event important to history, it's just more chances to be quoted)

And, they can't possibly remember everything. England was first asked about what Stonehenge was for in the 1600s. That was centuries after it was built, he's not even sure he was alive at that time. He couldn't say what it was back then and for sure can't now

It's just easier to avoid the confusion added with nations' "firsthand experience," thus historians avoid them like the plague

#so when an old nation says something that there isnt written evidence to back up historians and archaeologists will not believe them #not until something comes up - like a new grave diacovered - that correlates with what the nation says will they pay any attention to it #hetalia #hetalia headcanons #historical hetalia #hws america #hws england #aph america #aph england