As I’ve noted before (here etc.) history and science have different aims and methods. Mixing them just confuses both of them. There is no genuine “historical science” or “scientific history”. History narrates particulars among unique events. Science theorizes universals among repeatable events. In physics time is homogeneous: an experiment is the same whether conducted today or 100 years in the past or future. That is not true in history. Time is not homogeneous there.
History and science can and should balance one another. The more science expands its universals, the more history can point out particulars that are overlooked or are important in a particular context. The more history focuses on unique particulars, the more science can point out the significance of universals.
The homogeneous and inhomogeneous aspects of time can both be known only by balancing history and science. One could say something similar about all universals and particulars. The universal and particular aspects of reality can both be known only by balancing history and science.