a remark about your quote:
you make it sound history is a science, this is not so black and white as you make it seem.
First of, when we start at Leopold Von Ranke (19th century), the creator of positivism, you can't claim it's a science since he only wanted written (administrative) sources and in his conclusions he always stayed on the facts, not on any notes or comments on it.
It's with Lamprecht, Robinson and Berr it changed till we get to Annals.
There they say that we should make history a "true science" so they compare events: the french revolution, the american revolution, the russian revolution, the brabant revolution, ...
and they write a synthesis (I'm not sure that's the correct word) about their findings and give their theory about it.
But those two, is that enough to count it as a science? I asked TO this one actually a time ago and she gave a website to me where it says that it's not really a science