You know the study of history isnt just taking one account and believing it, right?

You build as much evidence as you can from multiple sources so you can account for and remove those biases. Obviously, the further back you go, the harder it is to find evidence but that doesn't mean you work from one source.

If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess.

Seriously? What a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest false equivalency. Why not respond to the remainder of my argument? Do you actually doubt whether the Ancient Greeks existed?

To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.

Pure empiricism is pure nonsense. Objective truths exist independently of individual minds, while subjective truths exist within minds.

History is composed of a series of events that physically occurred on Planet Earth within the past ~5k years, and were recorded in written form by human beings. Human beings were born, did certain things, wrote them down, and died. We can dig up their remains and verify many of the things they wrote via empirical, scientific methodologies. You can choose to doubt various interpretations of the facts, but your delusions cannot change the inherent reality that lies within.

Your choice to contest the validity of history is demonstrative of a profoundly irrational mindset, because you are rejecting verifiable information in favor of your own subjective assumptions. You would prefer that history not be objective, because you wish to believe your own subjective version of history as an emotional coping mechanism.