J. B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (London, MacMillan, 1909), pp. 140–143.

"If, instead of a history, Thucydides had written an analytical treatise on politics, with particular reference to the Athenian empire, it is probable that ... he could have forestalled Machiavelli ... [since] the whole innuendo of the Thucydidean treatment of history agrees with the fundamental postulate of Machiavelli, the supremacy of reason of state. To maintain a state, said the Florentine thinker, "a statesman is often compelled to act against faith, humanity and religion". ... But ... the true Machiavelli, not the Machiavelli of fable ... entertained an ideal: Italy for the Italians, Italy freed from the stranger: and in the service of this ideal he desired to see his speculative science of politics applied. Thucydides has no political aim in view: he was purely a historian. But it was part of the method of both alike to eliminate conventional sentiment and morality."

History as the interpretation of human values is bias but that is not to say that it does not provide coherent narratives.

I see it as a human prejudice. Seeing natural cycles in history is imposing someone's concept of order upon it. Seeing it as a dream is another way of rendering it explicable. I don't see Christianity's imposing a redemption narrative on history as particularly invasive compared to those other examples.

Some of us do, though, see history as just things happening, and people just doing stuff. So there's that.