It may be theoretically possible to write history books tending towards objectivity through impersonal, collaborative, quantitative, semi-automated methods. See my other post nearby.

But also note what the goals can be: a "computed" summary vs clever, intelligent, wise insights. Note that some texts are built so as to include both: a flow of core analysis with quality commentaries as asides.

Not a good one. Objective history book would be a timeline. To add another thing interesting (eg cause and effect) is to make decisions and introduce bias.

> Objective history book would be ... decisions and... bias

No, not necessarily. From the events you go to the chains of events, the clusters, the trends, the teachings etc.

Similarly to experimental science, where you go from the protocols ("this happened there then") to the "laws".

The role of «decisions and bias» could be limited, with some similar quantitative, and maybe collaborative (aggregation of multi-agent contribution) approach that ranked the outputs through a computed importance.

Even a timeline would be subjective as the author would have to chose what to include.

youve completely lost sight of the forest. there are little granules of subjectivity like the ones you nitpick about and there are huge boulders of subjective nonsense that leave you with a giant bump on your head -- the kind that are caused by dogma like race/gender politics, religion, war etc. the absence of these is what is desperately needed. to wave away the boulders because of the granules is idiotic. ive read books that looked at war objectively, excised moral dogma from religion and omitted race/gender crusading entirely and its very good.

No, but one can try to avoid overt irritating biases.