This implies, in my opinion, that history is written by the victorious, and that history can only be written by the most powerful society at any given time. It's one method of capturing background, but it's not the only one. The least dominant will record history as well, but it is now just the dominant. There is a viewpoint because there is a culture.
One explanation for this is because of the sources. Paintings, illustrations, scripts, carvings, and audios all act as historical sources, but not all insights are shown. Getting a source from a dominant viewpoint would be more popular than getting one from the least one.
Conflicts are another reason. There is no question that warfare and firearms have an effect on society. War had an effect on history, too. There are, however, other ways to get into a disagreement. One of them is electing a chief. When one side wins, that side becomes dominant, while the loser becomes the least strong. Conflict, on the other hand, does not make one side the least powerful by scale, but by strength. Any dispute will decide who has more power, and whoever has the most will undoubtedly become the most powerful. To be frank, this paragraph is a description of how the first paragraph will lead to it.
Sources created by the dominant viewpoint, once again, will not expose all viewpoints, but only one. They will, in my view, mostly express the prevailing viewpoint and, if possible, be made to support the same one who created it.
