Final answer:
History does not necessarily have to be linear, as this approach can imply unwarranted progress. Linear history is good for understanding chronology and causality but may overlook historical complexity and context.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks whether history has to be linear and explores the advantages and problems with such an approach. Viewing history as linear has the advantage of providing a clear timeline of events, helping to pinpoint cause and effect which can lead to more accurate analysis. However, this approach can be problematic as it may impose a narrative of progress or culmination that isn't inherently present in history, and might prioritize certain historical moments over others.
With a linear perspective, there is also the risk of falling into a presentist approach, which frames history as leading up to the present, often ignoring the possibility that the sequence of historical events lacks any ultimate goal. A contextualist approach, on the other hand, considers history in terms of the context of the time and might offer a more nuanced understanding. A middle ground between the two could involve recognizing the sequential nature of past events while also acknowledging the context and multiple perspectives present during those times.