This is begging the question, and not only that but presuming because of the perspective you are writing from there could be no other. Maybe that is the case, maybe history is more determined than my theory, but it seems to me to lead to an arrogance of view, itself ignorant because closed to the viability of other possibilities.
even this possibly goes too far for me, though i think it’s fundamentally unobjectionable.
to say that history doors contain steps, such that the earlier ones are preconditions of the later ones, is not to say the earlier ones necessitate the later ones. it does not mean that a development is predetermined, or predictable.
but the possibility of low feasibility of prediction does not exclude the possibility of comprehension
maybe not but it does suggest that comprehension is limited. (again, nothing objectionable in itsel here)