The late Great Scottish folklorist David Buchan had an article called "history and Harlaw" in which he showed that folksongs had given a more accurate account of the battle than many contemporary histories. But, of course, one can only find this out by examining either more recent, more accurate secondary histories or primary source material.

As to whether folk songs "are" history, you have to ask yourself what history is. If it's a story we tell about our past in which we attempt to give our own viewpoint while maintaining a certain level of accuracy, then folksongs are as much history as any other speech or writing. As some have already pointed out, Froissart and Paris and their Ilk, not to mention many later historians, were no more scrupulous about accuracy than many songmakers. If their works are history, then folksongs are too. This is not to say that folksongs conform to current standards of accuracy held within the discipline of History, though.

On the other hand, if we want to say that only works living up to current standards of historical research should count as history, then folksongs aren't history...but neither are the works of many many historians, particularly those in past eras.

In either case, however, folk songs, if carefully handled, can be wonderful historical data. Just as church registers, birth certificates, diaries, recipe books, tombstones, land titles, etc, are not THEMSELVES history, without them we'd lose a lot of historical knowledge. Historians using these kinds of documents can also use folksongs, as long as they are sensitive to the oral process that changes folksongs through time.

Enuff! Sorry for the long rant, but it's a fascinating thread with much good stuff!