History vs Fiction

Although this is from a while ago (the second day of school to be exact), I had to yet again bring up this question that I actually found to be quite intriguing: Which has a more emotional effect on its audience, history or fiction? Both genres have characteristics to their advantage that play to our emotions. On the one hand, history is real. The things we learn from history are actual things that happened in real life.  Also, being human, we kind of feel this weird obligation to feel sympathy when finding out about the dreadful events in history because they actually happened to real people. Fiction, on the other hand, has the advantage of being able to take us into the world and situation of the characters we feel sympathy for. We know exactly what the character went through and exactly how the character feels at certain points in their dreadful situations. Fiction, at least to me, also plays more to emotions because it simply is more about emotions. History is more about the larger, more important events that shaped, well, history. Still, if you want history to play more into the emotions of its audience then you can always change the way it's presented to make it more like fiction. For example, reading an autobiography can tend to have the same emotional effect as a fiction book in terms of how the audience is immersed within the character's world. And now one can say that, with this property of bringing the audience into the world of the character along with the fact that historical events actually took place, history plays (or at least has the ability to play) more to it's audience's emotions.