From a disciplinary point of view, physics is a science, which requires higher thinking than history, while history is a liberal arts, which also tests people's logic and generalization ability.
Personally, I think that the credits for good history will not be low, but it is difficult to get full marks!
Physics can get full marks, but history is hard to get 70.80.
Why? Because physics has a standard answer, he does not return to liberal arts such as history and politics. If there are other answers on the standard answer, you can give him extra points as appropriate. He died, 1 is 1, and you can get full marks.
It's just hard.
History is very subjective. Different people have different views on the same question, and it is hard to say whether it is right or wrong. Different historical views and perspectives have different answers, but why do you say that good grades are not low?
Because in a real history exam, not only are you reciting historical facts, but most of them are your abilities, such as summarizing materials, which are based on historical facts. But I dare say that a person who has never studied history but has strong summing-up ability will not be unable to write big historical questions like answering physics, but he can also score, but it is not very high.
So the answer at the beginning is that physics can get full marks, but it is difficult. History can get full marks, which is more difficult than physics, but it does not pursue full marks. History can get high marks more than physics!