In this thesis I argue for historiographical realism: that by and large, historians are able to provide accurate knowledge about a mind-independent past. I take a two-pronged approach to this task: by rebutting several 'standard' anti-realist arguments in historical theory as well as putting forward a positive account - based on a rational reconstruction of historical practice - of why we are entitled to take historical accounts as more often than not accurately reflecting what occurred in the historical past. The philosophical picture of historical practice presented here is designed to replace the old, discredited 'naive realist' theory of historical practice with a more nuanced and philosophically literate account.