Somewhat.

A historian is looking at a broader picture, even if they are speaking about a small section of it. If I say "what was the effect of the Civil War on the city of Richmond in terms of economic damage" then I am analyzing a few things. I'm looking at the actual damages, how much of it was affected, the impact on the economy, the economy prior to the war, the effect of freemen replacing slaves in terms of wages, any money being spent in the area, how much trade was changed by the war, what major tobacco fields took a hit, how much damage the roads took, etc.

While this documents the economic impact on Richmond, it also gives a wider view of the Civil War. In turn, that broadens our perspective onn reconstruction, the Southern Revival, and the culture of the United States after that time period. The perspective is much larger than the initial topic, all from that investigation.

Human history is not happening in a vacuum. What, say, the Greeks developed is actually much less important than the fact that Alexander the Great spread it, or that the Arabs and Persians preserved it. The importance of a discovery, or of a culture, can only be measured by the number of connections it makes to other countries. When people say "but Tibetan Monks could've discovered the cure for cancer 400 years ago" they are missing the point. Discoveries, and cultures, are irrelevant in terms of human history (a very broad subject) if they are not connected to other cultures even on a small scale.

When an anthropologist interviews an isolated tribe in Brazil they are giving you the image of an isolated tribe in Brazil. When a historian tells you about the history of that tribe, they are weaving a more thorough picture of the cultures within the region and likely giving some insighht in to Brazilian history at the same time.

In terms of raw connections, we have Malaria to thank for the Gasoline Engine, and we have the Ottoman Turks to thank for Satellite Navigation.