My impression is that some of the 'denizens' of History SE can quickly organize (not necessarily consciously) a quorum to close a question almost immediately because it might not confirm to their ideas for an appropriate question due to their particular POV or even ignorance regarding the subject mattter, when nary a chance has been given for anyone to answer the question with an answer that might be right on target.
IMO it might be wise to consider allowing a question (except one that is blatantly absurd or offensive) a mandatory minimum life of say 48 or 72 hours before it is closed, or perhaps requiring more than 5 votes for closure.
I think this would open the door to more, and more interesting questions on the site, by mitigating the fear of your question being immediately closed, appearing foolish, and suffering a penalty. Why waste an hour writing up a well written and researched question, only to have it closed an hour or two later by five perhaps uniformed members on the subject matter of the question. Something seems not right about that.
It would also increase the potential for good answers, and perhaps some of us would learn that not everything we believe to be 'opinion based' or 'impossible to know what is asked' may not actually be so.