Yeah, I really don't see the need to study A-levels. It's a waste of time and completely unnecessary if I'm honest.
Having studied both A-levels, I would say that English Literature requires self discipline; as in, a lot of extra, extensive reading outside school. Whereas, History there's a lot of essays and a lot of mini-tasks teachers will ask you to do which can just be like 'what is the point'. Personally I didn't like history because of the amount of context, dates and names. History isn't fairly complicated but what makes it hard is the essay structuring and SO many things you have to remember, dates people, names and what happened during those times. THen you have to relate them to othe people, dates and etc. It all becomes tiresome!
For Lit, you don't have to work that hard. Personally I found out you didn't really have to read so much as they told you. But this depends on your exam board. I preferred Lit, because I like it more and it was more enjoyable because it's a subjective subject so you don't have to go home and think 'right I now have to remember date 1821, this name, he was here whilst that other guy was over there in this country' etc. It all became a chore! But for Lit, we'll have a whole discuss on a poetry and analyse it with the class then I'd go home see other people's opinions on it and it makes me wonder so many different things and how one line can be seen in 4-5 different ways. To me English wasn't a chore unlike History.
If you like being more opinionated then go for Lit. If you don't mind remembering dates and names go for History.