0
Cross-checking sources against other evidence. However, there's no 'patent recipe' for dealing with problems of bias in sources.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What historians think about Augustus Caesar?
There are three categories for historians and their source material: Primary: ancient historians existed at the time of the event Secondary: ancient historians existed after the event and analysed/used primary sources modern: Modern historaians who use either of the above majority of the primary sources do not criticize Augustus and idolize him, in contrast some secondary sources like Tacitus hate Augustus Overall however it is agreed(by many modern historians) that Augustus was emperor because of his freinds Marcus vipsanius Agrippa and Gaius Maecanus. The primary sources(historians) were either sychophantic or terrified of persecution by Augustus, the Secondary sources are also biased because they were hired by patrons with vested interests in Augustus's depiction. In short thereare a range of views all with their own bias.
What are the sources of historical knowledge and explain each?
In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. Wikipedia
How have recent historians changed the way people view history?
Historians of today and those of the past base their writings on many factors, one unfortunately is a bias they may or may not be aware of. One thing is a certainty, all historians have a cultural background that differs in many ways from one another. Clearly there will be different views of various past events depending on a variety of factors. Historians of today's Russia will have different views of the history of the Soviet Union, depending upon their political bias or lack of them. The ordinary person, one without a political or cultural bias will now as in the past, believe the "history" that best suits themselves. Of course, there is no consensus of how people of any particular period of time, viewed history. There are too many variables, too many different peoples, too many different time periods. What is clear today as it has always been, historians have written different versions of the same periods of time and events. There can be no proven way to determine if recent historians have changed the way people view history. This is true if only based on intellectual thought. There can be no "proof" for lack of a better term that anything has changed because the historians of today have the same views, accurate or inaccurate today as in the past. Any historian or student of history will agree to that,.
how do historians call the period that started at the end of the renaissance and continues all day?
The modern age.
Which emporer came after Nero?
Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.Galba was the emperor who immediately followed Nero. Remember that after Nero there were four emperors and the time is referred to as "the year of the four emperors" by historians. Galba didn't last long and Otho followed him, Vitallius followed Otho and Vespasian followed him--all in a single year.
Historians bias rule is a guideline that recognizes that all sources?
biased
What do historians say all sources contain?
some amount of bias
What do historians say almost all sources contain?
some amount of bias
Where should Historians be aware of bias?
Everywhere! All historians are people, most if not all people are biased, therefore, most history is biased. Therefore, bias is everywhere and needs to be considered.
Because all sources are biased historians approach sources with what?
skeptism
Because all sources are biased historians approach sources with a what?
skeptism
What historians think about Augustus Caesar?
There are three categories for historians and their source material: Primary: ancient historians existed at the time of the event Secondary: ancient historians existed after the event and analysed/used primary sources modern: Modern historaians who use either of the above majority of the primary sources do not criticize Augustus and idolize him, in contrast some secondary sources like Tacitus hate Augustus Overall however it is agreed(by many modern historians) that Augustus was emperor because of his freinds Marcus vipsanius Agrippa and Gaius Maecanus. The primary sources(historians) were either sychophantic or terrified of persecution by Augustus, the Secondary sources are also biased because they were hired by patrons with vested interests in Augustus's depiction. In short thereare a range of views all with their own bias.
What does the Bias rule recognize about all sources?
The Bias rule recognizes that all sources have inherent biases or perspectives that can influence the information they present. It emphasizes the need to critically analyze sources and consider their potential biases when evaluating their credibility and reliability.
What is the general historical view of Albert Speer?
There isn't really a general view of Albert Speer, various historians all percieve him differently depending on the sources they use and the issues in his life they choose to address.
What are the sources of historical knowledge and explain each?
In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. Wikipedia
What do you think primary sources or secondary sources are more valuable to modern historians?
Primary sources are generally more valuable to modern historians because they offer a direct glimpse into the time period being studied, providing firsthand accounts or evidence. Secondary sources, while useful for interpreting and analyzing primary sources, may introduce bias or misinterpretations that can skew historical understanding.
DO you think primary sources or secondary sources are more valuable to modern historians?
Primary sources are the most valuable sources of information to modern historians and to ancient historians. Primary sources are ironclad proof and can stand alone on their own. They include such things as birth, death, and marriage records; wills; property records; legal documents; charters; firsthand accounts; tombstones; censuses; surveys; letters; personal records; military service records; baptismal records; official court records (as in royal court/king's court); rolls of all kinds; registers. Historians love primary sources because it makes their work much easier and more credible. Secondary sources are not as ironclad as primary sources. Historians use these sources when primary sources aren't available or known. Secondary sources include things like chronicles and narratives written by monks/concurrent historians, hearsay, old pedigrees, church records; tradition, and records or written information that have no solid, underlying proof. No matter how many secondary sources someone might use to bolster a statement, it is not considered to be foolproof evidence. It's similar to the idea of proof in a trial: Eyewitness testimony and documentation are believable; whereas hearsay and opinions aren't.
