Want this question answered?
Tacitus, like all other ancient Roman and Greek historians, relied on the works of earlier ancient historians. For events which occurred nearer his lifetime or during his lifetime he relied on existing accounts and his own enquires.
Historians study and write about people and events of the past.
They used the 5W's: who, what, when, where, and why
They are talking about now in the present.
Dates are important to history because they help chronologically show cause and effect relationships between events. By knowing exactly when things occurred, historians can also more accurately compare different societies at specific points in time.
According to historians, many important events occurred during the year 1095. One of these would be the beginning of the Council of Clement. This is when the Pope decided to send the First Crusade to Jerusalem.
By studying absolute chronology, historians can ascertain the exact dates and time periods of historical events. This enables them to establish a clear timeline of events and understand the sequence in which they occurred. It also helps historians correlate different events happening simultaneously in different regions and analyze the impact of one event on another.
Tacitus, like all other ancient Roman and Greek historians, relied on the works of earlier ancient historians. For events which occurred nearer his lifetime or during his lifetime he relied on existing accounts and his own enquires.
There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.There is no founder of the eastern Roman empire. The Roman empire was divided into east and west by historians, not Romans. This was done for ease in relating events that occurred in either the west or the east. For example, when the western part of the empire fell to the barbarians, the Romans considered it a loss of territory, not a loss of half of an empire as some historians did.
My understanding of Homer's work was that the Iliad and the Odyssey were written as a record of events that may have occurred upwards to 200 years before his time. The stories were oral accounts of those events until he wrote them. (that is the understanding I received from class)
Chronological order arranges events in the order in which they occurred.
The order the events occurred in.
They occurred then.
Historians study and write about people and events of the past.
They used the 5W's: who, what, when, where, and why
Because that's what historians do. Study historic events or artefacts. History IS the past.
No events were listed.