Interpretations differ because they are written for different audiences. Historians select information and when they write they can distort information to make their arguments stronger. Historians change their views when they discover new evidence. Some interpretations portray victims in a more sympathetic way than perpetrators.
Interpretations differ because they are written for different audiences. Historians select information and when they write they can distort information to make their arguments stronger. Historians change their views when they discover new evidence. Some interpretations portray victims in a more sympathetic way than perpetrators.
Two key terms are Historiography and Interpretation. Both relate to the idea that there are different ways to interpret historical events and some historians believe in different interpretations and belong to differing schools of thought.
Two key terms are Historiography and Interpretation. Both relate to the idea that there are different ways to interpret historical events and some historians believe in different interpretations and belong to differing schools of thought.
Acording to İnternational law it is not a genocide. There is no an international court decision that is rules the 1915 events as a genocide but politicians and some historians. (There are some other historians and politicians which are doesnt agree with them)
Historians have different biases and points of view that influence their interpretations. (Apex)
Hamilton thought that iy was good but had some flaws and jefferson thought it wasnt a good idea at first
The belief in prophecy varies depending on cultural, religious, and personal beliefs. Some people believe that prophecy is real and can accurately predict future events, while others view it as coincidence or interpretation based on past events. Ultimately, whether prophecy is real or not is subjective and open to individual interpretation.
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.
# # #
Among the greatest Greek historians are Herodotus and Thucydides. They are some of the most famous historians of Greece.
Nothing directly, although some would see Islam as fitting into certain dramatic events but this is interpretation since it is not specifically mentioned.
# #