to prove that trained British troops were superior to untrained colonial troops
William went straight to Dover and killed the soldiers in the castle he then left his own soldiers there in replacement. He burnt down the castles because to scare the people around him, to prove them that was their rightful king. He also burnt them down because to prove that he was the rightful king and also to prove that he was very powerful and strong. keep calm and carry on peeps :)
There is no concrete evidence to definitively prove that Bishop Odo paid for the Bayeux Tapestry. However, it is widely believed that Odo, who was the half-brother of William the Conqueror and played a significant role in the Norman Conquest, likely commissioned the tapestry. It is possible that he provided the resources or patronage needed for its creation, but the exact details remain uncertain.
He built castles because he wanted to protect himself andhe used them as a fort.
You do not have to prove you are nota witch. Others have to prove that you are a witch. Even if you are a witch, or Wicca, there is nothing wrong with that (in the US).
The discovery was significant because we found prove of pangea in other parts of the Earth.
William Paley not only believed in God, he thought he could prove that God exists.
to prove to others that everything is possible
William told his son to shoot the apple off of his head to prove his marksmanship in the story of William Tell.
World War 2
His goal was to prove that people interested in literature can be smarter than mathematicians
William Mitchell Ramsay
because he was different and wanted to prove himself to the world. no-one believed him that he could do such wonders but he wanted to prove them wrong. he believed in being right and hated being such a wrong'un.
Sakhalin
The mass and volumes of electrons are not significant compared to the volume of an atom.
My dick is bigger than a bridge.
a significant breakthrough occurred with the establishment of the product-liability concept, whereby a plaintiff did not have to prove negligence but only had to prove that a defective product caused an injury