answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

This is a statement and not a question. I fail to see what you want to know and this reads as if your teacher wants an essay comparing the two. We don't do homework.

User Avatar

Wiki User

7y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Two historians are having a conversation Historian 1 The destruction brought on by fighting during a war has been the most important factor in limiting the growth of human populations over the course?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about History of Western Civilization

Name two Roman historians and example how they differed?

Two well known Roman historians are Julius Caesar and Livy. Each historian differs due to their interpretation on historical events and its significance in current politics.


What do historians do when using the historical thinking of chronological thinking?

Answer this questio A historian using the historical thinking skill of chronological thinking might: n…


When would a historian use a calendar?

Historians would use calendars all the time. They are a major part of their work. They are constantly using dates and checking up on them, so calendars are essential to them. They could not work without calendars.


What is the origin of renaissance?

Renaissance is a French noun meaning 'to be born again'. Originally it was used as a metaphor for rediscovering one's Christian faith. The historian Vasari using the Italian equivalent rinascimento is credited with first using it to describe the rediscovery of Greek and Latin culture by late-medieval Europeans. It was not until after Napoleon's invasion of Italy in 1799 that French critics and historians began to use this term to describe specifically North Italian culture from 1400 to 1600. They were followed by Swiss German historian Jacob Burckhardt in his History of the Renaissance Civilisation in Italy (1867).


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,.

Related questions