Historical narrative. (APEX)
Chat with our AI personalities
I would say almost never. History is only as objective as the evidence you have. Usually the evidence, beyond very general statements of fact are entirely dependent on when, who by, why and how it was recorded. So whilst historians can piece together their best attempt at an objective account of any event, it is quite possible for them to slightly or even very wrong.
William H. McGuffey
The maximum usually acknowledged historic methodologies include: Palaeography (have a look at of historic handwriting), diplomatics, the have a look at of documents, information and archives, chronology (organising the dates of beyond events), the have a look at of publications, epigraphy (have a look at of historic inscriptions).
this is a subjective question.everyone has his own needs and/or interests in history.what one needs to know most necessarily is about our follies,mistakes and ignorant acts we as a human race have committed.we should also know about noble deeds of the past.this should be done so as to guide ourselves in our present lives.the more you know the better.
Dante's concepts and images of heaven and hell are fundamentally informed by the teachings of the Catholic Church of his day and were published for readers who were Catholics. Chaucer was an astute sopcial observer and wrote "The Canterbury Tales" as the equivalent of todays docu-dramas. He described types of people he experienced in society around him. The backcloth, though, the actual pilgrimage on foot from London to Canterbury represents an activity that was indeed done in those days by social classes. To take pilgrimage to Canterbury was held in high esteem then in basically the same way as for a Muslim to go on Hajj to Mecca is held today.