Asap compare the ways that herodotus and thucydides approached the writing of history. asap

your answer would be

Thucydides is regarded as the ‘scientific historian’, relying on facts, dates, events and personalities to present the ‘factual’ narrative of history. He detested any reliance on the supernatural, abhorred subjectivity and strived to be as objective as possible, and was concerned about writing on solely the events of his own time, the only area of history where he could personally verify through examination of written records and eyewitness accounts. He is seen as the ‘Father of the Historical Method’.

Herodotus, on the other hand, is seen as the ‘sensational historian’, relying on a blend of oral accounts, gossip, myths, rumors, and synthesizing it with his own view of the events, allowing the reader to make of it what they will. He is seen as the antithesis of what it is to be a historian as he made no attempt to find ‘truth’ on a factual basis and was content to provide multiple accounts of events and leave the reader to ascertain for themselves which one they identified with the most.

OOF my head is blown up

Here is te best answer i ever wrote thanks to the kid sitting next to me

s the president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the united states, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the united states; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments. sooo yeahhh

explanation:

d. migration of french settlers into english colonies