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

observing traffic laws in exchange for driving on the highway.

freedom of speech is also protected by the 1 amendment.

explanation:

here is pretty much what the 1st amendment says:

congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.