Deterrence is the correct answer.
I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
Answer:
king Philip of Macedonia was killed in a theater Although it was obvious that the assassin had a personal grudge, there are indications that other people were involved, or knew what was about to happen
Explanation:
Historians affect history because the bias of historians will affect the way that they record events.
Whether intentional or unintentional, many historians include bias in their writing when recording events. Bias is your personal beliefs or attitudes skewed for or against a topic that influence your writing. If a historian includes this in their writing about an event, it can change the way that the event is perceived by the public. Many historians relay the facts in a similar manner, but it is the bias that makes their stories unique from one another and also how they affect history.
Hope this helps!
