He had a temper that grew worse as he grew older.
<span>He was cruel to the Russian nobility. </span>
<span>He was cruel to the boyars. </span>
<span>He became like that when his wife died of a fever </span>
<span>When Ivan became a complete autocrat he tortured and executed nobles and clergy alike without trial if he thought they were against him. He created an elite military force who wore all black, rode black horses and used the symbols of a broom and a dog's head to show that they were there to sweep out all the dogs, meaning everyone who they considered disloyal to Ivan. </span>
<span>This militia, called the oprichniki, tortured and executed thousands in Ivan's name and at his direction. The worst of this group's actions was the massacre of tens of thousands of Russians in Novgorod in 1569 because Ivan thought they were plotting with Poland against him. </span>
<span>Ivan later began executing members of that militia as well. </span>
In one incident while in a rage killed his own son. Source: http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Ivan_IV_called_the_Terrible
Answer:
The correct answer is <u><em>B) Oversimplifications often ignore complex or contradictory evidence</em></u>
Explanation:
History is not always easy to study and the further we go back, the further we have to rely on second hand or third hand sources.
For example, in order to study something that happened 20 years ago is fairly easy since it would be recorded either in newspapers, books, or even video.
However, it is not always easy to draw conclusions when we are studying an event that took place 2,000 years ago.
Most of them times we rely on information passed on from generations before until finally someone wrote it down.
While many historians get tempted to Over-simply an event to draw certain conclusions, this should not be practiced as it creates a bias and forces us to study or even research for contradictory evidence. Sometimes, this contradictory evidence can completely change our understanding of the event.
