第一个将被评估的消息来源是萨拉托加的竞选活动，由唐纳德·莱因堡和威廉·格里斯沃尔德提供。在书中，莱因堡和格里斯沃尔德从考古学的角度详细描述了萨拉托加战役的事件，重点是萨拉托加的两场战役。这一资料与调查有关，因为它包括对本宁顿战役及其影响的描述。由于两位作者都拥有与本书主题相关的领域的博士学位，并且在美国东北部进行了广泛的考古研究，所以这本书的来源很有价值。这些资格可能使他们能够对他们的主题材料进行特别彻底和准确的描述和调查。由于作者的美国国籍可能会使他们的作品充满了支持革命的片面性，这种来源也可能是一种限制。这个来源的内容可能会限制它的价值，因为主要的焦点是讨论考古证据，所以它可能不包含来自其他来源的潜在有价值的信息。源的目的(转达萨拉托加地区的考古调查的结果向公众)可能是一个限制,详细工作面向大众消费往往低于所适用的历史学家,但它也可能增加价值的考古对历史事件的看法不是一个通常被认为是。第二份将被深入评估的资料来自魁北克的伯戈因，这是一份关于英国将军约翰·伯戈因在萨拉托加战役中服役的记录，作者是伯戈因军队的军官托马斯·安布里。消息来源是相关的，因为在叙述中，安布里描述了他认为是英国军队在本宁顿失败的原因和影响。这个来源的来源既增加又限制了它的价值。作为一名英国军官，安布里对军队的情况进行了排他性的讨论，这使他能够更准确地确定在本宁顿失利对英国军队的影响。这给了源更大的价值。然而，他参与了他所描述的冲突，这一事实可能导致他试图以同情的眼光来描述英国军队，在他的文章中渗透了亲英的倾向。消息来源的内容可能是有限的，因为它只包含当时英国军队内部的可用信息，因此可能不是事件的全面描述。安布里的目的是娱乐，而不是客观地编年史，这可能是一个限制，因为这可能导致他夸大或耸人听闻一些细节。
英国历史学essay代写 竞选活动
The first source that will be evaluated is The Saratoga Campaign, by Donald Linebaugh and William Griswold. In the book, Linebaugh and Griswold detail the events of the Saratoga campaign from an archaeological perspective, with a focus on the two Battles of Saratoga. This source is relevant to the investigation because it includes a description of the Battle of Bennington and its effects. The origin of this source makes it valuable because both of the authors have PhDs in fields relevant to the book’s subject matter and have conducted extensive archaeological research in the Northeastern U.S, and these qualifications likely allowed them to construct an especially thorough and accurate description and investigation of their subject material. The origin may also be a limitation because the authors’ American nationality may imbue their work with pro-revolutionary one-sidedness. The content of this source may limit its value because the main focus is on discussing archaeological evidence, so it likely does not contain potentially valuable information from other sources. The purpose of the source (to convey the results of archaeological investigations in the Saratoga area to the general public) may be a limitation as works intended for mass consumption are often less detailed than those intended for use by historians, but it may also add value as the archaeological perspective on historical events is not one that is often considered.The second source that will be evaluated in depth is With Burgoyne from Quebec, an account of service in British general John Burgoyne’s army during the Saratoga campaign written by Thomas Anburey, an officer in Burgoyne’s army. The source is relevant because in the account, Anburey describes what he believes to be the causes and effects of the failure of the British Army at Bennington. The origin of this source both augments and limits its value. As a British officer, Anburey was privy to exclusive discussions of the army’s condition, which could have enabled him to more accurately identify the effects on the British Army of the loss at Bennington. This gives the source greater value. However, the fact that he was a participant in the conflicts he describes may have caused him to attempt to depict the British army in a sympathetic light, imbuing his text with a pro-British slant. The content of the source is a likely limitation because it only includes information available within the British army at the time, and so may not be a thorough picture of events. Anburey’s purpose—to entertain, not to chronicle objectively—is a possible limitation as it may have caused him to embellish or sensationalize some details.
本段内容来自网络 并不是我们的写手作品 请勿直接剽窃，查重100%，造成后果与本站无关。如需定制论文请记得联系我们。ASSIGNMENTBANG 的学术essay代写是严谨的，被无数个Deadline搞得烦乱的你是否也有代写要求呢？请委托给我们把！QQ微信同号 5757940 .