Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country.

This is how subsequent historians have also viewed the matter.

Most historians today would view it as a neutral social system that was open to abuse.

Historians view him as a fairly successful president, not a giant but probably in the upper third.

Some historians now view it as an attempt by the state to exercise more effective though subtle control over the lower classes.

Also some historians view that, this was once a Siva temple.

Some historians view the intervals as primarily useful in maneuver.

From the first, many historians viewed the terrorist attack as an assault on the essence of the city.

Vietnamese historians typically view the main events of this era as having roots in historical fact.

This is still how most Philippine historians view it.