Is it worth reading historical texts if you're a normie

Is it worth playing video games if you're a normie with a vidya, or is it just for the "pro" scene ?

>>2793564
I'm saying, are these texts too detailed and i should just read up the basic gestalt?

>>2793579
>>2793553

There's no point trying to read Bede in the original Latin, just read a modern historian who HAS read Bede.

>>2793553
Primary sources are often full of extraneous crap, hence why historians bother making secondary sources.

Not to mention that many are in dead languages.

T. Man working on his MA in history.

>>2793600
Yeah but I noticed there is an english translation

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ecclesiastical-History-English-People-Bede/dp/014044565X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1494520012&sr=8-2&keywords=venerable+bede

File: gatsby209.jpg (118KB, 540x626px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 540x626px

>>2793553
Yeah. Many of them are super cheap or even free. History is the best story ever told, much of it even really happened!

So close the computer and download a free copy of the Anglo Saxon chronicle now.

File: images.png (9KB, 440x680px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 440x680px

>>2793553
Tacitus was pretty much yellow pages for aristocrats. You can totally read that but keep in mind you are not an Roman aristocrat so you won't understand all the tropes and the subtext.
I'd rather recommend you to read standard works on a certain period that is also well written.
Pic related, nigger won the Nobel Prize.

>>2793655
>implying that wasn't aristrocratic slander
This is what I meant by >>2793860
Also the war on Poseidon clearly parallels what Xerxes supposedly did. It's in a line of thing Caligula and Xerxes supposedly shared. So it's a fair assumption that this didn't really happen like Tacitus describes it.

>>2793642

You won't get much out of it either way, unless you;re an historian by trade there's literally no reason to read primary texts, any more than there's any reason to read scientific journals if you're just a layperson with an interest in science. Let people who HAVE devoted their lives to reading this crap spend the time needed to understand these texts, and just read what those historians themselves write.

>>2793553
>Is it worth reading historical texts if you're a normie with a history passion, or is it just for the 'real' historians?

Source material is the meat and bones of historiography. Now your interpretation of of the source material will not be as deep, nuanced or critical as a professional, but that doesn't really matter does it? If you like it why wouldn't you?

I mean, there's so much different kinds of sources. Most people aren't going to open a book filled with Latin transcriptions from French Gaul for a light reading. You're not going to head off to your local archive to read all the parish registers from the year 1909.

Some sources however are worth reading in and by themselves. The Odyssey is a source, so is the Bible, so are the memoirs of Churchill.

>>2793579
Primary sources are always better than secondary. Of course reading Bede in Latin is preferable to a translation but barring that reading an acclaimed translation will serve you well. While truth and fiction often blur together in antiquity ancient texts have laid the foundation for the progress of society and mankind for hundreds if not thousands of years. Reading them gives you firsthand knowledge of what generations of men before you have read, learned from and been influenced by.

You might as well ask whether it is worthwhile to read Plato and Aristotle if you are a normie with a philosophy passion or just leave it to real philosophers. While you can read a textbook and get the gist of it reading the actual text will result in a much better understanding, although oftentimes secondary sources aid you in this regard.

If you have a genuine interest - do so.

However, it's might be a much better use of your time to read secondary sources which write explicitly about the primary source you're interested in. This is because historians will pick up A LOT more on the interesting aspects of the document which you might not realize just reading it. I'd say your biggest problem though is the language barrier, even if you've learned the language it's written in, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure were a lot different back the. Because of this, you might get bogged down and find it difficult to get through since you can't fly through it like a book.

File: fat really makes you think.png (278KB, 393x417px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 393x417px

>>2793903
>Don't read the Bible, you're not a theologian
>Don't read Huckleberry Finn, just get the Cliff's notes
>Don't read actual information, let people tell you what it says so you can nod and agree and think you're educated
You are why this video exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A