Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: famous-male-masculine-writer-french-old-philosopher-historian-author-HHJ61B.jpg (443KB, 1016x1390px) Image search:
[Google]
443KB, 1016x1390px
does /pol/ prefer reading modern historians or people who actually lived during the events being told, maybe a few years afterwards?
I have read accounts written both contemporarily and several decades after WW1&2, for exanple, and perspective changes a lot. Which one would be more accurate, less biased, in general?
>>
>does /pol/ prefer reading modern historians or people who actually lived during the events being told, maybe a few years afterwards?
You should probably ask /pol/
>>
Meant /his/ *
>>
>>3026417
Obviously a good way is to balance them out. Historians always include first-hand accounts though.
>>
>>3026605
Albeit selectively, unless the book is specifically about a collection of firsthand accounts.
>>
Primary sources + Modern analysis = best
>>
>>3026417
I always want to the most up to date scholarship. Primary sources are important, but they can never really get the full picture of events, especially in emotionally charged situations like a war.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1