3 ms·

It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? In any case, anybody doing historical research can be termed historian. Doing your own research is g

It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? In any case, anybody doing historical research can be termed historian. Doing your own research is great as long as you have the necessary qualifications, but for most laymen the language barriers alone will prevent them from reading first hand sources.

Amezarak 3y ago
Considering one of the best-known and well-regarded classicists of the 21st century admits she has enormous difficulty reading Latin texts she hasn't read before, I don't think reading mostly translations sets you any worse off than the average academic, especially if you take the time to acquire at least some rudimentary knowledge about the language in question, and particularly if you can locate an edition with side-by-side texts, like the Loeb editions for ancient Rome and Greece. > It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? Somewhat, in that the average[1] modern academic output in the humanities is not worth writing home about (often absolute garbage) and the expertise relative to a sufficiently dedicated amateur (not a layman) is highly overrated. While many (but not all!) scientific fields have evolved to a level of complexity and depth requiring education and equipment not accessible to random amateurs, history is generally speaking in the same position it was a hundred years ago: anyone can read enough on their own to acquire expertise in some particular niche and possibly even make new connections, if the ground hasn't already been over-tilled. [1] Average is an important word here. Obviously at the high end this becomes less and less likely to be true.
- bazoom42 3y ago
  Given philology is also part of the humanities, who do you think produce these perfect unbiased translation which are just as good as reading the actual primary sources?
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    I didn’t say they were just as good. They’re not. What I suggested is that many to most academic historians are also relying on translations.
    - bazoom42 3y ago
      Nevertheless somebody have to collect and preserve the original sources and perform the translations.

Amezarak 3y ago

Considering one of the best-known and well-regarded classicists of the 21st century admits she has enormous difficulty reading Latin texts she hasn't read before, I don't think reading mostly translations sets you any worse off than the average academic, especially if you take the time to acquire at least some rudimentary knowledge about the language in question, and particularly if you can locate an edition with side-by-side texts, like the Loeb editions for ancient Rome and Greece. > It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? Somewhat, in that the average[1] modern academic output in the humanities is not worth writing home about (often absolute garbage) and the expertise relative to a sufficiently dedicated amateur (not a layman) is highly overrated. While many (but not all!) scientific fields have evolved to a level of complexity and depth requiring education and equipment not accessible to random amateurs, history is generally speaking in the same position it was a hundred years ago: anyone can read enough on their own to acquire expertise in some particular niche and possibly even make new connections, if the ground hasn't already been over-tilled. [1] Average is an important word here. Obviously at the high end this becomes less and less likely to be true.

bazoom42 3y ago
Given philology is also part of the humanities, who do you think produce these perfect unbiased translation which are just as good as reading the actual primary sources?
- Amezarak 3y ago
  I didn’t say they were just as good. They’re not. What I suggested is that many to most academic historians are also relying on translations.
  - bazoom42 3y ago
    Nevertheless somebody have to collect and preserve the original sources and perform the translations.