Stop talking about history without source reference or evidence. And no, modern history books are not a "source" for something that happened thousands of years ago. The only thing history books should contain are republished documents."But I don't want to read 500 thousand page crusader documents to learn about the crusades!"Then you aren't allowed to ever talk about it. In fact you're not allowed to talk about anything, back to your bait threads.
>>18406802>modern history books are not a "source" for something that happened thousands of years agoIf it's reliable I don't see the problem
>>18406941Modern people cannot give you new information. They have to of course, they have to sell books with their "fresh new perspective" how else will they pay off their student debts but sell books talking about what they think, I don't care what they think.They can give you nothing. There should be zero opinions, conclusions, or even statements made by modern people in history books. The only thing a history book should contain is documents, relevant documents to the event, and annotations. ultimately history books talking about ancient events have no reason to exist, since you can just add annotations to historical documents anyways and compile them. And archeological books can tell you about what has been found. No one in 2547 is going to read a book from 2020 about the Napoleonic wars.And how many times have I seen it, "The main source of my work comes from this random modern book written by some woman." Who the hell cares what she thinks!? I don't care if she claims to have read the right documents, I'm not here to play broken telephone. But that's the college-brained idiot way of thinking, "I need to rewrite history in my own words." No.
