Which are better for learning, primary sources or secondary sources?

[Ciciro]

Like, for example, if someone wanted to learn about Caesars rise to power. Is it best to read what Caesar himself wrote or what a historian wrote on the subject?

[hellheaven1987]

How about both?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Primary sources present valuable information, but they need to be carefully analyzed, as either the author himself or the sources he draws from promote certain agendas. Thus, a secondary source, or a primary source that comes with commentary, such as for example Polybius' Histories by Walbank is necessary to attain an objective point of view. Reading a secondary source alone can grant you a good understanding of the situation but you risk missing out the immersion of an ancient text, written by eye-witnesses, or based on reports of them.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

What Komnenos said. For example, Jordanes just about mangles everything he writes in his Getica, but provides valuable information on the Battle of Chalons. Therefore, Walter Goffart's Narrators of Barbarian History is an important read before/when tackling Jordanes.

[conon394]

It best to read all sources you can find and all analysis of them.

Sure read Caesar but are you a master of Latin translation, if not you are likely reading somebodies translation and or reading Caesar but with how many reference works at hand?

For example you can got PACE and read Polybius in the original and 2 different translations and you can see how latitude in interpretation there is.

http://pace-ancient.mcmaster.ca/york...s?version=loeb

More importantly read the Walkbank commentary that comes with and realize how many other bits or bobs contradict Polybius or confirm or cast things in a different light or provided different emphasis. And Polybius is nominally a historian, never forget JC was a politician writing (or dictating) his personal PR. And all that still avoids emendation and text errors across different existing translations etc. Beyond that original is fraught with needing good access to a resource like the LSJ you you can see all the variant uses of the word (or a least a lot). For example think how differently you would understand the word gay in English between 1914 and 2014.


edit - I see Walbank already was mentioned but then you also should hit JSTOR or such and see what is said about Walbank and what is new either from Walbank or his critics or simply just new evidence come to light.

[Cyclops]

I'd say for a primary school student you need predigested pap. Popular history gives you the outline, memorable shapes and popular myths. (eg Henry VIII was a great king with six wives, "Divorced beheaded she died, divorced beheaded survived").

For a secondary student you need a few primary sources so they get the idea, but mostly predigested pap. ("Henry VIII needed broke with Rome"-quote from Parliamentary speech to that effect).

Tertiary students need primary sources like old people need fibre. If you are studying at this level you really can't get enough of them and light overviews should be your guilty pleasure. (Read excerpts of Henry's Defence of the Seven Sacraments, various Acts of Supremacy).

Caesar's Gallic War is not strictly a history to my mind, although it counts as a primary source I think it has strong political bias. Its best read with a commentator to hand.

A guy like Polybius is more a secondary source than a primary one, living through only a little of what he writes about but not present for much of it.

[kentuckybandit]

I'd say for a primary school student you need predigested pap. Popular history gives you the outline, memorable shapes and popular myths. (eg Henry VIII was a great king with six wives, "Divorced beheaded she died, divorced beheaded survived").

For a secondary student you need a few primary sources so they get the idea, but mostly predigested pap. ("Henry VIII needed broke with Rome"-quote from Parliamentary speech to that effect).

Tertiary students need primary sources like old people need fibre. If you are studying at this level you really can't get enough of them and light overviews should be your guilty pleasure. (Read excerpts of Henry's Defence of the Seven Sacraments, various Acts of Supremacy).

This. I have always loved books with illustrations and overviews of subjects in history, they truly are a guilty pleasure of mine and have been since I was 8 years old. However once I started getting my bachelor's in history the time to buck up and start consuming the primary source work was upon me. Even now, I still find myself buying another "History of Warfare in the 18th Century" or "The Medieval Knight" because it has bad ass illustrations or some nice content. However, they only wet the appetite and fill the bookshelves. Primary sources are where you have to go at the advanced level, academically, professionally, and personally to get the information you need.

[Cyclops]

This. I have always loved books with illustrations ...

...and maps. With solid coloured blocs and arrows, so you can see that the Germans expanded from Jutland into Thuringia 500 BC. Definitely.

[PikeStance]

There are many approaches to reading and understanding history. It really depends on what you are looking for on which type of source you may want to read. I wouldn't say if you read a primary source that this would mean that you are getting the "full" story as someone already noted. The same is true for secondary sources. Many of which may be written long ago, but may or may not offer much more insight. You should be aware that virtually everything you read is an interpretation of events, so will never find the truth. The more sources you read, the more questions it may generate.

If you are going to use a secondary source, then I would stay away from books that offer only a chronology of events. They often only give either "facts" or just one interpretation of events. If you do, it is advisable to read more than two. I prefer books that take a more historiographical approach; offering a perspective on different view points then advocating one with a clear rationale. A good example is History of China by John Keay. The book pauses to offer several analysis of different sources about the time period. He would offer his opinion on the sources. However, you still better off than books that just write their own interpretation with no explanation.

I hope this helps!

[Aikanár]

Aside from what everybody already said, I think using what is called the Historical Method is key when treating with primary sources or sources in general. Actually using a critical and methodological approach with regards to every source, regardless of kind (primary, secondary &c.) cannot be emphasized enough, if your goal is to distill information of scientific worth, "Quellenkritik" is key.

[Cyclops]

... "Quellenkritik"...

Only for historians of the first Ranke.

[Roma_Victrix]

Like, for example, if someone wanted to learn about Caesars rise to power. Is it best to read what Caesar himself wrote or what a historian wrote on the subject?

Although immeasurably invaluable to understanding the Gallic Wars since it is one of the few sources for them, Julius Caesar's account it still hopelessly biased in his political favor. He legitimizes and excuses his illicit actions going against the Republic at every turn. He was a megalomaniac and narcissist of the highest order. To only read his contemporary account without then turning to modern analysis and debate would be outright foolish and, for any serious student or God forbid a "professor," arguably intellectually bankrupt. The whole point of history is to interpret sources to reconstruct what happened in the past. Simply reading primary sources while disregarding or failing to acknowledge all the input from secondary source literature and all its major findings/conclusions is ridiculous.

Only for historians of the first Ranke.

Leopold von Ranke...I see what you did there, Cyclops.

[Octavius Vatco]

Both are significant..... But remember, will there be any second sources if there wasn't a first?