Importance of mastering more than one language in History

[ray243]

One of the key things almost every student of history must have is the ability to read multiple language in order to access to good source of informations.

Works in German or French may never be translated into History and vice versa. So I was wondering, how many people down here can read more than one language in order to learn more about history?

[Stalins Ghost]

If I choose to do a Masters/PhD in history/Ancient history, I'll be learning a metric ton. French, German, Modern Greek, Italian, Latin, Ancient Greek. Oh dear :F

But then again, my other main career approach right now is down the route of getting into the world of International Relations. So I'll need to learn a load for that anyway

[konny]

When I studied history (in Germany) being able to read English, French and (classical) Latin was required (and tested). When planning to make advanced semesters in Ancient history Greek was highly recommended too. For a major thesis in Medieval history I also had to read texts in Middle German, Dutch and Italian; beside some 1,000 pages in Medieval Latin.

In general, you need to be absolutly fit in the language of the region and times you are studying the history of. For European Middle Ages this also includes (MA) Latin, for Early Modern history French is a must have, you cannot make Near Eastern history without knowing Arabian and Aramaic, and so on. On top of that you also need to know the language the majority of the recent works on this topic has been published (in most occasions the modern local tongue) plus of course English to read articles that had been published in international magazins.

[Eien]

When i studied history during my A levels, alot of focus was on East Asia, so being able to read both Mandarin and Japanese helped alot

[hellheaven1987]

When i studied history during my A levels, alot of focus was on East Asia, so being able to read both Mandarin and Japanese helped alot

From my understanding A levels does not require to do that...

Either way, planning to study Japanese and French because too many Japanese sources are never translated to English; same thing happens for most Asian sources but then I can read Chinese very well and I am not really interesting about South-East Asia.

[motiv-8]

If I choose to do a Masters/PhD in history/Ancient history, I'll be learning a metric ton. French, German, Modern Greek, Italian, Latin, Ancient Greek. Oh dear :F

But then again, my other main career approach right now is down the route of getting into the world of International Relations. So I'll need to learn a load for that anyway

Same here, IR (international law actually) became appealing when the task of learning so many languages became ever more daunting.

[Aru]

Students of archeology and History here learn Old Greek, Classical Latin and Old Church Slavonic as well as Greek, Glagolic and Cyrillic scripts, and some textbooks are in English and German. You can do without any of them actually, but not if you are really interested in the field, and want to do your own research without just believing the books.

[Londinium]

A Levels barely require you to know how to speak English, let alone other languages. I'm currently doing a BA and we don't really need to know any other languages (although I know French and I'm learning Russian) but it depends on the institution you go to. For example Warwick University makes you take a compulsory language module if you're doing History there but it's in the minority. You can even go onto an MA at world renowned institutions such as the LSE without a second language.

[hellheaven1987]

Indeed; studying European history does not require you to pick up second language, because most sources are already translated into several different langauge.

However, for Asia history, you do need to pick up second language.

[konny]

Indeed; studying European history does not require you to pick up second language, because most sources are already translated into several different langauge.

I am not sure which periode of European history you mean, but I can say that, for example, for German Medieval history many (most?) sources are edited, but only very few are translated into modern German, and hardly any into English or French. When I made a semiar on the Crimean War I was lucky to find a couple of rare Russian sources translared into English online, but that was most likely because this topic would be of a general interest for the English speaking audience.

But in general you should not expect to find the sources you need translated. And even if you do, it would still be higly un-academic to completely relay on some one else's translation.

[Ludicus]

But in general you should not expect to find the sources you need translated. And even if you do, it would still be higly un-academic to completely relay on some one else's translation.

Absolutely correct.

concerning the Reconquista ...so that the traditionalist view (often quite emotionally charged) has prevailed unopposed until very recently. Naturally, the revisionist reaction swings in the other extreme, to discount religion completely. While the truth is probably somewhere in the middle (as usual).

The history of the Peninsula differs from the history of the rest of Europe, because for over 700 years, the peninsula was divided between the Muslim and Christian rule. That´s a fact.
It´s the history of the interaction between different religious and ethnic groups, in the context of it´s relations with other regions: you need to know the history of the Gharb al-Andalus - the Islamic rule, it´s social and economic fabric, the faith and culture, the history of the Christians and Jews under Islam rule.
In my opinion, religious differences always underlay the Reconquista- but the Christian rhetoric was nevertheless as much political as credal: read the Asturian chronicles of the 9th/10th - the struggle was presented as "just" because it was waged to reclaim the stolen Visigothic inheritance, even in North Africa; however, in practice, mundane motives were often foremost (eg the desire for booty/protection money)
So, these basic drives, and the fact that cultural interaction between the Muslim and Christian worlds was considerable, the deals blurred the the lines of faith, with periods of relative peace, broken by periods of conflict.
Around the year 1000, the sense of a long struggle between the evil and the good (Islam/Christianity) was strong at the Leonese court. In the late 11th century, religious fanatism might be considered the driving force of Reconquista -but even then, the territorial ambitions/competition of the Christian leaders, was another important factor of growing importance.

Reconquista, some- very few, but some -primary sources online (translated): Primary Sources of the Reconquista

[conon394]

Works in German or French may never be translated into History and vice versa. So I was wondering, how many people down here can read more than one language in order to learn more about history?

If you mean for an academic career in History (classical, ancient for example) French, German, and English are useful if not critical you can get by purely in any one modern language. But be ready for a few black eyes for missing a recent work in you paper/book/presentation only published in one of the three. Obviously you need to lean the languages of the period you are studying - not super, but at minimum functionally. Don't neglect what ever you primary language is for presenting and publishing in the sense of how to write and present effectively. No matter how good your research is or what not if you cannot articulate well in presentations or papers you might as well have not have done it.

One other route that history does not seem to favor in the same way as 'Hard Sciences' is collaboration to fill in gaps in skill. I seen a lot of reviews of Historians criticized for failing to cite works in German or say writing about Alexander without having any refrence to the Babylonia data. The way that often gets solved in say genetics is to go out an find an expert in the deficient area and add them to the project. I don't know maybe its the nature of funding or how academic performance is evaluated but that seems uncommon in history (broadly - obviously some areas more clearly technical shade over)

[Odovacar]

Studying steppe history one needs to know foremost turkish and russian language, and he can choose chinese, old greek, persian, arabian in addition.

Classical studies need english, german and french (at least two of these) and the obligatory old greek and latin.

Medieval history mainly needs latin and occiasionally some knowledge in older versions of modern languages like Middle high German,Old English. etc.
Latin is most important for most fields of study. English is an absolute necessity (unless you are a native speaker) and german, french, italian are very-very useful.
Russian is again something to consider when dealing with nomad peoples or soviet-east european history.

When I started my philosophy MA we had to learn either latin or old greek. As I learnt latin in my history MA, I chose old greek. I liked but neglected it, so I learnt not much, only for half a year. Even my latin remained rather basic, unfitting for a serious study.

[Londinium]

A bit of a tangent from the actual subject but for those of you in this thread who have learned Latin, how hard is it compared to the Romance languages?

[hellheaven1987]

A bit of a tangent from the actual subject but for those of you in this thread who have learned Latin, how hard is it compared to the Romance languages?

Not sure about this since never try to learn Latin seriously, but from my experience throughout the reading of Latin text here and there from various historical sources, it should not be hard for basic level of reading, considering many nouns have same meaning as modern French and Spanish (and it is even possible to guess some short phase using English)... Although the result would be like Chinese trying to read Japanese (we can always guess meaning from kango, which, despite different sound, generally have same meaning), not very desirable but acceptable.

[Nevins]

A bit of a tangent from the actual subject but for those of you in this thread who have learned Latin, how hard is it compared to the Romance languages?

The grammar and sentence structure is more difficult, but you do not have to worry about vocalizing any of it. Academically, the written is all that matters so I would have to say that Latin is more difficult than the Romance languages.

[CiviC]

The grammar and sentence structure is more difficult, but you do not have to worry about vocalizing any of it. Academically, the written is all that matters so I would have to say that Latin is more difficult than the Romance languages.

Indeed, grammar is more dificult in Latin then in most Romance languages, except Romanian that preserved may original features from Latin grammar, as nouns that have cases like in Latin, pronouns are not mandatory because you can deduct them from verb forms as verbs are highly inflected for person, number, tense, mood, voice, etc. I would say Romanian is one step less difficult then Latin, evolving less in grammar then French, Italian, Spanish, etc. It is very easy for a Romanian to understand Italian without any education, and easy to learn Freanch and Spanish to a good level, but it is very difficult for an Italian, French, etc to learn and understand Romanian.

About the languages important for history, if you are not studying ancient texts (then you have to know ancient languages) English, French and German are probably the most significative languages used to write history books and studies. Knowing French, for example, give me acces to many important works about history and archeology (French litterature in this aspect is very rich), that other languages don't posses. Also French is more closely to me as it's a Romance language as mine is, and resonate more to me then other non Romance languages.

[Lysimachos11]

For Historians I think the most important languages are English and German. German historians are in my eyes some of the most influential. Beside that, German historians have an important place in society, while for example in the Netherlands they are almost no factor in politics or the media at all.

I tried to pick up Russian in my University, but dropped out because it wasn't obligatory and taking too much time from my real courses. There are just a few tiny classes per year, with only a handful completing advanced Russian courses, much to the despair of the professor. She said during the Cold War she used to have classrooms full of students. I think it's quite sad Russian went from a major academic language to a peripheral one.

[Londinium]

For Historians I think the most important languages are English and German. German historians are in my eyes some of the most influential. Beside that, German historians have an important place in society, while for example in the Netherlands they are almost no factor in politics or the media at all.

I tried to pick up Russian in my University, but dropped out because it wasn't obligatory and taking too much time from my real courses. There are just a few tiny classes per year, with only a handful completing advanced Russian courses, much to the despair of the professor. She said during the Cold War she used to have classrooms full of students. I think it's quite sad Russian went from a major academic language to a peripheral one.

Thats what my Russian class is like, theres two classes one has 5 people and mine has 3 and they only run Beginner's classes as they never have the numbers to run beyond Beginners, so I'll have to go to the LSE next year for any advanced classes. Russian is still pretty influential in the realms of science though, it's just lost some of it's political clout what with the dismantling of the Eastern bloc and Eastern Europe's distaste of speaking it even though many people in Poland, Czech Republic, Romania etc have some knowledge of it.

I think German is much more important if you're doing Medieval History, if you're doing modern world history you can get by with English and French unless you want to specialise in areas such as Germany or Russia. Personally speaking if I can gain a good grasp of French and Russian in addition to my native English I'll be happy, maybe latin aswell if I'm feeling adventurous but I dislike the German language so I'm trying to avoid it.

[Godless Pickle]

Knowing French hasn't help that much, but then again I live in America where multiple languages isn't as important as in Europe or Asia. Im sure it might be useful in College if I go down the right route.