Battle of Vukovar

Jan 2015
1,545
Bosnia and Herzegovina
#51
Then I probably wouldn't have studied Croatian toponyms so much, don't you think?
You don't have to be Croatian to study Croatia.

Well, I can cook, though it has nothing to do with these accolades.
Neither does programming have anything to do with history or the ability to study and understand it. You don't need to have good grades in unrelated subjects in order to study history nor do good grades in these unrelated subjects mean you're drawing the right conclusions from what you read about it.

It's good to question everything but you're going a bit overboard and touching philosophy more than history with your Descartes-like line of thought that if you didn't experience it yourself then it is doubtful it happened at all.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,616
Portugal
#53
Yes, I have. They generally responded with something like: "Are you crazy? Do you want somebody to kill you when you say such politically provocative things? And what do you even mean the Battle of Vukovar didn't happen? At the time of the battle, there was even a bomb that fell here, in this street, and killed a child. Are you telling me that also didn't happen?" I don't know what to think. It all seems just so unreal to me, so hard to imagine...
It seems that you are doing the wrong questions to your neighbours.

In an interview to collect oral sources for history, the method, the questions and the way you ask the questions is often as important as the answers, because it can condition them.

In the internet you will easily find tools that can help you conducting an interview, from the most simple to some more complex:

https://www.le.ac.uk/emoha/training/no2.pdf

https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33212.pdf

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty...story/199xDRussellUCSBOralHistoryWorkshop.pdf

So if you ask a question like “did the battle of Vukovar happened?”, you are making a closed question, and you are conditioning the other person, most especially if the other assisted to those terrible events and considers the question “dumb”. So maybe a better question would be an open one, like “what can you tell me about the events that happened in Vukovar in 1991?” or “what happened in Vukovar in 1991 when Yugoslavia begun to split.”
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,616
Portugal
#55
Not really. As if there are no translations. For some regions and time periods it's more useful to know Greek, German, Old Church Slavonic or some other language.
Or Portuguese! :)

But let me slightly disagree with you. If you want to research seriously about the Ancient period or the Middle Ages, or sometimes even after that in some other European regions, you will need to know Latin. Translations aren’t always available, sometimes they aren’t correct or have other context or you will need to find your own path.

If you are just a curious… Latin is not needed.

Personally, a few (many) years ago, I had to change my field of research due to my (bad) Latin.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,940
Europix
#56
By the way, I've started a discussion about this on the TextKit Latin forum:
Pugna Vukovaris - Textkit Greek and Latin Forums
Feel free to join us there! To study European history, you need to know Latin quite well, right?
Funny:

" hoc non est forum de historiae revisionibus. Etsi, illi, qui sciunt linguas antiquas, meliores sunt ad historiae discendum, annon ... "

an answer from Your interlocutor in that site, and he is right: posting "revisitated" modern history in a forum dedicated to old/dead languages ...

What You're actually after ?
 
Likes: Shtajerc

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
12,940
Europix
#57
But let me slightly disagree with you. ...
Well, You're both right.

IMHO, Latin or not, it's really about the sphere of interest. Latin is actually less interesting nowadays, as Latin sources are maybe the best covered (translated/analyzed), so it's often more interesting to invest the time in other languages.

I think at our friend Tulun, and him learning Arab and Turkish/Ottoman. For Eastern European/Balkanic medieval history, it's extremely judicious.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,616
Portugal
#58
Well, You're both right.

IMHO, Latin or not, it's really about the sphere of interest. Latin is actually less interesting nowadays, as Latin sources are maybe the best covered (translated/analyzed), so it's often more interesting to invest the time in other languages.

I think at our friend Tulun, and him learning Arab and Turkish/Ottoman. For Eastern European/Balkanic medieval history, it's extremely judicious.
Yes, naturally it depends of the sphere of interest. But, at least in Portugal, many of the written primary sources in Latin aren’t translated. Most or many are edited and published, but still in Latin. But in the epigraphy it is quite different. There is much to publish, either in Latin or translated.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,355
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#59
Or Portuguese! :)

But let me slightly disagree with you. If you want to research seriously about the Ancient period or the Middle Ages, or sometimes even after that in some other European regions, you will need to know Latin. Translations aren’t always available, sometimes they aren’t correct or have other context or you will need to find your own path.

If you are just a curious… Latin is not needed.

Personally, a few (many) years ago, I had to change my field of research due to my (bad) Latin.
Sure. If you're a serious historian, concerned with a period in which accounts are written primarily in Latin, it would seem almost a must to know at leadt some Latin. All I was saying is that after the fall of Rome Latin is somewhat limited to Catholic Europe and even then not all texts were written in Latin or any modern language. Be it Old English, Old German, Normand French or whatever. Then outside of the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church you get various official languages. Old Church Slavonic for the Bulgarians and Rus', once they're Christianised, Greek for Byzantium, Arab and whatnot. But you almost always have also things written in the local language, some of which are extinct by now or changed a lot. Latin might be the predominant language of sources for some areas in the middle ages, early modernity and of course antiquity, but you often need more than just Latin and sometimes you don't need it at all, especially if you're not a serious historian, who lives off of historic research.
 
Likes: Tulius

Similar History Discussions