The following is a canon of historical resources (often cited as though they were gospel) which may well be open to a considerable degree of question and must be used with the greatest of care:
*The [[History of the Kings of England]] by [[Geoffrey of Monmouth]]
*The [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]]
*The [[Calendar of Saints]] (in '''any''' edition)
*The [[Liber Pontificalis]]
*[[Tacitus]]
*[[Plutarch]], and other authors whose stated aim is to write exemplary biography
The following could be included on the list, but is rather more a humourous book than a historical resource, containing deliberately mangled history.
*[[1066 and All That]]: A Memorable History of England
----
Also in citing historical resources keep in mind that what may generally regarded as truth by one generation of historians, may
become extremely controversial by the next generation, who may not
only have more complete facts, but may also be looking at the situation with a different set of historical biases. Case in point, lots of things that have been written about Chinese history, in particular the post-Song "decline", anything about Zheng He, the 1911 revolution, the interaction between China and Europe in the 19th century, the interaction between China and Europe before the 19th century.
[[talk:Dubious_historical_resources|/Talk]]
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
