Quote Originally Posted by spankythehippo View Post
So you're dismissing evidence on the basis of it being "old"? That has nothing to do with the accuracy of the evidence at hand (albeit, you could be right, and ALL the evidence is wrong). It is neither contemporary or modern, but it still sheds some light upon the matter. Because a source is not primary, does not make it incorrect. Hell, maybe the author's of these secondary sources had access to primary sources that no longer exist.
No, I'm dismissing it as outdated, based on my knowledge of developments in historiography and the multiple failing in practice a hundred years ago. These include, but are not limited to, use of secondary sources as evidence, failure to cite sources generally or specifically, failure to consult primary sources, a tendancy to fill gaps with supposition (without notice) and a general tendancy to bend the narrative for literary and sometimes political benefit.

I should imagine that primary sources for this period of history in the Netherlands are fairly comprehensive, as the printing press would was well established as were the secular and eccesiasical administrations, and literacy was relatively high.

You seem to be somewhat confused as to what a primary source is, a "Primary Source" is either an original document, such as an actual Papal Bull, or a piece of physical evidence, such as a mass grave. A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source, but a different one to a narrative history - none the less niether are actually evidence in themselves, in the case of the latter type of secondary source I can dismiss them out of hand because they are just opinions from previous historians, they do not actually tell you as much about the period they purport to be about as they do about the period they were written.

And you say that the evidence is not a primary source, AND to bring you something more modern. Aren't you contradicting yourself? All modern sources are secondary, because they are merely stating observations based on what they can see from evidence they have gathered themselves.
Modern secondary sources can be checked because they have proper bibliographical citations, and they are better because they treat history as an art and a science, not a literary exercise.

So no, I'm not contradicting myself. Here we generally expect students to cite sources no more than twenty years old in support of their arguments, unless the source has stood up to previous attacks, of course.

And say that it IS propaganda. Why would the Catholic church garner so much hate? Is it because of something they did? Because people were xenophobic? Care to share your thoughts (i.e. evidence) about the relations between the Catholic church and the general masses? Out of curiousity, of course.
If you want my opinions on the Catholic Church, I suggest you start another topic as the precise nature and flaws in that ancient edifice are irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make for the last page or so.