years ago i did a degree with a bit of a history module.

one of the things they taught us was that what someone told you who had been at a battle was a primary source.

what the historian, who had not been there, thought about the battle was a secondary source.

and primary sources beat secondary sources hands down.

could a historian - a professional one - tell me if the thinking on that has changed?

Keith seems to think so. I would like it rubber stamped by someone who can clear up this point.