Really looking forward to this one. I went to a Waterstones evening when he was talking about Alexander the Great for his book promotion. He had the whole audience utterly absorbed. His passion for his subject just draws you in and it helps that he actually knows what he's talking about.
An oldr but excellent book. Series of short essays on different aspects of England and Englishness. Including the story of his argument, when he was 16, with Monty over the Normans.
EDITED Yeah agreed, quality. Definately better than than this re telling of the most significant period of recent English history http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m98 Still a big fan of Holmes though
Remind me why we broadcast X factor and the rest of the shyte telly over here?
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Yeah
Miles better than this idiot and his re telling of the most significant period of recent English history http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m98
Remind me why we broadcast X factor and the rest of the shyte telly over here?
To be fair to Richard Holmes, it's quite an old programme and the production values aren't that great. Also he is primarily a military historian so the social and political background stuff that Michael Woods does so well is glossed over a little bit by Holmes. His real interest is in the soldiering aspects - he's got a great respect for the soldiers across all ages.
I once had a two and a half hour lecture from him about the history and nature of the British Army and he was fantastic. Chatted to him afterwards and he was brilliant - extremely knowledgeable but not patronizing, charismatic and very witty and self deprecating. The programme makes him look a bit of an old buffer but he's not at all like that.
One of the stories that he told us cracked me up. Richard Holmes was a serving Brigadier in the TA and he had a local man in his village who did gardening. Holmes employed the guy who insisted on calling him "Richie mate" in public. One of the well-to-do villagers asked Holmes why he let him address him this way as he thought it was disrespectful. Holmes told him that "at £7 an hour he can call me what ever he bloody well likes"
Nice story Jorge! I too have met him a few times, though this was many years ago. A very dry humour, but a great person to spend time with.
We seem to have a plethora of quality Historians at the moment. Michael Wood of course, Holmes, Sharma, the populist appeal of Oliver O Farrell etc, but I am also enjoying the take on things offered by the young Snow - hardly a historian in the vein of Keegan (my old tutor back in the 80's) but he is opening history up to a whole generation of youngsters (and his death or victory book is an easy read)
Isn't it interesting that such a wide cross section of the village got so involved? The TV wallahs constantly tell us that they produce what are effectively 'dumbed down' programmes because that's what people want. The interest shown, notably the young lads from the pub seems to blow their argument apart.
I'd add Anthony Beevor to that list of quality historians.
I like Holmes. Like Wood an excellent story teller and when it comes down to it that is what history is. His "Shots from the Front" book of photos of WWI soldiers is excellent.
I love the pottery expert who could say "that's 7th century Ipswich ware" or whatever from a tiny fragment.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Yeah
Miles better than this idiot and his re telling of the most significant period of recent English history http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m98
Remind me why we broadcast X factor and the rest of the shyte telly over here?
Odd
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]EDITED
Yeah agreed, quality.
Definately better than than this re telling of the most significant period of recent English history http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m98
Still a big fan of Holmes though
Remind me why we broadcast X factor and the rest of the shyte telly over here?
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]
I love the pottery expert who could say "that's 7th century Ipswich ware" or whatever from a tiny fragment.
I've always wondered about that. Thing is, who's going to argue whether it's right or not? Presumably the other three pottery experts over a pint ot two in the pub.
Time Team is worse. Re-constructing entire Roman towns from a bit of roof tile.
These guys do a great job, but it's not an exact science. Lots of interpretation. Nothing wrong with that, but the level of confidence in some of the conclusions will not be that great.
And yes, the pottery guy was pretty amazing wasn't he?
As for interpretation, Wood made it clear when he was guessing and what the evidence was to back up (or not) his hunches. I am reading the book that Henry recommends (along with about 60 others at the same time - a bad habit of mine) and the guy is excellent - passionate and knowledgeable; a great combination of traits for someone who tells stories about our history!
P.S I remember the Monty story too...that was amazing!
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Saw this programme last night and loved it.
And yes, the pottery guy was pretty amazing wasn't he?
As for interpretation, Wood made it clear when he was guessing and what the evidence was to back up (or not) his hunches. I am reading the book that Henry recommends (along with about 60 others at the same time - a bad habit of mine) and the guy is excellent - passionate and knowledgeable; a great combination of traits for someone who tells stories about our history!
P.S I remember the Monty story too...that was amazing!
It's one of those books I re-read every few years. Always makes me proud of being English but makes me think about what that means as well.
The Monty story is only beaten by another I heard on the Danny Baker show. As a young boy the caller had gone to work with his mum who was a cleaner for the MOD. She left him at a desk drawing while she cleaned. A old man came in and told him off for using his chair before adding "At least you've done some work at that desk today, more than I will". It was Monty, waiting to be pensioned off.
There are loads of good British historians. My favourites include Ian Kerhaw and Tim Blanning but the best history book I've read in the last 10 years was Command of the Ocean by NAM Rodger. The late Tony Judt's History of Post-War Europe ran it a close second though. I went of Schama when he decided not to bother with teh War of the Roses in his History of England series because he found it boring.
I've never played the slightest bit of interest in History. Ever since school I never really took an interest.
After watching this on iPlayer tonight I really enjoyed it and found it quite amazing the knowledge some people have about a subject which I never previously played much attention too.
I'm actually looking forward to watching the next one.
On the subject of that pottery man, I found myself thinking whether or not he was accurate on all his information, but nevertherless showed a real passion for what he did.
Someone criticising Richard Homles, can only be the local yoikel moonraker. When that someone calls Holmes an idiot, one can only assume he's raking the pond for silver and looking at his own reflection.
Firstly editing a woefully ill-informed imbecilic comment, holds some merit, but yet you call the Norman conquest 'recent history'. Now if you were talking about The Treaty of Union or The Acts of Union, I can just about accept that they may be the start of modern Britain. I've never heard someone call the almost slap bang middle bit of the Middle Ages as recent history. Sure it was a pivotal point from Saxon influence to Norman influence but...... exasperation!
If you were a paeontologist maybe you could call the Norman conquest recent history, but in the context of human recorded history you'd be so far off the reference scale you'd have to be yet again the moonraker.
If I was able to have written and done 1% of what Richard Holmes has done I'd be a happy man. Before the sibilitic and sybaritic Simon Schama slithered across our screens at the turn of the millenium, Holmes did his excellent war walks re-invigorating and brilliantly energising historical battles. Whereas before we had people like Ronald Hutton as talking heads, and invariably boring me to tears, Richard Holmes actually made intelligent use of an outside broadcast. Whilst I like Schama, often his outside shots are often for his own vanity. Unlike most historians, who seem to think their interpretation holds a perfect accuity and their solutions could perfectly be enacted, Holmes had an excellent career in the TA and then was Colonel of the Regiment for the Princess's of Wales Royal Regiment; a senior front-line regiment with at least one seven-month tour in Iraq under his spell as Colonel in Charge. When someone like Beevor or Stephen Ambrose makes his assesment of D-Day on strategic incompetence/errors I generally place them in the amateur bin, if Holmes wrote a book on D-Day I'd close my eyes and place it in the bracket of excellence with that of Max Hasting's Overlord.
So really as you can see Floyd, Henry was endearingly kind calling your post's odd. I'd have been a hella of a lot more caustic in mood and prose.
And as for anyone's comparison with Dan Snow, Holmes' War Walks are far superior. Dan Snow is littered with stupid errors such as saying the Medway is an hour upriver from London; you'd have to go downriver to the Thames first and then upriver on the Thames to London; and this was on a history of the Navy talking about the Dutch raid on Chatham!!!!! Dear, dear Mr Snow entertaining but no historian.
Er, yes I agree and apologise profusely - which is why I edited what was clearly an idiotic post by me. Would hate to see you caustic if your first paragraph is you in mild mode. Hey ho I cannot explain why I wrote the initial post, but would have thought that once edited, the updated post would stand. Why dig up the original mistake?
Agree that Snow isnt the greatest historian, but he is certainly opening an interest to a wide range who may be put off by shows with more gravitas. Anything that raises interest has to be good, surely.
My one twinge about Wood is that he doesnt add enough of his own interpretations, say in the way Sharma has a definite slant to his view of history. I find Wood more of an observer
Anyhoo off to SE7 having recorded the excellent Earth Story , still my favourite show and standing the test of time.
Fair play Floyd I respect the way you have apologised to Richard Homes' body of work! We all make mistakes on the t'internet, so we'll all move on now.
Cheers Colin Read my original as an apallingly poor stab at sarcasm and you may understand my stupidity. I remember Holmes give us a lecture (at Keegan's instigation I assumed) at Sanhurst, but remember the way he drew the audience in more than the content!
Comments
Could be interesting.
An oldr but excellent book. Series of short essays on different aspects of England and Englishness. Including the story of his argument, when he was 16, with Monty over the Normans.
Yeah agreed, quality.
Definately better than than this re telling of the most significant period of recent English history
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074m98
Still a big fan of Holmes though
Remind me why we broadcast X factor and the rest of the shyte telly over here?
To be fair to Richard Holmes, it's quite an old programme and the production values aren't that great. Also he is primarily a military historian so the social and political background stuff that Michael Woods does so well is glossed over a little bit by Holmes. His real interest is in the soldiering aspects - he's got a great respect for the soldiers across all ages.
I once had a two and a half hour lecture from him about the history and nature of the British Army and he was fantastic. Chatted to him afterwards and he was brilliant - extremely knowledgeable but not patronizing, charismatic and very witty and self deprecating. The programme makes him look a bit of an old buffer but he's not at all like that.
One of the stories that he told us cracked me up. Richard Holmes was a serving Brigadier in the TA and he had a local man in his village who did gardening. Holmes employed the guy who insisted on calling him "Richie mate" in public. One of the well-to-do villagers asked Holmes why he let him address him this way as he thought it was disrespectful. Holmes told him that "at £7 an hour he can call me what ever he bloody well likes"
I too have met him a few times, though this was many years ago. A very dry humour, but a great person to spend time with.
We seem to have a plethora of quality Historians at the moment.
Michael Wood of course, Holmes, Sharma, the populist appeal of Oliver O Farrell etc, but I am also enjoying the take on things offered by the young Snow - hardly a historian in the vein of Keegan (my old tutor back in the 80's) but he is opening history up to a whole generation of youngsters (and his death or victory book is an easy read)
I like Holmes. Like Wood an excellent story teller and when it comes down to it that is what history is. His "Shots from the Front" book of photos of WWI soldiers is excellent.
I love the pottery expert who could say "that's 7th century Ipswich ware" or whatever from a tiny fragment.
Odd
Odder
I've always wondered about that. Thing is, who's going to argue whether it's right or not? Presumably the other three pottery experts over a pint ot two in the pub.
Time Team is worse. Re-constructing entire Roman towns from a bit of roof tile.
These guys do a great job, but it's not an exact science. Lots of interpretation. Nothing wrong with that, but the level of confidence in some of the conclusions will not be that great.
And yes, the pottery guy was pretty amazing wasn't he?
As for interpretation, Wood made it clear when he was guessing and what the evidence was to back up (or not) his hunches. I am reading the book that Henry recommends (along with about 60 others at the same time - a bad habit of mine) and the guy is excellent - passionate and knowledgeable; a great combination of traits for someone who tells stories about our history!
P.S I remember the Monty story too...that was amazing!
It's one of those books I re-read every few years. Always makes me proud of being English but makes me think about what that means as well.
The Monty story is only beaten by another I heard on the Danny Baker show. As a young boy the caller had gone to work with his mum who was a cleaner for the MOD. She left him at a desk drawing while she cleaned. A old man came in and told him off for using his chair before adding "At least you've done some work at that desk today, more than I will". It was Monty, waiting to be pensioned off.
There are loads of good British historians. My favourites include Ian Kerhaw and Tim Blanning but the best history book I've read in the last 10 years was Command of the Ocean by NAM Rodger. The late Tony Judt's History of Post-War Europe ran it a close second though. I went of Schama when he decided not to bother with teh War of the Roses in his History of England series because he found it boring.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Ocean-History-Britain-1649-1815/dp/0713994118/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285252932&sr=1-2
I posted, realised my horrible mistake, and edited my post.
Only you choose to post the mistake. To what end?
How odd is that, or should I say point-scoringly sad?
Great programme on The Domesday book tonight
After watching this on iPlayer tonight I really enjoyed it and found it quite amazing the knowledge some people have about a subject which I never previously played much attention too.
I'm actually looking forward to watching the next one.
On the subject of that pottery man, I found myself thinking whether or not he was accurate on all his information, but nevertherless showed a real passion for what he did.
Firstly editing a woefully ill-informed imbecilic comment, holds some merit, but yet you call the Norman conquest 'recent history'. Now if you were talking about The Treaty of Union or The Acts of Union, I can just about accept that they may be the start of modern Britain. I've never heard someone call the almost slap bang middle bit of the Middle Ages as recent history. Sure it was a pivotal point from Saxon influence to Norman influence but...... exasperation!
If you were a paeontologist maybe you could call the Norman conquest recent history, but in the context of human recorded history you'd be so far off the reference scale you'd have to be yet again the moonraker.
If I was able to have written and done 1% of what Richard Holmes has done I'd be a happy man. Before the sibilitic and sybaritic Simon Schama slithered across our screens at the turn of the millenium, Holmes did his excellent war walks re-invigorating and brilliantly energising historical battles. Whereas before we had people like Ronald Hutton as talking heads, and invariably boring me to tears, Richard Holmes actually made intelligent use of an outside broadcast. Whilst I like Schama, often his outside shots are often for his own vanity. Unlike most historians, who seem to think their interpretation holds a perfect accuity and their solutions could perfectly be enacted, Holmes had an excellent career in the TA and then was Colonel of the Regiment for the Princess's of Wales Royal Regiment; a senior front-line regiment with at least one seven-month tour in Iraq under his spell as Colonel in Charge. When someone like Beevor or Stephen Ambrose makes his assesment of D-Day on strategic incompetence/errors I generally place them in the amateur bin, if Holmes wrote a book on D-Day I'd close my eyes and place it in the bracket of excellence with that of Max Hasting's Overlord.
So really as you can see Floyd, Henry was endearingly kind calling your post's odd. I'd have been a hella of a lot more caustic in mood and prose.
And as for anyone's comparison with Dan Snow, Holmes' War Walks are far superior. Dan Snow is littered with stupid errors such as saying the Medway is an hour upriver from London; you'd have to go downriver to the Thames first and then upriver on the Thames to London; and this was on a history of the Navy talking about the Dutch raid on Chatham!!!!! Dear, dear Mr Snow entertaining but no historian.
I cannot explain why I wrote the initial post, but would have thought that once edited, the updated post would stand. Why dig up the original mistake?
Agree that Snow isnt the greatest historian, but he is certainly opening an interest to a wide range who may be put off by shows with more gravitas. Anything that raises interest has to be good, surely.
My one twinge about Wood is that he doesnt add enough of his own interpretations, say in the way Sharma has a definite slant to his view of history.
I find Wood more of an observer
Anyhoo off to SE7 having recorded the excellent Earth Story , still my favourite show and standing the test of time.
Read my original as an apallingly poor stab at sarcasm and you may understand my stupidity.
I remember Holmes give us a lecture (at Keegan's instigation I assumed) at Sanhurst, but remember the way he drew the audience in more than the content!