I think it's outrageous if a historian has a 'leading thought' because it means they will select their material according to their thesis

It takes me three or four years to research and write each book and the individual stories stay with you for a long time afterwards.

I just write the sort of book that I would enjoy reading myself, a book that is both scholarly and recreates the experience of people at that time.

I just love the days when you come out of the archives with half a dozen excellent descriptions or poignant accounts of personal experiences.

The duty of a historian is simply to understand and then convey that understanding, no more than that.

If you smash a city when you're trying to capture it, you actually end up providing the perfect terrain for the defenders while blocking the access for your own armoured vehicles.

I joined the Army in 1965 and served with the 11th Hussars, which I loved. The regiment was so relaxed - a salute was more like a friendly wave.