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

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

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 was only after five years in the army, when I was having to do a very boring job in a very boring place, that I thought: 'Why not try writing a novel?' partly out of youthful arrogance and partly because there had been a long line of writers in my mother's family.

The blurring of fact and fiction has great commercial potential, which is bound to be corrupting in historical terms.

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.