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

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

The great help of being in the Army is to understand why are the armies clever in what they describe as emotional intelligence, making soldiers come to terms with the death of comrades by certain rituals.

I believe passionately in preemptive pessimism, especially before a book comes out. I expect the worst both from reviewers and sales, and then, with any luck, I may be proved wrong.

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 am not someone who believes I am going to find a historical scoop.

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