Professor Gary Sheffield recently announced that there was going to be a bonus Military History Plus podcast entitled SPECIAL – WHAT DO HISTORIANS ACTUALLY DO – A REPLY TO RIDLEY SCOTT.
In a recent interview about his latest film – NAPOLEON – the film director Ridley Scott is reported to have said in reply to criticism by some historians as to its accuracy, ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the f*ck up then’. This podcast examines this very dismissive attitude of historians and then moves on to look at what role historians – and particularly military historians – perform.
Although I do not agree with everything Professor Gary Sheffield and Dr Spencer Jones say during the podcast, I fundamentally agree that the argument put forward by Ridley Scott is completely wrong. In the National Archives I have read original first-hand accounts and official reports written by participants in several military actions … and although they may have been there, they did not always agree on even some of the most basic facts. The role of the historian is to read those accounts and arrive in their own mind at some sort of overall view of what appears to have happened and to come to some sort of conclusions … and all this is done in the knowledge that another document or piece of evidence may well surface at some time in the future that proves their conclusions to be in some way erroneous.
In the field of military history, research is not just done in the dusty libraries and archives of academic institutions. It takes place on the actual battlefields, usually with a detailed map in hand ... and in my experience, not always in the best of weather! Often it is only then that one can gain the necessary insight and understanding into what happened and why it did so.
A case in point. Some years ago I had the opportunity to visit Pourville in Normandy. Before going, I read James Leasor’s GREEN BEACH, which described fighting that took part in Pourville during the Dieppe Raid on 19th August 1942. It was only when I actually walked around the village and looked at the terrain that all the events and problems fell into place.
The shingle beach – which is made up of large pebbles – was impossible to run up without risking serious injury (I know, because I tried!) and the River Scie, which divides the village in two, can only be crossed via the bridge. On the map the river looks quite narrow and appears to be relatively easy to cross … but when you see that it has been canalised and has deep vertical sides, you realise why the Canadians didn’t just wade across it. (By mistake they had been landed on the west side of the river and their objectives were on the eastern side.) If I had not visited the site of the fighting, I would not have realised how important these factors were in the failure of the Canadians to reach their objectives.
The latest series of these podcast begins very soon, and I am looking forward to listening to them.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Bob,
ReplyDeleteEvelyn and I saw the film last weekend. It began well, with a very vivid portrayal of the execution of Marie Antoinette, but then went down hill rapidly. For example, the battle of Austerlitz was presented as a cunning plan to lure the enemy onto the frozen lakes and then destroy the ice by firing guns that had previously been camouflaged under white tarpaulins to drown scores of soldiers and horses.
At Borodino, Napoleon led a cavalry charge in person, still wearing his Revolutionary War uniform (perhaps an editing error?), and at Waterloo, both British and French infantry were in foxholes or slit trenches - I heard one actor cry 'Over the top, lads!' - and, again, Napoleon led a final cavalry advance, only to be repulsed by the British Life Guards, at which point he conceded defeat and turned away, when a British rifleman, whose Baker rifle sported a telescopic sight, put a bullet through his cocked hat.
It made the television drama Sharpe's Waterloo look good!
If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother.
The succinct reply to Ridley Scott's offensive remark should have been, 'Neither were you, and it's clear you either did little research or ignored whatever you read when it suited you.'
How could the director of The Duellists have sunk so low? I can only think that - not unlike Bonaparte - he has come to believe he can do no wrong and that every gamble he takes will result in success.
I look forward to listening to the podcast.
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteThat’s a pretty damning review … and I’ll probably wait until the film’s DVD is on sale in the bargain bin at ASDAs before I buy it … and only then so that I can see just how bad it actually is!
I agree that SHARPE’S WATERLOO was not good - and was probably the worst of the series - but it sounds as if it was far, far better than this very expensive film. (I understand the the actor playing Napoleon is a vegan and demanded that things like his famous hat were made using non-animal products, and that they ended up having to use a product made from an African tree bark as a substitute for the woollen felt.)
All the best,
Bob
Should we not ask Me1 Gibs0n to make a ruling? On second thoughts, maybe not (the British would doubtless be wrong/guilty/at fault) 🤣😂
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Geoff
Elliesdad,
DeleteIt sounds as if Mel G’s version would have been better … even if the British were blamed for the whole series of wars they financed to overthrow that nice Mr Napoleon.
All the best,
Bob
I haven't seen the film, so I am not fully qualified to comment on it, but I have read the accounts from those who have seen it.
ReplyDeleteThe scary thing is that people who do not have a good historical education might watch this film and think it was accurate.
Ridley Scott is defensive because he has invested so much of himself in the film. He should have extended his energy by consulting military historians and reenactors.
Quantrilltoy,
DeleteI am in the same situation as you are with regard to this film but I think that the almost unanimous opinions I have read have all been pretty damning.
I think that you are correct when you comment that people with little historical knowledge might well think that this is an accurate biopic … and judging by the level of historical ignorance I’ve seen exhibited by supposedly well-educated people on TV, that is a real possibility.
Ridley Scott may well have torpedoed his own career in making this film, and if it flops, he is going to have to work very hard to recover.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteEntirely on another note; there's a seller on eBay with several Roco/Herpa minitanks models including some of the later better German and Soviet models:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/huntroyde27
I've bought modern Russian models from him without problems. There's another seller with Herpa PzIV:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/176065844121?hash=item28fe579399:g:JYsAAOSw2OFlZ1Xx&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwJF05s9xsC7WBtIK%2Fmzg4fwe8UKHxmIR0c2qWPQyaCRS%2B6pQ5GUzBdoOdfCy7VWBuc%2FOzX02PHRgGE%2FbVVPR4d2kGcRMOEog1SyRVQWligTeF2V8sqLJ8vhadNjeZAo6gLqOpMNxA7jeCpg2voNqr8zTsTFlqwAIki0MQ3XlCzw48e%2FpdClJ4YwYjJOss2R9%2FalWVXIIO5Nbqbg1T8IydcJxLn9z5mjH209%2B%2B%2BL6dki3dL0h2BnGXstd0CO1S%2Fxclw%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR47apYWEYw
Neil
Neil Patterson (Neil),
DeleteThanks very much for the link. There are several items there that I will be bidding on …
All the best,
Bob
Many thanks Bob, I listened to the podcast and found it very interesting indeed! Fascinating to hear them talk about 'tricks of the trade' and it would be great to be able to learn those in a formal way - though in the UK these days I suspect that requires doing a degree, which is a serious financial cost.
ReplyDeleteHaving seen reviews from other bloggers and ( especially ) heard Ridley Scott's response to criticism, I don't feel very inclined to hand over any of my money to him to see his film!
David in Suffolk,
DeleteIt was a very thought-provoking podcast. What I liked was that the used Ridley Scott’s comments as a jumping off point for their discussion rather than just to rubbish his latest film. They’ve left that to other people!
If I was younger, I’d be tempted to take on a part-time degree, having missed out when I was younger, thanks to a technicality. (I did a Certificate in Education. My course ended in 1973; had I ended the same course in 1974, I would have been awarded a BEd. Such is life!)
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of Henry Ford's deathless remark: 'History is bunk'. Indeed a lot of it is, but that is where historians come in: to clear away the bunk to find something approaching the 'real' story. For in my view, that is what history is: a story, with perhaps fact and truth somewhere in the mix.
If you want to see a more 'approachable' story of Napoleon, try the 1950s movie 'Desiree', which is really about Napoleon's relationship with Desiree Clary. You don't see much military action, and Marshal Bernadotte come out looking like a good guy, and it is also pretty much bunk - but it tells a good story, however fanciful in some respects. Marlon Brando made a pretty decent Napoleon, and Jean Simmons a fine Desiree.
Now, apart from the train wreck that is the four part (!!) Hobbit movie, Peter Jackson is a fine story teller, and meticulous as to verisimilitude. I reckon he could have made a good story out of Napoleon. But it probably would have gone to ten movies. Or he would have chosen an episode in his life that showed something of Napoleon's greatness that led to his fall. I would suggest the 1814 campaign.
But even documentary historiography in the popular media can be pretty fraught. I recall a series in this country about the New Zealand experience of the Western Desert war. The testimony of survivors was magnificent; the overall narration so-so, marred horribly by identifying the German contingent as the Africa Corpse. I kid you not. It was almost painful listening to it. When the producer was pilloried about that, he doubled down his ignorance by saying that was how the Germans pronounce 'Korps'. Uh... no, it ain't, dude.
In contrast to Henry Ford's ignorant remark, I prefer George Santayana: 'Who fails to learn from history is condemned to relive it.' Ain't THAT the truth!
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteInterestingly, Henry Ford later clarified what he meant, saying that it was history's concentration on politicians and military heroes that was bunk.
The original comment was recorded in the Chicago Tribune as 'Say, what do I care about Napoleon? What do we care about what they did 500 or 1,000 years ago? I don't know whether Napoleon did or did not try to get across and I don't care. It means nothing to me. History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's dam is the history we make today'. Rather apposite considering the poohpoohing that Ridley Scott's film has generated!
I well remember watching Désirée on TV many years ago ... and you are right about Brando making a better fist of portraying Napoleon than some other actors.
A Peter Jackson version of Napoleon's life would probably be at least four full-length films long ... but would probably be worth it. In the meantime, I hope to be able to find a copy of the restored version of Abel Gance's film about Napoleon. He only ever completed the first part, which told the story from Bonaparte's early life, through the Revolution, and then up to the invasion of Italy. He never finished the next five(!) parts and it was recorded in the age before sound ... but I am told that it is an excellent film considering when it was made.
I sometimes wonder how some film and TV producers manage to get employment, especially when they make basic mistakes like the one you outline in your comment. In some ways, that sort of mistake diminishes the testimony of those survivors as it can stick in the mind more than what those brave men said.
Santayana's comment that 'Only the dead have seen the end of war' is also very true, although one of his others - 'History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there'
- may well support Ridley Scott's point-of-view!
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
DeleteI've seen that Abel Gance movie, and it's a marathon! Silent of course, and an example of the very earliest Cinemascope (Polyvision it was called at the time), though that comes only in the last few minutes of the 5 and a half hour screening. Make that two marathons. I'm not sure now that we saw the whole 5+ hours, it may have been 4 only, but, whatever its length, it was long!
I reckon H. Ford's clarification tells us more about H. Ford than it does about history. I care about Napoleon, and that good enough for me if it isn't for Ford. Having said that, not all history is 'about Napoleon' (if you take my meaning); nor is it all political, or all economic, or all social. Possibly the central theme of Lev Tolstoi's 'War and Peace (Yes, I've read it - the whole thing, though that must be well over 40 years ago by now) has to do with the role of the individual in history - or at least, the lack of any substantive or permanent effect.
On the matter of the nature of history and historiography, I'll give the floor to Napoleon: 'History is a set of lies agreed upon.' Though, having a copy of his 'Bulletins' (in translation, of course) I find them most interesting reading.
Cheers,
Ion
P.S. I just looked up the Gance movie. Apparently it has been restored to a SEVEN hour length. Far out.
Regards,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteSeven hours! That is a very, very long film! I don’t think that my wife would countenance me watching it on DVD … and I doubt that my constitution could stand the strain.
Henry Ford was speaking at a time when history was predominantly about so-called ‘eminent’ men (and it was almost entirely men) … and in many respects he was right. Thankfully, nowadays the best history is far more democratised and the various strands of history (political, economic, social, technological, military etc.) are seen as intertwined and no long as distinct and separate entities.
I have also read WAR AND PEACE and thoroughly enjoyed it, even though it was a bit heavy going in places. I have also read LES MISERABLES, which takes a long time to get over the point that a man can earn redemption by being a good person. Along the way it describes the Battle of Waterloo in such a way that one might almost believe that the French won as well as containing a detailed history of the Parisian sewer system!
Napoleon’s full quotation was ‘History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon. Even when I am gone, I shall remain in people's minds the star of their rights, my name will be the war cry of their efforts, the motto of their hopes.’ I don’t think that he was far wrong.
All the best,
Bob
I agree it was a very good way to open up the subject of the (professional) historian's craft on the podcast. My opinion of the Scott 'Napoleon' is summed up by blog post title: 'I missed Benidorm for this?!'
ReplyDeleteMy sister said the same thing as you about her teaching qualification, though I think she qualified a year later.
Nundanket,
DeleteIt was a very interesting discussion. I took a minor exception to the way that the work done by some non-academic amateur historians was regarded, although in a subsequent exchange of messages with one of the podcasters, he did accept that what they said wasn’t quite the message they wanted to get across.
As to my Cert Ed … well, I was recently told that many awarding bodies were actually giving recipients honorary degrees … but not Cambridge, which was my awarding body. Apparently, when the teacher education system was streamlined in the late 1970s, my college was amalgamated with a college in Cheltenham, which has - in turn - become part of Plymouth Marjon University. Cambridge says that any decision about an honorary degree now lies with the university in Plymouth but the latter has none of my college’s records as they were lodged with the Hertfordshire county archive. I feel that I just fell down the hole in the middle!
All the best,
Bob (who, had he done his training in London and not Hertfordshire, would now be a BA (hons))
Bob,
DeleteYou deserve a real degree, not an honorary one.
I've never understood the idea of awarding people honorary academic degrees; we do not, for example, reward somebody by making them a honorary gas fitter or giving them an honorary driving licence. Personally, I'd rather have an Amazon voucher!
Actually, I do have a sort of honorary degree: three years after gaining my BA at Oxford, I sent the university a cheque for £9.00 and received a certificate that I was now MA (Oxon)! My favourite qualification as it involved no work on my part whatsoever.
You may recall that Oxford made the Duke of Wellington an honorary Doctor of Divinity - of all things! - in recognition of his victories. William Heath (aka Paul Pry) published a cartoon of the Duke in his academic robes with the comment that he ought to have been made a Doctor of Can(n)on Law. And Blucher, when also given an honorary doctorate, said that if he was going to be made a doctor, Gneisenau ought to be at least an apothecary.
Awarding people with CertEd honorary BEds now seems pointless, as they would not be able to claim the pay increments for degrees - rather like promotion by brevet in the old army, no extra pay...
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteYears ago (back in the late 1970s) I approached the Institute of Education in London about doing a part-time BEd … and was told that they did not recognise my Cert Ed from Cambridge and that I would have to do the whole degree from scratch. As I was already a Head of Department and a Head of Year in a large London comprehensive school, I felt that being asked to go back to square one was rather insulting.
Ten years later I attended a course at the Institute which gave me points that counted towards an MA. I asked again about doing a part-time degree (by which time I had been a Deputy Headteacher and was then a Consortium Coordinator and local & national government adviser) … and was told that although it was possible, they had no staff with sufficient experience to supervise me as I was better qualified (by experience) than any of them!
Since then, I’ve lectured and mentored post-grad students at KCL … and no one has ever queried my ability or qualification to do so.
I wish that I could pay £10.00 to get my degree … or even £20.00 if I could convert it into an MA! The stupid thing is that for years I’ve read about initiatives for awarding qualifications based on one’s experience and in-service training … but somehow I’ve missed out on this. (I did get a Diploma in Vocational Education based on the work I did developing the biggest school-based work experience programme in the UK. All I had to do was present a portfolio of documentation etc., and attend an interview … which I passed with distinction,)
The thought of Wellington being Doctor of Divinity does strike one as being a bit odd, and Blucher’s reply seems rather typical of that Prussian Junker!
I’m not sure how much extra income I would have had for being a BEd rather than a Cert Ed, but forty years of back pay plus an enhanced pension would have been nice!
All the best,
Bob
I shall try to listen to this Bob, given that Ridley Scott should be ashamed of his stance taken re: historians etc. It wouldn't have taken much effort to get the core facts right and still make a good film. That fact that the core part is wrong massively detracts from the whole. I might watch it is it ever comes to Netflix etc, but it might cause my blood pressure to reach dangerous levels;)!
ReplyDeleteSteve J.,
DeleteConsidering his track record, one might have expected better … although I was once told that he had used the sounds of Zulus chanting from ZULU in the pre-battle scene in GLADIATOR.
All the best,
Bob