A History of Britain

Don't waste your money buying it and don't waste your time watching it. Two examples of the revisionist history that permeates the entire work: Covers the entire Napoleonic period with two or three side comments concerning that 20 plus years of World war. Uses the Duke of Wellington's description of the Battle of Waterloo totally out of context; as a description of the British social/political crises during the Napoleonic period. However, what would you expect from today's BBC other than a politically correct perspective of history?

The series exists on video as "A History of Britain I (3500BC - 1603AD)" and "A History of Britain II (1603 - 1776)". The following is based upon viewing the latter.

"A History of Britain II (1603 - 1776)". This series is probably more interesting for a non British viewer because of the time period: the emergence of Great Britain out of conflict between England and Scotland, the waning of the power of the monarch, the related growth of the power of the elected assembly, catholicism vs protestantism, civil war (parliament vs the monarchy), democracy as a means of mitigating the power of the monarch, exploration and growing relationships with the world beyond Europe.

It is a recent production (2000), it meets modern production values and it is not dry - typical handicaps of this genre. The presenter has a breezy style which you'll either enjoy or it will grate! He certainly knows his stuff and sticks to the broad themes. Fascinating stuff.

I recently watched the programme on the British Civil War. It is clear from the beginning that Simon Schama, the presenter, has taken on a revisionist view of the causations leading to the War which I personally agree with. I enjoyed Simon's dramatic presenting style and the visuals, for instance when he's standing on the battlefield where the Civil War took place, which are particularly useful in creating an image of events in your head. Some scenes of the documentary are filmed from above which helps to heighten drama and suspense. He is somewhat egotistical but I find this only adds to the entertainment value of the programme. I find Schama much easier to understand than his counterpart David Starkey who uses academic language that makes it much more difficult to follow. Overall, I enjoyed the video and found it to be an exciting and often quirky take on British history. I hope to watch more of the collection of 15 programmes in the future.

Having recently watched the episode "A History Of Britain" with my fellow A-level class, i wanted to share my enjoyment on such a gripping documentary. I find myself able to agree with Schama's revisionist interpretation on the causes of the civil war. Simon's enthusiasm helped bring entertainment to the episode as well as portraying a picture into the audiences minds. However at times this "enthusiasm" came across as being slightly pompous and arrogant. But in comparison to David Starkey who uses more academic language, i found Simon Schama a lot easier to follow and understand. I think he did an excellent job at replaying the causes of the civil war and i would strongly recommend other A level students to watch this to help broaden their historical knowledge.

This documentary got me interested in English history. Professor Schama is hilariously smarmy and I have put committed of his quotes to memory. This series is not, REPEAT NOT, for beginners. Professor Schama likes using colloquialisms which foreigners such as myself could not understand. Many events are skipped over or left unexplained because he expects viewers to know them already. No Wars of the Roses or Napoleonic era for you! The original score has embedded itself into my brain and I find myself humming Three Ravens when I least expect. I do wish the title was changed to A History of England instead because it is the main subject matter.