A History of Britain

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.

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.

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?

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.

"A History of Britain" is a beautifully done 15x55 minute miniseries (5 DVDs) in which British Jew and Columbia University professor Simon Schama accompanies you in person and with narration on a journey through British history from the Iron Age through Winston Churchill. Not caring to paint his portrait of Britain with broad brush strokes, the eloquent Schama talks and walks you through time as he hops from one historical benchmark to another, pausing to explain each point in time, the forces at work, and its effect on history set against a backdrop castles and manors, cities and farms, queens and beggars, pictures and maps, relics and treasures, and locations spanning several continents. Schama doesn't spend time exalting Britain but delves into the harsh realities which both forged and bedeviled one of the world's great empires. "A History of Britain" serves up great gulps of information, assumes some knowledge of British history, uses words which may be unfamiliar to the average American audience, doesn't have enough show and tell visual aids to make for an easily assimilated presentation, and, unfortunately is sans captions or subtitles. However, the tradeoff between didactics and aesthetics is such that it should be an enjoyable and educational watch for anyone interested in British history. (A)