teaching history

[Michael Rolls]

I am fond of historical fiction – provided that it doesn't alter actual facts – i.e. having Napoleon assassinated prior to Waterloo or the like. Current reading in set in the days of Anarchy – the struggle between the Empress Maud (sometimes Matilda) and Stephen, covering 1120-1180 and I fell to wondering about the history that I was taught at school. The curriculum covered from 1066 to the second Boer war and with such a wide range to cover in five years most things were covered pretty sketchily. Also, the curriculum concentrated very much on English history with other nations only get a mention when they interacted with England, usually in warfare. To be honest, even though it was my favourite school subject, most of my knowledge of history has been acquired since my schooldays, not during them. As an example, apart from the exploits of Drake and company, the New World might just as well have not existed.
How was history taught in your school days?

[Raven]

I enjoyed history, our history teacher was an American who was on a job swap with one from our school. He was a good teacher and made everything really interesting for us.
The only thing that annoyed me was I wanted to learn Scottish history, not about the wars of the Roses, and who was plotting what in the Tudor Court ect. I think every child should be taught their own countries history.

[Michael Rolls]

I would like to see an even more rounded approach, although I suppose it might be impractical. The incursion of the Moors into southern Europe might just as well not have happened, but it was a major influence on the continent for a couple of hundred years or more. All I leant about Scotland was that Edward I was 'the Hammer of the Scots'. Highland clearances? What dat den? Oh, 1715 and 1745 were touched upon briefly, but only as a succession of battles. Irish potato famines and their effect in immigration to the USA? Dooh! The English civil war was, again, a parade of battles with hardly a mention of the political reasons and consequences. And so on.
Perhaps I am being unfair and hoisting a lifetime interest in history onto the minds of 11 to 15 year olds - at the time, perhaps it mostly have gone over our heads.

[Jacqueline]

I love history too, what we were taught at school barely touched the surface, and the nun's were more interested in saving your soul. I have been been learning ever since and still doing so.  My husband is interested in  WW11 most people think they know all there is to know about it, but even now new facts are emerging.  My favourite historian is David Starkey, I could listen to him all day.

I have to finish with a  moan don't I?  but I was in Marks and Spencers the other day just approaching the till, over their tanoy "we are celebrating Black History month", why in M & S? it's world history I know but why push that when most native people are not interest in or don't even know their own history?  When I  said out loud "bloody black history month what about us"  I got some looks from people, but do I care? it's great to be old as I don't.

[Michael Rolls]

good for you!

[Alex]

Good for you Jacq 
I didn't really like History at school, but I do now.  Maybe it's an age thing with me 

[1955vintage]

Loved history and studied it from 1066 through to 1939.

[JBR]

When I started my first permanent teaching job (primary school) I acquired 'The Anglo-Saxons'.
I soon managed to persuade a colleague to do a swap and took over 'The Romans'.
I thought there was much more to teach to do with the Romans, especially all the evidence that they have left us (including school visits).  I remember enjoying a school visit to Chester.  I'd have preferred York, but that was a bit further away and, of course, money talks!
That was one of the more interesting topics I remember teaching.

[Michael Rolls]

more or less on subject, I am currently watching 'Barbarians' on Netflix which is set in the time of the Teutoburg Forest battle - AD9 - which saw the Germanic tribes massacre three Roman Legions - the XVII, XVIII, and the XIX - some 20,000 or so Romans.
I thought the plot a bit far-fetched, with the son of a tribal leader taken as a child to Rome, raised as a Roman, becoming an officer in the Roman army, working secretly to unite the tribes and leading the legions into the forest ambush. Checked the actual history, and to my amazement - it was all true!
Did spot one anachronism to keep me happy - horse riders using stirrups, which were unknown in Europe at the time (even although known in China for some centuries) not appearing in general use until the 7th and 8th centuries,

[klondike]

Thanks for the heads up. I've grabbed Season 1 and 2 and will give it a try. I seem to have only been watching documentaries and old murder mysteries lately.

[Diasi]

Loved history and studied it from 1066 through to 1939.

Can I assume, correctly, that you studied the period of history between 1066 to 1939? Lol 

[1955vintage]

Pillock.