"New Waterloo Documentary on TV today" Topic

I don't know if anyone had watched the first two programmes of 48 Hours To Victory, which looked at Dunkirk and the Somme and shown on Channel 4, but the third episode showing today (Saturday 18th) is said to cover the Battle of Waterloo. I missed the other two episodes so I don't know what they were like but this one might be worth a watch.

Very much populist history. You probably will not learn anything new but the previous episodes have been entertaining. The choice of the '48 Hours' seems to have been a bit random up to now, but the Waterloo selection seems more logical. I will certainly be watching.

At least it won't be Dan Snow telling me that the weapon used by infantry was called a musket.

Thanks for the heads up! It's at 8pm tonight UK time.

I won't get to see it. 'Er indoors'll be watchin' the dancin'…

I started watching one of Dan Snow's programmes recently, but switched off when he started referring to "Nazi submarines". Mind you, after I saw that he had married a daughter of the Duke of Westminster (who, as I understand it, still owns large chunks of central London), I told my boys that, if the opportunity arose to marry another one of the Duke's daughters, they should at least give it some thought.

Complete twaddle from Minute 1. They don't even understand their own 48 hours' conceit. Sad that UK TV seems incapable of doing history anymore.

And confusing communication: in talking about the Imperial Guard's final attack, they screened images of Ney's cavalry assaulting the British squares!

Yes, it was very disappointing, but at least was a welcome respite from all the judges and dancers on Strictly [that my wife watched in another room] endlessly telling each other how wonderful they were.

What's wrong with "Nazi submarines?"

As far as I am aware, inanimate objects don't have ideologies.

Dan Snow isn't a historian, he is a presenter, 'nuff said!

I would have thought saying 'Nazi submarines' as a shorthand for 'submarines used by the Nazis' was a perfectly acceptable use of language, and was probably used by many British people during WWII. Its meaning is perfectly clear.

Aussie Andy, would you find a statement such as 'the Confederate guns opened fire' equally objectionable? An artillery piece can have no opinion about slavery or secession, after all.

Arthur1815, that's not really a valid comparison. "Confederate" refers to the "nationality" of the army, so the closest equivalent to that is "German". It is the lazy sensationalism of the constant use of the word "Nazi" on "history" programmes.

Not so much sensationalism – more a deliberate attempt to distance those lovely Europeans who make very nice cars and are good at taking penalties from those who were directly responsible for the death of tens of millions within living memory?

This was drivel, even Dan Snow would've been better than Dermot O'Leary.
Quite what the guy in the plane was doing is anyone's guess – we cut to him flying over the area (we presume) while he talks to camera and maybe randomly gestures to a window but do we get an arial appreciation of the terrain? No – what as waste of money.

Dan Snow appears largely because of his father's reputation, to be seen as a professional historian. Instead he has hosted so many totally superficial documentaries.

OK, if he does attract watchers who think that Waterloo is only a rail station just south of the Thames, and if he teaches them anything at all…………maybe he is doing us all a service.

There may be a place for drivel. Do you know what is the average reading age in the US or UK (when you are creating info leaflets for example)?

It is 13-14 years of age….and that may be flattering them

Daddy Snow only gave his son an obvious introduction into the world of UK TV; a foot in the door. But, doors would have opened for Dan Snow wherever he went.

Dan Snow has got where he is because his great, great grandfather was Lloyd George (UK Prime Minister 1916 – 1922) and his father-in-law was Lord Grosvenor 6th Duke of Westminster, etc.

He is part of the 'British Establishment' – and the Establishment looks after its own, like it looked after his dad. At 43, having made a few documentaries, he is already an MBE.

Old School tie, old boy; Old School tie.

BTW: I hold no grudge against him using his connections – I would have done the same with his lineage.

I like his presentations, he has real interest and it jumps out

If you think being part of the "British Establishment" gets you a job in TV today, you are sadly deluded.

I think the progamme may have been interesting for those with little knowledge of the battle or events of that period. It was done more to entertain than educate. However, basically, it was just another biased British version of events. As with most Napoleonic documentaries covering the 1815 campaign, there is no mention that Napoleon wanted peace and it was the allies that declared war and were sending armies marching to attack France. And no mention of Britain paying the allies to do so. And no mention of Napoleon having to defend France from the approaching allied armies, of which the Anglo-Dutch and Prussians were but two of several forces intending to attack France. There was no mention of Napoleon sending Grouchy with a considerable French force to stop the Prussians marching to Wellington's aid and no mention of Grouchy's utter failure to do so. It was interesting however, to hear about the women present at the battle, one disguised as a male soldier and who died at Waterloo. But the last bit, which I've heard before from British historians and presenters, is the lie about the result at Waterloo leading to 100 years of peace! Hello, have these so called historians not heard about the Crimean War, the Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian war? You just have to laugh.

Pah! Those wars don't count, old boy!

Only wars that involve Britain fighting France, or latterly Germany, are real wars.

Ergo, one hundred years of peace…

If you think being part of the "British Establishment" gets you a job in TV today, you are sadly deluded.

It doesn't make you a success but it opens doors. Always has, always will.

Dan Snow is an intelligent, charming, energetic man and he was always bound to do well in life. However, with people holding doors open, the sky was his only limit. If you don't believe that, you don't understand that the Establishment is simply a series of overlapping social circles; it's not a conspiracy, its just a network of friends helping friends and the family of friends; it doesn't get you a job but it gets you an interview.

I have to disagree with some of the comments here. Strictly Come Dancing was much better than this twaddle. Dermot O'Leary is just about passable as a Radio two DJ. As a presenter of history he was awful. I felt sorry for Dr Stephen Summerfield, who's contribution was reduced to a few anodyne phrases. Al Murray's programme was far more entertaining, as was Black Adder – come to that, Bill and Teds great adventure made a better job of covering Napoleon….
It is a sad state of affairs that history is now taken so lightly and treated primarily as light entertainment by our TV companies -that's when they are not completely mangling it in fiction to meet the new agenda. Harumph!!!

I agree with a lot here. What was most disappointing was that the '48 Hours' was really only 12. the 17th June was dismissed in about 5 minutes and covering it in a bit more detail and how it effected the 18th would have been a lot more interesting.