The Tim Ferriss Show - #723: Andrew Roberts on the Habits of Churchill, Lessons from Napoleon, and The Holy Fire Inside Great Leaders

Episode Date: October 17, 2024

Andrew Roberts has written twenty books, which have been translated into twenty-eight languages and have won thirteen literary prizes. These include Napoleon: A Life, Churchill: Walking with Destiny, and most recently, Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Gaza, which he co-authored with General David Petraeus. Sponsors:Our Place's Titanium Always Pan® Pro using nonstick technology that’s coating-free and made without PFAS, otherwise known as “Forever Chemicals”: https://fromourplace.com/tim (10% off all products from Our Place) Shopify global commerce platform, providing tools to start, grow, market, and manage a retail business: https://shopify.com/tim (one-dollar-per-month trial period)LinkedIn Jobs recruitment platform with 1B+ users: https://linkedin.com/tim (post your job for free)*For show notes and past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast.For deals from sponsors of The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast-sponsorsSign up for Tim’s email newsletter (5-Bullet Friday) at tim.blog/friday.For transcripts of episodes, go to tim.blog/transcripts.Discover Tim’s books: tim.blog/books.Follow Tim:Twitter: twitter.com/tferriss Instagram: instagram.com/timferrissYouTube: youtube.com/timferrissFacebook: facebook.com/timferriss LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/timferrissPast guests on The Tim Ferriss Show include Jerry Seinfeld, Hugh Jackman, Dr. Jane Goodall, LeBron James, Kevin Hart, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Jamie Foxx, Matthew McConaughey, Esther Perel, Elizabeth Gilbert, Terry Crews, Sia, Yuval Noah Harari, Malcolm Gladwell, Madeleine Albright, Cheryl Strayed, Jim Collins, Mary Karr, Maria Popova, Sam Harris, Michael Phelps, Bob Iger, Edward Norton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Neil Strauss, Ken Burns, Maria Sharapova, Marc Andreessen, Neil Gaiman, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Jocko Willink, Daniel Ek, Kelly Slater, Dr. Peter Attia, Seth Godin, Howard Marks, Dr. Brené Brown, Eric Schmidt, Michael Lewis, Joe Gebbia, Michael Pollan, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Vince Vaughn, Brian Koppelman, Ramit Sethi, Dax Shepard, Tony Robbins, Jim Dethmer, Dan Harris, Ray Dalio, Naval Ravikant, Vitalik Buterin, Elizabeth Lesser, Amanda Palmer, Katie Haun, Sir Richard Branson, Chuck Palahniuk, Arianna Huffington, Reid Hoffman, Bill Burr, Whitney Cummings, Rick Rubin, Dr. Vivek Murthy, Darren Aronofsky, Margaret Atwood, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Dr. Gabor Maté, Anne Lamott, Sarah Silverman, Dr. Andrew Huberman, and many more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello boys and girls, ladies and germs. This is Tim Ferriss. Welcome to another episode of the Tim Ferriss show, where it is my job to deconstruct world-class performers or deconstruct those who deconstruct world-class performers. In the case of today's guest, who is Andrew Roberts. Andrew Roberts has written 20 books, which have been translated into 28 languages and have won 13 literary prizes. These include Masters and Commanders, The Storm of War, a new history of the Second World War, Napoleon, a life, Churchill, walking with destiny, George III, the life and reign of Britain's most misunderstood monarch, and most recently Conflict, the evolution of warfare from 1945 to Gaza, which he co-authored

with General David Petraeus. Lord Roberts is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Historical Society, the Bonnie and Tom McCloskey Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, and a visiting professor at the Department of War Studies at King's College London. He is also a member of the House of Lords. You can find all things Andrew at andrew-roberts.net online and he is also on X, the artist formerly known as twitter at x.com slash a Roberts underscore Andrew. And we're gonna get to the interview but quickly before that just a few words about our sponsors who

make this show possible. In the last handful of years, I've become very interested in environmental toxins, avoiding microplastics, and many other commonly found compounds all over the place. One place I looked is in the kitchen. Many people don't realize just how toxic their cookware is or can be. A lot of nonstick pans, practically all of them, can release harmful forever chemicals,

PFAS, in other words, spelled P-F-A-S, into your food, your home, and then ultimately that ends up in your body. Teflon is a prime example of this. It is still the forever chemical that most companies are using. So Our Place reached out to me as a potential sponsor, and the first thing I did was look at the reviews of their products and said, send me one. And that is the Titanium Always Pan Pro. And the claim is that it's the first non-stick pan

with zero coating. So that means zero forever chemicals and durability that'll last forever. I was very skeptical, I was very busy. So I said, you know what, I wanna test this thing quickly. It's supposed to be non-stick. It's supposed to be nonstick It's supposed to be durable. I'm gonna test it with two things. I'm gonna test it with Scrambled eggs in the morning because eggs are always a disaster in anything that isn't nonstick with the toxic coating

and then I'm gonna test it with a steak sear because I want to see how much it retains heat and It worked perfectly in both cases. And I was frankly astonished how well it worked. The Titanium Always Pan Pro has become my go-to pan in the kitchen. It replaces a lot of other things for searing, for eggs, for anything you can imagine. And the design is really clever.

It does combine the best qualities of stainless steel, cast iron, and nonstick into one product. It's tough enough to withstand the dishwasher, open flame, heavy duty scrubbing. You can scrub the hell out of it. You can use metal utensils, which is great without losing any of its non-stick properties. So stop cooking with toxic pans. If they're non-stick and you don't know, they probably contain something bad. Check out the Titanium Always Pan Pro. While you're at it, you can look at their other high performance offerings that are toxin free, like the Wonder Oven Air Fryer, their griddle pan and their precision engineered German steel knives. So go to fromourplace.com

slash tim and use my code tim to get 10% off of the Titanium Always Pan Pro or anything else on the site. You can check out anything. One more time, that's fromourplace.com, spelled out F-R-O-M-O-U-R. Fromourplace.com slash Tim, and use Codetim at checkout for 10% off of everything on the site. Our Place also offers a 100 day trial with free shipping and returns.

So take a look. This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Shopify is the all-in-one commerce platform shipping and returns. So take a look. This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Shopify is the all-in-one commerce platform that powers millions of businesses worldwide, including me, including mine. What business, you might ask? Well, one way I've scratched my own itch is by creating Cockpunch Coffee. It's a long story.

All proceeds on my end go to my foundation, Sisei Foundation, to fund research for mental health, etc. Anyway, Cockpunch coffee, it's delicious. The first coffee I've ever produced myself. I drink it every morning, check it out. We use Shopify for the online storefront and my team raves about how simple and easy it is to use. It has everything we need and nothing we don't.

Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or getting ready for your IPO, Shopify is the only tool you need to start, run and grow your business without the struggle. Shopify puts you in control of every sales channel. It doesn't matter if you're selling satin sheets from Shopify's in-person POS system or offering organic olive oil on Shopify's all-in-one e-commerce platform. However, you interact with your customers, you're covered.

And once you've reached your audience, Shopify has the internet's best converting checkout to help you turn browsers into buyers. Shopify powers 10 percent of all e-commerce in the United States. And Shopify is truly a global force as the e-commerce solution behind Allbirds, Rothy's, Brooklyn and millions of other entrepreneurs of every size across more than 170 countries. Plus, Shopify's award winning help is there to support your success every step of the way if you have questions.

This is Possibility powered by Shopify. So check it out. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify. That's S-H-O-P-I-F-Y, Shopify.com slash Tim. Go to Shopify.com slash Tim to take your business to the next level today. One more time, all lowercase, shopify.com slash Tim. Optimal minimal. At this altitude, I can run flat out for a half mile

before my hands start shaking. Can I ask you a personal question? No, what is it? I'm not gonna be telling you that. What if I did the opposite? I'm a cybernetic organism living this year over another endoskeleton. Me, Tim, Paris, Joe.

Pleasure to meet you. Thank you for taking the time. Thanks so much, Tim, for having me on this show. I thought we would start with Cranley after your A-levels. Did you now? What happened? What on earth happened? That's the way we're going to make friends

and get on with each other. Roll up the sleeves and just get into it. You're going to mention the reason that I was expelled from school, or at least I'm going to mention the reason because you don't know the reason. I don't know the reason. Oh, absolutely. Good. Okay. I don't think I'm the first person ever as a young man to get drunk and climb up buildings. Absolutely not. Thank you. Time-honored tradition. Hallelujah that I'm not the only person this happened to. But quite understandably, the school chucked me out before I fell off one of them, and they'd have got blamed. It led to actually one of my wife's most brilliant witticisms. She's a very funny woman, my wife, and she said, yes. And all Andrew's done since in life is to get drunk

and social climb. That is clever. It's not bad, is it? All right, well, we might come back to that. It seems like also maybe it's hard for me to tell given the British school system, although I did go to St. Paul's in New Hampshire where they do have the third, fourth, fifth, sixth form

and so on, so that much I know. But I think in the same piece where I found the crannily bit in doing the research also found note that you were approached as a possible candidate for MI6 a bit later on. No, that was when I was at Cambridge. Cambridge. Yes, yes, absolutely. That's the right time to be approached for MI6 is because Cambridge and MI6 have had a long and fairly disastrous career. Needless to say, all of the worst spies in the 1930s, traitors of the 1930s went to Cambridge. But yeah, it was a fascinating thing. I was just going

down from university and somebody in my college, one of the dons there, who's still there actually, I think of it, approached me and said, how about it, would you be interested in becoming a spy? And so automatically, needless to say, you just think of yourself as James Bond immediately. That sort of dun-da-lun-dun, dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun, that is going on. The soundtrack kicks off. The soundtrack in the back of your brain, you're automatically there with your beretta and the beautiful women and all of that kind of thing. But I then had to actually do the process of where you need to join, which I did get through. And it was completely hilarious. I mean, you couldn't satirize it, basically. They asked you things like there were hundreds of questions and you had to answer them very, very quickly.

And some of them were things you'd expect like, you know, what are the five longest rivers in the world kind of thing, put them in order and all that. There were also things like place in order of social precedent, Prince Duke, Viscount, Marquis, Baronet. Oh, I'm out. Yeah, well, exactly. I would have thrown in Cookie Monster. I wouldn't have gotten anywhere. You're American. You're allowed to, they're not going to ask that in the CIA. But for some reason in MI6 back, this was, I hasten to add, back in the sort of mid 1980s. That was one of the questions.

What did the Don think made you a potential candidate? Well, that also was a little bit annoying really, because he told me later about how he had been interviewed by MI6. And one of the things he'd been asked is, and is Andrew a kind person? And this person said, no, not really. And he saw the person interviewing him put a tick in the margin next to the question. I wonder if that made you more or less desirable. Much more desirable as far as they would be satisfied. They tick the thing. Right. I can understand. Well, James Bond, he's not a kind person, is he really?

No, no, no. We view them as disposable pleasures. Well, perhaps. So let's see if we can take off the initial layers of the onion with respect to history. Christopher Perry, Mr. Christopher Perry, who's that? Christopher Perry was my first history teacher when I was at prep school, which in the English version means when you're sort of 10 to 13. He's dead now, but he was an inspirational history master. He taught history in the way that I think it should be taught, in a narrative way of explaining really what happened next and why. He believed in the great events, the great wars and battles and things like that. And he was a kind man. He wouldn't have made it into MI6, but he was a sort of old school history master of the best possible kind.

AC What characterized that? You said narrative, but maybe would you be able to contrast the status quo as it goes in terms of teaching history and then how his style most differed from that? He taught it as the most exciting story you're ever going to hear, basically, which has the extraordinary added advantage of being completely true. He'd sort of sit cross-legged on the table and give you the voice of Charles I and then the voice of Oliver Cromwell, Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots. He would entrance you with the excitement of the unfolding story, every word of which would be true. It would have loads of dates in it. At the end of the term, each of the terms, the semester, you'd be tested on 300 dates and not a child in that class didn't get at least 298 of them right. Extraordinary way of teaching, you did it entirely through inspiration rather than through just sort of standing there on a blackboard, ordering people

to remember what happened in 1356 or 1415. Did he have any theater background? You'd have thought, wouldn't you? You'd have thought. Cause he's sitting cross-legged on the desk is going to get a requisite minimal amount of attention from the students, which is brilliant. Automatically. Of course, exactly. No, I mean, now I come to think of it, of course he was overacting from day one, but he didn't seem to be at the time, at least as far as the 10-year-old Andrew Roberts was concerned. AC Yeah. We have a sort of rental library behind us in this room that I've rented. And one of the books sitting over there, The Power Broker, does an amazing job of end-of-chapter

cliffhangers. That's I think Robert Caro over there. RL And he managed to make Urban development, essentially that books about urban development and he managed to make that interesting. But you've got a few other ones. You've got a great friend of mine there, Neil Ferguson writing about in his book Colossus. You've got some pretty interesting people, few people that I've met and yeah, so you might have rented it, but it's a pretty good bunch of work. And it's also quite surreal that Neil is featured here since he is, I'd say, partially responsible for us meeting in the first place.

Yeah, he told me definitely to go on your show. He said loads of people watch it and you've got a good sense of humor. We'll see. We'll see about the sense of humor. We'll see later. Yeah, the jury is out. The jury is out. I found in writing history and I'm paraphrasing here, but I believe you've said before that

you're cautious around the words, perhaps maybe possibly, especially probably. Yeah. Could you explain why? Don't use them. They're cheat words. What they're saying to the reader is I haven't worked hard enough on this. I don't know. I'm going to just come up with some kind of theory here. Bear with me. You shouldn't do that. If the person's paid $40 for your book, he or she is going to want to think you know what you're talking about. So if something is a great story and you're not sure it's true, but nonetheless, it's funny or it shines a light onto personality or for some reason, there's a great reason why you need to put it in the book. There are loads of ways that you can hint to the reader. You can say,

it is said that or the story is told that or anecdotally, people stated that. stated that, you know, and that's the signal to the reader. This is probably not true at all. But none of it's, yeah, but it's too good to leave out. But perhaps, uh, probably a maybe and so on there, you really are hedging your bets. I think it breaks the bond of trust that you need to have with your reader. Would you mind speaking to the importance of steady nerves or self-control in crisis? It seems that that's something that recurs. And the reason I'm asking about it is, this would be, I suppose, a sub question. How much of it do you think is nature versus nurture also? But feel free to take that in any direction you'd like. Both Napoleon and Churchill were educated in war. They both went to military colleges. So as their

level of command grew, as they grew older, the sense of responsibilities they had, the number of men essentially that they were controlling increased exponentially. So they had the intellectual background, they had the training as well, and as young men in both cases, they thought a lot about war, about Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great and so on. They had an egotism to look at it in a negative way, but a self-confidence to look at it in a positive way that gave them the ability to take these shatteringly important decisions. So I think it's much more nurture than nature. In both cases, as far as they were concerned, there was a sort of holy fire that they both had. There was a not holy in a religious sense, obviously, because neither of them were at all religious, but in a sort of deeper spiritual sense, a belief that what they were doing was

so good and right and proper and had to be done that they were not kept up awake at night over even the death of friends. Death of friends that they were responsible for. They were responsible for. In the cases of Churchill and Napoleon, we could bring up other names or I suppose I'm using the royal we here, you could bring up other names. Were there particular philosophers or writers that they found particularly instructive, who they leaned on in some sense that they found solace in with a particular mind. RL Well, certainly Churchill did because he was a huge reader. He was a massive autodidact. He never went to university and so therefore when he was a young subaltern in India in his early 20s, he sat down and read the great philosophers as well as writers. and he was particularly influenced by Gibbon and Macaulay, the two great 19th century historians, English historians. And that affected his writing style and of course,

later his oratorical style, but also his philosophical outlook on life. With regards to Napoleon, he was even more literary really because he also wrote short stories and books and so on. And so, he was very much affected by what he read again as a young man. And in both cases, they were reading so much that it slightly cut them off from their contemporaries. Napoleon didn't have many friends when he was in his early 20s. And Churchill, when the other people were off sleeping in the midday heat of India, his colleagues and comrades, he'd be sitting there reading Schopenhauer and Gibbon and Macaulay and so on. CB How did Gibbon and Macaulay inform his philosophical leanings?

RL They made him into what was called at the time a Whig. We don't have them today, obviously, but they were in modern sense, I suppose, liberal conservatives who believed in noblesse oblige in the importance- CB What is that? I'm sorry? RL Noblesse oblige. It's almost a medieval concept where your duty, if you have privilege, is to work for the greater good of the community to protect widows and orphans to, it's sort of like the nightly chivalric concept that you get from the middle ages. And they very much believed in that and so did Churchill. Let me ask about Napoleon. So I know shockingly little about Napoleon. I'm embarrassed to admit,

and I do want to ask more about Churchill as well, but you've described him as the prime exemplar of war leadership. Why do you say that? There were lots of military leaders who can do a lot of things, but he was the only one that I can think of who could do all of them. Of course, it helps if you're winning. In the last three years of his military career, he's losing. But even then, even when he had far fewer troops when he was retreating, when he was defending Paris in the 1814 campaign, for example, he was still able to win five victories in seven days in the 1814 campaign. That's two years after the retreat from Moscow. It's quite extraordinary capacity. And he was able to win whether he was advancing or

retreating, whether he was defending a town or attacking it, whether he was attacking on the right or left flank or sometimes straight through the center as at Austerlitz, he had that capacity, that mind for military conquest, but also, of course, the greatness that was required completely to revolutionize French society. People think that the French Revolution revolutionized society, you know, the clues in the name as it were. But in fact, the long lasting things that actually dragged France into the 19th century were things like the Code Napoleon, which were not revolutionary concept, they were a Napoleonic concept. This may seem like a lazy question, but since I'm operating from a deficit here with respect to knowledge in poland what do you think it was that allowed him to be a decathlete of war as it were being good at all these different facets and i think of.

How we might analyze different athletes and what allows them to exercise the capabilities we see sort of breaking it down into its component parts. But how would you describe what enabled him to do that where others were unable? It was inspiration, but also perspiration. He really did put in the time, thinking about it and reading about it by it. I mean, warfare. And of course, he'd been educated in it. He read the key books. There's a guy called the Comte de Gervais who in 1772 wrote a book about strategy and tactics, and he, 30 years later, put these into operation. And so, he was able to spot the best of the best when it came to modern thinking, or in this case, 30-year-old thinking, in fact. That didn't matter because the weapons of war hadn't changed in the intervening period. He was able to put those thoughts and ideas into practical use, the classic example being the core System. It's basically a CORPS.

And what he did with them was to create mini armies essentially, which were able to march separately but converge and concentrate for the battle. And so one of your core would engage the enemy and then he would use the other corps to out-maneuver and envelop the enemy, sometimes double-envelop the enemy. It was a brilliant concept. Actually, the Allies didn't start beating Napoleon until they had also adopted the corps system. He was always at the cutting edge of thinking of the new concepts. And at the same time, he had very old fashioned views about how to excite the men. And he, I mean, victory obviously is the best thing when it comes to excitement.

The best. Encouragement. Exactly. Nothing much works better than that. But as I say, he was still winning at the end of his career. But he had this belief that to appeal to the soul was the way to electrify the men. And so, he was able to do that. And some people who he was against, Duke of Wellington, the British general being the classic example, who won the Battle of Waterloo against him, it wasn't interesting in electrifying the soul of the men at all. He rather despised his ordinary soldiers. But nonetheless- You're talking about Wellington or one of the parliaments? Duke of Wellington, he had some sort of choice negative remarks about his own soldiers. And

he was a rather sort of stuffy aristocrat, but they loved him because he cared about how many of them died in battle, you know, and he never lost a battle as well, which is a very useful thing in a commander, needless to say. But he didn't try, he didn't go out. He would think it beneath him to go out and try to inspire the men. Whereas Napoleon, his choice of hats and his grey coats and his way of taking off medal, his own medals and giving them to soldiers on the battlefields and his orders of the day, his proclamations before the Battle of the Pyramids in 1799, he said, 40 centuries looked down upon you. And this is an extraordinary thing for a soldier in Egypt,

far away from home. He looks up at the pyramids and thinks, yeah, he's placing the events of that day in the long historical parabola. And Churchill did that too, by the way, of course, to a great degree. In about 10% of all of the speeches that Churchill gave in 1940, there's some reference to history or the past. He too would summon up the idea that, yes, Britain is on its own, Britain and the British Commonwealth are on their own, and this, of course, was in the period before America and Russia were in the war. But we've been in terrible straits before. Look at Sir Francis Drake, look at Admiral Nelson, and so on. And we came through those and won. He also brought up the First World War a lot.

So yes, he too drew on history. And people knew that because he'd written history books and written biographies, including the biography of his great ancestor, the first Eucon Morbry, he was with Wellington, the best soldier that Britain ever produced, people trusted his view of history. AC So instead of just biographies, I'd like to ask about autobiography. It's my impression that you recommend that young people read My Early Life and that there are life lessons contained within it that perhaps might help young people. What types of good advice or life lessons can people expect to find in that book? Or does anything stand out to you?

Oh, yes. Well, loads of them. I mean, resilience is the classic one. Although he doesn't go in this book into criticizing his parents, even between the lines, Churchill was tremendously resilient because his father despised him and his mother ignored him, essentially. But in the actual book itself, he talks about how wonderful it is to be young, 20 to 25, those are the years. He says people will forgive you for mistakes you make in that period. It's not until you're 30 that people judge you on what you've achieved rather than your promise and so on. So it's a, he writes about his time, his escape from prison, for example, which let's face it, there is no young man or woman who hasn't at some stage dreamt about the idea of a successful

prison escape. He took part in the last great cavalry charge of the British Empire, and so he writes about what it's like to charge with lancers in – he himself had a pistol – in a great cavalry charge. These are – it's just the most exciting book, and it draws you along with life lessons that are very good, I think even for today at a time when you're frankly unlikely to have to escape from prison or get take part in a cavalry charge. Or you'll just be very unsuccessful at attempting to escape prison with the modern lockdown. I can't let this go. It's sticking in my mind the core strategy,

I'm not sure strategy is the right modifier for that, but that Napoleon used, it seems like that was waiting to be used. But it took him to be in the position of course of Emperor of France, whereby he could impose it. But equally, there are other things like the Code Napoleon that were not really waiting to be used. He had to sort of work them up into a body of laws that completely revolutionized France. Now, when he took the writing from 30 years prior and applied it, is it the position that enabled him to do it or did he think about risk differently than other people? And that is part of what allowed him to implement it.

AC He'd taken huge risks. He was 26 years old. And according to the Churchill view of life, you can take risks when you're 26 years old because people forgive you. Actually, the French Revolution government would not have forgiven Napoleon if he'd lost the army of Italy in 1796. But nonetheless, he was a huge risk-taker. He would attack when normal generals would have fallen back. He was very lucky in that he was fighting, he was 26, he was fighting generals who were Austrian generals who were in their 70s. He used to hit the hinge of enemy forces. If you have an Austrian Sardinian army, for example, he would hit the point between the Austrians and the Sardinians, pushing them both back along their own supply lines and so on. He used psychology a great deal, trying to get into the

minds of the generals he was opposed to. He was a great chooser of lieutenants, of divisional commanders and people who he felt he could trust. Superb sense of timing as well in a battle. He was, as I say, the sort of exemplar of so many of the leadership tropes. AC Do you think he would have viewed his decisions from the outside that look risky as risky? If someone takes sort of uncalculated risks over and over again,

then you could call them reckless. But at least a face value that's not maybe the adjective I would use. So I'm just- RL They came off. This is the thing in the Italian campaign, this first great campaign of his, he hardly lost a battle. He fought 20 and sort of won 19 of them. So if you do that, even though you have taken risks, it's a sort of force multiplier in a sense. You wind up thinking that they aren't as risky. He did believe in luck, which was very important. He famously said that he wanted his marshals to be lucky, and he would promote people if he thought they were lucky. And that of course runs against everything that we 21st century rationalists can possibly believe in, but it worked for them. Yeah, it seems to have worked.

Until it didn't. Until it doesn't. Of course. Until it doesn't. Yeah, so the decision in 1812 to march on Moscow was hugely risky. And of course it didn't pay off. Is it true that you have a signed letter from Aldous Huxley? I do. All right. Now Aldous Huxley, I believe-

Aldous as we English- Aldous. God, you know, I've realized the longer I spend in England, I really need to, I think I should take TOEFL classes, test of English as a foreign language, need to brush up on the mother tongue as it were. He died if I'm not wrong, the year you were born. I think it was. Why do you have that letter and what does the letter say? The letter actually was written from Los Angeles where he was living in the 1950s, it was in 1959 and somebody just wrote to him asking for his autograph. And obviously also asked, I don't have the letter from the autograph hunter, but he obviously It was in 1959. And somebody just wrote to him asking for his autograph. And obviously also asked, I don't have the letter from the autograph hunter, but he obviously

asked for some sort of deep meaningful thought. And the deep meaningful thought that Huxley gave him, and I'm a huge admirer of Huxley, Eilis and Garza, and obviously Brave New Worlds and so on, wonderful works. And he said in this letter that men do not learn much from the lessons of history is one of the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach us. And that is so true, isn't it? I mean, there's not a book that I've written, I've written 20 books, there's not a book that I've written and I haven't looked across at that frame letter in my study and thought, wow, that is just so perceptive. CB So I have a question about the subtitle of your biography on Churchill, which I believe is

Walking with Destiny. You mentioned this holy fire, I think is the term you used earlier, but do many of the leaders you've studied have this belief, and I may not be wording this the best way, but of being chosen by destiny in some fashion? AC The phrase comes from his remark in the last chapter, or the last few pages of his war memoirs, the first volume of his war memoirs, The Gathering Storm, wonderful book. And he's referring to the day that he became prime minister, the day he was appointed by the king as prime minister, which happened to be coincidentally, as it turned out, because Hitler didn't know he was going to become prime minister, on the same day that Hitler invaded in the West, invaded Belgium and Luxembourg and Holland shortly afterwards,

of course, to invade France. And he said, I felt as if I were walking with destiny and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. And he had a profound sense of personal destiny. Now, you and I might think as 21st century rationalists that this is a bit sort of mad to think that you're preordained to save, in this case, Britain and civilization. If you said that to me, that that was your belief about yourself, I would think that you were clinically insane. But enough things had happened to Churchill in his life. He had had so many close brushes with death in his life. He had had so many close brushes with death that it's not insane to think that. But it's not by any means just, and Napoleon also felt that he had a star to guide him.

And he had the luck that we spoke about earlier, but that luck, who was a woman in his case, was somebody he needed to woo and to try to seduce. And of course, in 1812, she turns her back on him and he speaks of her in that sense, which is also a pretty insane way to look at life, isn't it? But they were both, as I mentioned earlier, devotees of the ancients, of Caesar and Alexander the Great, both of whom also, of course, had this driving sense of personal destiny. And so it does exist in people. If you could, I'll give you two options, stand in, meaning take the place of one of the people you've studied in depth or just simply witness them in a given

moment or day or period in their lives. What might you choose? Well, first of all, I wouldn't want to stand in their place at all. I know that I don't have the intestinal fortitude of these extraordinary people. But it would be the day that I just mentioned, it would be the 10th of May, 1940, the day that Hitler's invading, the cabinet meets and recognizes that Neville Chamberlain is not the man to continue on the war now that it's turned to the West. And the meetings that took place the previous day and that day whereby Neville Chamberlain goes to the king and suggests Churchill. And the king wasn't terribly excited about Churchill

either because they'd fallen out over the abdication crisis and he thought Churchill was a bit of a loose cannon. But nonetheless, he's willing to call Churchill. Churchill then goes to Buckingham Palace and becomes prime minister and comes back and starts to organize his government as the news is coming in of the German success and victories on the Western Front. I mean, this is what a day. What a day in history that must have been. So if I could be a flower on the wall any day in history, that's the day that I would choose. Can we just go back though to this concept of a sense of destiny? Because of course, it isn't just great men as in good men, positive forces in history that has this. Adolf Hitler also had a sense of destiny when he were in Providence and luck and being watched over by bigger forces and so on.

When he survived his assassination attempt on the 20th of July 1944, when you remember Staufenberg moves the briefcase with the bomb in it to a point in the table that just shreds Hitler's trousers when it goes off and doesn't kill him. He also put it down to Providence that he had been allowed to survive and therefore to stay in charge and the Fuhrer was going to save the fatherland and the Reich. So it's not something I don't want your viewers and listeners to come away thinking that it's a really good thing to think that you're being watched over by a more powerful force who's saving you to become the world saving figure. You can cut a lot of different ways. David Koresh and cult leaders and

Jim Jones down in Ghana or wherever he was. Precisely. All of these frauds and crooks and con men use it as well. Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors and we'll be right back to the show. This episode is brought to you by LinkedIn jobs. When you're hiring for your small business, you want to find quality professionals that are right for the role as soon as possible. That's why you have to check out LinkedIn jobs. LinkedIn jobs has the tools to help find the right professionals for your team faster and

for free. LinkedIn isn't just a job board. LinkedIn helps you hire professionals you can't find anywhere else, even those who aren't actively searching for a new job, but who might be open to the perfect role. In any given month, more than 70% of LinkedIn users don't visit other job sites. So if you're not looking on LinkedIn, if you're not using LinkedIn, you are in the wrong place. More than 2.5 million small businesses use LinkedIn for hiring, with 86% getting a qualified

candidate within 24 hours. LinkedIn knows that small business owners, leaders, execs are wearing so many hats, they're stretched thin. They might not have the time or resources to hire in any drawn out way. So LinkedIn is constantly finding ways to make the process easier. In fact, they just launched a feature that helps you write job descriptions, making the entire thing A to Z faster and much simpler. So hire professionals like a professional on LinkedIn. And now you can post your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash Tim. That's LinkedIn.com slash Tim to post your job for free at linkedin.com slash Tim. That's linkedin.com slash Tim to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply.

Are there any particular weaknesses or pathologies or failures that come to mind in say Churchill and Napoleon or others who helped to make them ultimately great in the ways that they were great. Oh, definitely. Definitely. The key thing is learning from mistakes, which not all politicians do. I need to scarcely point out, but Churchill certainly did. He made mistake after mistake. He got female suffrage wrong, the abdication crisis that I mentioned earlier, he joined the gold standard at the wrong time at the wrong level, the Blackened Hands in Ireland was a disaster, primarily, of course, the Dardanelles crisis of 1915 to early 1916

where over 100,000 allied troops were killed, wounded, or captured. This was a series of mistakes. In every single one of them, he learned from those mistakes. AC How did he do that? Because there's probably, I would think, maybe some method behind the madness. Maybe it's just more self-awareness or reflection, but did he have a process for learning? LR He wasn't hubristic. That was the key thing. I think it probably helps also, of course,

to use in a democratic system, unlike Napoleon or Hitler, whereby he was criticized the entire time in the House of Commons for all of those things and he had to defend them and therefore had to, in a logical and rational point. I mean, democracy works very well at pricking the pomposity and hubris of people if it's working properly. Napoleon also learned from mistakes in his military career. I don't believe that the decision to march on Moscow itself was hubristic. I'm slightly aside from a lot of military historians about this. But just to explain, he'd beaten the Russians twice before. He had an army twice the size of the Russians. He knew perfectly well that the winter was going to come. He stayed too long in

Moscow, but if he'd gone to Moscow and then come back again immediately, he would not have had the climactic disasters that overcame him with the blizzards in the October and November of 1812. And so you have this sense that yes, it was an appalling strategic error, but it wasn't done out of a drive because he thought he was a sort of demi-god. That I think is a misunderstanding of his personality. CB So I'm going to ask something that Neil Ferguson of Colossus on the Shelf put in an email. I would ask Andrew about the diary he keeps, which is a source of intense anxiety. AC He's obsessed with this. Okay, finish the rest of it. CB Which is a source of intense anxiety to all of his friends and even more to his enemies. Best

wishes, Neil. AC Neil doesn't care about any of that. He only cares about what I say about him. He is the friend. He is the friend who is obsessed with the diary. Yes, I keep a diary. For God's sake, is it such a crime? We went on the skiing holiday this year and it's all he talked about. He's obsessed. Is it the forbidden fruit? I mean, what is, what is the story here? I think he's kicking himself that he didn't keep on, you know, you think of all these extraordinary people he meets, you know, every time I see him, he's just been talking to president G or maybe Netanyahu or, you know, president of America, and he doesn't write down and keep it all in the diary.

So I think there's an element of envy going on here, frankly. But I find it very relaxing and calming to think that my life isn't just going to be a complete waste of time. And one of the only ways that I can... I can see that. Thank you. Well, that's kind of you. Thank you. One of the only ways that I can see that. Thank you. Well, that's kind of you. Thank you. One of the only ways that I can justify this concept that it's all not just the sort of nihilistic sort of male strom, is by writing books, obviously, which I hope will survive me, but also noting down what I've done in the day. But Neil is convinced that every time he says anything embarrassing or something, I'm going to be noting- You're just loading the ammo into your diary.

Exactly. And then when we're sort of 80, he's going to go to the bookshop, buy the diary, flick to Ferguson, Neil, and see sort of 40 entries, each of which is going to make his face go redder. The following charges. Exactly. Which it's not going to be like that at all. What he's actually going to do is to immediately go to the diary and look up Fergus and Neil, but see all the amusing, charming, intelligent remarks he's made, the Witticisms, you know, and all that kind of thing. And not just him, obviously, everybody that I've ever met over the last 40 plus years. And how do you keep your, you're on your metal now. You're going to have to, I'm going to say went on to be a behavior. What a, what an idiot.

No, no to self send chocolates to Andrew. Don't forget his birthday. Now there are many, many people who keep a diary. How do you keep your diary? Is it a nightly exercise? Is it typed out? Is it a pen? Is it a quill pen? What is-? You mustn't do it nightly because you might be able to, but I drink. And so- I like drinking too. Good. Yeah. And so there's nothing worse than trying to write. If you've been drinking also, writing down the witticisms sometimes there's a bit of a problem going to the fact that I can't read my writing the next morning. But no, it has to be done pretty much the next morning. You

can't leave it for two weeks or so. Do you do it with what's your frequency? I used to write every day. I used to write it. Oh no, but if nothing interesting has happened, then I won't put anything down. Nothing to report. Yeah, no. All like Louis the 16th on the 14th of July, 1789, the day of the fall of the Bastille, all he writes is Rien, nothing. So I hope I'm not going to be quite as moronic as that. It's not really intended for publication, which is another thing that Neil doesn't understand. He's going to latch onto that really part of that sentence.

He's going to be like, you see? You see? Yeah. Yeah. No, of course he is. But nonetheless, I do find it a, well, you mentioned earlier about how many words I write. It's never more than about 500 words maximum. And it picks the most interesting parts of the day.

And if somebody has said or done something interesting, I'll stick it in. Do you do that before your book writing? Let's say you're on. Yes. First thing in the morning. All right. And is that just like pajama slippers and a cup of coffee or? Yeah. So I see that. Yeah. All right. Great. Exactly. And do you take, it seems like such a ridiculous question, but how do you think about taking breaks when you're writing? I mean, obviously you might have a bathroom break

or something like that. Do you build in breaks? Do you ride the flow as long as you have it? What does it look like? The flow as long as you have it. Absolutely, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because it might not come back if you deliberately have breaks.

Sometimes, and I'm slightly loathe to admit this public, but nonetheless, sometimes, if you are really flowing, I can go without washing for three days. I can be in my dressing gown and slippers. My wife finds it extremely unhygienic and I'm not allowed to sleep in the same bed. But if I'm running hard at a really difficult chapter and I need to keep my thoughts in order, I will not waste time doing anything. I'll get some breakfast and so on, but that will just be a dash to the kitchen and back again. Because if something's complicated and there are lots of occasions, another classic, we go back to the 10th of May, 1940, that in my Churchill book, you have to get it right because every minute, not just every hour,

every minute something is happening. They're getting news from what the Luftwaffe is attacking, and he's then having to create his government. He then goes off to the House of Commons and so on. It's just relentless. And unless you encapsulate in your mind successfully what is important about that day, you'll never get it over to the reader. And if you're constantly going off and going for a walk or going to the gym or showering or whatever, there's a danger that you're going to fall out of the rhythm of creativity. How do you think about that flow when you have the flow? I mean, there is. I hasten to add is never more than three days I've ever gone.

I wouldn't judge. I was just on a hiking trip. I went, I went 10 days without showering, so I don't judge. I won't throw stones in my glass house. It's only when I'm writing the book I hasten to add that as well. God, I don't want people to come up with no artists hold their nose and go, hello, Andrew. How do you think about that flow with writing? So there's, there's one reason not to interrupt

the writing. If you have a hard task ahead of you and you have 47 balls in the air and if you drop them, you're going to have to start the juggling process all over and the boot up sequence takes a long time. How do you think about the flow of writing or that feeling that things are coming to you more easily or moving onto the page more easily? AC It's a very bad thing of course. Dr. Johnson did say when you have written your most brilliant purple paragraph, read it again and rip it up. So you must know more about that. Oh yeah. No. Well, if you think that you've just written something completely brilliant, there's a very good chance that it's rubbish. It has to be somebody else. It has to be your publisher or some other person who can read it and have a completely

objective eye because there's a very good chance that you're hugging yourself with glee about something that actually you think sounds wonderful, but in fact, it's complete. The name of my memoir, hugging yourself with glee. And I write that down, give you your customary 5%. That's fine. If you had to choose, uh, maybe you'd want to choose from your darlings here, but if this question has an answer, you don't even need to name them, but you keep a person in mind. If you had to choose

one person to act as your proofreader for your work, to be that sanity check. He's called Stuart Proffitt. He's the most brilliant publisher in London. He's known by everybody to be the most brilliant. He's also the most irritating. Makes sense to me. He's my god. For my Napoleon book, he's going to listen to this. So I'm going to have to be as nice as possible, but oh my, he's professor perfect is my nickname for it because he is a total professorial kind of figure. And for my Napoleon book, I remember a series of marginalia.

And again, this is the thing where you think you've done something rather good, you know, and he writes the things he writes in the morning. Are you sure this joke is funny. Damn it. But he wrote, there were a whole series of them. We were talking earlier about the 1796 campaign of Napoleon. He said, how wide was the River Po in 1796? There was another one, did Napoleon take Herodotus to Egypt? And you think, damn, I don't know. I'm going to have

to find out. He's a genius, but also a very irritating person. AC- Could you say more about what makes him so good? I'll buy some time just by saying if I can't find a writer friend of mine, let's just say, or an editor who can proofread my work, I'll very often give, and I write particular type of thing, but I would give my chapter, let's just say to a friend who's a really good lawyer. And part of the reason for that is that they're very good at trimming out excess. And if anything is ambiguous, they're- Or contradictory. Or contradictory. They're very good at surgically excising that. What makes this particular

gentleman, what was his name again? Stuart? Stuart Prophet. All right, great name. What makes Stuart so good at giving feedback? Does he see things differently? He's profoundly committed to history. He loves history. So he has a sort of higher purpose to try to flood the world with great history books, which is, as far as I'm concerned, the greatest that you can have. I mean, it doesn't get better than that. He has a very logical brain. He's very good on syntax. So anything that doesn't sound right in a sentence, he will point out. Sometimes to a infuriating degree.

It sounds right from a poetic perspective. From a poetic perspective, yeah. If there's a rhythm that isn't right or if something rhymes as well, sometimes you can use two words that have a rhyme in them and he will cut that automatically because it just doesn't feel right. And sit well with his sensibilities. Precisely. And mine, I hasten to add, because I very rarely actually disagree with him. I did on the joke, by the way.

And whenever anybody tells me that that particular joke is funny, I forward it to him, I ping the email straight on to Stuart. Of course I do. I'd be mad not to, wouldn't I? But no, there's a, I mean, and he's been doing it for 40 years, so, and he's at the top of his trade. So you would expect him to be really good, but boy is he. So there's two examples you gave, the width of the river and Herodotus. Why did he ask those two?

Because he is always trying to put himself into the mind of the reader and wondering what the reader would be thinking. And he thought, rightly or wrongly in this case, that the reader would be interested in the width of the river and whether or not Herodotus went with him. But there are loads more examples like that. I will send him 100 pages and he'll send me back 100 pages of questions and criticisms and remarks. I almost sometimes think that I ought to put his name on the front cover of the book. He phoned me up actually about the Napoleon book and the original of Napoleon just had a huge N on it and lots of Bs. And he phoned me up and he said, I've got this idea for the front cover of the book,

your name isn't going to be on it. And he said, and neither is Napoleon's. And I thought over the phone, I thought, okay, he's finally gone completely. Right. Yeah, exactly. That's right. Poor man. How long can he stay in his job? If he's going to come up with ideas, like, exactly, but it can't be long now.

And it turned out to be totally brilliant concept because if you see a gigantic N with bees, you think of Napoleon, you know, that's what bees as in bees like honeybees, honeybees. Yeah. That was his symbol as Napoleon symbol because they could sting, but they could also give honey. You know, that was the idea. And it just captured people's imagination and sold an awful lot of copies, which was really great. That sold half a million copies that book now. That's incredible. That is incredible. Sounds like such a gift to have a steward. I need a steward. Yeah. Everyone needs a steward.

Everyone needs a steward. Don't take mine. Put whatever you do. I think he might find, he might spend his entire first month on just the syntax errors in my first chapter. So you do want to strangle him by the way. This is the sign of a very good proofreader. Why do you think it is that some historical figures take on these mythic proportions where some who have huge impacts seem to sort of fall into obscurity over time. Are there particular

characteristics? Is it self-made in a sense where people create that myth of themselves while they're still alive? How do you think about that? AO- I haven't thought about that before. That's a really good question. I think that it's a bit like there are some things that are very difficult to get over to people on the printed page. Charisma is one of them, charm is another one, sexiness. These are things that we all know from our own lives matter enormously. If somebody's charismatic, charming, and sexy, you're going to want to be interested in them, follow them much more than somebody who isn't, and yet explaining how they are, any of those things, very famously hard to explain.

And I think the same is true with historical characters. How can it be that this unprepossessing looking American president who happens to, with his strange beard but not mustache, who happens to be a president at the time that the country is falling apart, manages to save the country through this terrible, see it through this terrible civil war and then is assassinated right at the end of the civil war. I mean, the story is so extraordinary, isn't it? And yet to explain the charisma and charm, not sexiness, I don't think in Abraham Lincoln's case, but many of your listeners or readers might disagree

with you, nonetheless. Just imagining him popping up on a dating app. Would he swipe right for Abe Lincoln? Exactly. He might ride a fixed gear bike, make expensive cappuccinos. That's kind of the hipster look. Anyway, I digress. Yeah. It is difficult to explain how some people just grab the headlines and others don't.

I mean, of course it does help to be a leader in a war. That's true of Lincoln and Churchill and Napoleon and so on. The chance of coming a world historical figure, if you are prime minister of Luxembourg in a time of peace is going to be much more difficult, of course. But yeah, there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule, does there? Hard and fast recipe that I can follow. I'm just kidding. Well, don't take us to war on the matter of wanting to be remembered. No, no, I don't think I'm capable. Certainly not eager.

Makes me think of what is the title of that poem? Ozymandias, look upon my works in despair. I'll leave that alone. I met a traveler from an antique land who said, two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert. And near them on the sand half shrunk, a shattered visage lies. His wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command tells that its sculpture well those passions read, but yet survive. My name is Ozzy Mandeas, King of Kings, look upon my works ye mighty in despair, nothing besides remains round that eternal wreck, long and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away. Hot damn, there you go listeners. Can you point out to the listeners that you didn't tell me

that this was going to happen? I did not, I did not send a memo in advance. And I suppose the preface to that is that there are these ruins sticking out of the sands. The feet. The feet, that's right. The trunks of the legs. So there was obviously a huge, magnificent kind of,

you know, pyramid high, glorious statue to Ozymandias. And now there's nothing. And it goes back to what I was saying earlier about not being remembered. Did you remember the, now I'm gonna, I feel like I'm not cross-examining, but asking too much, but who is the author of that poem? Piercy de Shelley.

I saw the one of maybe the original or certainly a first draft in Oxford because I was going through a program at Wadham College and there's an exhibit on right now which is something like cut paste rewrite and it shows the hand edited works of Mary Shelley Frankenstein and all these others and I came across that. If anybody wants to see a first edition of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, it's just gone on exhibition at the, I was there this morning,

Lambeth Palace Library. There's a thing called Her Book. It's about female, early female writers. It's a brilliant exhibition. And so if there's anyone in London who's interested in seeing that book, it's there today. CB. Beautiful. And if you're near Oxford, Weston Library has the exhibit that I was mentioning, a lot of gems, a lot of gems. You have some really fun old stuff in the UK, it turns out. RL. Thank you. I'm not going to take that personally. No, no, no, no. That's a compliment.

Yeah. Old in the US is like 1970, you know, it's smaller. I thought you were talking about me. Oh, no, no. Good. All right. Not you. How do you think about legacy?

Because I, along the lines of Anya, the Ozymandias piece, I'm like, is it just sort of hubris to believe in the first place that that's something worth aspiring to having something last and stand the test of time? I mean, how do you personally think about this? Especially as someone who's studied history. Yes. I obviously do want people to read my books long after I've died. Now, I'm not going to know whether they are or not. So why on earth it just seems so illogical to even think that, doesn't it? That it should matter to me that anything happens the second after I've died. But I know that I do, and it is one of the drives for being a writer because words always

live forever and they're virtually the only thing that does. Ozymandias' statue is just two trunkless legs of stone, whereas actually his words, you know, look upon my works, he might and despair, that goes to the heart of the human condition until his poetry still survives in a way that Ozymandias' statue doesn't. So there is something about words that are immortal and we're all sort of grasping for immortality in one way or another, aren't we? Yeah, that is true. Do you read fiction? Yes, yes, I do. When I go on holiday, which is usually hiking actually with my wife, she

loves going to places that involve mountains. And in order to get history completely out of my system for the two weeks or so that we're hiking, I do read fiction. Sometimes if I want to completely clear my brain, I'll have a detective novel. And I've chosen the most complicated of all of the detective novelists, a chap called Robert Goddard. Have you ever heard of Robert Goddard? So complicated to work out who done it or what groups of people done it. It's very rarely just one person and why. And I try and make notes in the back of the book connecting each person to everybody else. And so by the end of it, it looks like one of those really complicated sort of management things.

Oh, it's like an org chart. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. With hundreds of people connecting to everybody else to try and work out who done it. And he always, always beats me. That sounds fun. Yeah, as far as sort of high culture writing is no longer concerned, I will occasionally do that. I'm president of the Cliveden Literary Festival and so we have lots of novelists come to that. And so if you've got William Boyd or Salman

Rushdie or somebody who you know you're going to be bumping into at the festival. It's always a good idea to read their latest novel. We had Robert Harris recently and so that's always well worth doing. And then there are a few writers like Michel Welbeck who is just so great that you have to sort of read whatever he brings out. Is there, I don't recognize the name, I'm embarrassed to say. He's a French writer. It's pronounced Hellebecq and he's a genius, a very controversial and quite unpopular in France. And the latest one I'm reading is where it features his own murder. It's a great satire.

It's very, very funny. Is there a book you might suggest starting with? Are we going to start with the map and the territory? The map of the territory map and the territory of Michelle. The name starts H E double L E B and yeah, it's a sort of satire on French intellectual customs and I can see them loving that. It's very funny. It's very funny why is he controversial oh because he's deeply politically incorrect he just he just

doesn't great he just doesn't care what he what he writes he's a honey badger in that sense you know what I mean I do yeah he's a he's a literary honey badger as well back very honey badger all well, Bec. A literary honey badger. All right. So speaking of politically incorrect, how should we, in your mind, write about imperial history? We should try as far as possible to be genuinely objective. We shouldn't take the assumption that all white people, whenever they went

abroad, did so solely in order to rape, murder, massacre, and exploit. Because certainly in the latter part, we were talking earlier about Winston Churchill and the noblesse oblige, the concept that it was part of your duty as a privileged person to try to make the world a better place for other less privileged people. And that was, especially in the last part of the British Empire, a driving force for a lot of people, especially obviously missionaries and Christians, but also other people, explorers and people who were involved in agriculture and so on. They actually were not driven by rapacity and greed in the way that essentially the Marxist analysis of imperialism has made out. So be objective. Some of those

people were like that, undoubtedly, of course they were, especially some of the people in Southern Africa and elsewhere. But for a long period of the story of the British Empire, for much of that empire, it actually was a force for human good rather than evil. What do you see as the challenges moving forward for the capturing of history and or how do you see it changing as we move forward? I am quite worried about it in Britain because first of all, fewer and fewer people seem to be taking it as a subject at a university level. Secondly, we have this thing it's nicknamed Henry to Hitler, where we jump from the Tudors to the second world war.

And we don't do the very important intervening stages of the Stuart's, the Civil War, the Hanoverians, loss of America, really anything up to the outbreak of the First World War. And there's so much of really important history in that period that we seem to jump from one to the next. There was a survey quite recently of British teenagers, quite a big survey, you know, over a thousand of them. And 20% of them thought, like 23% of them, thought that the American war of independence was won by Denzel Washington. You know, and the Americans get a bad rap. I know, I know, exactly.

It's not just us. And also there were 20% of these kids, these are British school kids, who also thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character and that Sherlock Holmes and Eleanor Rigby were real people. So whatever's going on in British history teaching, I think there's still a lot to be desired. If you had never been able to write any books in that alternate reality, what have you personally, or what would you have gained personally from studying history? It's a lot of things, isn't it? History, it can be a bit of a quicksand.

In what sense? Well, as soon as you think you understand a period, all it takes is one new set of papers or a new book written by somebody else, friends especially, that can make you look again at the same period and completely change your mind about it. And that's a little unnerving at the age of 61, I have to say. I'm just reading Ronald Hutton's second volume of his life of Oliver Cromwell, which has just been published. And I'd always thought of Cromwell as somebody who had a set of principles that he molded his times around in order to see through. And Ronald Hutton has completely exploded that thesis for me.

And I realized that he was like most politicians, just sort of grabbing the coattails of history and hanging on as much as he could. And yes, he was a good soldier and so on, but in terms of his politics, he was constantly trying to create alliances, of course, like all politicians do. And when opportunities came, he grabbed them. But he was constantly trying to create alliances, of course, like all politicians do. And when opportunities came, he grabbed them. But he was at the mercy of events much more than creating them. Whereas I had for years had the sort of image of Oliver Cromwell like that statue outside parliament of this incredibly sort of solid figure. He wasn't like that at all.

What are other things that attract you or attracted you to history? It wasn't just Christopher Perry. My dad read history at Oxford and he used to take me around castles. We go on holiday to Wales and see the great Edward the First castles. He would chat to on journeys, we'd chat about history and what ifs, counterfactuals and things like that. So I grew up feeling very comfortable with it and recognizing that it's a beautiful and fascinating thing. Whereas I think sometimes some people can be not scared of history, but they can be put off history because they weren't taught it very well at school or they just thought it was a succession of dates or they can't see any relevance to their daily lives and so on. And I've never been one of those people.

So if you were doing a presentation, could be anywhere, on why people, aside from conflating Denzel Washington with other historical figures, why they should read history or engage with history. What would the thrust of the presentation be? RL I suppose it does come back to that, all those Huxley quotes about trying to learn some of the lessons. There's a marvelous moment when June 1953, at the time of the late Queen's coronation, Winston Churchill is walking across Westminster Hall, this fabulous great hall that was built in the late 13th century, the largest room in Europe. And it's fused with history. It's where, of course, Churchill himself was to be to lion state, but also where the monarchs lie in state, where

Warren Hastings went on trial and Charles I went on trial and people like Mandela and Zelensky have given speeches and things like that. It's compounded. Thomas More went on trial there, the Earl of Stratford. I just mentioned a whole load of people who were all decapitated actually, William Wallace as well, he was decapitated as well. And so you've got this sense of all of British history, and it sums up in a room essentially. And a young American student stops Churchill and asks essentially for a piece of life advice. And Churchill replies, study history, study history, for therein lies all the secrets of statecraft. And that would be one of the reasons that I would tell people that if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you do have to look and see

what has happened before. And there's no person who doesn't want to have a better understanding of what's going on in the world or try to work out for themselves the great forces in our planet today. So that, I suppose, would be the answer. That's why I've chosen study history as my motto of my coat of arms, for example, and why I've got a podcast too, and I call it Secrets of Statecraft. I think that's a sort of motivating factor. Secrets of Statecraft, that is. It's the Hoover Institution's podcast, but it's great fun to do.

Must have Neil Ferguson on at some stage and I can tease him about not being a diary. What is statecraft? I think I know, but I want to very often, I think I know something and it is in fact not true at all. It's the ability to run a country. So you've got to juggle the diplomatic, the military, the economic, the cultural, all of these things, the religious, all of these things together to create the kind of country that you want it to be and that is statecraft. And so it's been

going on as long as human history has and always will. Looking forward, let's see, you've studied many great figures from history. You've looked at these different chapters of- Including your late king, your last king, George III. I wrote a biography of him a few years ago, which was great fun to do. Yeah. Sorry, carry on. Oh no, that's all right. I was just going to ask you, looking forward, given how much you've reflected backwards, where do you think things are going for the UK and or for the US? Like if you were a betting man, when you say, hmm, there's a good chance it's not a certainty, but things can, if the dominoes continue to fall the way they're falling, A, B or C. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a pessimist. Yeah.

A, B or C. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a pessimist. Yeah. Yeah. Not so much for the United States because you're still such a rich and innovative country. But I'm wondering in Britain whether or not, and history plays an important part of this, especially the way in which history is used politically, to wonder whether or not we still believe in ourselves, certainly in the way that we did when I was growing up. I'm going to try and get the statistics right. I think it's 2015,

as recent as 2015, maybe it's 2010, 86% of people were proud of British history. were proud of British history. That has now fallen down to 56%. I'm sure that the reason for this is the sustained attack on the British Empire that we were discussing earlier and people forgetting the part that we played in the abolition of slavery and concentrating just on the horrors and the monstrous things that happened. And therefore, if you're not proud of your past, you're not proud of your ancestors, you're not proud of the things that they produced, and Britain has produced some pretty extraordinary and wonderful things for the world, then it's difficult to see why anyone would want to be proud of the future of the country as well. And so I'm pretty pessimistic. And when I feel pessimism for America, it's for things like taking Thomas Jefferson's statue down

from the New York City Hall. It's a form of cultural suicide. It strikes me not to admire the founders of your nation. And yes, of course, he owned slaves, but he also wrote a constitution that has survived for a quarter of a millennium. And he was brave enough, and Washington and all the others, brave enough to stand up against the most powerful empire in the world. These things, you deserve your statue, it seems to me. And if you go around pulling these things down, I think you're breaking a kind of living link with the past that makes you a great country. And that's certainly happening in this country as well. I mean, I'm a bit of a pessimist anyway, because I'm a Tory and pessimism is an essential part of Toryism.

Not as big a pessimist I hasten to add as Neil Ferguson, who I like to say, it's never terribly difficult to tell the, it's a quote from P.G. Woodhouse, never terribly difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance. And Neil always tells you that it's all doom and gloom and everything's going to be a clean disastrous. I wonder whether or not he truly believes it because he's actually himself a very, you know, upbeat and personally sort of positive individual who does lots of things that imply that actually he does think the world's going to get

better, but boy, oh boy. How do you personally, if you do, I mean, it seems like you examine or you have fascination with counterfactuals, the what ifs, you read books that have the potential for upending long held theses, which can be uncomfortable, I would imagine. Do you have people around you or who you deliberately expose yourself to who offset perhaps some of your pessimistic tendencies with forms of optimism that they can defend? Oh yes, my wife is the classic example. She's optimistic about the future. She's in business. She's a very successful businesswoman. So she actually sees a lot of the innovations that are taking place, the drugs that are

coming online that are saving lives and taking on defeating pain and so on. She's great at believing in the innate capacity of capitalism to reinvent itself in a positive way for more and more people than take people out of poverty and all of those positive things. It's an invigorating thing to talk about the world with her because it makes me much less sort of Eeyore-like and Ferguson-esque. I feel like any other inside scoop that people should know about Neil,

what are his secret optimistic voice memos that he sends you? You can annotate, add to your diary. Please see audio reference 47. Oh, Andrew, this has been great fun. You have many books that people can read, certainly in the, all be in the show notes, but the, is it most recent Conflict? Yes, that's a book I wrote with David Petraeus.

And of course, him being a general who's commanded armies of over 160,000 in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been so fascinating intellectually for me because of course, I'm a military historian, I've never worn a uniform for one minute. So that was great. And the subtitle for folks, just so so they have that the evolution of warfare from

1945 to Ukraine. Well, it's now actually Gaza. The paper that takes us up to, um, to up to Gaza as well, about halfway through that campaign in, uh, in Gaza. It was after the Russian invasion of Ukraine that I came up with the idea of writing the book. And I got on to David, who I knew, and said, why don't we write this as a military history? There are going to be lots of political histories about this, but just the military side of it and put it into the context

of all the wars that have happened since 1945. So we go through not all of them, there are 400 of them, but all the key ones, the 40 or so key ones that you'll have heard of and that show how war has evolved and developed. And sometimes it leaps forward and other times it goes into sort of side shows. But we went to the publishers and they quite understand, we said, well, how are you going to divvy up the chapters? And I said, well, David's going to write about all the countries he's invaded and I'll fill in the rest. And he also did the Vietnam chapter as well, actually. And then we sent hundreds and maybe thousands of emails to one

another over the course of the year or so that we were writing it. That's very fast. It is fast. It is fast. But the thing was- How did you do it so quickly? Well, because the situation in you do it so quickly? Well, because the situation in Ukraine was moving so quickly. And then the Gaza war broke out on the day of the publication of the Harback. So that was literally the 7th of October that we were bringing that out. So we then needed to get on with writing about that as well. And as you know, I tend to write quickly.

Yeah. And so does he. You know, he's a soldier scholar. He read, he went to write quickly. Yeah. And so does he, you know, he's a soldier scholar. He read, he went to your old university. He was at Princeton doing a post-grad on military history. So he was very much able to, you know, keep sending back those emails. Yeah. I suppose he's not lacking discipline. He'd say that again. Would be my guess. What did you find were key ingredients to that successful collaboration? What made it

work? Especially with that type of pressure under deadline. Well, I think there was, I know there was mutual respect, which is very important. I'd never written a book with anybody before. And I was in the midst of doing that right now, which is the reason I'm asking. Yeah, no, well, it's a, it's like nerve wracking, isn't it? Because one can get very sort of proprietary about one's work, but that wasn't the case with David because the insights that he gave about what it was like to be a commander into wars at the absolute apex of command meant that he could then look back on wars like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War to place himself in the position of Matthew Ridgway in Korea, for example. And that was so fascinating

that I knew that there was nothing that I could add to that. I just knew that the combination of the soldier and the historian would produce something that was really intellectually stimulating for me. And that's, you know, in the end, life is a constant battle against boredom, isn't it? It's a constant rear guard action against not being stimulated. CB Yeah. Do you think you will do more collaborations? How are you thinking about your writing? No, I know my next two books I've got are just going to be written by me. I've got Napoleon and his marshals about how the Emperor interacted with his marshals and how the marshals interacted with each other. They fortunately all hated each other. So

that's much easier for a historian to write something interesting and hate each other in very imaginative ways. The greatest reality TV show I've ever seen. And then after that, I'm doing Disraeli. And he's an extraordinary character who was a complete outsider as a Jew, of course, didn't go to one of the British public schools or Oxford and Cambridge or any university and through his own brilliance and he was a novelist of course also his own wit he wound up becoming the most powerful man in the world. Yeah I look forward to reading that one. Good thank you. Let me back on the show in 2030 which is when it's being published.

I hope I'll still be around we'll see. I've been here for a decade we'll see how it goes. Andrew this has been great. I hope, hope I'll still be around. We'll see. Been here for a decade. We'll see how it goes. Andrew, this has been great. I really appreciate you taking the time. People can find you. Correct me if I get any of this wrong. Andrew hyphen roberts.net.

Would that be the main website? That's what I have here. Can't remember, but yes, I hope so. Let's just say that's right. And if it's not, I will put a correct version of the show notes. Ian then is Twitter or X as it stands now a good place for people to follow you as well. Yeah, that's has things like my podcast and so on.

Perfect. So that's as I have it here, a Roberts underscore Andrew. Is it good? Perfect. We'll fact check off that. But we do have that. Is there anything else that you would like to add? Any requests of my audience? Anything at all that you'd like

to mention? Absolutely not. Just thank you so much, Tim, for being on the show. I've really enjoyed it. Yeah. Thank you so much for taking the time. This has really been great. And for people who are listening, as always, you can find the show notes at tim.blogs.podcast. We will include links to everything we discussed. And also, as always, until next time, just be a little kinder than is necessary to others, but also to yourself.

Thanks for tuning in. Hey guys, this is Tim again. Just one more thing before you take off, and that is Five Bullet Friday. Would you enjoy getting a short email from me every Friday that provides a little fun before the weekend? Between one and a half and two million people subscribe to my free newsletter,

my super short newsletter called Five Bullet Friday. Easy to sign up, easy to cancel. It is basically a half page that I send out every Friday to share the coolest things I've found or discovered or have started exploring over that week. It's kind of like my diary of cool things. It often includes articles I'm reading, books I'm reading, albums perhaps, gadgets, gizmos, all sorts of tech tricks and so on that get sent to me by my friends including a lot of podcast guests and these strange esoteric things end up in my field and

then I test them and then I share them with you. So if that sounds fun, again, it's very short, a little tiny bite of goodness before you head off for the weekend, something to think about. If you'd like to try it out, just go to tim.blogslashfriday. Type that into your browser, tim.blogslashfriday. Drop in your email and you'll get the very next one. Thanks for listening.

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Shopify is the all in one commerce platform that powers millions of businesses worldwide, including me, including mine. What business you might ask? Well, one way I've scratched my own itch is by creating cock punch coffee. It's a long story. All proceeds on my end go to my foundation, Sisei Foundation, fund research for mental health, etc. Anyway, cock punch coffee. It's a long story. All proceeds on my end go to my foundation, Sisei Foundation, to fund research for mental health, etc. Anyway, cock-munch coffee. It's delicious. The first coffee I've ever produced myself. I drink it every morning. Check it out.

We use Shopify for the online storefront and my team raves about how simple and easy it is to use. It has everything we need and nothing we don't. Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or getting ready for your IPO, we don't. Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or getting ready for your IPO, Shopify is the only tool you need to start, run, and grow your business without the struggle. Shopify puts you in control of every sales channel. Doesn't matter if you're selling satin sheets from Shopify's in-person POS system or offering organic olive oil on Shopify's all-in-one ecommerce platform. However you interact with your customers, you're covered. And once you've reached your audience, Shopify has the internet's best converting checkout

to help you turn browsers into buyers. Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States. And Shopify is truly a global force as the e-commerce solution behind Allbirds, Rothies, Brooklyn and millions of other entrepreneurs of every size across more than 170 countries. Plus, Shopify's award-winning help is there to support your success every step of the way if you have questions. This is Possibility powered by Shopify. So check it out.

Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify. That's S-H-O-P-I-F-Y. Shopify.com slash Tim. Go to Shopify.com slash Tim to take your business to the next level today. One more time, all lowercase, Shopify.com slash Tim to take your business to the next level today. One more time, all lowercase shopify.com slash Tim. In the last handful of years, I've become very interested in environmental toxins, avoiding microplastics and many other commonly found compounds all over the place. One place I looked is in the kitchen.

Many people don't realize just how toxic their cookware is or can be. A lot of nonstick pans, practically all of them, can release harmful forever chemicals, PFAS, in other words, spelled PFAS, into your food, your home, and then ultimately that ends up in your body. Teflon is a prime example of this. It is still the forever chemical that most companies are using. So, Our Place reached out to me as a potential sponsor and the first thing I did was look at the reviews of their products and said send me one and that is the Titanium Always Pan Pro. And the claim is that it's the first non-stick pan with zero coating. So that means zero forever

chemicals and durability that will last forever. I was very skeptical, I was very busy, so I said you know what I want to test this thing quickly. It's supposed to be non-stick, it's supposed to be durable. I'm going to test it with two things. I'm going to test it with scrambled eggs in the morning because eggs are always a disaster in anything that isn't non-stick with the toxic coating. And then I'm gonna test it with a steak sear. I want to see how much it retains heat. And it worked perfectly in both cases and I was frankly astonished how well it worked. The Titanium Always Pan Pro has become my go-to pan in the kitchen. It

replaces a lot of other things for searing, for eggs, for anything you can imagine. And the design is really clever. It does combine the best qualities of stainless steel, cast iron, and nonstick into one product. It's tough enough to withstand the dishwasher, open flame, heavy duty scrubbing, you can scrub the hell out of it. You can use metal utensils, which is great,

without losing any of its nonstick properties. So stop cooking with toxic pans. If they're nonstick and you don't know, they probably contain something bad. Check out the Titanium Always Pan Pro. While you're at it, you can look at their other high performance offerings that are toxin free, like the Wonder Oven Air Fryer, their griddle pan, and their Precision Engineered German Steel Knives. So go to fromourplace.com slash Tim and use my code Tim to get 10% off of the titanium always pan pro or anything else on the site. You can check out anything more time that's from our place.com spelled out f r o m o u r from our place.com slash Tim and use code Tim at checkout for 10% off of everything on the site.

Our place also offers a 100-day trial with free shipping and returns. Take a look.