Live webchat with historian John Child - Weds 17 Oct 1-2pm

I would be interested to know if John thinks that the rote learning of dates is still a good way of teaching history, or should lessons be concentrating on historical methods and the broad sweep of history.
Another pet interest of mine is the place of women in history - or should I say the non-place? Most history books ignore the lives of half the human race. I am fascinated by social history which is much more interesting than wars and dynasties!

Do you think that towering individuals such as Churchill or Florence Nightingale changed history or were they just in the right place at the right time?

A question I would like to ask is, when does history become history?

Hello John, I have a couple of questions which may be a bit abstract and philosophical but I think essential for any historian, amateur ones, like me.
- is the saying 'History repeats itself' true?
- and can we ever have an impartial recount of history? Thank you

What do you think of the way history is taught in schools today? My granddaughter managed to learn a lot about the World War II in primary school before she knew what had gone before whereas we learnt history in a linear fashion.

How old do you think children have to be before they can begin to assess the importance and validity of the sources that are presented to them. After all, someone has already filtered and selected those sources, so they then become a long way from the primary sources that an evaluation is supposed to be made on.

Isn't this just as is dishonest as the old fashioned narrative accounts which didn't quote any sources but presented a 'story' filtered through the narrative eye of the author.

Hello John. I loved and hated History at school in equal measures. The history teachers I had throughout secondary school taught parrot fashion and the lessons were so boring. They were so hell bent on facts and dates. I was often in trouble from my history teacher for writing essays using fictional characters to make a point. My books were covered in red pen saying "this person did not exist please refrain from making up your own version of history".

As an adult I love history and feel sad that I missed out on this enjoyment at school. My question is this:-

What can teachers do differently to make history "come alive" and as a grandparent is there anything wrong with creating fictional characters in order to help my grandchildren understand?

gilly I loved History at school and if things had been different I may have taken it further, our History teacher Miss Wright was the most interesting woman you could imagine and she brought it alive before our eyes. She was a character smoked like a trouper and drank strong coffee, but we were all glued to our seats through the lesson. If she could have been bottled schools would have benefited from a touch of her excellence.

Oh how I wish I had your teacher glass. Our was so miserable, poker faced and did very little more than go through the facts. She was only interested in dates ! I did (and still do) love the romance of history which is often stranger and better than any novel, but I had this habit of making it "real for me" which involved creating fictional characters that may or may not have "been around" in whatever period we were studying. A bit like Blackadder .

Nothing wrong with a little fiction gilly to liven things up.

Do you think we learn from history? After all the horrors of the First World War did little to prevent the Second World War. And the world is still full of dictators who seem to rule without, or very little, sanction.
Secondly if you could go back in time who would you stop being born?

Looking back at my secondary education and comparing it to that of my children's I feel sad that I didn't get the same enthusiastic approach as they have had. With history the only teacher I remember is one who brought history to life a little by telling anecdotal stories. I was no good at history I tell people but now I am interested and want to know more but feel I haven't time left to learn and wouldn't know where to begin. However, having gained a grandson and another on the way I'd love to be able to bring some knowledge and interest of the past, into their lives as well as the knowledge they'll gain from their own education. Where, John, would you suggest I begin?

My teacher at school was booooring. We learnt the events leading up to the First World War . I hated it . I think that interesting history ends at thenagemof the industrial revolution and for me started in the Rift Valley in South Africa.
Do you think children would be more interested in history if it started at the beginning with the fossil record?

I love history and for me the really interesting thing is to work out how all the different aspects of a society fed into the other and changed over time. Wars are of course at times great social changers, but there are other things too. It also depends on the way you view these changes - this will influence your interpretation. Good stuff though.

I am more interested in social history than big events, Rulers and Battles and have tended to absorb, indeed, swallow whole, accounts of life in the past up to the 19th century. However, when I read more recent history, I find that I am constanty questioning the validity of the 'facts' because they often contradict my own experience (from 1950 onwards) and the 'history' learnt from my parents and grandparents who were alive and active participants during the earlier 20th century. How do you reconcile these differing views of recent history?

I am interested in history but becoming increasingly sceptical that history really is history. How much do we know happened for real and how much is stuff that has been told and may well be the viewpoint of the person who recorded it and not the reality?

(I have to admit that the recent revelations about Jimmy Savile have only made me think about this all the more. After all in broadcasting/fundraising 'history' he was a hero who made thousands of dreams come true. And now it seems that this is not the case at all (or at least it is only a part of a bigger story).

I would like to ask what makes a turning point? In these modern times you will see major stories all over the news, often for weeks on end - and then they sort of disappear. So what makes the difference between a big story and a real turning point? And do you think that sometimes actual turning points may not be seen as such until way into the future?

I am sure I got turned off history by having to learn kings and queens and things that seemed so remote from my life by rote. I think if I had learned more modern history I would probably have felt differently

Do you think it's important for children to learn a mix? And what age is best to get them interested? Any tips on doing so would also be appreciated - I would be very pleased if my DGC viewed the subject with more enthusiasm that I did

On the subject of teaching children history. My DGS was given The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas to read at school when he was nine. While I think this is an excellent book I worry that the children were too young to learn about the Holocaust. I do think education on this subject is extremely important but worry that at 9 it's too big and too terrible thing to go into. My DGS asked a lot of difficult questions and I know that another child in his class had terrible nightmares about it all. My own view is that they were not emotionally equipped to deal with this

Is History still the history of the rich, the ruling and the victorious? Has the trend to People's History and Oral History Projects had any real effect at all? Either at grassroots or amongst History academics? I don't think it has. Please let's be honest here and not deal in pipe dreams and wishful thinking!

I think Minette has a really good point.

Will we regard the Arab Spring as a turning point in the future, or the EU/Greek currency crisis?

Its a really interesting way to look at History.

It would be great to have your views John.....?

I'm interested in how clothes fashions come in and out. How do you think this happens? It's just so weird watching young people reliving styles that we felt were really "us" from years ago.

Is it about trying to recreate the political moods from that time or is there something more convoluted going on?

Hi John <waves>

I am always a bit skeptical when I read history books or watch documentaries on historical events, as I am aware that sometimes it is hard to distinguish between fact and someone's perception of what happened. How much can we trust in what's told to us? Do you ever pick up a book and wonder how much has been embellished?