Rick Atkinson Quotes

It can be a long gap between the emergence of fully researched historical biographies.

Biographers search for traces, for evidence of activity, for signs of movement, for letters, for diaries, for photographs.

It is impossible to write ancient history because we do not have enough sources, and impossible to write modern history because we have far too many.

I never recreate dialogue. I have often been asked by people, 'You must have made this up because this is dialogue, right?' Anything in my books that is in quotes comes from some kind of living historical document: a letter, a memoir, a court transcript, a newspaper interview.

History is obviously dependent on the evidence, and it's always amazing to me how much evidence there is.

But then history does not only consist of documents.

I started reading the big histories and the small histories, the memoirs and so forth. At some point, I found the diary of William E. Dodd.

I am a historian. I do a lot of research, and I try to get it right.

I just love the days when you come out of the archives with half a dozen excellent descriptions or poignant accounts of personal experiences.

I believe that historians and analysts of historical events need the authority of facts supplied by living witnesses to the events, which they make their subject.

To be a good researcher is to be a good detective, and I enjoy ferreting out tidbits of information. For a diary book like 'A Coal Miner's Bride,' newspapers come in handy for small everyday details such as weather reports.

You need, as a historian, essential triangulation from your subject and the only way you get that triangulation is through time.

I once interviewed David Herbert Donald, the Lincoln historian, and we talked about how one deals with the secondary sources and the previous biographies. He said something which kept coming back to me as I worked on Cleopatra, which was: 'There's no further new material; there are only new questions.'

History is a facsimile of events held together by finally biographical information.

I am not someone who believes I am going to find a historical scoop.

In reconstructing the past, historians generally are compelled to rely on accounts written after the event by participants and witnesses, or on the hearsay versions of those who learned at second-hand what had occurred. Such writings are subject to the infirmities of recollection, or of bias arising from allegiance to one side or the other.

History written today is much more accurate than history written in the 18th century.

As a historian, you can only go as far as the evidence will take you.

With my research, I really need absolute confirmation of what actually happened, direct physical connections to the past.

A bad historian is even more dangerous than dead documentary wood.

On the subject of the history of the American Revolution, you ask who shall write it? Who can write it? And who will ever be able to write it? Nobody, except merely its external facts... all its councils, designs and discussions having been conducted by Congress [behind] closed doors - and no members, as far as I know, having even made notes of them. These, which are the life and soul of history, must forever be unknown.

The only way to find out anything about what kinds of lives people led in any given period is to tunnel into their records and to let them speak for themselves.

When I'm working on historical books, I'm much more organized. I usually read about 100 books to get the depth of knowledge I need.

I consider myself a writer who happens to write about history, rather than a historian. I was an English major in college. What I've learned about history is in the field, so to speak. Going into the archives and working with it directly.

As a historian, I love every little detail, but whole long passages about wood paneling and journeys on horseback and every stop at every inn had to go out the window. I decided the history in the books should be like spice in a soup - a little went a long way. Like cilantro.