I hate to say it, but he does make rather a lot of mistakes--most of them minor, happily enough. But he tends to oversimplify to the point of getting things wrong, which is exactly the unprofessional technique that I criticize where people like Schama are concerned. (To avoid hypocrisy I'm afraid I must point it out here, despite the fact that Mark Steel is both entertaining, right about many things, and on "my side," as it were. *sighs* It's just the Anglo-American historians generally--no matter how good they are, their French equivalents are just better. Well, excluding the very worst, who are about equally bad no matter where they're from or what language they speak.)