Past Tense Imperfect

Watching a documentary on TV last night, I was alarmed to learn that the mighty Carthaginian general Hannibal is currently laying siege to Rome. Having just recently crushed the Roman legions in an epic battle, Hannibal's vast barbarian army is now camped on a plain overlooking the city. Rome's fate hangs in the balance, and its leaders are – right now – engaged in panicked debate as to how to deal with the crisis. What exciting times we live in.

The thing is, I could tell the Romans that they've really nothing to worry about (much) as - for reasons unclear - Hannibal will turn out to be a big pussycat and decide not to attack Rome. In a strategically disastrous move, he will opt instead to spend the next 11 years holidaying in the Italian countryside, pillaging, raping and marauding, whilst the Romans get their shit together. The rest, as they say, is history.

Which brings me to my point. Without wishing to state the blazingly obvious, I know what happened to Hannibal and Rome, because it happened in the past. Why then, do the 'experts' on so many historical documentaries choose to relate the story of past events in the present tense? It is quite the most ridiculous thing. As if the events of, say, Hannibal's near-destruction of the Roman Republic were not dramatic enough, documentary makers insist on making their pundits, speak in a breathless present tense in order to make things seem somehow more urgent and compelling. Call me the most wretchedly old fashioned of pedants, but I should have thought that past events are to be described in the past tense.

Imagine if you and I were to have a friendly conversation about the Second World War, conducted in the present tense:

Me: Yes, yes, but Hitler sees the threat from Stalin and he acts: invading Russia is a pre-emptive act.
You: But what will he do about the Americans, currently weighing their options in the West?

And so on.

In last night's doc about old Hannibal, things got completely out of hand. One historian gamely attempted to use the present tense to describe the Battle of Cannae, but lapsed a number of times into the past tense. I can understand his confusion: the Battle of Cannae happened over 2000 years ago. Describing Roman options in the present tense ('they can launch guerrilla attacks'), he quickly decides that another option 'wouldn't have entered their minds'. Well, make your bloody mind up mate. It does enter their minds, or it doesn't, surely?

Further confusion was sown by the habit of the narrator, correctly using the past tense to introduce past events, interspersed by the experts breathlessly extrapolating about the same events in the present tense. However, one could not help himself, switching from the present tense he had maintained throughout, he announced solemnly: 'The struggle between Rome and Carthage was inevitable'. Regardless of the fact that history cannot be spoken about in terms of inevitables (which any Day One degree history student could have told him) I would like to note that, for the sake of clear and consistent English diction, what the man should have maintained is that: 'The struggle between Rome and Carthage is inevitable'.

But that wouldn't have made any sense, would it? It happened over two millennia ago.