Historian Tom Holland has drawn parallels between the founding of the United States and the Roman Republic, highlighting the classical influences that shaped America’s early political ideals. Speaking during a history festival in Broad Chalke, England, Holland reflected on the 250th anniversary of American independence and the continued relevance of the Founding Fathers in contemporary discourse.

Holland, 58, known for his popular history podcasts including “The Rest Is History,” co-hosted with Dominic Sandbrook, has engaged a large international audience by blending rigorous scholarship with accessible storytelling. His podcast regularly attracts over 27 million streams monthly, with the United States comprising more than a third of its listeners—a remarkable feat for a distinctly British production.

Raised in a rural village near Salisbury, England, Holland’s early fascination with history was sparked by a childhood reading of Robert Graves's “I, Claudius.” He has since authored several influential works, notably “Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic” (2003) and “Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World” (2019). His approach to history often avoids contemporary political framings, focusing instead on the complexities and contradictions of historical figures.

Addressing American history, Holland noted that despite modern skepticism toward the “Great Man” theory, the Founding Fathers’ leadership and vision played a critical role in the success of the American Revolution. He pointed out that many contemporaries, including King George III, recognized the extraordinary qualities of leaders such as George Washington, whose voluntary relinquishment of power echoed Roman ideals of republican virtue.

Holland emphasized that the American founders were deeply influenced by classical history, frequently drawing on Roman precedent to justify rebellion and frame the new republic’s virtues. He cited the example of the celebrated 1832 statue of Washington dressed in Roman attire, underscoring the symbolic intertwining of American and Roman republicanism.

On contentious issues such as Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, Holland acknowledged the contradictions inherent in Jefferson’s life as a slave owner who espoused liberty. He expressed that Jefferson’s moral conflict was a reflection of the broader tensions within the Virginian aristocracy at the time, where economic realities conflicted with Enlightenment ideals. Holland’s nuanced view contrasts with his co-host Sandbrook’s more critical stance, exemplifying the intellectual debate that animates their podcast.

Holland also challenged prevailing narratives about King George III, describing him as a figure ill-suited to the tyrant label often assigned by nationalist accounts. He argued that historical memory sometimes simplifies complex individuals to serve ideological purposes.

Regarding modern American political dynamics, Holland assessed former President Donald Trump as a figure possessing a “feral intelligence” that resonates with a segment of the electorate but warned against equating Trump’s style with an inevitable slide into authoritarianism. Drawing from Roman history, he likened Trump’s tendencies to those of Emperor Commodus but maintained that the resilience of American democracy remains strong.

Holland highlighted how technological shifts, akin to the spread of the printing press in the Reformation era, have enabled new ways of engaging with history through digital platforms, contributing to his podcast’s success.

In reflecting on the bicentennial celebrations of 1976, Holland lauded the grassroots enthusiasm that marked the nationwide commemoration of the Declaration of Independence. Though overshadowed by high-profile events and political figures, the massive public participation underscored the enduring significance of America’s revolutionary origins.

Balancing scholarly rigor with accessibility, Holland continues to explore the past with a focus on its human dimensions, resisting moralizing tendencies while acknowledging the ethical complexities of historical actors.