So.... after a busy day of listening to historians debating their craft, I decided to relax by taking in a movie about, yep, you guessed it -- history.

Well, it was supposed to be history. The movie was Robin Hood, by director Ridley Scott, and starring Russel Crowe.

The movie purported to be the origin story of the legendary Robin Hood, and as a visual experience, it was shot well, and the scenery was beautiful.

But, as history, well, it was sadly lacking.

I think the biggest crime in the film was that it forgot it was telling the "story" of Robin Hood. It was as if Scott became fixated on depicting battle scene after battle scene, and totally forgot to flesh out his character of Robin Hood into a three dimensional, living, breathing Englishman worthy of our emotional investment.

Why do I mention this? Well, ironically enough, the focus of the History Congress I am attending over the next few days is, of all things, "telling stories."

To me, the key to keeping history alive is in the quality of the storytelling. Facts alone do not inspire future generations to remember history. It requires a storyteller's skill to weave facts and narratives into something more powerful than mere dates and events.

From what I've seen so far at the conference, there are a lot of historians who are getting this -- and this is a good thing for all history buffs.