A History of Scotland
DavetheScot
Posts: 16,623
Forum Member
✭✭
Anyone else watch it?
I thought it was good, but the omissions were extraordinary. For a programme calling itself a history of Scotland to cover the Civil War period without even mentioning Montrose's bloody campaigns is bizarre.
Also, it's an inaccuracy to say that James II and VII's succession went unchallenged. The Duke of Monmouth, anyone? I know his rising was mainly in England (though the Earl of Argyll did try to raise an army for him in Scotland and lost his head for it) and I appreciate that with the limited time they had they didn't want to cover that, but still, an outright falsehood is best avoided.
I thought it was good, but the omissions were extraordinary. For a programme calling itself a history of Scotland to cover the Civil War period without even mentioning Montrose's bloody campaigns is bizarre.
Also, it's an inaccuracy to say that James II and VII's succession went unchallenged. The Duke of Monmouth, anyone? I know his rising was mainly in England (though the Earl of Argyll did try to raise an army for him in Scotland and lost his head for it) and I appreciate that with the limited time they had they didn't want to cover that, but still, an outright falsehood is best avoided.
0
Comments
I sat behind him on a train to Stirling once. he is quite a shag!
bizzare.
yes there are some omissions, but the show is still top dog.