I've read about half of it now. It's not terrible, but it does have annoying tendencies, like making judgments about people's characters without saying what he's basing those judgments on. Show your sources, arrgh. Many books have that tendency, to be sure. Also it has a tendency to be cock-sure about things which I think it would behoove him to show more humility. I may just skip forward past the '45 to where it might contain some new-to-me things.
Some random annoying quotes: - "Was [BPC]'s enterprise a rational one, or was it a mad, quixotic, juvenile scheme worthy only of a Polish blockhead?" What on earth. Why the random dissing of the Poles?? - "The 'internal saboteur' in the prince's mind, responsible for his self-destructive behaviour on the back through northern England, now manifested itself as illness. From 5-16 January Charles lay seriously ill with influenza and a high fever at Bannockburn House." Or perhaps...he was infected with a virus... I mean, I'm not denying that one's state of mind can influence health, but to state so categorically that he had the flu because of "internal sabotage"! - McLynn is also categorically sure that the Jacobites should have disputed the crossing of the Spey (just before Culloden), and even goes so far as to say that the "villain of the piece" of them not doing so was O'Sullivan. Compare this with Duffy's presentation of the same issue in Fight for a Throne where he discusses the pros and cons of doing so, showing that it was by no means an obvious choice, and the way the actions of the Hanoverians influenced the issue, and does not call anyone a villain. I have to say, Duffy is WAY better at nuance and at justifying his judgments (not to mention, in this particular case he is a military historian and McLynn isn't).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)
Date: 2024-02-19 08:06 pm (UTC)Some random annoying quotes:
- "Was [BPC]'s enterprise a rational one, or was it a mad, quixotic, juvenile scheme worthy only of a Polish blockhead?"
What on earth. Why the random dissing of the Poles??
- "The 'internal saboteur' in the prince's mind, responsible for his self-destructive behaviour on the back through northern England, now manifested itself as illness. From 5-16 January Charles lay seriously ill with influenza and a high fever at Bannockburn House."
Or perhaps...he was infected with a virus... I mean, I'm not denying that one's state of mind can influence health, but to state so categorically that he had the flu because of "internal sabotage"!
- McLynn is also categorically sure that the Jacobites should have disputed the crossing of the Spey (just before Culloden), and even goes so far as to say that the "villain of the piece" of them not doing so was O'Sullivan. Compare this with Duffy's presentation of the same issue in Fight for a Throne where he discusses the pros and cons of doing so, showing that it was by no means an obvious choice, and the way the actions of the Hanoverians influenced the issue, and does not call anyone a villain. I have to say, Duffy is WAY better at nuance and at justifying his judgments (not to mention, in this particular case he is a military historian and McLynn isn't).