Well, following my comments earlier on Parts 1 and 2, I regret to say that my opinion remains unaltered.
Here are just a few issues.
The War of Independence. The final half of Part 4 is taken up with a rushed and extraordinarily simplistic attempt to link the French and Indian War with the American War of Independence. I think the producers felt they had to do this to capture the audience somehow, which was odd given that it came at the end of the series. Of course the link exists historically, but the picture painted here failed to bring in a lot of crucial factors necessary for an accurate understanding. For example, there was absolutely no mention of the French connection - either the association with the ideals of the French Revolution, or the involvement of the French logistically and strategically in the American Revolution. Or, for that matter, the obsessive British conflict throughout the latter 18th century with the French in Europe, and the consequent sidelining of the American conflict when it erupted - one of the factors in the American success. According to this series, the French just disappeared forever from N American affairs after the Plains of Abraham.
The British Empire. The series repeatedly refered to the British 'Empire' in North America, especially after the French defeat. This is a misleading, anachronistic term, and gives a distorted impression of where the main British interests abroad lay in the mid-late 18th century. The British only thought of themselves as managing an 'Empire' a hundred years later, after Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India in 1876. Until the Indian Mutiny in 1857-8, India was run as a private commercial enterprise by the East India Company. India, not N America, is the key to understanding the British perspective on colonial matters in the 18th century. By the time of the French and Indian wars, Englishmen were returning home from India with huge fortunes, the so-called 'White Moghuls'. By contrast, N America was a drain on resources, especially during the wars, with no obvious prospect of private profit on anything like the scale of India. The relatively few Englishmen who had the leisure and knowledge to care about the colonies would have been little bothered by America, and if pressed would probably have been inclined to sympathise with the demands of the American colonists in the 1770s - anti-Americanism would only have come about with the stirring up of patriotic zeal once the British Army was committed, and not because the English in England coveted America as part of a British 'Empire.'
The dastardly British. Yet again British leaders are painted as arrogant, obnoxious, snobbish, effete, effeminate, fat and ugly. Undoubtedly there were some who fit this bill, just as there were some incompetent American leaders (the early version of George Washington springs to mind), but there were also some remarkably gifted and visionary British leaders, military and otherwise. How else do you explain the extraordinary success of the British Empire? It depended always on a small number of remarkable men who often empathised greatly with their 'subjects', and fought against attempts at oppression. The series producers should have learned from Julius Caesar - denigrate your enemies and it downgrades your own victory, but glorify your enemies and your victory becomes all the more impressive.
Here are just a few issues.
The War of Independence. The final half of Part 4 is taken up with a rushed and extraordinarily simplistic attempt to link the French and Indian War with the American War of Independence. I think the producers felt they had to do this to capture the audience somehow, which was odd given that it came at the end of the series. Of course the link exists historically, but the picture painted here failed to bring in a lot of crucial factors necessary for an accurate understanding. For example, there was absolutely no mention of the French connection - either the association with the ideals of the French Revolution, or the involvement of the French logistically and strategically in the American Revolution. Or, for that matter, the obsessive British conflict throughout the latter 18th century with the French in Europe, and the consequent sidelining of the American conflict when it erupted - one of the factors in the American success. According to this series, the French just disappeared forever from N American affairs after the Plains of Abraham.
The British Empire. The series repeatedly refered to the British 'Empire' in North America, especially after the French defeat. This is a misleading, anachronistic term, and gives a distorted impression of where the main British interests abroad lay in the mid-late 18th century. The British only thought of themselves as managing an 'Empire' a hundred years later, after Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India in 1876. Until the Indian Mutiny in 1857-8, India was run as a private commercial enterprise by the East India Company. India, not N America, is the key to understanding the British perspective on colonial matters in the 18th century. By the time of the French and Indian wars, Englishmen were returning home from India with huge fortunes, the so-called 'White Moghuls'. By contrast, N America was a drain on resources, especially during the wars, with no obvious prospect of private profit on anything like the scale of India. The relatively few Englishmen who had the leisure and knowledge to care about the colonies would have been little bothered by America, and if pressed would probably have been inclined to sympathise with the demands of the American colonists in the 1770s - anti-Americanism would only have come about with the stirring up of patriotic zeal once the British Army was committed, and not because the English in England coveted America as part of a British 'Empire.'
The dastardly British. Yet again British leaders are painted as arrogant, obnoxious, snobbish, effete, effeminate, fat and ugly. Undoubtedly there were some who fit this bill, just as there were some incompetent American leaders (the early version of George Washington springs to mind), but there were also some remarkably gifted and visionary British leaders, military and otherwise. How else do you explain the extraordinary success of the British Empire? It depended always on a small number of remarkable men who often empathised greatly with their 'subjects', and fought against attempts at oppression. The series producers should have learned from Julius Caesar - denigrate your enemies and it downgrades your own victory, but glorify your enemies and your victory becomes all the more impressive.
