The History of Scotland

by Peter Somerset Fry, Fiona Somerset Fry

An ideal volume for anyone wanting a brisk overview of Scotland from the year dot to the 20th century. This attractively written book will stimulate the interest of many readers new to the subject.

Genres: History, Scotland, Nonfiction

254 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1982

Reviews

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is basics. But those basics are packed with informations, making it hard to read. Looks more like stuffing informations than story. But anyway, it is worth reading.

[Bob Newman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mapless in Caledonia

Of course, if the only readers of THE HISTORY OF SCOTLAND were Scots themselves, a certain amount of knowledge could be assumed. However, as a North American, I confess to a (not overwhelming) ignorance of Scottish geography, never having set foot in that interesting land. A book of history with only two very basic maps (one geological !) is thereby injured right from the start. The flood of names, on the other hand, never ceases. Well, that's bound to happen when you try to cover a couple thousand years of history in 224 pages. The Somerset Fry duo plumped for a popular history. Fair enough. But I found that it was very much oriented to the procession of rulers, kings, leaders, battles, civil wars, and royal successions. There is very little on the life of the people, though a few small bows were made in that direction. As a popular history, I suppose theories and speculations on why certain trends occurred, why Scotland ultimately lost its independence and language (as opposed to Ireland), why the Scots put so much more faith in education than the English, and other interesting ideas were not de rigueur. I would never count myself at all knowledgeable about Scotland's history. This was the first book solely on the topic that I'd ever read, but I did wonder why issues such as 1) the long continuance of feudal rule, 2) the staying power of the clans, 3) the Clearances, and 4) the development of industry were not given more emphasis. I felt that the tone of the book was a little too much "Hurrah for us !"a phenomenon not exactly unknown (and lamented) on this side of the Atlantic. Very often it is books written by outsiders that give a more balanced view. Originally published in 1982, I had the 1995 American edition. In 1999, Scotland's Parliament arose once more. It is not too far-fetched to think that someday Scotland will take its rightful place among the nations of Europe--albeit a Europe that may be less unified than now. Perhaps at that time, a wider-ranging and more balanced history may be written.

[Jeff · Rating 2 out of 5]

Manages to transform fascinating source material into a dull litany of (presumed) facts. There is surely a better book on Scottish history out there somewhere.

[john · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very informative and lays bare the brutal, bloody, complicated struggle and history of a nation. 2000 years of Scottish history cannot easily be condensed into a 230 page book, yet the authors do an admirable job of breaking up the main pivotal times and clearly explaining them. The tortuous relationship with the English and French over the centuries is fascinating with the often savage behaviour, chicanery and subjugation of the country by England apparent. It is no wonder the Scots have little love for their neighbors to the south.

[Megan]

It went back and forth between being way too detailed and not detailed enough. Additionally, for all the place names they were throwing around, there should have been more maps showing those places. And a map of where the earls and dukes were based. And perhaps a graphic family tree of how all the earls and dukes were intermarried with the royal family and with each other.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Covering millennia in 220-odd pages, this book is dense--to dense to be a comfortable read. What I'd wanted was a general survey as I'd never read a history of Scotland before and that's what this is. Matters slow down to something like engaging storytelling in the account of Mary Stuart, but otherwise the torrent of names and dates is almost overwhelming. Were it not for having some grasp of English history I might have been swept away entirely.

Still, it's good to read a history not written by an American or Englishman. The authors are Scots and proud to be so. It affords them the perspective to deem Henry VIII as one of the worst kings of England--not something any English scholar of Tudor history has said in my hearing.

[Lee Harrington · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not very familiar with Scottish history but it should be clear to any potential reader that 2000 years of Scottish history cannot easily be condensed into a 230 page book. Still, the authors do an admirable job of hitting the main points and explaining them clearly.
In addition, it is very significant that the writers have managed to keep bias to a minimum. The relationship between the Scots and England has not always been one of mutual affection. To tell the various episodes of ethnic brutality without having an axe to grind is often a difficult task.
The same authors also produced a history of Ireland which I have read as well. As with that volume this history of Scotland is probably a good basic outline for the person who wants to have a conversational knowledge of the subject or as a jumping off point for anyone who would like to go into more depth on it.

[ShanDizzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting to say the least. Religious differences certainly played a major role in Scottish disunity. However, it was interesting to read about the contributions and inventions to humanity of the Scottish people.

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...#

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely worthwhile. Well written. One of best concise histories of Scotland.

[Roy]

A quick read. Seems to be oriented to Scottish children, or at least high school pupils.