"A "new" history of the '45?" Topic

Does this "revised, expanded edition" [Amazon 4-star review]: link

have enough new material (ca 50pp over 2003's 630+ pp) to warrant purchasing an additional title for the library?

Actually the reviewer alludes to this release being a 2d volume?:

(2015)"Hopefully, Christopher Duffy will write a third volume"

Thoughts?

I have both of these excellent books and cannot see why a third might be needed.

I honestly dunno. I have the original edition, which is excellent, excellent. But I have yet to read anything telling me this new edition is worth buying all over again. It's not cheap. And bookshelf space is at a premium now in my home.

Oh *xxx*:

I have both of these excellent books and cannot see why a third might be needed.

Do you feel they are complimentary to each other or redundant to a point?

I have most of Duffy's books and they are excellent. I would not hesitate to order "Fight for a Throne" if there enough new information, with supporting footnotes.

cannot see why a third might be needed

The reviewer's comment at Amazon, mainly speaking toward more political history and analysis?

@Piper909

I have yet to read anything telling me this new edition is worth buying all over again.

My thoughts as well.

Fight for a Throne is packed full of detail of events at local level. Much of it new to me and I've been interested in the Jacobite movement for decades.

As an example the Keel men of Newcastle were Irish and Scots and Jacobite in sympathy they made an unsuccessful attempt on the castle. I didn't know that, nor about the Durham Jacobites, and I grew up there and heard lots about the Northumbrian Jacobites.

You'll recall that Duffy's '45 gave us a fair bit of historical sociology,if I can call it that, along with a larger amount of military history. Its one of his strengths that he knows context in depth as well as the historical narrative. Fight for a Throne expands on that.

I'd say if the '45 is a major interest of yours Fight for a Throne is a must have. Hope this helps and if I've not been clear or missed something please say.

Mr. Duffey is a major player at Culloden battlefield .when he spoke to us at the SYW con 2 yrs ago he mentioned all new data ,which rendered some of the prior info ..mute…so this is the revised updated version..he did thanx us for buying the first..remarkable man.

Curious how Duffy compares with Stuard Read's views in his book Like Hungry Wolves: Culloden Moor 16 April 1746. I understand that Duffy is more about the entire rebellion but how do these two books compare on the interpretation of the battle?

I've not read Like Hungry Wolves although I have got other of his books.

It has often pointed out here that Reid seems to have a problem with Highlanders – I have no idea why- that influences his view. We used to have a very good poster here called Ingram who could give you more detail should you do a search.

All that said Duffy is deservedly the authority on the period so if views are at odds I would go with him.