Anybody watching the new American Revolution PBS documentary?

RambleTamble

RambleTamble

Member
Location
U.S.
A new six-part documentary series, The American Revolution, from Ken Burns, premiered on PBS on November 16, 2025. The 12-hour series explores how the 13 colonies fought for and won their independence, detailing events from the French and Indian War through the establishment of the new government. The series is airing for six consecutive nights.
Click to expand...
It looks really boring. Just a bunch of "experts" talking about the revolution and some reenactments.
 

I watched a little earlier today before I became busy, pretty interesting and I'll go back later to watch some more on the PBS tv app.
 
Last edited:
I'm midway through the first episode. Burns promised he wouldn't "woke" up the documentary, but he is showing his preferences. I'll be glad when I get into the Revolution itself and the war. So much of American history that's taught is revisionist, so I'll be looking forward to the real deal.
 
RambleTamble said:
It looks really boring. Just a bunch of "experts" talking about the revolution and some reenactments.
Click to expand...
It's not boring at all. It's very informative. In fact, things are revealed about George Washington that most were not aware of. For one thing, in some of Washington's earlier battles in the war, he made some blunders that led to a defeat. He also seemed to think that it was okay to own slaves.
 
Paladin1950 said:
It's not boring at all. It's very informative. In fact, things are revealed about George Washington that most were not aware of. For one thing, in some of Washington's earlier battles in the war, he made some blunders that led to a defeat. He also seemed to think that it was okay to own slaves.
Click to expand...
I already know the story of George Washington and the Revolution, which is why it seems like the documentary would be boring. It could be interesting with some interesting people providing commentary, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
Yes, the historians are boring. They needed some with personalities, like Shelby Foote was in the "Civil War" documentary.

Burns seems to have an obsession to assert that slaves and indians played an important part in the American Revolution, which makes his biases thinly veiled.
 
ChiroDoc said:
Yes, the historians are boring. They needed some with personalities, like Shelby Foote was in the "Civil War" documentary.

Burns seems to have an obsession to assert that slaves and indians played an important part in the American Revolution, which makes his biases thinly veiled.
Click to expand...
Yep, Shelby Foote is a character. :)

Many Native Americans sided with England to fight against the Patriots. I don't know how "important" a role they played in the revolution, but it did provide additional justification to remove them from their land and view them as enemies. Native Americans definitely came out on the losing end of the revolution.
 
RambleTamble said:
Yep, Shelby Foote is a character. :)

Many Native Americans sided with England to fight against the Patriots. I don't know how "important" a role they played in the revolution, but it did provide additional justification to remove them from their land and view them as enemies. Native Americans definitely came out on the losing end of the revolution.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Indians, especially the Iroquois and the "6 Nation" alliance from the late 18th Century had zero influence on the beginnings of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress (s) or the war for American independence. The Indians had previously contributed mercenaries to the French in the French and Indian War against Britain.
 
My 6th ggf was at Concord so yes I am watching it. His uncle Nathaniel Page was the flag bearer at that battle.
 
I've made it to the 3rd episode, but I'm just about ready to bail. Seems like for every actual fact about the era, there's some revsionist history, incorrect inferences, or downright fibs.

One problem, in contrast to Burns' The Civil War documentary, is they have no photographs to feature, which would move the narrative on nicely, because photography hadn't yet been invented in the later 18th Century. The other problem is that the alleged historians' bona fides are not mentioned, so we're supposed to take their opinions on face value. Plus, they're all dull. Ditto for most of the people from the era that they quote.

In my view this documentary is a miss.
 
Last edited:
ChiroDoc said:
I've made it to the 3rd episode, but I'm just about ready to bail. Seems like for every actual fact about the era, there's some recidivist history, incorrect inferences, or downright fibs.

One problem, in contrast to Burns' The Civil War documentary, is they have no photographs to feature, which would move the narrative on nicely, because photography hadn't yet been invented in the later 18th Century. The other problem is that the alleged historians' bona fides are not mentioned, so we're supposed to take their opinions on face value. Plus, they're all dull. Ditto for most of the people from the era that they quote.

In my view this documentary is a miss.
Click to expand...
His documentary on Leonardo Da Vinci was a miss, too. I made it through most of the first episode and that was all I could take.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top