I was looking forward to reading this book as The Bruce, Wallace and the whole historical context of the struggle for Independence of Scotland against a powerful England and English King is a David & Goliath story which has shaped the Scottish character and still fuels aspects of the relationship between the two countries today. Ultimately I was however quite disappointed. Robyn Young is clearly a talented writer, her style lends itself clearly to the historical genre and her research is obviously thorough and detailed. Unfortunately it seems to me that her writing is suited to historical fact not to historical fiction - in otherwords I think she is a talented writer but not a very good story teller - and 'Insurrection' pretty much defines the difference between the two. Clearly, she makes things up, so it is fiction right? The story starts pretty much with the King of Scotland being murdered, for which as far as I know, there is little evidence. But that in my view is not a major problem if it leads to something that is ultimately entertaining or thought provoking. Unfortunately it isn't very. There is plenty of wonderful detail of locations, military equipment of the time, horses, shields, banners and a huge number of players. But I cannot believe that Robert Bruce could possibly have been the kind of weak, vacilating character who seems to stroll through this book, changing sides, (which I have no doubt he did) but with no clear explanation as to why or any clear idea of what was motivating him other than some vague notion that he would one day be the king - but then it seemed not because he wanted it, but only out of some kind of vague promise he made to his Grandfather to maintain the claim of the Bruces to the throne. Wallace fairs even worse. He appears only marginally, as some rather large outlaw figure, who's only claim to fame was really a remarkable success in the Battle of Stirling Bridge, thereafter he pretty much disappears off to France and Rome on a mission to raise support from the French King and the Pope for the Scottish cause - in this book he never comes back. Nothing much seems to happen with Robert the Bruce either as the book ends quite abruptly with Scotland controlled half by England and Half by Scotland and we never get to see the final showdown with the Comyns or Robert becoming King. Mysteriously the man who is alleged to have murdered Alexander at the beginning makes a re-entrance on the instructions of King Edward with the hint that he is going to do something similar - I assume to the Bruce - but the story doesn't get that far. I note on Amazon that this is marked as a trilogy - I'm not sure why as this book is quite long and unfortunately very little of any consequence happens. I'm not sure I can sit through another two volumes at this pace. I also found the constant references to some fictional old hag in the woods guiding both Robert and his grandfather a little silly. Much has been made of how historically inaccurate 'Braveheart' was and that is true - but as fiction, it worked by dint of actually being entertaining. If you are going to make things up then make it interesting is what I would say. Be accurate or be entertaining - this, I'm afraid was neither. Sorry Robyn, I really did want to like it!