I watched most of the episodes of this series. The problem with the entire series is incredible, yet predictable, british bias. I've never actually seen such incredible bias in what's supposed to be a historical TV show.
The bias is really hard to pinpoint in a few episodes because it is so absolute. I get the feeling that whoever wrote the series' episodes just allowed their personal bias to blast through in a few of them.
The second most common problem in all the episodes of this series is how many times the videos being shown during an episode were completely unrelated to what they were talking about. Sometimes is was so obvious because they used footage used in other historical TV shows that, unlike this series, actually described what was being shown in the various pieces of footage. This series seems to have just been put together using narrators reading a very long essay, never looking at the footage that was assembled by completely different people (who also never heard the very long essay that was read during their assemblies of footage).
The third problem with this entire series seems to be that they never actually realize the goal of the name of the series: "History's Verdict: Hero or Villain".
Again, it's predictably british to go on and on, speaking but never actually making a point. I mean, what's the verdict in any of these episodes? I guess we're supposed to make the call based on their incredibly biased essays, accompanied by unrelated historical footage, and I get the feeling they're just hoping and praying we make the right call, matching their bias.
As a result, the more balanced and informative episodes actually end up being a rambling mess that go nowhere. But, they were informative at least, even if they made no actual point.
In the end, if it weren't for all the actual informative information in some of the episodes, I would have given the series a 1 or 2. And if it weren't for the laughably outrageous bias in some of the episodes, I would have given it an 8 or 9.