Historically Inaccurate
343579
I live within a few minutes of the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help.  This book is filled with incorrect and inaccurate "details."  It is not worth purchasing.
1226492
This book was ridiculous.  Granted some things were historically correct, but for the most part it was completely wrong according to the Bible. For centuries we have been taught the story of Jesus and His birth, and have come to believe it without question. Had this story been written about an ordinary birth and circumstance, it could have perhaps been believable, but to so carelessly write about Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the shepherds, the Wise Men is sacrilegious to say the least. I found it offensive.
653732
This is not historical fiction in the least.  It is, at best, historically influenced ("historically inspired" is even too strong of a phrase).  There are so many historical inaccuracies just in the first four chapters -- I can't even finish this pathetic attempt at the complex, rich, and dynamic history of Wales.  Wikipedia is more historically accurate.

As for the story, I found the main protagonist to be the very stereotypical outsider.  She is quite one-dimensional and as a woman myself, I found it very hard to identify with her.  I wanted to like her so much, as I appreciate a story with strong-willed female protagonists, but she was flat and the relationships she has with the other main characters are typical and contrived.  Not a single character in this book is compelling,  Typical plot devices, typical motivations, and an oft-repeated theme, it's pathetic.  I feel like this was written by a middle schooler - wait, I've read stories by middle schoolers that are more compelling, well thought out.

The only positive I can give is that I think the narrator has great talent, but lent her voice to the wrong book.
1040402
Fall of Berlin Wall very historically inaccurate.  I am very disappointed in Mr. Follett's liberal bias and his mistaken assumption that his readers would believe his revision of history.  It now brings into question the accuracy of all his previous "historical" novels.  While his books are works of fiction, I presume he expects his readers to accept the accuracy of his historical framework.  That accuracy is now in question.
4819249
I really enjoyed Winston's Groom "A Storm in Flanders" which told a remarkable story about WWI combat. So I looked forward to reading this book. While Groom is excellent at telling a story, I was saddened by the many inaccuracies and sloppy fact-checking in "Patriotic Fire."

To begin with, Groom takes the point of view of many American writers on the War of 1812; that the English resented our independence and wanted to crush democracy. This is not true and there is no evidence that this was English policy. WE (America) started the war, partly because of England's impressment policy, and partly because western Americans wanted to conquer Canada. England spent most of the war fighting defensively to save Canada from OUR invasion. After Napoleon's first abdication in 1814, England was able to turn to an offensive war, but even then their policy was muddled and without direction. Mostly, they were looking for a way to get out of the war, as the English treasury was broke after years of fighting France. Their attempts to invade America were an effort to gain leverage in diplomatic negotiations, which were concluded before the Battle of New Orleans was fought.

Also, he indicates that the English were disconcerted by the American style of combat, because they were used to fighting "European style." This is the "minutemen vs. redcoats" stereotype of history. What he overlooks is that the English army in New Orleans included elements of the Light Brigade, who were trained to skirmish and fight "Indian style." So this type of war was not unfamilar to the English. Also, much of the English army had fought in the Peninsular War, which as the first guerilla war saw barbarism equal to anything on the American frontier.

There are also numerous small inaccuracies, while no big deal individually, add up to sloppy fact checkimg. Some of these are: The American navy only had "small frigates" (Our frigates were "heavy" frigates and were larger than any other frigates in the world), the 95th Rifles wore "bright green" jackets (They wore dark green, almost black jackets, an early form of camouflage) and that William Surtess was quartermaster in the 85th regiment (He was in the Rifles, the 95th regiment.)

The plus side of the book is it gives Jean LaFitte and the Baritarians long overdue praise for their role in the battle (Although he really stretches the point when he calls them privateers. Most historians consider them out and out pirates.) And he is very fair in his treatment of Jackson, praising him for his leadership, but damning him for his execution of the Tennessee "deserters."

One point he mentions towards the end of the book was the real key to the battle. Namely that it is extremely difficult for any troops, no matter how skilled, to take well-entrenched positions through frontal attacks. This was to be shown again in the Crimea at the Malakoff, in America at Gettysburg and Cold Harbor, and throughout WWI. While the Battle of New Orleans made Jackson a national hero and boosted America's self-image, its lessons were not learned.
4354924
The proses wasn't bad but the factual inaccuracies about drove me insane.  I realize the author wanted an independent character, but really one must be reasonable.  Living alone is bad enough, but a man in ones room?  The way the men and women interacted?  This was the Victorian Age but written as if set in the turn of the century or later.  Also the focus on revolvers.  Of course it was a revolver.  Pistols were almost non-extant.
1046741
If you care about historical accuracy, don't read this book! In Chapter One, there are several inaccuracies and omissions, and then, in Chapter Two, it states that Thomas Platt was the leader of Tammany Hall in New York State. For everyone's information -- especially the author's -- Tammany Hall was a Democratic organization. Thomas Platt was the leader of the Republican Party in New York, and as such he was largely responsible for nominating Theodore Roosevelt for Vice-President in order to get him out of the New York governorship. After seeing this gaffe, I closed the book and returned it to the library. Don't waste you money on this book!
3596201
I couldn't finish it.  I was hoping for it to be more historically accurate.
4889797
Nearly every page of this book has the author fabricating a direct quotation conversation from 65 years ago.  That is just wrong.  Nobody remembers exactly what he said 65 years ago.  I supposed the author justifies this historically reprehensible technique by rationalizing:  "Well nobody recalls exactly what they said, but it probably went something like this, so I'll recreate what was probably said AND PUT IT IN DIRECT QUOTES."  That should spice up the narrative and increase sales.  That is not history, Mr. Alexander.  That is bordering on historical fiction.  The sad thing is there was no need to tell the Alamo Scout story this way.  These ridiculous made-up direct quotes could easily have been avoided, and the story would have been just as compelling.
1797687
The author makes so many glaring errors early in the book, I didn't trust anything in it that I didn't already know is historically accurate.

For example:
In the first paragraph, the killer swims ashore to Newburyport, Mass. on January 1, 1945, wearing a wetsuit; the wetsuit was invented in 1949. In the fourth paragraph, she looks up at the quarter moon; the moon appeared nearly full at 2:00 am in Massachusetts on January 1, 1945.

A tire iron, used as a weapon in the fight she gets into on the beach with two civilian defense volunteers, inexplicably becomes a crowbar when discussed throughout the rest of the book.

And when the assassin gets to DC, a walk takes her close to the White House and its "classic dome."

Even the dust jacket blurb gets in the spirit of the errors, telling us that this novel that begins around 2 am on January 1, 1945 starts on "New Year's Eve, 1945."

I read historical fiction partly for the story and partly for the history. I was sorry that the author completely lost my trust on the history.

The story is highly implausible but, once you grant its premise, mostly consistent. I don't buy that the assassin is acting in character when the author brings her into conversation with the professor hunting her, but otherwise it is generally character driven.

I also give the story points for the fascinating species of suspense it offers. We know from the beginning that FDR will die in April 1945, but it's still suspenseful to find out whether it will be at the hands of the assassin (whose weapons include a variety of subtly acting poisons) or whether death by natural causes cheats the assassin.
4607213
Ok, im sorry. The historical accuracy of this novel, even for a novel "based on a true story", is total hogwash. Im about 50 pages in and there is steam coming out of my ears. The church in general, and the Pope in particular, knew about the Nazi attocities and, AT BEST, treated the Nazi's organized  mass murder of the Jewish population throughout Europe with benign, passive neglect. There is ample proof that many Christian clergy were actually complicit with the SS. Yes, there absolutely were those heroes who risked their lives to save Jews, but they were an extreme minority. This "truth-based novel" makes it seem that the Pope and church saved Jews on a mass scale. Not only totally untrue, but very insulting to those who have lost close relatives to the Holocaust.
1345324
I purchased this book to read to my children.  To start with we enjoyed it, but as we continued through the book the inaccuracies piled up.  I found myself often changing the words or omitting some of the text because I disagreed with it or knew it was inaccurate.  I love the true Bible and this book is a twisted version.  I even wonder how well it was researched and how well the author truly knows the Bible.  For example, the story of Leah (as others have mentioned) where Laban is pictured as offering one of his daughters as payment, when in fact it was Jacob who offered to work for seven years so that he could marry Rachel.  In the story of Jonah, his message to the people of Ninevah is "Even though you've run far from God, he can't stop loving you.  Run to him!  So he can forgive you."  Nothing about being destroyed if they do not repent. Thomas is described as hiding under the table when Jesus first appears to the disciples.  Actually, he wasn't there at all that first time (see the gospel of John).  The illustrations are also inaccurate - women are portrayed with their heads uncovered (for example a very pregnant Mary riding a donkey).  In the culture of the time all devout women covered their heads.
I love the concept of each story pointing to Jesus, but cannot recommend this book.
983320
"None of the Africans brought to Portugal were ever mistreated. They learned trades, intermarried, and were soon looked upon as any other Portugese peasant." -The World of Columbus and Sons page 30.

I really wanted to like this book, but cannot get past the way slavery and human suffering is not only glossed over but minimized. The above quote is a good example. It is lie. NONE were mistreated? Hmmmmm.  So Portugal basically did the Africans a *favor* by giving them a cruise and job training?  That is an inaccurate and deceptive portrait of the Portugese slave trade, but why bother with the facts?  They are too messy for Ms. Foster's cleaned up version of history.

Prince Henry was a prince of slavers, and he practically has a halo on his head with several chapters devoted to him.  This book is not from a "Christian" point of view, it is from a white supremacist, imperialist point of view.  We will be taking a pass on this one and finding something else - parents PLEASE PREVIEW before just handing your child or student this book!
1086049
Preamble: Had this production appeared on HBO or ABC I would have considered it an entertainment, and given it 4 or 4.5 stars. But it was produced on the History channel, and claimed extraordinary adherence to historical accuracy. So, by the criteria of the production itself, this item is being reviewed as a dramatic historical documentary rather than an entertainment.
It is a ludicrous fictional account of the feud that follows none of the scholarly research (Waller, Rice, Pearce, Alther, T. McCoy, C. Hatfield). But it looks real good, so it will be believed, and will define the feud for all time to come. ps, I grew up in Pikeville, and know the history intimately.
Examples: The battle of Grapevine Creek was the result of a Phillips incursion into West Virginia, not a rescue attempt by the Hatfields. No rescue was ever attempted. Anse and Ranel NEVER confronted each other with firearms.
Asa Harmon was noted for his sobriety, and Ranel did NOT become a drunk after his cabin was attacked.
Nancy McCoy had 2 children by Johnse and did not leave him until he tried to kill her. Twice.

Ranel McCoy was in no muster list for any military unit during the Civil War, and did not serve with Anse. Local tradition has it that he formed a Home Guard (militia/vigilance) unit in 1863, was immediately captured by Union troops, and spent the war in an Ohio prison camp. But even this cannot be proven.

As noted by a correspondent,his grave marker and other documentation, they even get McCoy's name wrong. He was born Randolph. He was called Ranel or Ran'l. He was never called Randall.

I could go on for pages, but will summarize this way. This has all the historical accuracy of a Kevin Kostner movie. Oh, wait.
4386165
I began reading this book in my free time at the beginning of the semester because it seemed interesting enough, and I wanted to learn something new. I have never studied psychology, but I have studied history, and thought it might be interesting to read about historical figures from a different perspective.

There are more than a few historical inaccuracies and ridiculous assumptions which Dr. Ghaemi presents as fact in order to affirm his thesis (ex: "Lincoln clearly empathized with slaves..."). I managed to overlook those until the chapter about FDR (Ch. 10), where because of my fascination with FDR, and Dr. Ghaemi's ridiculously blatant disregard for fact-checking, I had to stop reading.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the fact that twice (as far as I read), Dr. Ghaemi referred to "Hot Springs, Georgia". The town is called Warm Springs, and it is an actual town in Georgia where FDR owned a home, land, and where he died. This is a basic historical fact that one could confirm with a simple Google search, at yet, Dr. Ghaemi and his editors managed to overlook the existence of an entire town! That's like someone writing a book about the Civil War and deciding to refer to the burning of Hotlanta!

If you can't get simple historical facts straight, then you probably shouldn't be writing a book with any historical claim. Write fiction.
4080319
This book had such positive reviews that I was happy to buy it. Unfortunately, it didn't live up to the reviews for me. I read a lot of Regency romances, and I'm a stickler for historical accuracy. Reading this, I didn't feel like Luce had done any historical research except maybe watching a few Jane Austen movies. She seemed to have no idea how governesses were treated during that time and the precarious positions they held in households where they were servants but not of the serving class. I couldn't enjoy the story at all because the inaccuracies kept getting in the way.

If you don't care about historical inaccuracy, then ignore this review.
2980014
As I love the Revolutionary War era and the risk taken by the brave founding fathers and their families, I have read a lot about this time.
I found this book to be pretty accurate and interesting....based on the other well researched books I have read.

UNTIL  he got to the Thomas Jefferson/ Sally Hemings relationship.  Then  I began to doubt the accuracy of ANY of his stories. He is so off on  his facts and absolutely disregards ALL evidence.....really bazaar.  DNA is a non issue to him. The DNA Match means nothing?Seriously?

 Mt Fleming states "how could Jefferson maintain a 38 year relationship with Sally Hemings when his family bedrooms were close by?" The secret staircase or passage way would be one way, and as Sally was his "chambermaid" she would have been in and out of the room all  the time. Clearly the family knew of the relationship, based on Jefferson's daughter and grandson tearing the pages that referred to the Hemmings children from the farm books the days following Jeffersons death, a well recorded fact.

To discuss the accuracy of the Hemings family oral history with no mention of Annette Gordon Reed's 2 excellent books on this exact subject boggles the mind. Ms. Gordon Reeds conclusion that history did not believe the Hemmings were in fact Jeffersons children because "the black Jefferson descendants were lying, as they are black, and the white Jefferson descendants were telling the truth because they are white" is pretty much Mr Flemings conclusion.  He says it is wishful thinking.

So an interesting book but not factual.