<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Nice maps...somewhat inaccurate history
Review: I have been looking for a book like this for some time and I was indeed pleased with much of what this one has to offer. However, as mentioned by several other reviewers, the text and the maps often don't seem to go together with the text often omitting information that is displayed on the maps. My biggest problem with the book stems from several glaring errors in the history being presented. For example, the Battle of Fort Necessity is presented in the section about King George's War instead of the French and Indian War where it should be. Also, several maps show errors in locating certain places and events, such as showing Forts Presque Isle and Le Boeuf on maps pertaining to a time period before they even existed. It may not be a big deal, but the little things they get wrong do tend to annoy at times. Otherwise it is indeed a very nicely illustrated book with informative and colorful maps to help visualize the many locations and events presented.
Rating:
Summary: Nice maps...somewhat inaccurate history
Review: I have been looking for a book like this for some time and I was indeed pleased with much of what this one has to offer. However, as mentioned by several other reviewers, the text and the maps often don't seem to go together with the text often omitting information that is displayed on the maps. My biggest problem with the book stems from several glaring errors in the history being presented. For example, the Battle of Fort Necessity is presented in the section about King George's War instead of the French and Indian War where it should be. Also, several maps show errors in locating certain places and events, such as showing Forts Presque Isle and Le Boeuf on maps pertaining to a time period before they even existed. It may not be a big deal, but the little things they get wrong do tend to annoy at times. Otherwise it is indeed a very nicely illustrated book with informative and colorful maps to help visualize the many locations and events presented.
Rating: 
Summary: A Horrible Disappointment
Review: In the middle of reading a wonderful book on the American Revolution recently (Setting the World Ablaze--Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the American Revolution) I found myself wanting more geographic details than my modern atlas provided, so I sent off for the newly published Historical Atlas of the American Revolution.What a waste of money and fine printing.The format of the book is generally to have a two-page spread on each topic with copy (plus some inane, barely relevant graphic) on the left and a map on the right. Good idea, bad realization. The person who wrote the boring, stiff, choppy copy apparently never talked to the person who did the maps. As a result sometimes the words are relevant to the maps and sometimes not. For instance, the spread on Density of Population Settlement has a rambling, oblique discussion of settlement, while the map shows areas settled by 1700, 1740, and 1760. I guess we are to assume that the areas settled the longest are the densest, but that is hardly enlightening. It also shows two mysterious areas to the west of Virginia labeled Vandalia and Transylvania, but there is nary a word in the book about either. Even when the copy is somewhat germane to the map at hand there are maddening lapses. For instance, the spread entitled King George's War discusses its European causes and events in Nova Scotia, but ignores George Washington and his capture at Fort Necessity (though the map does show it). But this map, and all the others I looked at have glaring omissions. The copy mentions the Mohawk Indians but they're not shown on the map. That might be ok if you knew the Mohawks were part of the Iriquois which are listed. Likewise the Cherokee nation country is mentioned in the copy but not listed on the map; ditto the Ohio Valley. This goes on and on. As I said before, it's like the writer and cartographer never met or talked. A good editor should have straightened that out. Maybe there was no editor. I quit reading after I got to the battle of Lexingon and Concord and the text mentioned, but the map left out, Punkatasset Hill and Harvard College. Perhaps it got better later on. But, for 40 bucks I expected something a lot more accurate, exciting and informative.
Rating:
Summary: A Horrible Disappointment
Review: In the middle of reading a wonderful book on the American Revolution recently (Setting the World Ablaze--Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the American Revolution) I found myself wanting more geographic details than my modern atlas provided, so I sent off for the newly published Historical Atlas of the American Revolution.What a waste of money and fine printing. The format of the book is generally to have a two-page spread on each topic with copy (plus some inane, barely relevant graphic) on the left and a map on the right. Good idea, bad realization. The person who wrote the boring, stiff, choppy copy apparently never talked to the person who did the maps. As a result sometimes the words are relevant to the maps and sometimes not. For instance, the spread on Density of Population Settlement has a rambling, oblique discussion of settlement, while the map shows areas settled by 1700, 1740, and 1760. I guess we are to assume that the areas settled the longest are the densest, but that is hardly enlightening. It also shows two mysterious areas to the west of Virginia labeled Vandalia and Transylvania, but there is nary a word in the book about either. Even when the copy is somewhat germane to the map at hand there are maddening lapses. For instance, the spread entitled King George's War discusses its European causes and events in Nova Scotia, but ignores George Washington and his capture at Fort Necessity (though the map does show it). But this map, and all the others I looked at have glaring omissions. The copy mentions the Mohawk Indians but they're not shown on the map. That might be ok if you knew the Mohawks were part of the Iriquois which are listed. Likewise the Cherokee nation country is mentioned in the copy but not listed on the map; ditto the Ohio Valley. This goes on and on. As I said before, it's like the writer and cartographer never met or talked. A good editor should have straightened that out. Maybe there was no editor. I quit reading after I got to the battle of Lexingon and Concord and the text mentioned, but the map left out, Punkatasset Hill and Harvard College. Perhaps it got better later on. But, for 40 bucks I expected something a lot more accurate, exciting and informative.
Rating: 
Summary: terrible book
Review: Just an example of this book's accuracy: a picture of the battle of Bunker Hill shows cavalry as well as uniformed Continentals.
<< 1 >>
| 
