Bottom line up front: skip this book and just watch the PBS series.
The book started strongly, I grew indifferent as it went on, then was outright disappointed by the end. There’s just so many odd choices for what was included and the weight it gives some aspects over others. I’d rather it had been twice as long to keep the points it makes without dismissing more significant ones. This isn’t a good history of the war; it’d be more appropriately titled, “How Natives and Slaves were stuck between a rock and hard place within the context of the American revolution.”
It starts strongly, making expert points on the true origins of conflict (land and money) and goes all the way back to indigenous origins of the first real confederation on the continent (Ho De No Saunee) and how colonization and tribes impacted one another. In Ken Burns fashion it finds unique historical characters, including the often neglected role women and slaves played, to tell the story from multiple perspectives. It also pulls no punches articulating how violent the war was and not the romanticized philosophical story the Revolution is so commonly construed as.
Then it just starts making odd choices on what to include in what I’m assuming was limited space. E.g., dedicating a solid portion to focusing on a portrait artist’s life and involvement in/around the conflict and a distractingly over-emphasis on indigenous impacts to the war, no matter how minuscule, which comes off like more of a hidden agenda than an impartial history. It’s absolutely a relevant part of that era and should be included, but not as a major and recurring focus area on a holistic history of the war itself. Additionally, it presents the information disjointedly which breaks the chronology and overall flow of explaining events of the war clearly.
A case-in-point: There’s a whole section given to the interesting, but overall fairly insignificant story of the loyalist William Jarvis (again, seemingly only to continue to expound on how the war impacted native peoples specifically). That section is larger than those about the battles of Charlestown or Monmouth. It is three times the amount given to the battles of first Camden and Kings Mountain. There are only a few sentences about the race to the Dan and zero mention of Cornwallis burning his supply trains during that action which significantly contributed to the results and arguably the winning of the entire war. The book is totally void of mentioning anything about Light-horse Harry Lee, Benjamin Tallmadge (other than he was at Washington’s farewell dinner), Robert Townsend/Hercules Mulligan/the Culper Ring, or so many others with more historical relevance impacting the war. There are insultingly brief or only minor mentions of important figures (Moultrie, Warren, Sumter, Marion) and even skirmishes tossed in by name only as mere footnotes (Hobkirk Hill, Ninety Six, and Eutaw Springs, Fort Watson, second Camden, Orangeburg, Fort Grande, Georgetown, Fort Mott, and Augusta) to say how brilliant Gen Greene was. Literally two total sentences about 9 battles, doubly insulting if you know that the southern campaign is the entire reason the war was won from a military perspective. The French Naval battle which guaranteed the success of Yorktown is only given a paragraph.
It’s not that it could be expected to possibly cover everything, but just to say calling this is a holistic and unbiased history of the American Revolution is almost insulting. I’d struggle to recommend this to anyone with even a vague appreciation of the war.
(Note: this was of the audiobook, completed before I watched the PBS series this book is designed to accompany. The show does more justice than the book to the fighting and military campaigns through the use of animated maps. Additionally, the interview format of a Ken Burns series is far superior in the narrative of the story, incorporating the same perspectives from the book while balancing against the more historically significant events. It was still disappointing that my complaint about brushing over the majority of the southern campaign and key personalities while focusing on less relevant aspects held true.)