I've read a few of Peter Fitzsimon's histories and they are all very similar in that there is a clear attempt to make them modern and readable. Which is commendable. But a technique I think he uses is to 'imagine' what people said and did. I stand ready to be corrected if in fact Mr Fitzsimons has historical evidence for his descriptions and accounts. But for me it detracts from the actual story. Part of the allure of history for me is the mystery. The fact that we have to read between the lines, and won't know exactly what happened. I don't mind authors drawing conclusions but I dislike putting words into peoples mouths. I found myself skipping page after page of this book. Whatever happened to editors?!