content: Manchester is a good writer. I'll grudgingly give him that. However, I wonder exactly what his purpose was in writing the volume? He must have known it would take a beating for its inaccuracies, so he didn't write it for the academics or scholars. I can only conclude that he wrote it as popular history, that is, to entertain the general public. Just the same, though a more casual approach with more entertaining material is justified for a general readership, still these people deserve a book that at least attempts to be truthful. Did he have an agenda? I don't know but it seems so. He skims over some individuals and periods while devoting multiple pages to others. I can't tolerate historians who cover fascinating times so dully that even fellow history buffs can hardly stifle the snores. However, I am picky enough to want reasonable accuracy too. Manchester could have done better.