This is a well-written, easy to read book. But, while the book starts out exciting, it bogs down a bit in the middle with all those short biographies of the many various people involved and how they were affected. These are interesting, but some of them are just really minor characters, and it almost seems as if the author used them just to "fill-out" the book a bit more. But, overall, the book is very enjoyable to read, leads the reader along to the finish; and I would recommend it.
However, and this is a BIG one: the author is just plain misleading on some of his "facts." For example, in speaking of General Gage's war record, the author points out that Gage was with Braddock at Braddock's defeat during the French and Indian War. This is true, but the author states Gage was "On July 9, 1755, with Braddock during the French ambush near Fort Pitt." Well, kinda, but not really. It was actually Fort Duquesne. Fort Pitt was an English fort built near the same site after Fort Duquesne was destroyed. Fort Pitt didn't exist in 1755. And it wasn't an ambush. Anyway, the author goes on to state that Gage conducted a rear guard action that enabled the few survivors to escape. Nowhere in any historical writings is Gage given credit for any rear guard action, and Gage wasn't a hero here. He was the one that marched right past the "high ground," and when the French and Indians attacked, this is the ground that was used by the enemy to destroy Braddock's troops. If Gage had done his job and secured the high ground as would have been mililtarily prudent, Braddock might not have been defeated. Many placed much blame on Gage for this military blunder. And Gage really wasn't any hero in the retreat. In fact, had he held his ground at the beginning, as ordered, things may probably not have gone so bad for the English. The author implies that Gage saved George Washington's life by his actions in the retreat, but George Washington had as more to do with the successful retreat than Gage. In fact, Gage had retreated so far back already, that he was lated accused of cowardice. So while the author doesn't really write anything actually wrong, he is misleading in trying to make his point of Gage's "bright resume" (as the author calls it). The problem with this is now I am wondering what else he wrote in the book that is maybe not quite historically accurate. It is disturbing when an historian distorts the facts for the benefit of his own narrative.
For example, one of the main points the author tries to make in this book is that Sam Adams may have been the one who either shot or "hired" someone to make the first shot at the battle of Lexington. This is the shot "that was heard around the world." Now, considering that the author twists facts a bit to make his point in other areas, I wonder how much he twists things in this case also. The author spends much time in the book trying to lead the reader to believe that Sam Adams was a self-serving, villianous rogue. While this may be true to a degree, it really doesn't offer any evidence that Adams had anything to do with the mysterious shot. In fact, when it comes right down to it, the author offers absolutely zero evidence to back up this claim, other than that Adams might have had motive to do it. Again, this might be true, but so did many others. Therein lies my problem with this author--he tries to prove a point with no evidence to back it up.
Also, the author seems to leave out evidence that doesn't back the points he is making at the time. For instance, in speaking of the British General Braddock, the author states the General "in 1754 had condemned the colonials as cowards." That is true, but after Braddock's Defeat, he had changed his mind completely, and so stated. So the author is misleading here in stating Braddock's view of the "colonials."
Also, sometimes the author contradicts himself. Again in Gage's case, he states that Gage "was known to plan meticulously to avoid making mistakes." But on the next page, the author states "...Gage had begun making mistakes," "..he made the poor choice...," "To compound that mistake, and against the advice of other generals...." And earlier the author states, that after the Battle of Concord "...Gage needed a plan--and he didn't have one. Now this doesn't really sound like a man that plans well to avoid mistakes. Oh well.
In any case, this is really a reasonably decent book otherwise. I would have rated it higher were I not in doubt about his historical accuracy.