User reviews

There's a lot of great stuff to enjoy in this series, but as usual it's a typical case of Anglo-American-centric history, ignoring two important players.

Fur trader Anthony Sadowski was the first white man to explore the fledgling "western territories." His grandson Jacob Sadowski was by some accounts the first to guide Daniel Boone down the trails allegedly "blazed" by Boone.

The Sadowskis, like the Revolutionary War hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the earliest Polish settlers in the early 1600s, routinely get shafted by American historians (and the History Channel) who continue to toe the official Anglo-American party line - furthering an incomplete view of our national history to serve a political agenda instituted after the Revolution.

This series is very informative, well-balanced, and covers the critical time in the US history as we emerged from a colony until we were literally coast-to-coast. Of course many areas and many people are ignored in order to cover the scope of the enormous events and some people get a little more attention than perhaps they should. In addition, there are some notable errors (e.g., the battle of the Alamo didn't take a single day). So don't expect a history lesson. It's entertainment and along the way there is a lot to learn about the country's history, most of it true.

It's great to finally see some real history shows back on the History Channel. The best thing about this series is that it gives a broad and sweeping overview of the frontier history of the United States from the time of the Revolutionary War to the Texas Revolution. It hits on most of the major historical events and some of the big names involved like Daniel Boone, William Henry Harrison, Davy Crockett, Andrew Jackson, etc. But as many others have pointed out there are some really glaring historical inaccuracies and some really bad editing. A couple of the historical errors that stand out to me was describing the Battle of Fallen Timbers as being fought between Tecumseh and William Henry Harrison. Wrong. The American forces that defeated the Indians at Fallen Timbers were commanded by Gen. Anthony Wayne. Harrison was merely one of the officers in Wayne's camp. And while Tecumseh certainly fought against the Americans at Fallen Timbers, the Indian force was commanded by the Shawnee chief Blue Jacket. And the problems with uniforms is just horribly distracting. The Battle of Tippecanoe was fought in 1811, but shows William Henry Harrison and his troops dressed in Revolutionary War era uniforms complete with knee breeches and tricorn hats! Inexplicably there are other battle scenes where some of the soldiers are shown in Revolutionary War era uniforms while others are shown in more accurate War of 1812 style uniforms. This may seem like nitpicking, but these kind of editing gaffes should be below the History Channel on a show with this level of production values. Legends of the Old Northwest, a show from the History Channel in the late 1990s did a much better job of portraying the history of this era. I applaud History for creating a series like this and I think it is well worth watching for those interested in the early history of the United States, but I wish they had done a better job in some respects.

A story about the real men that forged this great nation. Great acting, narration, and beautiful locations. Early American was brutal and these are the men that forged into the wilderness and paved way for young settlers. Only true red blooded Americans will appreciate it.

I have only seen the Daniel Boone episode at this point, but I loved it. They left out a lot, but it's the History Channel and they tend to do that, plus they only had a certain amount of time.

I like how they included Boone's daughter as being a strong woman.

I beg of anyone who knows, to tell me the theme song.

I found this series to be informative and balanced, explaining both the perspectives of the natives and the westward-pushing Americans. Along the way, tidbits of knowledge filled in gaps of my own. For example. I never knew that Sacagawea had been stolen as a child and was reunited with her brother while guiding Lewis and Clark - a fact that saved the expedition. The series abounds with these factoids.

I have one complaint, though. Couldn't the producers have found a flat part of New Zealand to film some of the scenes in? I cringe when I see scenes supposedly of lower Michigan, northwest Ohio or central Indiana, filmed in a mountainous area. Those locales might pass for Wyoming or North Carolina, but not the flat flat flat Midwest.

Nonetheless, the series is entertaining and I recommend it.

This was well done just like it's predecessor. While its impossible to capture every angle, depict every event, and tell every detail of every story of events that happened over decades, in just a few TV show episodes The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen is a great overview of the events that happened and the lives of those men and women. It showed the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly sides of these people. It did not depict the Democrat President, Andrew Jackson (who was nicknamed "Jackass Jackson by his enemies in those days which is why the Democrat Party to this day uses the Jackass/Donkey logo), as a Saint but showed how ruthless he was and how focused on expanding America even at the cost of Native American lives (a fact that is well known). It was non-political and not politically correct in the negative sense but well balanced and sensitive yet still showing the condition of the time, as they were. One review here said these men, including our current President, used the office to get rich while leaving millions behind. While this is true of some and certainly there are those who, even today, use their political offices to enrich themselves I don't see our current President doing that as he not only donates his paycheck to various charities and is already a billionaire but there's no indication of his actions creating more wealth for himself (sorry I have to call it as it is). The beauty of the American system is that NO President, no matter what party, can remain in power long enough to gain enough power to fundamentally change the country. It's one man or woman and generation building on the efforts of those before them and The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen certainly shows this.. just as The original "Men Who Built America" series showed how capitalism expanded the country's wealth in a positive way while at the same time showing the struggle of common people in the face of the tremendous greed, power, and ingenuity that fueled that expansion and how eventually balances were brought through the American system of Government in order to create a more level playing field for all. Both of these series show the struggles and extremes of these new "Frontiers"... one of the physical expansion of American and one of the Economic expansion. A MUST WATCH. These should be shown in public school one episode at a time and then followed by lengthy discussion to share perspectives and point out the pros and cons.. the good and the bad of what happened. I highly recommend both of The Men Who Built America series.

Never have I understood American history like this before! For the first time in my life, there's coherency and continuity from the Revolutionary War to Westward Expansion to the War of 1812 leading up to the Alamo. Before this series, all these events along with their key players were just independent events in American history with no "red strings" between them, now, the names that were somewhat familiar before are heroes with depth and the events pivotal and momentous to build what America is today.

And interesting objects have a powerful influence on our affections. Let these influencing powers actuate, by the permission or disposal of Providence, from selfish or social views, yet in time the mysterious will of Heaven is unfolded, and we behold our conduct, from whatever motives excited, operating to answer the important designs of heaven. -Daniel Boonel

"90 minutes after the battle begins the Alamo falls..."

I'm not a historian or even a super history buff... BUT... I KNOW that the Battle of the Alamo took 13 days... NOT 90 minutes. Maybe the final siege, AFTER holding out for 12 days, took 90 minutes... But they didn't once mention the previous 12 days of battle that they fought off Santa Ana! The Alamo is one of the greatest standoffs of all time and bought Sam Houston the time he needed to rally enough forces to defeat Santa Ana and secure Texas for America.

I thought this was THE HISTORY Channel.

The rest is entertaining but I'm not sure how accurate now. It's produced well enough.

Insightful four-part docudrama miniseries. A good one from the History Channel, film in the style of a docu/live-action drama. It's similar to the ''Grant'' series released earlier this year. I learnt some interesting American History on the topic of America's Expansion to the West, post-1776 to the early 1840s. I rate this a 7.5 to an 8 out of 10. Highly Recommended if you are interested in early American History. 👍

This broadcast has severe audio problems - editing. Could barely hear most of it but ads were at 20x the volume! We finally gave up trying to watch this FIASCO! The historical commentary was juvenile and ridiculously botched at times. Thisprogram needs serious re-editing with serious technical audio fixes... sorry.

As far as History goes this was okay. That said History Channel had little time to work with all things considered but either way the information could have been presented better. And if anybody's wondering about the Theme song to The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen it's Born Ready by Zayde Wolf. That said the choice of theme music shows toughness which shows how tough the Frontier of America was and how they literally had to build the nation and expand it. However at least the interviews and the scenes recreated had some detail and effort so that has to count for something. Again I digress but that's how the cookie crumbles.

I would rate this PG at best. I expected this, but was hoping for some better historical imagery to keep me entertained. I'm a huge fan any history of exploration.

Unfortunately for me this series ties in a lot of early American politics and military battles told from a very child friendly perspective, which really doesn't interest me much as far as entertainment. I was hoping for more details regarding the explorers themselves.

I stopped watching after the second episode. Half of the episode derailed into some unrelated material to the fist part of the episode, really don't know why...there was so much to tell about Lewis and Clarks famous expedition.

Yes there are some historical inaccuracies especially when it comes to historical clothing, some firearms, bows, etc. But a lot of that is very expected. Overall, I wouldn't fret much at all. This is clearly an extremely low budget production. If this was a big Hollywood film, it would irk me fore sure...but just about every Hollywood historical drama is mostly fiction based on lose events. This series is definitely for more superior, in the respect of having a cohesive historical chronology.

There were a few major historical inaccuracies, and I'm really not sure why. Probably one of the reasons I lost interest, because I got sick of using google and wikipedia to double check on historical events. But as some of you history buffs out-there, I'm sure you know that there multiple perspectives, and outright lies when it comes to retelling of history.

I will conclude that this is still cool for children to watch, as long that they understand that they need to learn how to fact check. I hope this series will inspire children to really enjoy history as a story, and not just a series of dates and names to regurgitate on a test in school!

All history is skewed so keeping that in mind, it was very interesting. My major problem with it is the constant repetition of scenes and information. This could have been 1/3 the length.

While getting the basic wire-frame of history right in most cases, the embellishments and 'filling-ins' of creative license where no facts are available are pure speculation at best and out-right character assassination at worst.

We see many of the greatest men of early America demonized at every turn. No matter what they did it was wrong. Even in cases where the facts support what we would today consider bad behavior, there is no account for context, social norms or the desperation of the times 200 years ago. It is easy to moralize today what people 'should have done' 200 years ago. I wonder in 200 years from now, who among us will be safe from those future moralizers with their vastly different views of the world and humanity while none of us will be alive to explain or defend ourselves.

For example, Andrew Jackson, one of the greatest men who ever lived, practically single-handedly saved America from a second attempt by the British to destroy the budding new nation of the US and take it for themselves (does anyone think the Indians would have fared better under a British controlled North America?). Yet, 80% of the focus on Jackson is everything he did wrong and how mean he was. No denying he was a tough SOB but that's what it took to survive back then. Every moment the character of Andrew Jackson is on the screen, he is made to appear so menacing. All that he lacks are devils horn's protruding from his forehead.

The documentary also pretty much glosses over the fact that the original colonies only made up a small portion on the east coast of continent claimed by the newly formed United States. 90% of the rest of the continent was claimed by Britain, France and Spain but there is no mention of their 'atrocities' against the native tribes (who by the way were constantly and perpetually at war with each other for centuries until the 'foreigners' arrived. No mention of their 'atrocities' against each other.). The entire land area of modern-day Canada was claimed and held by the British (where apparently there were no Indians to get in their way... lol).

The documentary is a gross misrepresentation and over-simplification of the facts and the context of the time and events. It minimizes and re characterizes any positive qualities of these great men (when they aren't outright omitted) while focusing on, exaggerating, embellishing and even creating out of thin air whatever negative qualities we may see through the lens of 200 years of hindsight.

In 200 years from now, will people be as vicious, unforgiving and brutal to those of us who are merely doing what we think is best according to our current laws and social norms? What will they think about what we do daily that they may find criminal and abhorrent? Like industrialized abortion?

It is easy to throw stones at people who are long dead. It is easy to say you wouldn't have done the same thing as you sit in the comfort of you warm home surfing the internet and watching Netflix. But if it weren't for those great men, you may not even be enjoying those luxuries or even have the legal right to stand on your moral soap box and blame the past for all of your apparent woes and outrages.

The episodes seemed to be rushed. Some important facts were not mentioned and others were left out to make the person look better than they really were.

I would have thought that at least the Americans would have got their firearms right. First off flintlocks are on the right hand side of the musket not the left, secondly you cannot fire a flintlock with the frizzen forward and thirdly some of the battles they fought were with percussion muskets that didn't come out until decades later. In the last episode Kit Carson seemed to be firing multiple shots from a Civil War era percussion rifled musket without ever stopping to load.

More propaganda than fact, rife with inaccuracies and omissions of fact. Seems designed to glorify white America, and to whitewash the genocide and racism that drove many political actions. For example, omitting the true nature of the conflict in Texas, which was the fact Santa Ana had struck down Slavery, and the ties between characters like Bowie and Crockett to the Slave industry, while deeming the fight to be about "Freedom", renders the recounting here closer to fiction than fact. These sorts of omissions and misnomers are rife throughout every episode I've viewed.

I started watching "'The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen", a historical mini-series about Daniel Boone etc. I love historical mini-series. I may watch the whole thing but I'm editorializing furiously inside my head as I do. It talks about settlers wanting to move into land "claimed by Indian tribes". Claimed by? It says at one point that "the backcountry was full of Shawnee, prowling..." Or living, hunting, etc.? The narrator speaks glowingly about America, in contrast with Europe, where "all the land was taken, owned by nobles, lords, the wealthy; there was no opportunity - but in America there was oipportunity." Because the land there wasn't owned by anyone? The narrator does say at one point, "From (Chief) Blackfish's perspective, this was Shawnee land." From who else's perspective should it have been considered? As the Revolution begins, America will be "built on the ideals of freedom and self-reliance - values personified by the frontiersmen." Doesn't mention land theft. For Daniel Boone, "liberty was the freedom to do what he had been doing - to traverse the West to provide for his family." Of course the families living on that land before he arrived could simply be ignored, I guess. Production values seem high. The narrator uses........pauses......for dramatic.....effect. It...is...extremely...annoying.