The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen (2018) User Reviews

Good but lacking two key frontiersmen

[jollyjumpup · 8/10 · 17 March 2018]

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.

Comprehensive view in a short time

[drjgardner · 9/10 · 14 April 2019]

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.

Back when men were men!

[josh-skidmore · 8/10 · 9 March 2018]

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.

Very Interesting With a Minor Flaw

[chrissherwood-38503 · 8/10 · 8 May 2018]

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.

Fantastic, they left some out, but still fantastic

[sixpaws67 · 9/10 · 11 March 2018]

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.

VERY well done and very balanced A MUST WATCH for everyone

[support-29682 · 10/10 · 10 April 2019]

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.

anyone else catch the Brisco County Jr Cameo at 1:58:06 in episode 3?

[bullet-64753 · 8/10 · 22 March 2018]

Ive seen the first 3 so far, and its a good overview, missing a lot of details, but good but the funny part was the footage from The Adventures of Briscoe County Jr that they used for about 3 seconds at 1:58:06 in episode 3 almost didn't catch it except for the sawed off shotgun slung of Lord Bowlers shoulder, had to rewind the DVR, but there they are, Brisco and Bowler from behind riding into a town, lol

Curiosity is natural to the soul of man

[fredric_wertham · 8/10 · 31 March 2018]

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

History in school should be this interesting!

[romanstnt · 9/10 · 2 December 2021]

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.

Facts are stubborn things

[mba24 · 6/10 · 29 March 2018]

Finished watching the series. Nice try, some great footage, but curiously lacking in historical facts, with some simply odd charcter portrayals. I have never seen portraits of Boone or Andrew Jackson with beards, and seldom Crockett either. Yes, in the wilderness I'm sure they had them, but there are plenty of illustrations of them all, and they look like the series portrayal. (Wanna great portrayal of David Crockett? Billy Bob Thornton owns it.)

And now for the historical inaccuracies: 1) At the Battle of Fallen Timbers, it was suggested the British were quickly routed, enabling the quick defeat of the Indian Confederacy by American forces under (portrayed as) the ruthless William Henry Harrison. Truth? The British never even took the field that day, and in fact didn't even allow retreating Native Americans sanctuary into British Fort Miami. And, the American forces were led by Anthony Wayne, not Harrison. 2) It was suggested Lewis and Clark headed overland from Fort Mandan in North Dakota, unable to proceed further by water. Wrong. They proceeded up the Missouri even beyond Great Falls MT, where they executed an arduous portage. To omit their adventures on the upper Missouri, which they thought might be the Northwest Passage that led all the way to the Pacific, ignores a significant part of the trek. 3) Andrew Jackson portrayed as ruthlessly commanding the slaughter of the Red Sticks at Tallushatchee. While Crockett was there, Jackson was not; the force was commanded by Gen. John Coffee. Brutal encounter to be sure, but the frontier was a brutal place at times, with no quarter shown. You may recall, Tallushatchee was in retaliation for Ft. Mims getting wiped out. 4) Jackson and Crockett bitter rivals stemming from a run-in at Tallushatchee? Nonsense. Crockett was a firm supporter of Jackson's presidential run, and Jackson for Crockett's run for Congress. Their fallout stemmed from the Indian Relocation Act. The Trail of Tears is a blight on Jackson's presidential record, but he certainly did not hat all Indians. In fact, he adopted an orphan from the Red Stick war into his own home. 5) It is almost suggested that Crockett, who by the way preferred the name David, was in charge of the Alamo. Command of that garrison and its volunteer/militia force was split between Jim Bowie and William Travis. And Santa Ana didn't just show up ahead of schedule and overrun the Alamo in 90 minutes; it took the Mexican force 13 days to finally accomplish their victory, and the final assault commenced at night, not under daylight. The time the plucky Alamo defenders bought by bogging down Santa Ana was invaluable for Sam Houston to begin to raise an adequate army to eventually defeat the Mexican dictator and liberate Texas. 6) Kit Carson? Mind telling me how he could fight a battle against the Mexicans firing both a percussion cap AND flintlock rifle when he was carrying just the one rifle? And...John C Fremont raising the original 13 Stars and Stripes over Los Angeles in 1846, when there were already 28 states? Oh, by the way...Fremont was the one with the beard, Carson was clean shaven.

This effort, though admirable in its intentions, reminds me of a line from SNL: "Learn a book, Seth!" Come on...You guys had a worthy idea in trying to bring some historical insight to a public sorely needing knowledge of their heritage. We NEED stuff like this! Don't be lazy, motivated by your own opinions, or sloppy. Finish the deal...You're the History Channel! Try mixing in more...History.

Highly Recommended if you are interested in early American History

[WarMovieCollector · 8/10 · 18 November 2020]

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. 👍

Annoyed by a stock footage mentality to some of the cutting

[deliusfan · 7/10 · 26 April 2018]

I was really annoyed to see British soldiers in Revolutionary War era uniforms in the Battle of New Orleans segnents. But we had already seen William Henry Harrison stuck in his Revolutionary War uniform well into the 19th Century as well. Oddly, in one battle, the Americans are shown marching in with 18th Century uniforms, then suddenly fight the battle wearing the more updated 19th Century uniforms. A gaffe of this nature plagues virtually every episode

This tells me that in editing the people responsible just would look for general army footage that resembled the story being told, but with zero eye as to detail. This is pretty sad for a channel that purportedly is a presenter of historical facts; we can see "historical films" with all sorts of innaccuracies anytime we want, but I would hope that History Channel, after tapping all the historians who cameo on the show, would make a better effort to be accurate. Someone else mentioned the pacing seems rushed; perhaps this is a symptom of that, as well.

History? The History Channel Should Stick to Truck Races

[nanderson-74397 · 1/10 · 15 March 2018]

I've watched the first two episodes of the this show. I don't know which is more appalling: the ridiculous costumes, characterizations, and "settings", or the startling disregard for "fact" in telling this "history." To cite a few examples, perhaps the creators should recognize there is a proper way for a rifleman to carry his powder horn if he intends to use it. They might recognize that scruffy beard and "frontiersman" and not synonymous. There are perfectly good and fairly accurate renditions of Fort Mandan and Fort Clatsop already in existence that they could have used instead of the weird and completely inaccurate examples they depicted for Lewis and Clark's winter quarters. They might actually have them raise the proper flag over their forts as well. When it comes to the telling, the "general" William Henry Harrison was actually 21 years old at the Battle of Fallen Timbers--younger than William Clark. When a map of the Louisiana Purchase is shown, it should not cut off part of the Missouri River--the Purchase was the western drainage of the Mississippi River; so all the Missouri and its tributaries qualify. Lewis and Clark did not walk to the Pacific from Fort Mandan; they actually left a tributary of the Missouri River almost 1,000 miles further along their route. They were not led to the Pacific by Sacagawea (as they called her!), they didn't scale 14,000 foot mountains (there aren't any in Montana or Idaho), they didn't eat their pack horses, and if there were 2,000 American muskets at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the few men of Lewis and Clark's command didn't have the largest arsenal the frontier had ever seen. This series is low budget, lazy, and a gross distortion of "history." There's a great story to be told, and the History Channel is NOT telling it. Unless you just like to see how much they get wrong, don't waste your time. You'll actually know less when you finish than you did before you started.

Good historical series, but some really distracting issues.

[zohoe · 7/10 · 18 May 2020]

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.

Terrible! Severe Audio Tech problems!

[jwarner-65006 · 15 March 2018]

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.

Mostly for children. Could have been better researched.

[vitalymakievsky · 6/10 · 15 January 2024]

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!

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!?!

[sarah-e-bolt · 5/10 · 5 December 2022]

"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.

Could have been very good if not so repetitive

[ThatsInconceivable · 3/10 · 25 February 2020]

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.

Basic History Presented in the Most Negative Light Possible

[MovieGuyFunTime · 1/10 · 23 June 2021]

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.

Could be better

[tomandlouann · 3/10 · 20 April 2018]

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.

What a waste

[armoredtanker · 3/10 · 4 May 2018]

Yes it could of been better. The flaw is the horrible sets and lack of color. I love to read about the frontier, and I know that the Shawnee and other tribes didn't run around in dirty drab rags as depicted. The British in 1812 are shown wearing outdated 1776 uniforms just like the Americans. The 1990s Heroes of The Old Northwest got it right. The production on this shows how cheap it was done. Obviously no time and effort wad spent on this. The baatle scene are a joke. The surrender if Fort Detroit was so hilarious. A garrison of 4 surrendering to Tecumseh. The fort actually surrendered to British General Issac Brock not to Tecumseh alone. The Battle of Chalamette ir New Orleans is hilarious too. A platoon of brits dressed in 1777 uniforms attacking 1776 looking militia. Where is the 7th Inf? Or the cottonbales? Awful.Anthony Quinn did a better job in the "The Buccaneer," depicting the battle. Read a book and stay away from garbage like this. The Alamo scenes are horrible. A simple 2x4 holding the gate closed is easily opened by pushing and breaking the 2x4. Another laughing moment is the Treaty of Ghent city scene. I mean are people that make this junk clueless. It look like a scene from Sherlock Holmes 1881 London. Nothing is 1814. Bowler hats Victorian suits and dresses. And omit the fact that Santa Anna was facing revolts in Mexuco and Texas because he tore up the Constitution of 1824 and made himself dictator. Another fact slave owners took their slaves into Mexico illegally. If Leonardo DiCaprio produced this did he actually spend his own money on this lousy tv show. He could if paid me and gotten a more clourful production with accurate costumes and history. Instead all we got was garbage.

Such basic errors

[bob-1135 · 3/10 · 16 April 2018]

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.

closer to fiction than fact

[furryoldman · 1/10 · 30 March 2018]

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.

So far I haven't thrown anything at the TV.

[jeaniedub · 3/10 · 6 September 2020]

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.

Genocide and imperialism

[medic061076 · 4/10 · 22 July 2018]

You get too see how the States of America got to the disfunctional present by destruction hate and genocide Any decent human must hold their head in shame