SOTW inaccuracies?

[scootiepie]

I am wondering about SOTW inaccurracies after reading some of the critics on Amazon.com; mainly history buff types who are writing about all the inaccuracies they have found. I was planning on using it next year. I personally would not notice the sort of things they are talking about since I'm no historian. But it does make me think twice. So I'm curious about your experiences... if you have used it, have you noticed anything being inaccurate? I'm not talking about the inclusion of biblical events since I know not everyone will agree about that.

[melmichigan]

Would you care to link so they could be addressed?

[sweetpea3829]

I had read those reviews too, and share a similar concern. Like you, I am no historian. In fact, I despise teaching history (LOL) and would much much rather teach science.

 

I would be interested in hearing what others have to say. We did go ahead and purchase SOTW Ancients and I have outlined it and prepared it for our use starting soon. But I'm certainly open to opinions on this, along with suggestions for other similar curriculums. (But not ToG...I spent quite a bit on ToG Ancients last year and it just didn't work for us...maybe when my kids are upper grammar).

[nmoira]

The stuff listed on Amazon is pretty minor... put it to yourself this way: Is this the best they could do? :)

 

I occasionally notice little things like "up the Nile" when the author means "down," i.e. north. My biggest beef wrt accuracy (aside from the inclusion of the Exodus as history) is with the listing of wheat as a crop grown in the Americas prior to Columbus. Just. Not. True.

[zenjenn]

What I recall from reading the Amazon critics before I made the decision to purchase (some two years ago now), as that people found it the whole narrative style "inaccurate" because it weaves stories, myths, and folktales into the historical narrative. It is not always clearly stated in the text that certain parts of the narrative are from oral tradition/folklore/religion vs some other kind of more verifiable historical record (which in the case of history, btw, doesn't always exist.)

 

I decided this concern wasn't particularly relevant for my purposes, as I was using it to get my children to understand the basic historical timeline that would hopefully stick with them in a visceral way so that later study of history would have a foundation to build upon.

 

I'm almost through Vol 2 with my kids now (after doing Vol 1) and I'm quite happy with it. I don't remember reading anything that struck me as "WHOA! This is inaccurate!" Yes, myths, Bible stories, folk tales, etc, are woven into the narrative, as are some creative first-person narratives that SWB to help paint a picture to children (Imagine you are flying on a magic carpet over the Mediterranean Sea....) I find these things helpful in terms of establishing understanding for my kids. They aren't coming away from this experience with a firm grasp on details anyways - they are just learning the generalities. They are learning, as the title so aptly puts it, the story of the world.

 

To me, it is a text that is supposed to be a foundation for discussion. How do you think historians know this happened? Do you think this really happened? Is there enough evidence? What is truth, and what is story?

 

By the way, coming from a pretty non-religious perspective here. I'm Jewish, with a very non-literal view of the Bible. One of the reasons I remember thinking SotW was likely for us, was in the Amazon reviews I remember some reviews criticizing the accuracy because SWB included non-Christian mythology and folklore in the storytelling instead of making it strictly Bible worldview... and ardent secularists criticizing the accuracy because she included the Bible at all. In my view, that's a win-win.

[SarahW]

Oh boy. :001_unsure:

 

I just read all of the 1-4 star reviews on Amazon, and most of the things mentioned there are quibbles. Maybe some 5 star reviews give some good details?

 

I am a historian of the ancient world (though I have my own highly specific area of expertise) and I haven't gone through SOTW1 with a fine tooth comb. I don't own it, so...that's why. But I've looked at samples and parts of it on Google books and....I don't understand why she made some of the decisions she did, and I don't understand some of the additional readings. I'm guessing for the former she was probably cribbing the outline of some "mainline" history books. And I'm guessing for the latter she limited herself to only books that were being currently printed. But.... I think better decisions could have been made. But that's just me.

 

That being said, I think it's better than 95% of the other published elementary history books. 95% isn't a good number, I don't know what the other 5% would be. Just that I think there's room at the top for something even better. So, maybe it isn't a 95%, maybe it's a 5.9 under the old figure skating scoring rules. Yeah, if that's more clear to you, that's what I mean.

[zenjenn]

I also have to put in I'm not a historian either, but I consider myself pretty well-educated. I myself have learned a quite a bit from reading it to my kids, and have come away with a few things I've looked into further because it did challenge what I recall learning from school. Like this week I learned.... Richard the Lionhearted was kind of a jerk. SWB doesn't really come right out and say he was a jerk, but there impression from SotW is that, and when I did some follow-up reading.. yeah, he kind of was a jerk. My own history education left me with the golden-haired hero king image. My kids on the other hand, heard SotW and said "That guy sounds like Gilderoy Lockheart". That's the kind of connections I want my kids coming away with and retaining for when they look at this stuff again in high school. :)

[kiwik]

I am not a historian and neither for that matter is SWB. I think, however that all history texts (and most of science) have some degree of inaccuracy - if only because there are a lot of disagreements. SOTW is for a first pass through for little kids not in depth investigation.

[junepep]

History is messy. Every history book that I've ever read is riddled with 'innacuracies' because authors write history through the lense of their own lives and understanding.

 

I only breezed through the comments on Amazon - but here are mine about a few of them. As with anything relating to history - you should take my answers with a large dose of salt ;)

 

Did Alcibiades actually lead the Spartans through a secret tunnel into Athens? No.

Did he change sides and incite revolt in Athenian territory during the war between Athens and Sparta? Yes.

 

Does she change the order of historical events and put them into a more easily digestable, if not always strictly correct continuum? Yes.

Does this make grasping ancient historical topics easier for children to understand? Yes.

So is it bad? Not in my opinion. Most history texts skip around quite a bit.

 

Was Alexander the Great Greek? Well, there's not as clear an answer. In part, it depends on whether you define Greek as decending from Athens or Sparta, or if Greek is a broader term relating to any person born of greek ancestry or if you're born / have lived in Greek occupied territory, or if you believe that you must self-identify as Greek to be Greek. It also depends on whether your primary language is Greek and ... well, I'm sure that if I kept thinking about it I could come up with even more. Whether he was 'Greek' or not today devolves a lot more into whether you believe that Macedonia should exist as a separate state, or whether you feel that there's something inherently inferior about slavs, or whatever personal prejudice that you bring to the table than what people actually thought of Alexander's legitimacy as a Greek at that time. In reality, it was a bit of a non-issue, but at least one history makes it clear that his first language wasn't Greek - but at this point, who knows what that historian's personal bias was.

 

And as for Nero being the most hated Roman Emperor, I'm happy to say that the statement is quite accurate, and not the least bit negative or biased. It's come down to us as one of those few historical subjects that every historian really can agree with ;)

 

Is her short vignette, myth and story based, style any less accurate than Herodotus' or Tacitus' histories? Not really.

Is it great for small children? In my opinion, yes. It is essentially as accurate as any other history for children. The point is that these books are for small children, and history does need to be simplified. It is a complex subject filled with contradictions. I don't want my elementary aged children knowing the full story of Cleopatra and Ceasar any more than I want then reading the complete epic of Gilgamesh complete with ancient prostitutes.

 

Anyone offering you a 'true' history has probably got a great bridge in brooklyn to sell you once you're done reading it (at a steep steep discount, of course!).

 

Edited for grammar and punctuation... (and yet they're still awful - hopefully it's a little bit more clear now though)

[nmoira]

And as for Nero being the most hated Roman Emperor, I'm happy to say that the statement is quite accurate, and not the least bit negative or biased. It's come down to us as one of those few historical subjects that every historian really can agree with ;)

 

Most hated by whom? More hated by the Romans than Caligula? Really?

 

It's a serious question, but also goes to prove your larger point.

[Peplophoros]

History is messy. Every history book that I've ever read is riddled with 'innacuracies' because authors write history through the lense of their own lives and understanding.

 

I only breezed through the comments on Amazon - but here are mine about a few of them. As with anything relating to history - you should take my answers with a large dose of salt ;)

 

Did Alcibiades actually lead the Spartans through a secret tunnel into Athens? No.

Did he change sides and incite revolt in Athenian territory during the war between Athens and Sparta? Yes.

 

Does she change the order of historical events and put them into a more easily digestable, if not always strictly correct continuum? Yes.

Does this make grasping ancient historical topics easier for children to understand? Yes.

So is it bad? Not in my opinion. Most history texts skip around quite a bit.

 

Was Alexander the Great Greek? Well, there's not as clear an answer. In part, it depends on whether you define Greek as decending from Athens or Sparta, or if Greek is a broader term relating to any person born of greek ancestry or if you're born / have lived in Greek occupied territory, or if you believe that you must self-identify as Greek to be Greek. It also depends on whether your primary language is Greek and ... well, I'm sure that if I kept thinking about it I could come up with even more. Whether he was 'Greek' or not today devolves a lot more into whether you believe that Macedonia should exist as a separate state, or whether you feel that there's something inherently inferior about slavs, or whatever personal prejudice that you bring to the table than what people actually thought of Alexander's legitimacy as a Greek at that time. In reality, it was a bit of a non-issue, but at least one history makes it clear that his first language wasn't Greek - but at this point, who knows what that historian's personal bias was.

 

And as for Nero being the most hated Roman Emperor, I'm happy to say that the statement is quite accurate, and not the least bit negative or biased. It's come down to us as one of those few historical subjects that every historian really can agree with ;)

 

Is her short vignette, myth and story based, style any less accurate than Herodotus' or Tacitus' histories? Not really.

Is it great for small children? In my opinion, yes. It is essentially as accurate as any other history for children. The point is that these books are for small children, and history does need to be simplified. It is a complex subject filled with contradictions. I don't want my elementary aged children knowing the full story of Cleopatra and Ceasar any more than I want then reading the complete epic of Gilgamesh complete with ancient prostitutes.

 

Anyone offering you a 'true' history has probably got a great bridge in brooklyn to sell you once you're done reading it (at a steep steep discount, of course!).

 

Edited for grammar and punctuation... (and yet they're still awful - hopefully it's a little bit more clear now though)

 

 

I completely agree. Any textbook claiming to summarize more than 2000 years of history is going to be riddled (yes, RIDDLED) with inaccuracies. As the above poster mentioned, history is a tricky business, and we are still getting things wrong.

 

I am an historian/archaeologist of the ancient world and I LOVED SOTW for my kids last year. Did the Minoans really jump bulls? No. Did an earthquake destroy their culture? No (I had to laugh at that one). Do I love the fact that my kids know who the Minoans were and where they lived? YES!

 

Kids should be able to recognize names, places, and general dates. Leave the historical quibbles for when your kids take Western Civ 101 at Harvard :)

[Peplophoros]

[/size]

 

Most hated by whom? More hated by the Romans than Caligula? Really?

 

It's a serious question, but also goes to prove your larger point.

 

 

Definitely Nero. :lol:

[Element]

I have a history degree. I've never used it, and never taught outside our homeschool, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt. (Oh, and I never went to graduate school, so it's pretty much just an expensive paper in fancy writing. :D )

 

You are not going to find a history book without inaccuracies because history is dynamic and everyone has a bias. Everyone. Primary source material is biased. Secondary source material? Well, you have not only the biases of the compiler but the biases of the original sources themselves. I realize grammar stage is all about "get the facts down" but you will not only have 2 more chances to review the material with a more discerning eye (during the logic & rhetoric stages) you also have the opportunity to supplement with other materials. Right now I'm going through SOTW2 with my ds, along with library books, the Usborne Encyclopedia and the horrendously inaccurate but wonderfully told The Age of Discovery by Charles Kovacs. At this point for us, history is a series of events occurring in chronological order. It is the framework upon which he later will build his own interpretations of events. SOTW is adequate. SOTW supplemented with library books and family discussions is fantastic. I wouldn't worry about the reviews.

 

(ETA link & fix book title)

[junepep]

[/size]

 

Most hated by whom? More hated by the Romans than Caligula? Really?

 

It's a serious question, but also goes to prove your larger point.

 

Ah, what a fabulous point!! I was typing it over from the Amazon page. I can't remember who he was supposed to be the most hated by - perhaps he's the most hated by historians writing about him? Or maybe just me. He was a pretty horrific ruler.

 

Interestingly, I just checked (and despite the authoritative Amazon reviewer's comment to the contrary), SWB doesn't actually call him the most hated Emperor. She calls him evil and mentions that he was the worst emperor and that he was hated by the people of Rome, but she doesn't actually say that he was the most hated. I have no idea where that leaves us, but perhaps it will be useful :D

 

PS - I forgot to mention that I'm not a historian, I was just a lowly history major (and lover, because really, who would major in history without loving it?)

[SarahW]

I have a history degree. I've never used it, and never taught outside our homeschool, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt. (Oh, and I never went to graduate school, so it's pretty much just an expensive paper in fancy writing. :D )

 

You are not going to find a history book without inaccuracies because history is dynamic and everyone has a bias. Everyone. Primary source material is biased. Secondary source material? Well, you have not only the biases of the compiler but the biases of the original sources themselves. I realize grammar stage is all about "get the facts down" but you will not only have 2 more chances to review the material with a more discerning eye (during the logic & rhetoric stages) you also have the opportunity to supplement with other materials. Right now I'm going through SOTW2 with my ds, along with library books, the Usborne Encyclopedia and the horrendously inaccurate but wonderfully told The Age of Discovery by Charles Kovacs. At this point for us, history is a series of events occurring in chronological order. It is the framework upon which he later will build his own interpretations of events. SOTW is adequate. SOTW supplemented with library books and family discussions is fantastic. I wouldn't worry about the reviews.

 

(ETA link & fix book title)

 

 

I agree with you.

 

I just get nervous when I see people teaching things that will just have to be unlearned later. I guess that goes for every subject, but since we're on the topic of history...

 

A few reviewers mention how they don't like that SOTW1 apparently makes a connection between the Olympic games and Mount Olympus. If this sticks deeply in a kids mind, and then they get to their college World Civ 1 class and write a paper about how the Olympic sports were representations of the court of Zeus, and don't fact check it since they know that it must be true since they've known it forever, that's a problem.

 

And, ugh, I don't know how to put this exactly, but some of the supplemental readings are a bit off. I think I saw Ali Baba being listed as a story book for ancient Persia? Right place, wrong time. And, again, if you're trying to teach kids then you shouldn't do things that will just confuse them, so I think this does really matter. (There were a few other examples like it, but that's the one I remember, I don't own it, so sorry).

 

I realized that for my previous post I was talking about reviews for the AG, I got misled by Amazon cross-linking. grr..

[NancyNellen]

I am on my third pass through the SOTW series currently. I can say, without any doubts, that my history-loving high schoolers were exceedingly well-served by their trip through SOTW. I can think of no inaccuracies that required unlearning at higher levels. As a matter of fact, they have consistently been among the most well-prepared at every outside history club, activity, and class they have taken. Does SOTW deserve all of the credit for this? No. But I absolutely credit it with opening my children's minds to the wonders of history, making the historical events of the past interesting and captivating to them, and contributing greatly to their early and continued love of learning. They have most definitely not been harmed in the least by any potential "inaccuracies."

 

I guess you can say I am a big fan.

[scootiepie]

It does make sense that there would be bias and errors with so many years of history. Even the way our short American history is taught is a bone of contention in the public schools, so I can see

that. But then it just makes me want to be all the more careful in choosing a history spine. If they are talking about errors that are objective and could have been caught or corrected

in the editing, then that concerns me more. Maybe I'm too picky?

 

I really like the idea of SOTW and I was specifically looking into the audio CDs, but I really just want to trust that what we're learning is factual. And I say we because I will be

learning along with them. Part of my concern is I'm not strong enough in history to recognize the errors; and I don't want to learn something incorrectly for my own sake!

 

So I guess I should ask is SOTW on par with other history curricula? Better, worse or all about the same?

[lillybell]

I was just looking into this same subject myself. The inaccuracies that I was concerned about was the dates. We are going to make a timeline and I wanted it to be accurate. The first problem I noticed when I started looking at it today was that Volume 1, talks about the nomads 7 thousand years ago in the Fertile Crescent. According to Usborne and other world history text that I was comparing it to, the nomads date back to around 10,000 BC. Another part that jumped out at me was when I read in that same chapter, it said "If the hunters don't shoot any deer today, the whole group of nomads will pick up their tents..." The term "shoot" gives me a picture of gun use, more than likely the author meant to use it in terms of bow and arrow shooting but to a child, they might picture hunters with guns. That is minor but the dates are the only thing that I am concerned about. I will probably still use it but will probably have to use dates from Usborne which will be more work for me.

[RootAnn]

I stayed away from buying SOTW when I first started homeschooling because of the poor Amazon reviews.

 

When I got around to buying & using it with my kids, I realized I had been a ninny for waiting that long. Dates (from long ago) are hardly ever agreed on. What caused the decline of the Minoan culture is hotly debated because of time differences. Egyptian timelines are suspect ... My kids love the story-line aspect of SOTW & that's the part that sticks. When I find something I don't agree with, we read from a different source, skip the chapter, or I modify the material as I'm reading aloud.

 

I've found interesting differences between SOTW & SWB's history books for adults. But I think SOTW is completely appropriate & the "errors" are simply choices she made in how to tell the story.

[reign]

It seems like most of the bad reviews are fighting over whether the book is 1) not Christian enough or 2) full of Christian mythology. If you take out those posts there are not that many. I have not read and do not use SOTW yet but plan too. I like a mix of history and mythology. I won't be using it as my only history books though. I think it best to get more than one opinion.

[Momof3]

I think it all depends on your history goals (and maybe the ages of your children?).

 

I'm not a big advocate of "classical" education... I like the general idea of building knowledge on knowledge, and recognizing that children have different cognitive capabilities at different ages (wow, I'm tired...hope this is coming out okay)...but I think there is a lot of overlap between a "learning the facts" stage and "putting the pieces together" stage - especially when it comes to history.

 

We're working through SOTW1 for the first time (just finished Alexander the Great), and loving it! My kids are pretty young, and they definitely won't remember every detail (or *sigh* most details), but they are getting an idea for the general flow of history...and learning some great principles of history along the way. I want them to get the "gist" of history at this stage: (1) How do we know what happened back then? (2) What makes a leader good or bad? etc. To me (for my tots) these concepts are more important than what date the nomads starting roaming Mesopotamia, or even which Roman emperor was most hated. :) I do want them to become familiar with a lot of names and places... But I try to focus on how we would have any idea what time the nomads were "roaming" and what made Nero or Caligula hated emperors...

 

So, again...you have to consider what you're aiming for. I think SOTW works great for the more 'general flow & principles' approach to history.

 

Hope that makes sense. (It's late. I'm tired.) :)

[Momof3]

On second thought, maybe it's not so much the ages of my kids as it is their personality... Ds is super-logical, loves systems & putting the pieces together... Maybe that's why I tend to lean that way in my teaching approach.

[Georgiana Daniels]

We like it for the way the stories are told, as they are both entertaining and informative. If you're using it for grammar stage kids, the dates and whatnot aren't likely to matter.

 

But developing a love of history will.

[PachiSusan]

This might be a great place to ask this question. We;ve only read through SOTW Volume 1. Are all 4 volumes written in a "younger" voice? I don't know how to explain what I mean. It seems aimed at very young children. Are all the books aimed as such?

[nmoira]

This might be a great place to ask this question. We;ve only read through SOTW Volume 1. Are all 4 volumes written in a "younger" voice? I don't know how to explain what I mean. It seems aimed at very young children. Are all the books aimed as such?

 

 

No. They progress in complexity from book to book.

[PachiSusan]

No. They progress in complexity from book to book.

 

 

Thank you! That is great to hear.

[RootAnn]

And the chapters & chapter sections get longer the higher # book you are in, as well. .... Although SOTW1 is all about war & takeovers, it has a much lighter feel than later books. My kids thought that SOTW3 gave them a more depressing feeling even though there were less (quantity?) overall wars.

[Amy M]

It seems like most of the bad reviews are fighting over whether the book is 1) not Christian enough or 2) full of Christian mythology. If you take out those posts there are not that many. I have not read and do not use SOTW yet but plan too. I like a mix of history and mythology. I won't be using it as my only history books though. I think it best to get more than one opinion.

 

Thank you to OP for asking the question. I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago as the question came up on another forum, and I read the reviews on Amazon and homeschoolreviews.com and was concerned. But I didn't know if I should ask it on SWB's own forums. :)

 

Anyway, I noticed the same things as listed above, that most people's issues were how secular or not they perceived it to be, which is not the same issue as inaccuracy. Then those who critiqued it for inaccuracy didn't always mention what specific inaccuracies they were talking about; they didn't reference sources that clearly contradict SOTW; and they didn't mention their background to help us know how they were more trustworthy than SWB. SWB's knowledge of ancient languages and openness about her research and how she arrived at her conclusions and dates is exceedingly above mine. Just thinking, that if you're going to critique SOTW, you would have to prove how your knowledge/research/experience tops hers, if that makes any sense. Otherwise, I'm wondering--where are you coming from? I certainly wouldn't know enough to be able to critique it or spot errors. Not saying no one could; just wondering how they can and who they are, kwim?