That said, I don’t mind extra characters added in, but I hate it when the authors get the culture/behavior/basic history wrong.

I really admire historical fiction that feels authentic to the time period and researched out the wazoo. At the same time, novels are constructions and fantasy, and if the author wants to play with that, I don’t have a problem with it. I can suspend disbelief–on occasion.

I am a bit iffy about making things up because it might have happened and the dates can be made to fit (a good example of that would be Napoleon and Wesley meeting in a Simon Scarrow book – there’s no recorded meeting, but he engineered one in fiction because he could make the times they were at a place fit and drammatically that was almost like an insider joke ‘See soon these people will be important in each others life and they have no idea, haha’ – fun but eh really necessary?). Same goes for more specific changes to history when it comes to more specific things, like weaponry etc. I want to know what kind of weapon a character would have used, not what kind of weapon the author thinks would make things more exciting drammatically.

When it comes to writers having to guess, because there isn’t any evidence I think my feelings are the same as when I read non-fiction narrative history. The guesses should be made on evidence available about similar people and the guesses should be acknowledged (in fiction that would be where the author’s note comes in). Oh and I get really annoyed when an authors note is just like ‘I made too many changes to historical accuracy to count, but they’re there, hope any I haven’t made deliberately will be pointed out later – peace out).

To treat historical fiction as a source of accurate political, social, or cultural information is tempting, but fraught with problems – that old saying, “history is written by the victors” exemplifies only the start. How many readers have been won over by Follett’s depiction of the Middle Ages (“The Pillars Of The Earth”) and cite his research into cathedral building to back up the truth of his vision? How many historians and writers of fiction have fought over Richard III? How many writers base their interpretations of relationships between actual or fictional historical figures on their contemporary understanding of the human psyche, modern values and virtues, or a Western/Eastern bias; are particular about getting details about the material culture correct but pooh-pooh the all-pervasive role of religion; or equate sound research with reading books like those by Frances and Joseph Gies?

Striving to incorporate “known” fact without omission or addition or bias is hard and controversial work even for academic historians, and I salute any writer of historical fiction who tries to emulate their scrupulousness. Personally, I want my historical fiction to be as correct as possible in its smallest detail. I like to speculate about historical figures or events – the puzzling whys, whos, hows, wherefores – but I am not interested in history as fantasy. Like you, I think history is “all fascinating on its own”. It is why I find it very hard to enjoy historical fiction set in the thirteenth century, which used to be a favourite period of study for me. But I do understand why others may have different priorities. By its very nature, fiction takes liberties and plays with truths, so in a way, “historical fiction” is a delicious, artful paradox.

I don’t mind the odd tweek of history, but like it when the author takes the time to explain exactly what was changed to suit the story. I think that means I agree with you!

But this question has been around at least since Shakespeare. How historically accurate are his history plays? Not very. But some of them are still excellent plays.

That said, today I think an author who knowingly makes substantially changes in the historical record should not be considered a good author of historical fiction. I’ve long felt that historical fiction is the moral equivalent of fantasy, which I also enjoy. Authors who treat the historical record as something they can alter whenever the plot requires, just add fuel to the fire.