Writers of historical fiction sometimes find themselves in a bit of a quandary. If you don't get it right, someone will know and will tell you. If you don't include enough of the history, armchair historians will be unhappy that the history is little more than wallpaper for the book, while those not so much into the history will be bored if there's too much.
Dialogue. Now there's a mess waiting to happen. Keep the dialogue too true to the period and it can come off sounding stilted and can be jarring for the modern reader. Make it too modern, and it will pull the reader out of the setting.
I suppose the question for me is not so much "do I want to be accurate?" as it is "how can I strike the right balance?" I think this is very hard, and trying to please as many readers as possible can be a challenge.
So as a reader, how do you prefer your historicals? Meaty, or just enough history to give the story a sense of place?