Printable View
my question is, is he any good. I've seen plenty of sights that call him the greatest historian of our times. But,in the introduction to one of his books he basicly bashed on clausewitz for 20 pages. He also seems to romanticize about things rather then giving a factual view. So, is he a good author or not?
Thanks.
His Face of Battle is a classic. I've also seen him lecture, and he is a thoughtful and intelligent man.
On the other hand, he does make some really grand generalizations that don't seem to hold water. I found his history of warfare rather poor, and his characterizations of the medieval period in particular rather misguided.
Keegan is very, very good. I've read four or five of his books and all are elegantly written, extremely readable, and excellent sources of information.
My favorite military writer in B.H.Liddell Hart, who also trashes Clausewitz constantly, but every authour is allowed his opinion.
Keegan's history of WWI is a page turner extraordinaire. His book The Face of Battle studies three battles, Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme in great detail. Also an excellent book. And his book The War Book is a wonderful compendium of 2000 years of military writing. A fantastic book for a rainy Sunday afternoon with two fingers of good bourbon.
If you don't read his books, you will be missing a great literary and historical treat.
His biography of Scipio Africanus=Teh pWn.Quote:
My favorite military writer in B.H.Liddell Hart
"Teh pWn"? No comprendo mi amigo. Damn good book though!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
And his biography of Sherman was insane, the level of detail was incredible. What a book.
His book "Strategy" is still one of the best I"ve ever seen. It's like a masters degree in military thought in just a few hundred pages. I've read mine so much it's falling to pieces. Would love to find a first edition hardcover.
*Oh... Hart bashes Clausewitz for his statement "Let us not hear of generals who conquer without bloodshed." Hart thought that sort of thinking was directly opposite from how a good general should act.
I apologise for the leet-speak. 'Damn good book' was my sentiment exactly.
So are the arguments in this article unfounded?HTML Code:http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/Keegan/KEEGWHOL.htm
Liddell Hart bashed Clausewitz for taking what he saw as a frontal attack view of warfare. Hart, for anyone who has read even one paragraph of any of his books, cites the "indirect approach" as the be all - end all of warfare. Obviously, these two will not see eye to eye.
Hart blamed the WWI generals for applying this frontal attack thinking for the great slaughters of the war. He thought the generals took the worst parts of Clausewitz (Hart thought there were many good parts too) when they should have been following the examples set by Napoleon and some American Civil War generals; mobility and surprise.
Again, it was sayings like "Let us not hear of generals who conquer without bloodshed" that set people like Hart against Clausewitz.
(To be fair, I have never read any Clausewitz other than where he is quoted in other people's books. Maybe it's time to pick up On War the next time I'm at the book store. :book: "Hmmmm, says here he had fourteen dogs. I like him already.)