Keegan's Civil War

I never had much use for John Keegan except to enjoy his work as one would op-ed pieces. The views are occasionally enjoyable but the level of generalization (coupled with a lack of historic sensibility) will eventually irritate the careful reader.

I mentioned here some years ago his starting the American Revolution on the wrong year (and then, McPherson-like, defending the factual error on literary grounds). Here are a couple of typical annoyances culled from a NYT book review of his new The American Civil War:
Because the South had few if any large cities to attack, Mr. Keegan notes, its army “presented itself as the only target at which to strike.”
Which ignores other geography, such as fertile valleys, railroads, rivers, and the forts guarding same.

“Southern women are a distinctive breed even today, admired for their femininity and outward-going personality.”
The generalist observes no limits in generalizing.

The linked review is friendly but negative.