These statements could apply as much to James McPherson as John Keegan: the book "fails to provide anything particularly new." "The main interpretive themes will be familiar to readers even marginally aware of older works." "Assessments of the leading generals also fit into well-worn interpretive grooves."
The list could go on without encountering a single interpretive surprise or scrap of fresh testimony. Part of the problem lies in Keegan's heavy reliance on older literature. With a handful of exceptions, the most recent books cited in his notes are from the 1980s.Is Gallgher gearing up for a break with McPherson?
And how about you? Are you one who relies on older secondary literature for your views?
(p.s. Here's someone who clearly does.)