OPINIONS: Beevor, or Keegan

Who do you guys prefer as a military writer/historian-- Antony Beevor, or John Keegan. I've heard pretty staunch views on both, people who think Beevor's prose doesn't do justice to war, and people who fault Keegan for being too much of an idolatrist even though he attempts to take on a realistic angle in his war writing. What do people think? ... Who is the best military historian of (contemporary) history?

 

If you check the bottom of this page and look in the Similar threads section you can see some other threads where Beevor and Keegan are discussed.

 

Keegan, any day of the week.
Beevor does very little for me, but every Keegan book or article I've read has been a tour-de-force of military history. Lucid, informative, & always interesting - whether you agree with all of his conclusions or not.
'Readable' - which is not something Beevor always achieves for me.

Anyone who's not read any Keegan, I'd suggest his 'Six Armies in Normandy' as a decent starting point, and an illustration of just how good he can be. Some of his less specifically WW2 related stuff on the nature of battle and it's effect on human beings is also fascinating.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I tend to take something from just about every writer, if pushed to pick a fave across the board it'd probably be Charles Whiting.

 

Keegan! I have not read Beevor cover to cover, but I had not seen anything to match Keegan in clarity of vision, economy of prose or force.

 

Beevor is good, his Berlin and Stalingrad are nice basic histories. His Spanish civil war stuff is much better, obviously a subject he really knows and likes. Keegan though. is a master. As Von Poop said, Six Armies in Normandy is as good as it gets in military history writing.

 

Keegan

 

Having never yet--read any books by Keegan, I have to say Beevor--at least for his book on Stalingrad. I've nothing against Keegan but just never had any opportunity to have read any of his works.

Best regards--C.

 

Having read only one book by Keegan it´s hard to compare, but I must say I liked almost everything Beevor has written, so I´ll have to go with Beevor.

 

Just so you guys know, I own Beevor's books on Stalingrad and the Battle for Berlin and enjoyed them both. My short response singling out Keegan was meant as no slight to Beevor's work and I do not hesitate to recommend Beevor's work to others.

I guess one of the big differences between the two, and when it comes to Keegan against quite a few other historians as well so again no knock on Beevor, is that Keegan's breadth and depth of knowledge is so impressive.

 

Hi;
Beevor until Jones came along (lots of new info being discovered every day);
WWII and other Book Reviews: Stalingrad by Michael K. Jones
JeffinMNUSA

 

Keegan wrote a whole book on the war and is considered one of the best WWII historians alive. Beevor is excellent too, but I think I like reading Keegan better.

 

Jones, sorry-the WWII vets of the former USSR are finally having their say.
JeffinMNUSA