I have just read the strangest book review--of John Keegan's book on the US Civil War. James M. McPherson desperately tries to write a positive review, but Keegan apparently gets many facts absolutely and objectively wrong. It is one thing to disagree about an interpretation, but for a work of history to get more than a few pivotal facts wrong is, well, inexcusable. Political scientists can deal with "stylized facts" where they assert things may have happened in a certain way to convince the reader of the more general dynamics at work, but historians are supposed to get the story right.
So, this will not be a book I read myself.