i've read some keegan, excellent regarding western europe, again he simply didn't have the kind of access to things in the ottoman empire-language included to the best of my knowledge. thin on russia, but that's no more fault than Julius C. not catching things like coinage and relatively established trade in what would become called Gallia Narbonnensis(sic)

that's the problem with relying of any work of history which lacks a counterpart of similar quality and scholarship from the other side of things. i mean, the first greek to call himself a historian instantly goes and writes everything from really a pan=athenic perspective, the dialogue with the island athens killed all the men and enslaved the women and children was about as skewed as possible. but it's what survives, who was literate, and to what level at a certain place at a certain time. not to say the history of the pelop. isn't incredibly valuable, same as keegan, but nobody is ever going to be deep in the mix of all sides of something at the highest strategic levels with perfect understanding of language and years of living in the culture. just too hard.