The H-W book, controversies aside, was well written, the English was near-perfect and the prose lively (unlike many turgid histories I could mention). The Hofschroer books were well researched (in the main), but were very 'agenda driven,' shall we say. Barbero's work was refreshingly unbiased, but had some irritating faults, largely of interpretation, but sometimes of fact.

If only Hofschroer had done the research, H-W the writing and Barbero the editing, with an eagle eye open for bias, then something approaching a definitive history might have been forthcoming. If wishes were horses...