For a man who arguably did more than anyone to defeat Napoleon, and who continued to play a role in the sweeping historical events of 1848-9, there have been remarkably few English-language biographies of Radetzky. Alan Sked's effort gets the job done, and provides the basic facts of his life from which a picture can emerge, albeit with a hagiographic tinge.
That being said, his prose is bombastic to the point of being confrontational, with statements like "This view of Metternich may be contentious, but it is undoubtedly correct." This sounds rather akin to 'There's debate about this, but I'm correct and anyone not agreeing is wrong.' And yet, later he says of an opinion expressed by Wolf-Schneider von Arno that 'one would need to look very far and very wide before accepting such a grand assertion'. Is this really intellectually consistent?
Some might confuse this for engaging writing, but it should be the strength of the source material and masterful skill of its conveyance that grips the reader, not the boldness with which doubtful opinions are advanced. Sked also makes some less than strictly academic speculations, such as 'Certainly, it is impossible to imagine Blucher as commander-in-chief. He would have resigned within days in a fit of temper.'
Death of the author notwithstanding, it is curious to contemplate Sked having been the founder of UKIP, right-wing nationalist party and hobby group for racists who preface sentences with "I'm not a racist, but..." It does provide some context to the peculiar views expressed, but also raises the question of why a man so dedicated to nationalism in his own country is hero-worshipping another whose career largely militated against nationalist movements in much of Central and Eastern Europe, and especially of the unification of Italy.
I hope one day to read a superior biography of Radetzky from a historian in greater command of the craft.