What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #308
Russian History: A Very Short Introduction
Russia's sheer size has made it difficult to mobilize resources and to govern effectively, especially given its harsh climate, vast and vulnerable borders, and the diversity of its people. In this Very Short Introduction , Geoffrey Hosking discusses all aspects of Russian history, from the struggle by the state to control society to the transformation of the nation into a multi-ethnic empire, Russia's relations with the West, and the post-Soviet era. Hosking, a leading international authority, examines Russian history in an impartial way, arguing that "Good Russia" and "Bad Russia" are one and the same. He also evaluates important individuals in Russian history, from Peter the Great and Catherine II to Lenin and Stalin.
176 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2012
133 people are currently reading
1,222 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Hosking
34books35followersGeoffrey Alan Hosking is a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union and formerly Leverhulme Research Professor of Russian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES) at University College, London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
October 13, 2012
Russia is a vast and complex country with a long and interesting history. For several centuries it has been an inescapable and important factor in the World affairs. It has probably reached the apex of its global importance during the Cold War, but even today it exerts significant influence on the geopolitics. In addition to that, Russian culture is very interesting in its own right, and anyone who wants to get a better grasp of its historical roots would benefit from reading this short book.
This short introduction aims to give a very representative overview of the Russian history, from its inception over a millennium ago, to its present post-Soviet form. It covers all the major developments and transition that have happened over that timeframe. It is quite remarkable for any political entity to have survived for such a long time, and Russia has managed to do so despite some very formidable obstacles and threats to its existence.
A lot of Russian history can be understood from its peculiar geography: a vast country that straddles two continents, and yet it’s without year-round access to a warm, navigable, sea. Russia has also always been surrounded by many powerful, and oftentimes hostile, neighbors. Many of those near and far neighbors have on many occasions constituted an existential threat to Russia’s very existence. Yet, Russia has managed to survive and overcome such formidable attacks as the Mongols, Napoleon, and Hitler. Nonetheless, these threats and attacks have left a permanent mark on Russia’s collective psyche and its sense of vulnerability, and have contributed to the rise of various autocratic rulers who had aimed to solidify their domestic power and enlarge the Russian territory in an attempt to create a more defensible and governable homeland. As is all too well known, this autocratic impulse has lead to some of the history’s worst tragedies. Geoffrey Hosking manages to cover some of these tragedies without demonizing either Russia or the Russian history outright.
One of the main things that I like about this book is that it is written in a good, traditional, historic style. Unfortunately too much of what passes for history books today has been turned into some kind of unrecognizable ideological prose, and there are way too many authors that try to look at the events from many centuries ago through the prism of contemporary sensibilities. You will find none of that nonsense in this book. It is history at its best, and all history buffs will enjoy reading it.
This short introduction aims to give a very representative overview of the Russian history, from its inception over a millennium ago, to its present post-Soviet form. It covers all the major developments and transition that have happened over that timeframe. It is quite remarkable for any political entity to have survived for such a long time, and Russia has managed to do so despite some very formidable obstacles and threats to its existence.
A lot of Russian history can be understood from its peculiar geography: a vast country that straddles two continents, and yet it’s without year-round access to a warm, navigable, sea. Russia has also always been surrounded by many powerful, and oftentimes hostile, neighbors. Many of those near and far neighbors have on many occasions constituted an existential threat to Russia’s very existence. Yet, Russia has managed to survive and overcome such formidable attacks as the Mongols, Napoleon, and Hitler. Nonetheless, these threats and attacks have left a permanent mark on Russia’s collective psyche and its sense of vulnerability, and have contributed to the rise of various autocratic rulers who had aimed to solidify their domestic power and enlarge the Russian territory in an attempt to create a more defensible and governable homeland. As is all too well known, this autocratic impulse has lead to some of the history’s worst tragedies. Geoffrey Hosking manages to cover some of these tragedies without demonizing either Russia or the Russian history outright.
One of the main things that I like about this book is that it is written in a good, traditional, historic style. Unfortunately too much of what passes for history books today has been turned into some kind of unrecognizable ideological prose, and there are way too many authors that try to look at the events from many centuries ago through the prism of contemporary sensibilities. You will find none of that nonsense in this book. It is history at its best, and all history buffs will enjoy reading it.
November 6, 2013
This is not an introduction to Russian history so much as commentary on Russian history based on the assumption that you already know all the terminology, names, locations, and events involved, and are only interested in hearing how people and the government reacted. I read an entire timeline yet learned nothing. YOU HAD ONE JOB, BOOK.
March 23, 2023
This book will definitely help one better understand what's going on with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, even though it was published before those events. But one will learn that Putin is not some entirely novel outlier, but rather Russia has a history of prizing a central strongman, in part to intimidate foreign invaders and in part to keep the lower-level, local strongmen in check. One learns about the accordion history of Russia -- alternate phases of expansion and contraction.
The book covers the period from the Kievan Rus to the early days of the post-Soviet period. Fascinating and insightful.
The book covers the period from the Kievan Rus to the early days of the post-Soviet period. Fascinating and insightful.
Read
September 19, 20211/n attempt at trying to understand how the world is what it is today: through Russian foreign policy
This was a bird's eye view of a vast, intricately complex and riveting history. Understandably, for a VSI book, this is at best a good springboard for further exploration. At times it posed more questions than it answered (which is fine with me). Cold War and relations with US are stark in their absence, which was somewhat disappointing, but I suppose compensated by there being VSI titles for those separately.
This was a bird's eye view of a vast, intricately complex and riveting history. Understandably, for a VSI book, this is at best a good springboard for further exploration. At times it posed more questions than it answered (which is fine with me). Cold War and relations with US are stark in their absence, which was somewhat disappointing, but I suppose compensated by there being VSI titles for those separately.
November 22, 2022
El libro es corto, lo cual es bueno, y el lenguaje en cierta medida es ameno y abarca los acontecimientos mas importantes de Rusia desde la fundación de la Rus de Kiev finalizando muy sucintamente con la llegada al poder de Putin, no es un mal libro la verdad, pero hay algo que no me termina de convencer y, comparado con otros textos de esta misma índole, este tiene un puesto muy abajo para mí.
Hay afirmaciones algo controvertidas como la que Moscovia, antes de la llegada de los romanov, estaba aislada de los cambios europeos como la reforma o el renacimiento, haciendo que uno piense que Rusia era un país atrasado y super asilado y hermético, pero hay que tener cuidado ciertas ideas si llegaron e igualmente, si las mismas llegaban a este lugar dependería del contexto local el cómo recibirla y aceptarlas.
Un Punto a favor de esta historia, es mostrar las regiones que son distintas a Rusia y como es su relación con la misma, véase Polonia, asia central, el Cáucaso o el báltico, cada una de ellas tenia una mejor o peor relación con Moscú, ya sea por la resistencia a no ser rusificados o una mayor autonomía de sus élites locales.
También es bueno que se muestren tanto los aspectos positivos como los negativos del gobierno soviético, aunque como pasa mucho en este tipo de libros desde el siglo XX se abarca más rápido los acontecimientos, porqué el libro se centra en la narración de fenómenos importantes, en alguna que otra ocasión se abordan otros aspectos.
Las conclusiones son contundentes ya que toda la historia de Rusia muestra una estructura personalista y autoritaria que tiene, algo que sigue y continúa. En esta última parte también son expuestas las fortalezas y debilidades que han hecho que Rusia perdure muchas veces pero que también cambie, a causa de las revoluciones o el del descontento de la gente contra sus dirigentes.
Un libro bueno, que tal vez no sea la mejor introducción a Rusia, pero no está demás leerlo si se puede.
Hay afirmaciones algo controvertidas como la que Moscovia, antes de la llegada de los romanov, estaba aislada de los cambios europeos como la reforma o el renacimiento, haciendo que uno piense que Rusia era un país atrasado y super asilado y hermético, pero hay que tener cuidado ciertas ideas si llegaron e igualmente, si las mismas llegaban a este lugar dependería del contexto local el cómo recibirla y aceptarlas.
Un Punto a favor de esta historia, es mostrar las regiones que son distintas a Rusia y como es su relación con la misma, véase Polonia, asia central, el Cáucaso o el báltico, cada una de ellas tenia una mejor o peor relación con Moscú, ya sea por la resistencia a no ser rusificados o una mayor autonomía de sus élites locales.
También es bueno que se muestren tanto los aspectos positivos como los negativos del gobierno soviético, aunque como pasa mucho en este tipo de libros desde el siglo XX se abarca más rápido los acontecimientos, porqué el libro se centra en la narración de fenómenos importantes, en alguna que otra ocasión se abordan otros aspectos.
Las conclusiones son contundentes ya que toda la historia de Rusia muestra una estructura personalista y autoritaria que tiene, algo que sigue y continúa. En esta última parte también son expuestas las fortalezas y debilidades que han hecho que Rusia perdure muchas veces pero que también cambie, a causa de las revoluciones o el del descontento de la gente contra sus dirigentes.
Un libro bueno, que tal vez no sea la mejor introducción a Rusia, pero no está demás leerlo si se puede.
December 24, 2021
Russia empire gradually came into shape after Muscovy improvised an authority structure which would enable it to cope with the challenges it faced both from the steppe and from European great powers. It became the largest territorial state on earth and outlasted most of its rivals.
The First World War almost destroyed Russia. But Soviet Union was born out of the 1917 revolution, and evolved to be a super power, as well as the leader and bastion of the worldwide Communist movement. Even after Soviet Union collapsed, Russia survived in reduced form. However, the authoritarian and personalized political structure which brought great success in the past, is ill-suited to the entirely different challenges Russia faces today, and the heavy dependence of economy on the oil industry makes it super vulnerable to external circumstances.
Russia is a very interesting country, with its unique folklore, constant struggling between dictatorship and democracy, formidable military strength but mismatched GDP size. In the next 50 years, how Russia is coping with its unique challenges is worth being closed watched.
The First World War almost destroyed Russia. But Soviet Union was born out of the 1917 revolution, and evolved to be a super power, as well as the leader and bastion of the worldwide Communist movement. Even after Soviet Union collapsed, Russia survived in reduced form. However, the authoritarian and personalized political structure which brought great success in the past, is ill-suited to the entirely different challenges Russia faces today, and the heavy dependence of economy on the oil industry makes it super vulnerable to external circumstances.
Russia is a very interesting country, with its unique folklore, constant struggling between dictatorship and democracy, formidable military strength but mismatched GDP size. In the next 50 years, how Russia is coping with its unique challenges is worth being closed watched.
November 22, 2017
"The state's overweening exercise of authority, its dependence on wilful and often corrupt agents, and the general weakness of law and institutions impeded economic development, enfeebled the link between elites and masses, and generated bitter resentments which sporadically burst forth in rebellion".
August 15, 2024
I’m not really sure how to rate this. It was pretty dry and dense, but also what would you expect when you try to condense 11ish centuries of history into about 130 pages. There was just too much information for me to digest.
October 19, 2020
What world event in your lifetime has shocked you the most? For me, a child of the 50's and 60's, the fall of the Soviet Union was stunning. I'm sure that many people saw it coming, but I didn't. Learning more about what led up to the collapse was one reason I read Russian History: A Very Short Introduction, by Geoffrey Hosking. Another was to better understand the background and climate from which books I've enjoyed so much were written - books by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Pasternak. I plan to read works by Pushkin next.
This concise and easily read book was written in 2012. It's actually part of a series called "Very Short Introductions" that includes about 400 books on history, art, science, religion, politics and other topics.
One topic the book covered extensively was serfdom. It was made law in 1649. Nicholas I called it an obvious evil, but resisted calls to abolish it because he anticipated catastrophic instability. I would be interested in an extensive comparison with slavery in America. I'm sure any misgivings that Lincoln had about its abolishment mirrored those of Nicholas. Serfdom was not racially based. Serfs were not abducted or physically forced into their positions. But once there, they were similarly stripped of most rights, and subject to severe cruelty, with no legal protection. However, unlike slaves, they were entitled to land. I'm sure doctoral theses and books abound comparing the two systems.
I learned that one of Ivan the Terrible's methods of intimidation and control was the presence of horsemen patrolling the countryside carrying two items - a dog's head, representing one who sniffs out trouble, and a broom, representing one who sweeps trouble away. Traitors (I'm sure the definition was loosey goosey) were tortured and murdered.
I question this socio-political conclusion of Hosking's: "Russia's ... culture was at a more primitive level than those of newly absorbed peoples, who therefore chafed at Russia's dominance." Sorry Bud, but they would chafe as much or more if Russia was socially "superior".
Based on Peter the Great's knowledge of European society, as a part of his modernization of Russia, both nobles and merchants were no longer allowed to wear beards, which had been a deeply-felt symbol of their Orthodox Christianity.
I knew nothing about the Crimean War. It took place in 1853 and 1854. Britain and France were together battling for control of the former Turkish-controlled Crimea with Russia, who desperately needed to be able to access its shipping lane. Russia lost.
Throughout Russian and Soviet history, one of the biggest causes of grief for their leaders has been the result of a geographical reality. The vast size of the country, and the large number of bordering nations has stressed the nation militarily and economically, due to ongoing border wars and the perceived need to develop safe land and sea passages for commerce and potential military use.
Finally, I found the ideological basis on which the Soviet Union was founded in 1917 to be scary stuff: "(To) join with the workers of other industrialized countries to foment world revolution and build communism throughout the world. ...All ... opponents represent absolute evil. ...(We have) the right not just to defeat but to exterminate opponents."
This concise and easily read book was written in 2012. It's actually part of a series called "Very Short Introductions" that includes about 400 books on history, art, science, religion, politics and other topics.
One topic the book covered extensively was serfdom. It was made law in 1649. Nicholas I called it an obvious evil, but resisted calls to abolish it because he anticipated catastrophic instability. I would be interested in an extensive comparison with slavery in America. I'm sure any misgivings that Lincoln had about its abolishment mirrored those of Nicholas. Serfdom was not racially based. Serfs were not abducted or physically forced into their positions. But once there, they were similarly stripped of most rights, and subject to severe cruelty, with no legal protection. However, unlike slaves, they were entitled to land. I'm sure doctoral theses and books abound comparing the two systems.
I learned that one of Ivan the Terrible's methods of intimidation and control was the presence of horsemen patrolling the countryside carrying two items - a dog's head, representing one who sniffs out trouble, and a broom, representing one who sweeps trouble away. Traitors (I'm sure the definition was loosey goosey) were tortured and murdered.
I question this socio-political conclusion of Hosking's: "Russia's ... culture was at a more primitive level than those of newly absorbed peoples, who therefore chafed at Russia's dominance." Sorry Bud, but they would chafe as much or more if Russia was socially "superior".
Based on Peter the Great's knowledge of European society, as a part of his modernization of Russia, both nobles and merchants were no longer allowed to wear beards, which had been a deeply-felt symbol of their Orthodox Christianity.
I knew nothing about the Crimean War. It took place in 1853 and 1854. Britain and France were together battling for control of the former Turkish-controlled Crimea with Russia, who desperately needed to be able to access its shipping lane. Russia lost.
Throughout Russian and Soviet history, one of the biggest causes of grief for their leaders has been the result of a geographical reality. The vast size of the country, and the large number of bordering nations has stressed the nation militarily and economically, due to ongoing border wars and the perceived need to develop safe land and sea passages for commerce and potential military use.
Finally, I found the ideological basis on which the Soviet Union was founded in 1917 to be scary stuff: "(To) join with the workers of other industrialized countries to foment world revolution and build communism throughout the world. ...All ... opponents represent absolute evil. ...(We have) the right not just to defeat but to exterminate opponents."
December 17, 2021
2.5 stars
For a supposed introduction this seemed to require a degree of prior knowledge in order to be understood. As someone who knows a bit about the soviet Union but very little about pre 1905 Russia, it really stood out to me how I barely grasped the first section but got along better with later chapters. I do think this is useful however as a refresher/ quick guide to the chronology of Russian history. And it does have a big advantage over the average history book of being just 130 pages long ...
For a supposed introduction this seemed to require a degree of prior knowledge in order to be understood. As someone who knows a bit about the soviet Union but very little about pre 1905 Russia, it really stood out to me how I barely grasped the first section but got along better with later chapters. I do think this is useful however as a refresher/ quick guide to the chronology of Russian history. And it does have a big advantage over the average history book of being just 130 pages long ...
January 29, 2025
An abbreviated version of a longer book by the same author. He presents a Russo-centric, though (critically) not necessarily biased, version of Russian history a la its relations with its imperial subjects, a notable deviation from most authors who write on the subject.
The author correctly identifies the key inflection points in Russian history that lead to its deviation from the rest of Eastern Europe and the west as a whole. The institutions that grew out of Moscovy domination, mongol subjugation, serfdom, and imperial administration of dozens of other ethnic groups have all compounded upon themselves to produce the Russia we know today.
The author correctly identifies the key inflection points in Russian history that lead to its deviation from the rest of Eastern Europe and the west as a whole. The institutions that grew out of Moscovy domination, mongol subjugation, serfdom, and imperial administration of dozens of other ethnic groups have all compounded upon themselves to produce the Russia we know today.
August 21, 2018
p.xv � In Thomas Mann’s novel The Magic Mountain, which is a kind of panorama of Pre-First World War European civilization, there are appropriately enough, quite a number of Russian characters. They sit at two separate tables: the Good Russian table and the Bad Russian table. Our thinking about Russia today has not advanced much beyond these facile labels. At one table, we seat Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Repin and Sakharov; at the other, most of the Tsars, Stalin, and nowadays often Putin. We seen unable to approach Russian without a strong moral and emotional input, positive or negative.
Chapter 1 � Kievan Rus and the Mongols
p.1 � In 1237, Mongol invaders attacked the town of Suzdal.
p.2 � the prince and his druzhina (armed henchmen) formed the elite
p.3 � Prince Vladimir (978-1015) accepted the Byzantine form of Christianity in 988
Vladimir’s work of consolidation was continued by his son, Iaroslav (1019-54), who rebuilt Kiev as an imposing capital city, with stone fortifications, its own Cathedral of St. Sophia, named after Byzantium’s principal church, and a Golden Gate for ceremonial entry.
p.4 � Iaroslav promulgated the first Rus-ian law code, the Russkaia Pravda. Pravda is a key word for understanding Russian culture: it means no only truth, but also justice and what is right according to God’s law.
p.6 � New towns were founded and junior princes used them as bases for securing their own authority; in particular Vladimir, Suzdal, and Rostov became wealthy commercial centres, though as yet not serious rivals of Kiev and Novgorod.
Rus princes� disunity proved fatal. When the army of Batu, Chingis Khan’s grandson, approached Riazan in 1237, the princes were engaged in ferocious battles for control of Kiev, and did not respond to Riazan’s appeal for help. Over the next three years, Batu’s cavalry was able to attack cities singly, without ever facing a combined Rus army.
p.7 � Eventually Batu withdrew, concluding that direct occupation of such unfamiliar forested territory was beyond him. He set up the capital of his domain (ulus), usually called by historians the Golden Horde, at Sarai on the lower Volga. From there, he and his successors fashioned a system of domination over the Rus principalities. They awarded each ruling prince the right to rule (iarlyk), after a symbolic ceremony of submission.
The Mongols restrained princely feuding. They built and maintained a network of communications, together with postal relay stations, superior to anything that had existed in Kiev. Through it, they plugged Rus into a Central Asian trading network which extended to China, the world’s wealthiest civilization.
p.8 � For the Orthodox Church, the Mongol dominion was almost a golden age. The Mongols were on principle tolerant in religious matters, and later themselves became Muslim. They granted the church immunity from tribute and from the obligation to deliver recruits for military and labour services. It was able to accumulate extensive landholdings and vassals.
Novgorod was going its own way. Its far north-western forest location deterred the Mongols from attacking it. Its prince, Alexander (1236-63), negotiated skilfully with them, and in return for paying an ample tribute received a special charter guaranteeing the city’s right to govern itself. He had good reason to mollify the Mongols, for his western frontier was threatened by the Swedes; he defeated them in 1240 in a battle on the River Neva � hence his nickname Nevsky.
Alexander’s younger son, Daniil, became ruler of the new principality of Moscow.
p.9 � Gradually, Moscow ceased to observe the Kievan dynastic rules and went over to straightforward patrimonial succession, from father to eldest son. boyars (leading warriors)
p.10 � Andrei Rublev, developed Byzantine iconic model, making their figures less monumental, more graceful and expressive in their gestures and appearance. Rublev’s Trinity is perhaps the best known of all Orthodox icons: its light blue coloring, the meek and trusting way the three angelic figures respond to each other, express the spiritual peace and mutual communication (later known as sobornost) which has remained as ideal for Russian believers.
The Decline of the Golden Horde and the Rise of Muscovy
p.13 � In 1380, when Mamai moved on Moscow, Prince Dimitry, decided to challenge him on the field of Kulikovo, on the upper River Don. Dmitry’s army succeed in repelling the Mongol cavalry charges before Mamai’s Lithuanian allies could arrive. Dmitry became known as Dmitry Donskoi in honour of his victory.
The Mongol’s yoke was shaken but not overthrown. They decided to demonstrate who was master and raided Moscow two years later. […] Moscow had become the undoubted leader among the north-eastern principalities.
p.14 � Moscow had augmented its power and prestige not by opposing the Mongols but by cultivating good relations with them, providing themselves reliable tribute-payers and upholders of order. In the course of that experience, they learned much about the art of government: how to conduct a census and use it for taxation purposes, how to raise an army, maintain rapid communications over extensive territory, and exploit trade whilst also extracting dues from it.
Chapter 2 � The Formation of the Muscovite State
p.18 � In 1571, Crimean Tartars sacked Moscow itself. To defend their territory, Muscovy began to construct defense lines, consisting of stockades of tree trunks obstructing known raiding routes.
Muscovy also enlisted the aid of Cossacks on the Don River. Cossacks were self-governing military communities who occupied the steppes abandoned by the Golden Horde, hunting, fishing, and occasionally raiding towns or villages on their fringes.
Ivan III ad Vasilii III (1505-33) absorbed other Rus princely lands, especially the extensive Novgorod territories, and converted them into pomestia. The lesser princes and boyars were given extensive power to require local communities to fulfil their obligations. The precise terms of military service were laid down by the Service Decree of 1556, which stipulated the weapons, horses, and armed men each pomeshchik (estate-holder) had to provide in return for a given quantity of land.
p.20 � The boundaries of serfdom were finally drawn tight in the Law Code of 1649, which gave the state unlimited powers to track down and reclaim fugitive peasants.
p.21 � Ivan IV the Terrible (1533-84) was undisputed ruler of Rus, that the princes and boyars were his subjects, not partners or even subordinate allies. He insisted on adopting the title of Tsar, the Russian equivalent of Caesar, translatable here as “sovereign,� that is, no longer owing tribute to any earthly ruler.
Ivan also intended to establish once and for all that the crown would be hereditary in his family. When in 1553 he fell ill, he required his boyars to take an oath to his son, Dimitry.
p.23 � Boyars accepted the Tsar’s dominance since they recognized that feuding among themselves was mortally dangerous in Muscovy’s geopolitically exposed situation.
Ivan was relatively successful at creating unified authority. […] He bequeathed a tradition that, to fulfil its demanding functions, the Russian state has to be harsh and domineering, to the extent of violating both human customs and divine laws, and also to depend on personal ties and patron-client networks rather than on stable institutions and laws.
The failure to develop expertise in European languages and culture, similar to that which Rus already deployed to deal with the steppe khanates, Byzantium, and the Balkans, all put Muscovy at a disadvantage and closed it to the Renaissance, Reformation, and other developments going forward at the time.
Orthodox Church
p.24 � The fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 horrified the Christians of Rus. […] it now became the spiritual home of the largest contingent of Orthodox believers in any independent realm. Churchmen began to see Muscovy as successor to Rome and Byzantium, as the “Third Roma.�
p.26 � 1589 the Metropolitan of Moscow was elevated to the rank of Patriarch.
17th Century Muscovy
p.28 � Tsar Mikhail Romanov (1613-45) descendant of the family of Ivan’s first wife.
p.30 � profane and sometimes obscene performances of the strolling players (skomorokhi) became influential at the court of Tsar Aleksei (1645-76), and one of their number, Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod, was elected Patriarch in 1652.
p.33 � In the 18th century, Peter I and Catherine II took the work of Aleksei to it logical conclusion in subordinating the church to the state. Peter abolished the Patriatchate, replacing it with a Holy Synod, a council of leading bishops which could be and sometimes was chaired by a layman.
Chapter 3 � The Russian Empire and Europe
p.38 � In 1709, at the Battle of Poltava, Russia decisively defeated Sweden, its greatest rival in northern Europe, and went on to conquer its Baltic provinces. Russia was ahead of other European powers in creating a national army, and as long as successful conscription and supply remained the principal conditions for success, that army thrived.
p.39 � St. Petersburg was much more than a naval base: it soon became the new capital of the empire, created to mark Peter’s determination to break into the European constellation of power. Its design showed that he also intended to adopt European architectural styles and European patterns of political and social life.
p.42 � For all the symbolic innovations, in most respects he consolidated the fundamental structure of Russian society as he had inherited it from Muscovy. He did nothing to fill the gap between the monarchy and local communities; on the contrary, he intensified the hierarchical and personal nature of such links as existed.
Top nobles and senior army officers were prepared to work together with the monarch to maintain social stability and military preparedness. As in Muscovy, they had a shared interest in doing so, to forestall internal unrest and prevent external invasion.
Monarchs who were not acceptable in this sense were swiftly deposed, as happened in 1762 to Peter III (1761-2), who managed to alienate those very circles.
Russia and Europe
p.45 � The new Cadet Corps which trained future army officers in ballistic and fortification also taught them music, dancing, social etiquette, and foreign languages.
p.46 � Russia gained a series of victories over the Ottomans, annexed the Crimea (the first Ottoman Muslim territory to fall under Christian control), colonized fertile lands on the Black Sea coast, and established the major port of Odessa to carry the new international trade through the Bosphorus.
Catherine II the Great (1792-96)
p.48 � The nobles became the only estate to have guaranteed rights, and this fact meant that serfdom became even more arbitrary: serfs had no legal protection against abuse. Russia was now run by a ruling class with its own defined rights, with a Europeanized culture and complete power over the persons of its serfs. This internal cultural and social gulf defined Russian life for the next century.
p.49 � The brief reign of Emperor Paul (1796-1801) illustrated what happened when an Emperor broke the convention that he should rule with the consent of the elite.
In 1801, a group of Guards officers, led by the governor-general of St. Petersburg, deposed Paul, with the consent of his son, Alexander. They then went on to murder him � something to which Alexander had not consented. Paul’s innovations were then quietly retracted.
p.50 � Alexander’s most durable reform was the creation of functional ministries, each headed by a single minister who took responsibility for their work. This novelty, derived from European models, did something to introduce order and system into government.
p.53 � The rebellion of the Decembrists was improvised an was easily put down, but it left Alexander’s successor, Nicholas I (1825-55), feeling threatened and anxious, determined to make no concessions to liberal sentiment.
p.58 � The Crimean War also demonstrated vividly the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian army.
The absence of railways was especially felt. Britain and France were able to move troops thousands of miles across the sea more quickly than Russia could a few hundred miles across country. This defect was fatal in such a vast empire. Most of the Russian army never even reached the Crimea: it was guarding the Baltic coastline to prevent enemy landings, or was stationed in Poland and the Caucasus to prevent rebellion. The Russian army was the largest in Europe, but it could not be brought to bear on strategically decisive locations.
p.59 � This accumulation of problems helps to explain why a new Emperor, Alexander II (1855-81), who came to the throne in the middle of the Crimean War, at last resolved on radical reform.
Chapter 4 � The Responsibility and Dangers of the Empire
p.65 � The government was seriously worried that Ukrainians, given their own literary language, might form a nation separate from Russia. Accordingly, in the 1870s publications and public performances in Ukrainian were banned.
p.66 � By the May Laws of 1882, Jews were forbidden to own agricultural land.
In the city worst affected, Odessa, some 800 Jews were murdered in 1905-06. Disgracefully, Nicholas II allowed his portrait to be carried by the Union of Russian People, a political organization which instigated anti-Jewish pogroms. He also blocked attempts to emancipate the Jews and repeatedly pardoned those found guilty of anti-Jewish violence.
The Baltic
p.67 � Estonians and Latvians were already among the most literate peoples in the empire, thanks to their Lutheran religion.
Finland constituted a very special case. Conquered from Sweden during the Napoleonic Wars, it remained a distinct Grand Duchy whose “grand duke� was the Tsar.
p.68 � In 1905, faced with rebellion throughout the empire, Nicholas II gave way and restored Finland’s autonomous status.
Chapter 5 � Reform and Revolution
p.71 � The Emancipation Edict of 1861 was thus inevitably an unsatisfactory compromise. Landowners retained much of their land, especially in the south, where it was fertile and valuable.
p.72 � Peasants were awarded holding which were usually smaller than those they had previously held; moreover, they were required to pay for land they thought they already owned in instalments over half a century. Now were they set free as full citizens, but till they had paid off their debt were tied to a land commune, where as before joint responsibility was the norm.
Peasants this remained a segregated social estate.
p.73 � Local government was now entrusted to zemstvos and municipalities, elected assemblies dominated by the nobility and property owners, but with some representation from other classes, including peasants.
p.74 � With the construction of railways (culminating in the Trans-Siberian, completed in 1903), communications improved greatly.
The intelligentsia � a new concept which Russia gave to the world. […] Civil society and the state were both growing stronger simultaneously, but as opponents, not as partners.
p.77 � Most Russians, including the uneducated, had a concept of “Russia,� which involved the Tsar, the Orthodox Church, Russian language and literature, and they shared a rich subculture of folklore, music, dances, woodcuts, and other entertainments.
Socialism
p.81 � The intelligentsia had its own views of “Russia.� Alienated from the state, many of them idealized the narod (people), even though their links with it were tenuous; hence they became known as narodniki.
The essence of Russia, they declared, lay in its peasant communes, with their democratic self-government, mutual aid, and periodic redistribution of assets. The peasants should now be given all the land, and Russia should become a federation of such communes, with minimal coordination and control from the centre.
p.84 � The party split at an early state. One faction, the Mensheviks, believed in a mass working-class party which would form a parliamentary opposition during the “bourgeois� stage of history. The other, the Bolsheviks, believed that parliaments were a sham, and advocated a small party of “professional revolutionaries�� which would lead the workers in a decisive uprising to prevent the bourgeoisie ever taking power. Vladimir Lenin, their leader, took over the Narodnik notion that the peasants were a potentially revolutionary class.
The 1905 Revolution
p.86 � “Bloody Sunday� � The socialist parties became involved in many of the protests, helping to organize them and give them political direction, but the demands being put forward were similar everywhere and derived from the universal desire for civil freedoms, greater self-government, and participation in politics both locally and at the centre. Peasants met in their village assemblies, and discussed national politics, sometimes with the assistance of a schoolteacher or political activist. Then they drew up petitions, still mostly couched in terms of loyalty to the Tsar. At the top of their list was the demand for an end to private landed property and the transfer to them of all non-peasant land, to be administered by their own communities.
Then came demands for fairer taxation, universal free primary education, full civil rights, and a legislative assembly elected by all the people. What this amounted to was completing the agenda of the 1860s reforms.
p.87 � The largest soviet, that of St. Petersburg, chaired by Lev Trosky, ordained a general strike in October 1905 which quickly spread to other cities. It was decisive in forcing the Tsar to make serious political concessions.
The State Duma
p.88 � Under pressure from the revolution, in October 1905 Nicholas II launched much the most ambitious attempt yet to create an institutional link with ordinary people. In the October Manifesto, he announced the creation of a State Duma, a legislative assembly to be elected by a multi-stage procedure which included most of the adult male population but gave more direct representation to urban and rural elites. In future, the Manifesto pledged, no law would take effect without the Duman’s consent.
The appearance of the Duma stimulated the formation of political parties as a link between the population and their representatives. Socialist parties were able to leave the underground and organize legally to contest elections. Professional people were best represented by the Constitutional Democratic (Kadet) Party, which favoured a parliamentary government, radical land reform, and far-reaching autonomy for the nationalities.
The government set its face against the demand, and dissolved the Duma before it had lasted three months. A Second Duma, elected in the same way, gave similar results.
p.89 � The government dissolved the Second Duma too. That might have been the end of the Duma as an institution. But government had also been strengthened by the creation of the post of prime minister. Its holder, Petr Stolypin, had a broader political vision: he insisted the Duma should continue, though with a reduced franchise, which gave the dominant position to landowners, urban elites, and Russians; some non-Russians lost their voting rights altogether.
Stolypin endeavoured to release peasants from the village commune and make them full citizens, in order to promote modern commercial farming and create a politically loyal class of small landed property owners. The Third Duma passed his reform.
p.90 � Stolypin was murdered in 1911, in circumstances that have remained obscure.
p.96 � The experience of civil war left a lasting mark on the Bolshevik leaders: thereafter, they were in permanent mobilizational mode, seeing enemies everywhere and using the rhetoric of military campaigns to impel social change and economic development.
Chapter 6 � The Soviet Union’s Turbulent Rise
p.97 � The 1917 revolution looked like a com
Chapter 1 � Kievan Rus and the Mongols
p.1 � In 1237, Mongol invaders attacked the town of Suzdal.
p.2 � the prince and his druzhina (armed henchmen) formed the elite
p.3 � Prince Vladimir (978-1015) accepted the Byzantine form of Christianity in 988
Vladimir’s work of consolidation was continued by his son, Iaroslav (1019-54), who rebuilt Kiev as an imposing capital city, with stone fortifications, its own Cathedral of St. Sophia, named after Byzantium’s principal church, and a Golden Gate for ceremonial entry.
p.4 � Iaroslav promulgated the first Rus-ian law code, the Russkaia Pravda. Pravda is a key word for understanding Russian culture: it means no only truth, but also justice and what is right according to God’s law.
p.6 � New towns were founded and junior princes used them as bases for securing their own authority; in particular Vladimir, Suzdal, and Rostov became wealthy commercial centres, though as yet not serious rivals of Kiev and Novgorod.
Rus princes� disunity proved fatal. When the army of Batu, Chingis Khan’s grandson, approached Riazan in 1237, the princes were engaged in ferocious battles for control of Kiev, and did not respond to Riazan’s appeal for help. Over the next three years, Batu’s cavalry was able to attack cities singly, without ever facing a combined Rus army.
p.7 � Eventually Batu withdrew, concluding that direct occupation of such unfamiliar forested territory was beyond him. He set up the capital of his domain (ulus), usually called by historians the Golden Horde, at Sarai on the lower Volga. From there, he and his successors fashioned a system of domination over the Rus principalities. They awarded each ruling prince the right to rule (iarlyk), after a symbolic ceremony of submission.
The Mongols restrained princely feuding. They built and maintained a network of communications, together with postal relay stations, superior to anything that had existed in Kiev. Through it, they plugged Rus into a Central Asian trading network which extended to China, the world’s wealthiest civilization.
p.8 � For the Orthodox Church, the Mongol dominion was almost a golden age. The Mongols were on principle tolerant in religious matters, and later themselves became Muslim. They granted the church immunity from tribute and from the obligation to deliver recruits for military and labour services. It was able to accumulate extensive landholdings and vassals.
Novgorod was going its own way. Its far north-western forest location deterred the Mongols from attacking it. Its prince, Alexander (1236-63), negotiated skilfully with them, and in return for paying an ample tribute received a special charter guaranteeing the city’s right to govern itself. He had good reason to mollify the Mongols, for his western frontier was threatened by the Swedes; he defeated them in 1240 in a battle on the River Neva � hence his nickname Nevsky.
Alexander’s younger son, Daniil, became ruler of the new principality of Moscow.
p.9 � Gradually, Moscow ceased to observe the Kievan dynastic rules and went over to straightforward patrimonial succession, from father to eldest son. boyars (leading warriors)
p.10 � Andrei Rublev, developed Byzantine iconic model, making their figures less monumental, more graceful and expressive in their gestures and appearance. Rublev’s Trinity is perhaps the best known of all Orthodox icons: its light blue coloring, the meek and trusting way the three angelic figures respond to each other, express the spiritual peace and mutual communication (later known as sobornost) which has remained as ideal for Russian believers.
The Decline of the Golden Horde and the Rise of Muscovy
p.13 � In 1380, when Mamai moved on Moscow, Prince Dimitry, decided to challenge him on the field of Kulikovo, on the upper River Don. Dmitry’s army succeed in repelling the Mongol cavalry charges before Mamai’s Lithuanian allies could arrive. Dmitry became known as Dmitry Donskoi in honour of his victory.
The Mongol’s yoke was shaken but not overthrown. They decided to demonstrate who was master and raided Moscow two years later. […] Moscow had become the undoubted leader among the north-eastern principalities.
p.14 � Moscow had augmented its power and prestige not by opposing the Mongols but by cultivating good relations with them, providing themselves reliable tribute-payers and upholders of order. In the course of that experience, they learned much about the art of government: how to conduct a census and use it for taxation purposes, how to raise an army, maintain rapid communications over extensive territory, and exploit trade whilst also extracting dues from it.
Chapter 2 � The Formation of the Muscovite State
p.18 � In 1571, Crimean Tartars sacked Moscow itself. To defend their territory, Muscovy began to construct defense lines, consisting of stockades of tree trunks obstructing known raiding routes.
Muscovy also enlisted the aid of Cossacks on the Don River. Cossacks were self-governing military communities who occupied the steppes abandoned by the Golden Horde, hunting, fishing, and occasionally raiding towns or villages on their fringes.
Ivan III ad Vasilii III (1505-33) absorbed other Rus princely lands, especially the extensive Novgorod territories, and converted them into pomestia. The lesser princes and boyars were given extensive power to require local communities to fulfil their obligations. The precise terms of military service were laid down by the Service Decree of 1556, which stipulated the weapons, horses, and armed men each pomeshchik (estate-holder) had to provide in return for a given quantity of land.
p.20 � The boundaries of serfdom were finally drawn tight in the Law Code of 1649, which gave the state unlimited powers to track down and reclaim fugitive peasants.
p.21 � Ivan IV the Terrible (1533-84) was undisputed ruler of Rus, that the princes and boyars were his subjects, not partners or even subordinate allies. He insisted on adopting the title of Tsar, the Russian equivalent of Caesar, translatable here as “sovereign,� that is, no longer owing tribute to any earthly ruler.
Ivan also intended to establish once and for all that the crown would be hereditary in his family. When in 1553 he fell ill, he required his boyars to take an oath to his son, Dimitry.
p.23 � Boyars accepted the Tsar’s dominance since they recognized that feuding among themselves was mortally dangerous in Muscovy’s geopolitically exposed situation.
Ivan was relatively successful at creating unified authority. […] He bequeathed a tradition that, to fulfil its demanding functions, the Russian state has to be harsh and domineering, to the extent of violating both human customs and divine laws, and also to depend on personal ties and patron-client networks rather than on stable institutions and laws.
The failure to develop expertise in European languages and culture, similar to that which Rus already deployed to deal with the steppe khanates, Byzantium, and the Balkans, all put Muscovy at a disadvantage and closed it to the Renaissance, Reformation, and other developments going forward at the time.
Orthodox Church
p.24 � The fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 horrified the Christians of Rus. […] it now became the spiritual home of the largest contingent of Orthodox believers in any independent realm. Churchmen began to see Muscovy as successor to Rome and Byzantium, as the “Third Roma.�
p.26 � 1589 the Metropolitan of Moscow was elevated to the rank of Patriarch.
17th Century Muscovy
p.28 � Tsar Mikhail Romanov (1613-45) descendant of the family of Ivan’s first wife.
p.30 � profane and sometimes obscene performances of the strolling players (skomorokhi) became influential at the court of Tsar Aleksei (1645-76), and one of their number, Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod, was elected Patriarch in 1652.
p.33 � In the 18th century, Peter I and Catherine II took the work of Aleksei to it logical conclusion in subordinating the church to the state. Peter abolished the Patriatchate, replacing it with a Holy Synod, a council of leading bishops which could be and sometimes was chaired by a layman.
Chapter 3 � The Russian Empire and Europe
p.38 � In 1709, at the Battle of Poltava, Russia decisively defeated Sweden, its greatest rival in northern Europe, and went on to conquer its Baltic provinces. Russia was ahead of other European powers in creating a national army, and as long as successful conscription and supply remained the principal conditions for success, that army thrived.
p.39 � St. Petersburg was much more than a naval base: it soon became the new capital of the empire, created to mark Peter’s determination to break into the European constellation of power. Its design showed that he also intended to adopt European architectural styles and European patterns of political and social life.
p.42 � For all the symbolic innovations, in most respects he consolidated the fundamental structure of Russian society as he had inherited it from Muscovy. He did nothing to fill the gap between the monarchy and local communities; on the contrary, he intensified the hierarchical and personal nature of such links as existed.
Top nobles and senior army officers were prepared to work together with the monarch to maintain social stability and military preparedness. As in Muscovy, they had a shared interest in doing so, to forestall internal unrest and prevent external invasion.
Monarchs who were not acceptable in this sense were swiftly deposed, as happened in 1762 to Peter III (1761-2), who managed to alienate those very circles.
Russia and Europe
p.45 � The new Cadet Corps which trained future army officers in ballistic and fortification also taught them music, dancing, social etiquette, and foreign languages.
p.46 � Russia gained a series of victories over the Ottomans, annexed the Crimea (the first Ottoman Muslim territory to fall under Christian control), colonized fertile lands on the Black Sea coast, and established the major port of Odessa to carry the new international trade through the Bosphorus.
Catherine II the Great (1792-96)
p.48 � The nobles became the only estate to have guaranteed rights, and this fact meant that serfdom became even more arbitrary: serfs had no legal protection against abuse. Russia was now run by a ruling class with its own defined rights, with a Europeanized culture and complete power over the persons of its serfs. This internal cultural and social gulf defined Russian life for the next century.
p.49 � The brief reign of Emperor Paul (1796-1801) illustrated what happened when an Emperor broke the convention that he should rule with the consent of the elite.
In 1801, a group of Guards officers, led by the governor-general of St. Petersburg, deposed Paul, with the consent of his son, Alexander. They then went on to murder him � something to which Alexander had not consented. Paul’s innovations were then quietly retracted.
p.50 � Alexander’s most durable reform was the creation of functional ministries, each headed by a single minister who took responsibility for their work. This novelty, derived from European models, did something to introduce order and system into government.
p.53 � The rebellion of the Decembrists was improvised an was easily put down, but it left Alexander’s successor, Nicholas I (1825-55), feeling threatened and anxious, determined to make no concessions to liberal sentiment.
p.58 � The Crimean War also demonstrated vividly the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian army.
The absence of railways was especially felt. Britain and France were able to move troops thousands of miles across the sea more quickly than Russia could a few hundred miles across country. This defect was fatal in such a vast empire. Most of the Russian army never even reached the Crimea: it was guarding the Baltic coastline to prevent enemy landings, or was stationed in Poland and the Caucasus to prevent rebellion. The Russian army was the largest in Europe, but it could not be brought to bear on strategically decisive locations.
p.59 � This accumulation of problems helps to explain why a new Emperor, Alexander II (1855-81), who came to the throne in the middle of the Crimean War, at last resolved on radical reform.
Chapter 4 � The Responsibility and Dangers of the Empire
p.65 � The government was seriously worried that Ukrainians, given their own literary language, might form a nation separate from Russia. Accordingly, in the 1870s publications and public performances in Ukrainian were banned.
p.66 � By the May Laws of 1882, Jews were forbidden to own agricultural land.
In the city worst affected, Odessa, some 800 Jews were murdered in 1905-06. Disgracefully, Nicholas II allowed his portrait to be carried by the Union of Russian People, a political organization which instigated anti-Jewish pogroms. He also blocked attempts to emancipate the Jews and repeatedly pardoned those found guilty of anti-Jewish violence.
The Baltic
p.67 � Estonians and Latvians were already among the most literate peoples in the empire, thanks to their Lutheran religion.
Finland constituted a very special case. Conquered from Sweden during the Napoleonic Wars, it remained a distinct Grand Duchy whose “grand duke� was the Tsar.
p.68 � In 1905, faced with rebellion throughout the empire, Nicholas II gave way and restored Finland’s autonomous status.
Chapter 5 � Reform and Revolution
p.71 � The Emancipation Edict of 1861 was thus inevitably an unsatisfactory compromise. Landowners retained much of their land, especially in the south, where it was fertile and valuable.
p.72 � Peasants were awarded holding which were usually smaller than those they had previously held; moreover, they were required to pay for land they thought they already owned in instalments over half a century. Now were they set free as full citizens, but till they had paid off their debt were tied to a land commune, where as before joint responsibility was the norm.
Peasants this remained a segregated social estate.
p.73 � Local government was now entrusted to zemstvos and municipalities, elected assemblies dominated by the nobility and property owners, but with some representation from other classes, including peasants.
p.74 � With the construction of railways (culminating in the Trans-Siberian, completed in 1903), communications improved greatly.
The intelligentsia � a new concept which Russia gave to the world. […] Civil society and the state were both growing stronger simultaneously, but as opponents, not as partners.
p.77 � Most Russians, including the uneducated, had a concept of “Russia,� which involved the Tsar, the Orthodox Church, Russian language and literature, and they shared a rich subculture of folklore, music, dances, woodcuts, and other entertainments.
Socialism
p.81 � The intelligentsia had its own views of “Russia.� Alienated from the state, many of them idealized the narod (people), even though their links with it were tenuous; hence they became known as narodniki.
The essence of Russia, they declared, lay in its peasant communes, with their democratic self-government, mutual aid, and periodic redistribution of assets. The peasants should now be given all the land, and Russia should become a federation of such communes, with minimal coordination and control from the centre.
p.84 � The party split at an early state. One faction, the Mensheviks, believed in a mass working-class party which would form a parliamentary opposition during the “bourgeois� stage of history. The other, the Bolsheviks, believed that parliaments were a sham, and advocated a small party of “professional revolutionaries�� which would lead the workers in a decisive uprising to prevent the bourgeoisie ever taking power. Vladimir Lenin, their leader, took over the Narodnik notion that the peasants were a potentially revolutionary class.
The 1905 Revolution
p.86 � “Bloody Sunday� � The socialist parties became involved in many of the protests, helping to organize them and give them political direction, but the demands being put forward were similar everywhere and derived from the universal desire for civil freedoms, greater self-government, and participation in politics both locally and at the centre. Peasants met in their village assemblies, and discussed national politics, sometimes with the assistance of a schoolteacher or political activist. Then they drew up petitions, still mostly couched in terms of loyalty to the Tsar. At the top of their list was the demand for an end to private landed property and the transfer to them of all non-peasant land, to be administered by their own communities.
Then came demands for fairer taxation, universal free primary education, full civil rights, and a legislative assembly elected by all the people. What this amounted to was completing the agenda of the 1860s reforms.
p.87 � The largest soviet, that of St. Petersburg, chaired by Lev Trosky, ordained a general strike in October 1905 which quickly spread to other cities. It was decisive in forcing the Tsar to make serious political concessions.
The State Duma
p.88 � Under pressure from the revolution, in October 1905 Nicholas II launched much the most ambitious attempt yet to create an institutional link with ordinary people. In the October Manifesto, he announced the creation of a State Duma, a legislative assembly to be elected by a multi-stage procedure which included most of the adult male population but gave more direct representation to urban and rural elites. In future, the Manifesto pledged, no law would take effect without the Duman’s consent.
The appearance of the Duma stimulated the formation of political parties as a link between the population and their representatives. Socialist parties were able to leave the underground and organize legally to contest elections. Professional people were best represented by the Constitutional Democratic (Kadet) Party, which favoured a parliamentary government, radical land reform, and far-reaching autonomy for the nationalities.
The government set its face against the demand, and dissolved the Duma before it had lasted three months. A Second Duma, elected in the same way, gave similar results.
p.89 � The government dissolved the Second Duma too. That might have been the end of the Duma as an institution. But government had also been strengthened by the creation of the post of prime minister. Its holder, Petr Stolypin, had a broader political vision: he insisted the Duma should continue, though with a reduced franchise, which gave the dominant position to landowners, urban elites, and Russians; some non-Russians lost their voting rights altogether.
Stolypin endeavoured to release peasants from the village commune and make them full citizens, in order to promote modern commercial farming and create a politically loyal class of small landed property owners. The Third Duma passed his reform.
p.90 � Stolypin was murdered in 1911, in circumstances that have remained obscure.
p.96 � The experience of civil war left a lasting mark on the Bolshevik leaders: thereafter, they were in permanent mobilizational mode, seeing enemies everywhere and using the rhetoric of military campaigns to impel social change and economic development.
Chapter 6 � The Soviet Union’s Turbulent Rise
p.97 � The 1917 revolution looked like a com
August 5, 2013
It's hard to write a history of Russia in 130 pages -- it's a good attempt but is sometimes too dry and resorts to oversimplifications/generalizations. And at times feels like a list of republics being conquered, one after the other. But it does give an overall 'feel' of the history that a longer book may not and Hosking works hard to carry certain themes from the beginning of the book to the very end.
Some facts to remember or phrases I liked:
- In 988 Prince Vladimir accepted the Byzantine form of Christianity
- Boris and Gleb were sons of Vladimir, mustered by rivals because they declined to participate in dynastic feuds (they've long been among my favorite Russian saints)
- the Byzantine and Roman churches split apart in the 11th century, which is when Orthodoxy lost most of its contact with Central and Western Europe
- In 1237, Mongols invaders attacked the town of Suzdal
- Scattered [Russian] tribes accepted Varangian, or Viking, rule in the interests of peace, security, and stable commerce.
- ''Pravda is a key word to understanding Russian culture: it means not only truth, but also justice and what is right according to God's law.''
- Place to visit in the future : Kievan Caves Monastery
- radical centralization + a sense of a strong spiritual calling
- 1649 serfdom officially established
- Ivan the Terrible was the first undisputed ruler of Rus who made clear that princes and boyars were his subjects, not partners or even subordinate allies. He insisted on adopting the title of 'Tsar,' the Russian equivalent of Caesar.
- Prince Dmitry Pozharsky won battle against the Polish
- 1709, Battle of Poltava, Russia defeated Sweden, its greatest rival in Northern Europe. Then conquered Baltic provinces.
- Peter the Great required nobles to learn skills that could be useful to the state
- Catherine the Great believed in absolute rule for Russia. She wrote: ''no other authority could act with vigor proportionate to the extent of such a vast domain.''
- ''Where operations required courage, comradeship, and the capacity to improvise, Russian soldiers had no superiors in Europe.''
- (about mid-19th century Russia): ''local affairs were managed by improvisation and personal contacts.''
Some facts to remember or phrases I liked:
- In 988 Prince Vladimir accepted the Byzantine form of Christianity
- Boris and Gleb were sons of Vladimir, mustered by rivals because they declined to participate in dynastic feuds (they've long been among my favorite Russian saints)
- the Byzantine and Roman churches split apart in the 11th century, which is when Orthodoxy lost most of its contact with Central and Western Europe
- In 1237, Mongols invaders attacked the town of Suzdal
- Scattered [Russian] tribes accepted Varangian, or Viking, rule in the interests of peace, security, and stable commerce.
- ''Pravda is a key word to understanding Russian culture: it means not only truth, but also justice and what is right according to God's law.''
- Place to visit in the future : Kievan Caves Monastery
- radical centralization + a sense of a strong spiritual calling
- 1649 serfdom officially established
- Ivan the Terrible was the first undisputed ruler of Rus who made clear that princes and boyars were his subjects, not partners or even subordinate allies. He insisted on adopting the title of 'Tsar,' the Russian equivalent of Caesar.
- Prince Dmitry Pozharsky won battle against the Polish
- 1709, Battle of Poltava, Russia defeated Sweden, its greatest rival in Northern Europe. Then conquered Baltic provinces.
- Peter the Great required nobles to learn skills that could be useful to the state
- Catherine the Great believed in absolute rule for Russia. She wrote: ''no other authority could act with vigor proportionate to the extent of such a vast domain.''
- ''Where operations required courage, comradeship, and the capacity to improvise, Russian soldiers had no superiors in Europe.''
- (about mid-19th century Russia): ''local affairs were managed by improvisation and personal contacts.''
July 6, 2024
Chinh phục và b� chinh phục.
November 2, 2015
I was excited when I found this book in a local bookstore, because a brief introduction to Russian history is exactly what I was looking for when I began browsing the shelves. Alas, to remain brief, the author frequently referred to events and people without providing background, instead assuming the reader would already be familiar with them. I also found myself rereading frequently to keep up with terms and names that were only introduced once, briefly, before being referred to again later.
On the one hand, this trade-off between size and accessibility may be inevitable in a short book on such an expansive topic. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if having a writer who took the reader's perspective more often (and with more thoughtfulness) could have made a difference.
Two positive things: (1) I now want to learn more about certain aspects of Russian history. My initial appetite to learn about Russia was further whetted by this short book. (2) I do, indeed, know more about Russia now than I did before reading this.
On the one hand, this trade-off between size and accessibility may be inevitable in a short book on such an expansive topic. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if having a writer who took the reader's perspective more often (and with more thoughtfulness) could have made a difference.
Two positive things: (1) I now want to learn more about certain aspects of Russian history. My initial appetite to learn about Russia was further whetted by this short book. (2) I do, indeed, know more about Russia now than I did before reading this.
August 24, 2021
Una realmente abreviada historia de Rusia (más enfocada en el imperio ruso, desde su antecedente en la Rus de Kiev y su relación/unión con los pueblos aledaños). Buena bibliografía sugerida, y de hecho, el autor tiene otros textos más extensos sobre periodos específicos. Creo este volumen es un buen panorama general para acercarse a este país en su contexto geopolítico y su evolución histórica, tanto en sus relaciones exteriores como internamente. Particularmente útil como marco para abordar la lectura de autores clásicos como Gogol, Dostoievski y Tolstoi, ya que ahonda mucho en la formación de las diferencias entre aristócratas y pueblo llano del S. XVIII y S. XIX.
April 11, 2019
I spent several hours on plane and tonight finishing the book: it feels a little bit unreal when reading an more than 1000 years of history within few hours... I often compared Chinese history while reading Russian history. I saw a lot of similarities, especially Russia 1920s - 1940s and China 1950s - 1970s.
Many events revealed the very dark side of human nature just like many histories in other countries, but what touches me is that there are always some people, even just a few ones, who want to fight for the poor and injustices and who do not lose conscience.
Many events revealed the very dark side of human nature just like many histories in other countries, but what touches me is that there are always some people, even just a few ones, who want to fight for the poor and injustices and who do not lose conscience.
May 21, 2015
Fantastic introduction to this subject...
November 7, 2017
Not always a practice for the "Short Introduction" series, this one follows the history of the title in chronological order, from Kiev to Putin. There are many things that feel lacking: the Crimean War is discussed in its significance for what concerns the military and diplomatic side but oddly enough we are left with no information on who fought it and why it was significant; nor do we get to know the main actors of the whole history (aside from Ivan IV and Peter the Great, Nicholas II, Lenin, Trotskij, Stalin, Chrushchev, are little more than names). Also, we find no reference to the conquest of space: although the problem of how to change a water pipe in Soviet Russia is telling of the struggles of everyday life, I think a passing mention of the scientific struggle with the USA would have deserved to be there...
Granted, it is difficult to find a balance among all the factors that make a history (politics, economics, military, culture...) and Hosking still manages to mention almost every aspect in accordance with their relevance; we learn then of the importance of the religious element and of how much the tension between tradition and progress in Russia is old and still very much alive today; in a similar way, we see interesting notes on how some artists and writers have interpreted the events they witnessed.
Overall it is a quick introduction to the subject. It would be unfair to state that it did not teach me anything: compared to what I knew before and did not find, it certainly implemented my knowledge, at least in scope and insight; however, I would not recommend it for a university bibliography and I would advise the casual student to rely on more complete works.
Granted, it is difficult to find a balance among all the factors that make a history (politics, economics, military, culture...) and Hosking still manages to mention almost every aspect in accordance with their relevance; we learn then of the importance of the religious element and of how much the tension between tradition and progress in Russia is old and still very much alive today; in a similar way, we see interesting notes on how some artists and writers have interpreted the events they witnessed.
Overall it is a quick introduction to the subject. It would be unfair to state that it did not teach me anything: compared to what I knew before and did not find, it certainly implemented my knowledge, at least in scope and insight; however, I would not recommend it for a university bibliography and I would advise the casual student to rely on more complete works.
November 9, 2019
If you are looking for a good introduction to Russian history because you want to learn about it, this book is not for you!!! If you are looking for a little refresher of what you already learned about the subject, then this book might be a candidate for you.
Now, I understand it is a massive task to write a thousand years worth of history in only 130 pages! One has be to be very selective about information included as well about information that was excluded. Geoffrey Hoskings partially achieves this by not providing much of a background information - he throws names, places, terms, etc assuming you already know what they are or that you will do your own additional research. Chapters were somewhat disjointed and confusing - in beginning the author even attempted to interact with the reader (albeit as an afterthought), but later on completely abandoned this idea. In addition, considering such a limited and precious space (only 130 pages), I don't know why he would talk about an obscure 19th century lawsuit that didn't change anything for Russian jurisprudence and didn't set any legal precedence whatsoever. And yet, the man-made famine that kills millions or the labor camps were barely mentioned (literally a sentence or two).
Now, I understand it is a massive task to write a thousand years worth of history in only 130 pages! One has be to be very selective about information included as well about information that was excluded. Geoffrey Hoskings partially achieves this by not providing much of a background information - he throws names, places, terms, etc assuming you already know what they are or that you will do your own additional research. Chapters were somewhat disjointed and confusing - in beginning the author even attempted to interact with the reader (albeit as an afterthought), but later on completely abandoned this idea. In addition, considering such a limited and precious space (only 130 pages), I don't know why he would talk about an obscure 19th century lawsuit that didn't change anything for Russian jurisprudence and didn't set any legal precedence whatsoever. And yet, the man-made famine that kills millions or the labor camps were barely mentioned (literally a sentence or two).
June 7, 2018
I traveled to St. Petersburg in the summer of 2017. Because of that trip, I have become interested in the history of Russia and wanted to learn more about it so I thought this would be a good book to check out.
This was, honestly, a difficult read and I struggled to get through it. Not because of depth or content, but because of how dull and boring it was. I was expecting more details and history about the Russian tzars and rulers- how they came to power, how they ruled, the struggles they faced. However, this was mostly a short book explaining the lives of the peasantry and every-day common folk throughout Russia's history.
There was very little about the Romanovs, the Russian Revolution, the ruling periods of Lenin and Stalin or anyone else that came after them and there was also surprisingly little about the Cold War or its collapse. This book really seemed to quickly breeze through everything (which is not a real surprise, given the title) and only focus on the lives and livelihood of Russia's non-nobility.
This was, honestly, a difficult read and I struggled to get through it. Not because of depth or content, but because of how dull and boring it was. I was expecting more details and history about the Russian tzars and rulers- how they came to power, how they ruled, the struggles they faced. However, this was mostly a short book explaining the lives of the peasantry and every-day common folk throughout Russia's history.
There was very little about the Romanovs, the Russian Revolution, the ruling periods of Lenin and Stalin or anyone else that came after them and there was also surprisingly little about the Cold War or its collapse. This book really seemed to quickly breeze through everything (which is not a real surprise, given the title) and only focus on the lives and livelihood of Russia's non-nobility.
December 24, 2024
Geoffrey Hosking’s Russian History: A Very Short Introduction is an excellent primer for anyone looking to understand the vast, complex, and often tumultuous history of Russia. In under 200 pages, Hosking skillfully condenses centuries of history, from Kievan Rus to the post-Soviet era, without oversimplifying key events or themes.
The book balances political history with cultural and social developments, offering readers insights into the unique factors that shaped Russia’s national identity—such as its geography, autocratic traditions, and interactions with neighboring powers. Hosking’s writing is concise yet engaging, making even intricate topics like the fall of the tsarist regime or the Soviet Union accessible.
While this is by no means an exhaustive account, it is an ideal starting point for students, casual readers, or anyone curious about Russia’s historical trajectory. Readers looking for more in-depth analysis may need to seek longer works, but Hosking’s expertise shines in this concise and well-structured
The book balances political history with cultural and social developments, offering readers insights into the unique factors that shaped Russia’s national identity—such as its geography, autocratic traditions, and interactions with neighboring powers. Hosking’s writing is concise yet engaging, making even intricate topics like the fall of the tsarist regime or the Soviet Union accessible.
While this is by no means an exhaustive account, it is an ideal starting point for students, casual readers, or anyone curious about Russia’s historical trajectory. Readers looking for more in-depth analysis may need to seek longer works, but Hosking’s expertise shines in this concise and well-structured
June 13, 2019
Each history book serves its purpose. This one served well as an outline of historical development of Russia that was interesting for me as a native Russian to follow. It is incredible how the author managed to cover 1000+ years history span in 150 pages without it seeming too fragmented and without wandering off into too much detail.
The author seemed centrist and objective and I have to agree his reasoning on most questions was compelling. In short, it seemed to me that he "gets" Russia and Russians without sugarcoating its history but also without painting it in too black a tone as it is often the case today.
It is not only an excellent introduction but a good history book on Russia in general. It will leave you with a picture of what Russia is and how it came to be and with further suggested reading about various epochs or personalities should you want to delve deeper.
I was very happy with it and would gladly read other books of Mr. Hosking if a chance occurs.
The author seemed centrist and objective and I have to agree his reasoning on most questions was compelling. In short, it seemed to me that he "gets" Russia and Russians without sugarcoating its history but also without painting it in too black a tone as it is often the case today.
It is not only an excellent introduction but a good history book on Russia in general. It will leave you with a picture of what Russia is and how it came to be and with further suggested reading about various epochs or personalities should you want to delve deeper.
I was very happy with it and would gladly read other books of Mr. Hosking if a chance occurs.
June 20, 2017
This book is a good book if you want a short and concise overview of Russian history. It's very easy to read. It's called "a very short history" for a reason. People who already know a lot about Russian history should skip the book and find themselves something longer to read or find themselves books on specific topics of Russian history. Russia has a long and intricate history. This book does a good job touching on the key points. It's a good refresher course, so to speak, if you've been away from Russian history for a while.
November 18, 2021
Un libro excelente, dónde uno puede explorar la historia rusa desde los albores de la historia hasta la actualidad, puede uno observar cómo se van repitiendo una serie de hechos relacionados con las características e ideas del inexpugnable pueblo ruso, una obra de divulgación histórica corta pero concisa, que es una perfecta introducción para posteriores indagaciones en la historia rusa, solo se le puede poner como pega el no tener tanto contenido de la época soviética y la época post-soviética, pero como introducción es muy recomendable.
May 28, 2023
Another excellent "very short introduction", giving a very compact but thematically measured overview of the topic. I came to this specifically interested in the Kievan Rus and Muscovite Dukes parts, but found the overall consideration of the communal-organisation aspects of Russian history and subsequent difficulties through socialism really fascinating. The balanced consideration of "softer" but still very important aspects of society - like art and Orthodox religion - made this much more rounded than a technical summary.
September 10, 2020
Very good, very short, history of Russia
This work is a very good introduction to the current themes of Russian History. Russia is the largest country on Earth and spans 2 continents. If you are a general reader, this is the book to start with to gain a perspective of the importance of the country. I highly recommend it.
This work is a very good introduction to the current themes of Russian History. Russia is the largest country on Earth and spans 2 continents. If you are a general reader, this is the book to start with to gain a perspective of the importance of the country. I highly recommend it.
April 17, 2022
Livre très utile pour commencer à découvrir et comprendre l’histoire de la Russie. Certaines caractéristiques se répètent au long des siècles: le pouvoir autoritaire et totalitaire face au peuple qui cherche à survivre - distance entre pouvoir et peuple.
Première approche à compléter avec d’autres ouvrages pour une vision plus approfondie de certains moments clefs de l’histoire de la Russie.
Première approche à compléter avec d’autres ouvrages pour une vision plus approfondie de certains moments clefs de l’histoire de la Russie.
May 16, 2022
“One of the recurring themes of Russian history: the ordinary people welcome a strong ruler because he can defend them both from external aggressors and from their own internal strongmen, who export them and sometimes fight one another, unleashing destructive warfare in which everyone suffers�
An interesting brief primer into Russian history, even more so needed nowadays.
An interesting brief primer into Russian history, even more so needed nowadays.
September 1, 2022
It was good enough for an overview, but for an introductory book, it glossed over or assumed knowledge of certain things that should have been at least defined or given a brief, even one sentence summary. In addition to that, several sentences are vague or ambiguous to the point where I had to consult secondary material just to understand what the author was trying to say
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.