Russia: People and Empire, 1552-1917

by Geoffrey Hosking

The Soviet Union crumbles and Russia rises from the rubble, once again the great nation--a perfect scenario, but for one Russia was never a nation. And this, says the eminent historian Geoffrey Hosking, is at the heart of the Russians' dilemma today, as they grapple with the rudiments of nationhood. His book is about the Russia that never was, a three-hundred-year history of empire building at the expense of national identity.

Russia begins in the sixteenth century, with the inception of one of the most extensive and diverse empires in history. Hosking shows how this undertaking, the effort of conquering, defending, and administering such a huge mixture of territories and peoples, exhausted the productive powers of the common people and enfeebled their civic institutions. Neither church nor state was able to project an image of "Russian-ness" that could unite elites and masses in a consciousness of belonging to the same nation. Hosking depicts two Russias, that of the gentry and of the peasantry, and reveals how the gap between them, widened by the Tsarist state's repudiation of the Orthodox messianic myth, continued to grow throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Here we see how this myth, on which the empire was originally based, returned centuries later in the form of the revolutionary movement, which eventually swept away the Tsarist Empire but replaced it with an even more universalist one. Hosking concludes his story in 1917, but shows how the conflict he describes continues to affect Russia right up to the present day.

Genres: History, Russia, Nonfiction, Russian History, European History

576 pages, Paperback

First published March 3, 1997

About the author

Geoffrey 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.

Reviews

[Cheri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Russia: People and Empire: 1552-1917 by Geoffrey Hosking is quite a decent book covering the history of imperial Russia or more accurately, how Tsarist Russia came to be. Hosking’s essay is rather dry but still good enough to follow. The book seems to be written for fellow academic scholars rather than for the general public as Hosking’s study on certain topics can be particularly detailed as if that was Hosking’s main dissertation. While the book shed a lot of insights into the inner working and relations between Russian people and the Russian state (the two, Hosking argued, were very different in mentality, way of life, and even their clothing), Hosking skipped almost half the leader (the Tsars) who lead Tsarist Russia. The Tsars that were mentioned were only a handful and the most impactful towards the making of imperial Russia such as Ivan IV, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Alexander I.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine that happened last year and well until now made me want to understand the history of those regions and of both nations. Starting with Russia, there’s plenty of valuable information in this book to really get an understanding of whether history repeats itself or if there’s a pattern behind Russia’s repeated invasions of their neighbouring countries (Russo-Georgian war, the annexation of Crimea, and most recent, invasion of Ukraine). From Hosking’s point of view, Russia’s imperial expansionism was a need for their empire to survive, the need to annex weak neighbouring nations out of fear that these unstable nations (which didn’t have strong military support) could get occupied first by many powerful states (at that time: Prussia, France under Napoleon, the Ottoman empire) and threaten Russian empire’s stability and security. In short, creating a buffer state by military occupation.

“The occupation of Siberia offers the first example of a characteristic feature of Russian imperialism: its tendency to forestall possible danger by expanding to fill the space it is able to dominate. This has meant that for Russians the sense of border is vague and protean, shaped by the constellation of power on its frontiers at any given moment. Expansion comes to an end only when Russia fetches up against another power capable of offering effective resistance and of affording a stable and predictable frontier, so that future relations can be conducted on a diplomatic rather than a military footing.” ~Part 1: The Russian Empire: How and Why, page 13-14.

Yermak’s Conquest of Siberia, painted by Vasily Ivanovich Surikov.

Is there a pattern here between the historical past and recent events? In a broad sense, it seems so. One of the more illuminating insights in this book is how Hosking described the wide gap between the Russian people (peasants, serfs, clergy, merchants) and the Russian state (Tsar, boyars, nobles, soldiers). Within the Russian imperial estate was a further divide between the ruling class (Tsar, military commanders) and the rising educated nobles who weren’t part of the ruling regime (example of this kind is Tolstoy, Pushkin, and Bakunin, nobles who were very much intellectual and cultured but not part of the ruling power and actually against the Tsarist autocratic regime).

“By the late eighteenth century many noble families spoke French not only in polite society, but even at home, relegating Russian to communication with servants, serfs and very young children.” ~Part 3: Social classes, religion and culture in Imperial Russia: Chapter 1: The Nobility, page 156.
“In the heartlands of the empire, at least, nobles and peasants were both Russian, but they looked different, they dressed differently, talked a different language, belonged to different worlds of politics, custom and tradition.”
"Nobles lived in a world defined for them by a cosmopolitan culture, the habit of command, bureaucratic or military service, the hierarchical Table of Ranks and by competition for posts and honours. The peasants, on the contrary, inhabited an egalitarian universe, whose culture was parochial, whose decision-making was done in common, and where the paramount priority was survival." ~Part 3: Social classes, religion and culture in Imperial Russia: Chapter 3: The Peasantry, page 206.

The Bargain (the Sale of a Serf Girl), painted by Nikolai Vasilyevich Nevrev.

This great divide happened (more accurately, furthered) because of Peter the Great’s modernizing (or rather, Germanized) reforms. Whoever disagreed (usually the ordinary folks and the Old Believers) with the imperial ruling estate was hounded down and sent far away from the capitals for forced labours (away from Moscow and St. Petersburg, usually to Siberia). Which was another pattern in the Soviet habit of sending dissidents to the Gulag. Censorship is also an inherited practice since the start of Ivan the Terrible reign, to be practiced again under Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Paul I, Nicholas I, and down to the Soviets. One can also see the pattern of the current Russian state’s censorship of anything related to the Ukrainian invasion within Russia.
For the most part, this book is a decent introduction to learn more about imperial Russia before the Soviets but too dry to be enjoyed fully.

[John Carter McKnight · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid, lengthy cultural history of Russia. Hosking's thesis is that Peter the Great's Westernizing forced a breach between people and empire, that has yet to heal. His reach is broad, covering the autocracy, administration, intelligentsia, and peasantry over the period from Ivan IV through the Bolshevik Revolution.

My only gripe is that Hosking wraps too quickly, breezing through 1917, where he could be hammering his thesis home.

Note: the Kindle edition is a complete mess. Don't read it. It's crammed full of typos, like a rushed OCR scan that was never proofread. "Lives" is rendered as "Uves" throughout, Roman numerals are an ASCII mess, and some sentences are reduced to gibberish.

[Robbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable introduction to Russian imperial history. His thesis that Russian empire-building obstructed Russian nation-building is one that I find quite convincing.

[Hollie King · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting theory, sometimes lacking in appropriate evidence and omitting important events

[Connor Keir · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good! I found the chapter on Russification to be the most interesting.

[Alex Stargazer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first thing I should say: this book is long. Like, 600-odd Kindle pages long; and probably closer closer to 800 when printed. So—you better like your Russian history.

I dare say I’m not too familiar with reviewing non-fiction (alas my erudite charms stem from other sources) but, nevertheless, I feel this book is pretty good as these things go. Allow me to elaborate...

Detail, Accuracy and Scope

This book is pretty detailed. But not nearly as detailed as you’d expect; a reality of any book that aims to cover everything from the conquest of the Khanate of Kazan’ by Ivan IV in 1547, all the way to WW1.

Indeed, not only does the book span nearly 400 years of history (370 for the veracious among you) but the book also details just about anything of consequence: literary works and their writers; political theory, including Marxism and the quasi-Marxist Bolshevism and Populism; Tsars (plenty on them); the Russian economy and its development (a little weak there IMO); and also military conquests, as well as various notable events, e.g. the pogrom against Novgorod by Ivan the Terrible.

Nonetheless, I feel that the book was slightly overdetailed in some regards (too much on largely irrelevant rural organisation, for example) and—paradoxically—being both too detailed and not detailed enough in some regards, like the Russian language.

This book has a lot of Russian—mir, artel, skbod to name a few—but, curiously, there doesn’t seem to be much on etymology, grammar, etc. Not that this is by any means a necessity—I mean, there are language books for that—but it would have satiated the curiosity of (I suspect) numerous readers, considering how Hosking bombards us with so much Russian.

Accuracy-wise, I’m not an expert. Although I can’t precisely recall, some points I felt could have done with a citation. Still, I have no real reason to doubt any of what Hosking is saying.

In terms of scope, I felt that the most relevant aspects were correctly identified and elaborated on; and yet I do feel that Hosking took a slightly over-encompassing narrative on the whole thing. But, he doesn’t carried away, so I’d say this is a minor issue overall.

Presentation

Overall good. Hosking manages to keep me interested through some greatly amusing detail (Le Marquis de Pougatchev, ha ha) and indeed the subject matter itself is at times amusing—in the way absurd, consistent failure can be—so I feel safe to say that this is not a book that feels difficult to read, despite its length,

Going on from that, the writing is also free from turgid flosculations (thankfully) although Hosking’s vocabulary can feel a tad overdone at times. And I say that as a writer.

Analysis

I feel that Hosking’s analysis is pretty much spot on for the most part, but I do feel that the lack of in depth knowledge and detail in some regards limits my ability to discern folly from truth.

Since I am of a literary persuasion, rather than a historian, I shall avoid debating the finer points; instead I shall say that as someone who regularly questions his teachers, I didn’t feel there was anything in this to really contend with.

The only thing I would add is that some (I think) rather important things are given too brief an analysis.

Miscellaneous

A map would have been nice, along with key segments cropped out and inserted in relevant text.

Conclusion

Russian history is absolutely fascinating. The despotism, the military success; the educated, erudite nobles and quasi-superstitious peasants; the strong Tsars, the weak Tsars, the cruel Tsars—its a history full of dichotomies and contradictions.

At the end of the day, I feel Hosking did a good job getting it all on paper.

Final Rating: 4/5.

Note: this is not the final rating since I’m not quite finished with it. I may change my mind a little. Though probably not.

UPDATE: finished reading it. My opinion is largely unchanged; I would, however, say that the final sections--those that deal with the post-1917 period--needed more context for me to understand. Russian politics had changed very quickly in a very short amount of time; it wasn't a change I could grasp in the amount of narrative that was given. That said, I don't feel it's enough to tarnish the whole book.

[Kevin Moynihan · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a one volume source covering the entire 1721-1917 time period this is one of my favorites. Does start earlier with some background but I like the author’s insights and he seems fairly unbiased, combining key events with underlying themes. Well written with mix of original sources and current scholarship. Of course, has to be somewhat general given the overall scope.

[Abdalla El-Hariry · Rating 1 out of 5]

aa

[Stanislav Taliar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Не основная книга по истории России, и не то чтобы книга по истории России, а ��корее её концептуализация. Мне понравилось что Хоскинг не тратит время на пересказывание событий, людей, а скорее развивает мысль об истории разломов внутри общества. Вынесенное в заглавие противопоставление народа и империи дополняется ещё множеством трещин, расколов и провалов в российском обществе: крестьянство против дворянства, чиновники против церкви, старообрядцы про никониан, интеллигенция против интеллигенции, государственный аппарат в целом против всех. Эти трамвы легко порождались волей монархов и их приближенных, пораждали чудовищную разобщенность, неспособность к диалогу, и мучительно зарастали ценой невероятных усилий и бесконечных ошибок, так никогда не заживая полностью, оставляя болезненные шрамы.

Последствия мы изживаем до сих пор, и сейчас эта старая книга не потеряла практически ни в чем, потому что нисколько не изменился контекст российской жизни, продолжающей переживать рецидивы старых трамв. Мне эта книга помогла осознать особую болезненность развития российского государства, отстающего, репрессивного, претенциозного, мнительного, стремящего к более цивилизованности, но живущего в будто бы непреодолимой тёмной архаике.

[CrownOfThorns · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not an easy book to read. As a layman who wanted to learn about the Russian Empire from 1613 till its fall in the Russian Revolution, I found it extremely interesting but at times unbearably dense; not a compliment but an acknowledgement that this is more of an academic piece of work as opposed to one of entertainment. Hosking still writes it to be incredibly clear on the main point that Rus, as the opening quote states, was the victim of Russia; a national identity was never formed as an empire that adapted to western culture and ideals became estranged from the basis of itself, the people, carrying over into the Soviet Union in a centuries long tragedy that, to this day, remains unresolved. It was difficult, but rewarding in my understanding of the political/social history of the empire of Russia, and the implications this had on the Russian nation-state.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant and readable. Describing the rifts within Russia and their historical development, he clearly illustrates his thesis that "for Russians imperial greatness can be achieved only at the cost of stunted nationhood." Written in 1997, it closes with the prescient observation "In any case, most Russians feel a strong yearning for legitimate authority and greater social cohesion. A strong national identity provides the simplest way to achieve both. It will not be created in Russia, however, without turbulence which will affect neighboring countries." Thus, aside from offering a really understandable interpretation of Russia's history, this book offers some insight into the events surrounding Russia today.

[Daniel Ostrowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hugely detailed image of Russian societies

A very in-depth analysis of various facets of society in Imperial Russia, and the problems that the unusual growth of this society would bring. This is probably best if you've already got some grounding in the history of Tsarist Russia, as it's not a chronological history, and thus skips over entire Tsars on the basis that they did little of note. The eBook has a number of flaws (maps don't work, large number of typos such as Uves instead of lives) but very interesting and rigorous overall

[Christoph Sachse · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic book that offers insights that you wouldn't easily find in other sources. It is not a typical history book. The detailed events comprising Russian history are only painted with a broad brush. Instead it focuses entirely on the concept of national identity and its difficult relationship with Russia's history as an empire.

[Cathal Kenneally · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative

I think this book is more aimed at people who are seriously considering Russian history and culture at University. I've read better books about Russia

[Ricardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book!! It is very helpful for understanding the assertiveness of the Russian foreign policy and its domestic nativism nowadays.

[Stephen Hoffman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Did not capture the imagination and thus only ended up skim reading.

[Jane Austen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holy peak, I want Tzar Nicholas to use me until I'm bloody

[Josh T · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5. overall a very good book for what it is. It seemed to skip over some things I'd have expected more on, like World War I, Lenin, The 1917 revolution. Id have liked a glossary of russian words as well, as it gets hard to follow when he stops defining them after a couple mentions. I did find this to be somewhat more engaging than I'd hqve expected, though it is still a touch on the dryer side. That can't always be avoided so I don't fault the author. On the plus, at least it had a timeline and maps, which was good to reference.

I feel I don't recall much of the book but that I have more of an impression as to the nature of imperial Russia up to 1917. You get a sense of disorder, of the problems of autocracy and monarchy and authoritarian rule, as well as a much clearer picture of why Russia has struggled to climb out of that backward sense it has often grappled with.

I never realized how close Russia came to a democracy so long ago. There were a few surprising times when it could have gone very different. The Russia of today could easily have become a Europeanized democracy long ago. It certainly seems that there was a desire for it among many of the poorer class. In the end serfdom and autocracy were huge barriers to this. And despite the efforts to democratize Russia, we see it ultimately bred extremism which lead to Stalin in time. The purges. Genocide.

Yes, Russia could have become far greater a nation if the tide had turned in favor of democracy early on. You really see the stark reality of Russia's struggle for greatness, for identity, with this book. Even up to the 1990s as the author notes, Russia has a long way to go to become great. You are left with a subtle sense of optimism for a yet to be achieved future greatnees, but ith overlying tones of the difficulties present in such a task.

[Chandra Powers Wersch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thorough & interestingly written. I like how it organizes his book & chapters. I read it as an undergrad for a 300 level history class & it was a good book to assign for college students. It also helped me on my "core & periphery" analysis paper I had to do because of the way he organizes the book it was easy to utilize.

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought he gave a nice overview of Russian history pre-Soviet Era. Combined with other resources, this was a perfect base for my Russian history class. He uses simple language so the text is easy to follow. But he does not leave out analysis and discourse from the period.

[Megan]

Used For History Project.