What do you think?
Rate this book
The fall of eagles: Precursors of Peter the Great
320 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1964
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 4, 2026
I decided to read this book to get a better understanding of the reigns of Tsars Michael, Alexei, and Theodore. The true "precursors" to Peter I. I found that part of the book to be very informative and I liked how the author described life in Moscow at the time and how each successor differed from the previous. We could get a sense of the "devolution" of old Muscovy.
The author spends a decent amount of time interpreting characteristics of each Tsar and outlining how western influence was already seeping into Moscow. The last true Orthodox "old believer" Tsar was probably the first, Michael. Michael would not experience the riches and imperialism that Russia would later have. In fact, Peter I would arguably be the first Tsar to experience the opulence that is associated with imperial Russia, and that would come later in his reign. Russia was broke, poor, viewed as outcasts by all other nations at the time. The country and army were never taken seriously. It would take the defeat of Sweden's Charles XII for Europe to finally come around.
The author spends a good amount of time explaining Sophia's upbringing in the Terem, the folks she would've been around, the conversations she likely overheard. She was Tsar Alexei's most educated child. Her greatest downfall was the love affair with Golitsyn and his incapability to perform on the battlefield. A good gentleman does not necessarily make a militaristic genius. I do agree that modern explorations into Sophia as Regent have been more kind to her. As is common in life, the truth is likely found in the middle of the spectrum. Peter and contemporary historians were forced to paint her in an evil light to protect the security of his throne. Even after his death, Sophia never got an impartial analysis. I appreciate how the author approached Sophia in a neutral light, attempting to show both sides of Russia's greatest Regent.
In the concluding pages, it is clear that the author does not hold Peter in high esteem. The mass slaughtering of musketeers is indeed one of Peter's darkest hours. This hour comes early in his reign, before St. Petersburg, before the triumphs. In defense of Peter (not that he needs one), he witnessed brutal murders and dismemberment during the Streltsy revolt that elevated Sophia to regent. He was only 10. They threw his closest advisors and confidantes onto the pikes of musketeers. He had to run and hide for his life multiple times. This would psychologically scar anyone. The way he responded to palace threats later in his reign should come as no surprise.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. I felt it gave a nice background of Moscow and how western ideologies were already finding their way inside the Kremlin walls. A lot of people solely blame Peter for the westernization of Russia, and for the abandonment of the old Orthodox belief. Some celebrate this westward shift in ideology, others despise it. It is still a hot topic today and it has shaped the nation and will continue to do so.
The author spends a decent amount of time interpreting characteristics of each Tsar and outlining how western influence was already seeping into Moscow. The last true Orthodox "old believer" Tsar was probably the first, Michael. Michael would not experience the riches and imperialism that Russia would later have. In fact, Peter I would arguably be the first Tsar to experience the opulence that is associated with imperial Russia, and that would come later in his reign. Russia was broke, poor, viewed as outcasts by all other nations at the time. The country and army were never taken seriously. It would take the defeat of Sweden's Charles XII for Europe to finally come around.
The author spends a good amount of time explaining Sophia's upbringing in the Terem, the folks she would've been around, the conversations she likely overheard. She was Tsar Alexei's most educated child. Her greatest downfall was the love affair with Golitsyn and his incapability to perform on the battlefield. A good gentleman does not necessarily make a militaristic genius. I do agree that modern explorations into Sophia as Regent have been more kind to her. As is common in life, the truth is likely found in the middle of the spectrum. Peter and contemporary historians were forced to paint her in an evil light to protect the security of his throne. Even after his death, Sophia never got an impartial analysis. I appreciate how the author approached Sophia in a neutral light, attempting to show both sides of Russia's greatest Regent.
In the concluding pages, it is clear that the author does not hold Peter in high esteem. The mass slaughtering of musketeers is indeed one of Peter's darkest hours. This hour comes early in his reign, before St. Petersburg, before the triumphs. In defense of Peter (not that he needs one), he witnessed brutal murders and dismemberment during the Streltsy revolt that elevated Sophia to regent. He was only 10. They threw his closest advisors and confidantes onto the pikes of musketeers. He had to run and hide for his life multiple times. This would psychologically scar anyone. The way he responded to palace threats later in his reign should come as no surprise.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. I felt it gave a nice background of Moscow and how western ideologies were already finding their way inside the Kremlin walls. A lot of people solely blame Peter for the westernization of Russia, and for the abandonment of the old Orthodox belief. Some celebrate this westward shift in ideology, others despise it. It is still a hot topic today and it has shaped the nation and will continue to do so.
Displaying 1 of 1 review