What do you think?
Rate this book
Russia and the Russians: A History
From the Carpathians in the west to the Greater Khingan range in the east, a huge, flat expanse dominates the Eurasian continent. Here, over more than a thousand years, the history and destiny of Russia have unfolded. In a sweeping narrative, one of the English-speaking world's leading historians of Russia follows this story from the first emergence of the Slavs in the historical record in the sixth century C.E. to the Russians' persistent appearances in today's headlines. Hosking's is a monumental story of competing legacies, of an enormous power uneasily balanced between the ideas and realities of Asian empire, European culture, and Byzantine religion; of a constantly shifting identity, from Kievan Rus to Muscovy to Russian Empire to Soviet Union to Russian Federation, and of Tsars and leaders struggling to articulate that identity over the centuries. With particular attention to non-Russian regions and ethnic groups and to Russia's relations with neighboring polities, Hosking lays out the links between political, economic, social, and cultural phenomena that have made Russia what it is--a world at once familiar and mysterious to Western observers. In a clear and engaging style, he conducts us through the Mongol invasions, the rise of autocracy, the reigns of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, the battle against Napoleon, the emancipation of the serfs, the Crimean War, the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin's reign of terror, the two World Wars, the end of the USSR, to today's war against Chechnya. Hosking's history is shot through with the understanding that becoming an empire has prevented Russia from becoming a nation and has perpetuated archaic personal forms of power. This book is the most penetrating and comprehensive account yet of what such a legacy has meant--to Russia, and to the world.
768 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
115 people are currently reading
1788 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Hosking
33 books37 followersGeoffrey 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 66 reviews
May 27, 2010
Not having read any other book devoted to the history of the Russian people and having only a 6th grade "world history" knowledge of the country before I came to this book, I think this book is a very good place to start if you are interested in the country and its people. It is in depth, but is not so academic that it is a challenging read. Not counting the index and timeline, it clocks in at just above 600 pages. That is remarkable considering it covers roughly the timeline of 500 - 2001. The author has found subjects and characteristics which he believes not only remain a constant through Russia's history, but also help to explain its people. Whether this is true or not I do not know, but I think it helps to ground the reader in a foreign subject.
That said I have some complaints. First, I think there should have been a family tree of czars and a short 4 or 6 sentence bio of significant persons and cities. The names are so similar that it becomes tedious at times separating them. And second, the author all but skips Catherine the Great, WWI, and races through the Cold War. Granted Hosking has about 600 pages to work within and has to choose certain areas to center on. For the most part I think he chose wisely, however his focus on Catherine is mixed up in his comparisons of later czars to her. Nor does he ever refer to her as "Catherine the Great". For that matter he never calls Ivan the IV "Ivan the Terrible" either. I was annoyed. But I can see why WWI gained little attention when the 1917 revolution was by far a much larger event. But he gives half of the time to the Cold War that he spends on WWII, and the Cold War about 50 years longer.
Still a good read and a solid foundation in Russian history
That said I have some complaints. First, I think there should have been a family tree of czars and a short 4 or 6 sentence bio of significant persons and cities. The names are so similar that it becomes tedious at times separating them. And second, the author all but skips Catherine the Great, WWI, and races through the Cold War. Granted Hosking has about 600 pages to work within and has to choose certain areas to center on. For the most part I think he chose wisely, however his focus on Catherine is mixed up in his comparisons of later czars to her. Nor does he ever refer to her as "Catherine the Great". For that matter he never calls Ivan the IV "Ivan the Terrible" either. I was annoyed. But I can see why WWI gained little attention when the 1917 revolution was by far a much larger event. But he gives half of the time to the Cold War that he spends on WWII, and the Cold War about 50 years longer.
Still a good read and a solid foundation in Russian history
March 11, 2020
Great survey of Russian history. I appreciate that it focused so much on questions of state-building, nationalism and arts & culture. I was less interested in the parts about religion, but I suppose they're part of a well-rounded overview. I especially liked discussion of the communist period policies, and it was funny to see policy makers loosen communism during a crisis, but lack the self-awareness needed to keep the reforms that worked.
The one major improvement would be a glossary of the russian terms that are used, as I found myself forgetting them and having to go to the index to find the first page they were used on.
The one major improvement would be a glossary of the russian terms that are used, as I found myself forgetting them and having to go to the index to find the first page they were used on.
November 14, 2025
Labai jau paviršium, kad iš tiesų suprast Rusiją
July 16, 2017
Though I'm only fifty pages in, I can say this much thus far: it's written beautifully, something perfect for me since I hit a wall with non-fiction a couple of months ago. Academic writing can really be a drag, no wonder I needed a break.
The historian packs a lot of detail in, too, but he does it deftly, without bogging the reader down. I'm not sure what exactly it is some other historians do that makes reading their books feel like I'm slogging through wet cement, but I wish more wrote like this guy does.
The historian packs a lot of detail in, too, but he does it deftly, without bogging the reader down. I'm not sure what exactly it is some other historians do that makes reading their books feel like I'm slogging through wet cement, but I wish more wrote like this guy does.
March 18, 2014
Interesting and easy to read.
July 9, 2023
I’ve been initially slightly put off by the introduction with its speculative reflections on Russian national character - speculations, based, admittedly, on such Russian authorities as Lotman and, more problematically, Lev Gumilev. The rest of the book, however, provides a splendid overview of almost 1,500 years of history combining lucidity, attention to nuances, and a sure grasp of historiography. Moreover, the author does not simply summarise the existing literature but provides his own interpretations stressing in particular the continuity of patrimonial styles of rule and stunted development of Russian nationalism in the shadow of empire. Tracing broad patterns across centuries might sometimes result in oversimplifications - for instance, I’ve not been persuaded by the idea of a quintessentially Russian style of diplomacy. These, however, are minor quibbles - all in all it is a worthy monument to a lifetime of scholarship.
March 14, 2018
This is a thematic history of the various attempts by Tsars to reconcile the large gap between Russia (the imperial state) and Russians (the people, or peoples more accurately). The book 's underlying argument is that Tsarist reforms over time, from the 16c onwards, aimed to create a more modern nation (and a sense of Russian nationhood), in the image to some degree of successful Western European states such as France or, more latterly, Germany, in order that the Russian autocracy could maintain its sacred mission as the upholder of true Christian values. Such a process was doomed, almost by definition, by the autocratic Tsarist system itself, and the underlying massive inequality of society, personified by the quasi-slavery of serfdom, which was only abolished in the mid-19C (about the same time that the US fought a war over slavery, by coincidence). This backward system ensured low production, and prevented much industrial development, and consequently the spread of education (itself an integral factor in the spread of national consciousness in the form of newspapers). In the 19th C, this creaking system started to break down as various social groups demanded more rights, including land and some form of representation, and eventually, almost inevitably, this led to revolution and the end of autocratic rule - first in 1905, then (twice) in 1917, with the abdication of the Tsar and then, after the Provisional Government had assumed power, with the rise of the workers' Soviets and the Bolshevik coup. In the conclusion, written in the early 1990s, the author ponders whether post-communist Russia (then under Yeltsin) would be able to become a modern nation-state and reconcile these same issues between the imperial nature of the Russian state and the demands of the people - in 2018, the same questions can still be asked, as Putin embarks on the same diversionary foreign policy tactics often favoured by his autocratic forebears.
The book covers 400 years of turbulent and fascinating Russian history, so it does float somewhat over the details of history, but it reads well and is almost never boring (though I could have benefited from a glossary of Russian terms, rather than the repeated use of Russian terms in the text). My ebook version was let down by some substandard proofing (e.g. 'li' was always shown as 'U', so we have 'Russian Uves' not 'lives' etc), but otherwise, I would recommend.
The book covers 400 years of turbulent and fascinating Russian history, so it does float somewhat over the details of history, but it reads well and is almost never boring (though I could have benefited from a glossary of Russian terms, rather than the repeated use of Russian terms in the text). My ebook version was let down by some substandard proofing (e.g. 'li' was always shown as 'U', so we have 'Russian Uves' not 'lives' etc), but otherwise, I would recommend.
February 16, 2020
Russia and the Russians is a sprawling, well-written account of the development of the geographically largest country in the world. It is a balanced work which lays the facts before readers and functions as a guided tour through Russia's storied past.
The book has a handful of themes which act as glue to hold the nation’s narrative together, and the foremost of these is the split sense of self Russia has experienced for centuries.
The question of whether or not to embrace its European or Asian steppe heritage pulls the country in differing directions throughout the years. This back and forth is encapsulated by the struggle the Rus people faced when deciding whether or not to embrace an east Slavic Christianity (embodied in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) or draw closer to western European Catholicism. From the time the Vikings intermarried with the Slavs in the 9th century and got the ball rolling on what would become the Rus empire, inquiries along these lines have dogged Russia.
The struggle over what it means to be “Russian,” a question some still wrestle with even today, was a thread running through the book.
Whether author Geoffrey Hosking was writing about the invasion by the Golden Horde of the Mongols in the 13th century or the divisions between the Republic of Novgorod and Kievan Rus, there is a constant reminder that Russia itself-much less the countries of the former Soviet Union-emerged from a patchwork of cultures and formerly self-governing principalities. “On-ne Nash” is mentioned as the manner in which some Russians distinguish someone as “not one of us," underscoring the insider/outsider viewpoint they have been apt to adopt throughout history.
Russia and the Russians shows readers how the rise of Moscow into a powerful player in the world of eastern Christianity was fully realized by the early 1500s. With the collapse of the Byzantium Empire at the hands of the Ottomans, Russia-with the ascendant Moscow in the lead-begins to take on itself the mantle of non-Western Christianity. To hear Hosking tell it, Moscow labeled itself “The New Rome” and gained an inflated sense of its importance. During this century of Russia’s expanding geographical empire, Ivan IV invites in wild raiders known as the Cossacks, a group of people who would make multiple appearances throughout the narrative.
The Time of Troubles takes up ample word count and receives a detailed recounting. From 1584 to 1613 the Rus lands went through one upheaval after another, a circumstance owed to internal chaos.
According to Hosking, “The tsar was ‘God’s anointed,’ and the state had not become separated from his person.”
And it was the installation of a czar in 1613 which helped turn the page on the Time of Troubles. The crowning of Mikhail Romanov as czar in that year would begin a dynasty which would last for the better part of three centuries. Peter I, better known as Peter the Great, was a member of the Romanov family who was on the throne from 1682 to 1725; the book lays out his modernizing of the Russian army and his efforts to establish the still somewhat disparate Rus lands as a military power. During Peter’s reign Russia would join Austria and Venice in the Holy League to combine forces against the Ottoman Empire, showing a willingness to partner with other European powers. Peter the Great would also send the Russian military to war against Sweden’s Charles XII over control of the Baltic in 1700. It would take two decades, but Russia would ultimately emerge victorious over the Swedes.
Alexander I, arguably the most well-known of Russia's numerous czars, would rule for twenty-four years. His time in power coincided with Napoleon’s ill-fated 1812 invasion. While this would be a proud time in the country’s history, the book details how the second half of the 1800s saw a decline in Russia’s prestige.
A big blow was dealt by the country’s loss in the Crimean War, fought to ensure Russia did not gain access to the Holy Land or the Black Sea. The author makes this loss out to be a humiliating one for Russia, the sort of circumstance which forced it to examine what wholesale changes might be needed to restore their international standing. The Russo-Japanese War of the early twentieth century was presented as yet another instance when Russia was beaten back by a foreign power; the fact that it was done at the hands of a country racially different than their own added another layer to that setback.
The ending of serfdom under Alexander II saw Russia similar struggles to the United States after slavery was ended in the latter country. Integrating a group whose previous status had consisted of working land for masters and little else into a society not entirely ready to welcome them with open arms paralleled the questions raised during the years of American Reconstruction.
Russia and the Russians, as it should, describes Russia’s descent into infighting between the White and Red Russians once World War One was forfeited and Czar Nicholas II abdicated. To hear him write about it, the events set off by Red October in 1917 led to years of anarchy in the country, with Vladimir Lenin and Bolshevism temporarily coming out on top in the struggle.
The end result of the Russian Revolution was Communism and the creation of the Soviet Union, a union which held inherent tension in it to begin with. The book does a good job of analyzing the internal inconsistencies in the USSR, including the ideological pretzels early leaders had to tie themselves into when explaining how the ultimate “withering away” of the state required a massive, centralized apparatus over far-flung eastern European land.
The academic debates over turning over more local power to the various Soviet republics at the risk of empowering bourgeoisie elements in those very republics are largely squelched with the coming to power of Joseph Stalin. By that point debate is minimized and dissent is a thing of the past, and the Communist experiment seemed to devolve into domination by a coercive regime.
The treatment of countries like Ukraine, which faced mass starvation thanks to Soviet policies during 1932-1933, are precursors to unrest which would explode later in the twentieth century thanks to built-up hostility toward the Soviet Union’s leadership. But before that can be looked at, the book walks readers through World War Two (The Great Patriotic War according to Hosking)-Operation Barbarossa and the subsequent brutal fighting between Germans and Russians is explained as well as it can be in a book not wedded to one particular time frame in Russian history. The ultimate Allied victory, and the manner in which it was quickly overshadowed by the onset of the Cold War, becomes the focus of the latter portion of Russia and the Russians.
World War Two “generated a self-confident and authoritarian ruling class, and also among the population an appreciable classless, multiethnic patriotism.” This is how the author describes the postwar period, and the immediate confidence boost this gave Russia is shown to slowly whittle away during the twentieth century’s back half.
Nikita Kruschev and Mikhail Gorbachev feature prominently in the final three decades before the Soviet Union’s collapse, and the slow thawing of tensions with the West-and the subsequent backing off (to some degree) on state censorship and elimination of gulag style punishments-serve as precursors to the collapse of the USSR. This collapse was completely finished by Christmas Day 1991.
The book concludes with the twenty years since the end of the Communist empire, and it shows this to be a time of instability and confusion in Russia. Massive inflation, fights over what a democratic Russia should or would look like, and foreign policy disagreements over how to approach the countries they once “owned”-particularly Chechyna-feature prominently as the twentieth century slides in the twenty-first. (Reading between the lines, it is clear Hosking liked Gorbachev but is no admirer of Vladimir Putin)
This is a solid book for beginners to Russian history. Many of its chapters could have been expanded into books of their own, and restraint is shown in not delving too deeply into segments in Russia's history which would have expanded the page count into the thousands. This balanced work of nonfiction is recommendable for any reader seeking to gain a better of understanding of Russia's growth and development.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
The book has a handful of themes which act as glue to hold the nation’s narrative together, and the foremost of these is the split sense of self Russia has experienced for centuries.
The question of whether or not to embrace its European or Asian steppe heritage pulls the country in differing directions throughout the years. This back and forth is encapsulated by the struggle the Rus people faced when deciding whether or not to embrace an east Slavic Christianity (embodied in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) or draw closer to western European Catholicism. From the time the Vikings intermarried with the Slavs in the 9th century and got the ball rolling on what would become the Rus empire, inquiries along these lines have dogged Russia.
The struggle over what it means to be “Russian,” a question some still wrestle with even today, was a thread running through the book.
Whether author Geoffrey Hosking was writing about the invasion by the Golden Horde of the Mongols in the 13th century or the divisions between the Republic of Novgorod and Kievan Rus, there is a constant reminder that Russia itself-much less the countries of the former Soviet Union-emerged from a patchwork of cultures and formerly self-governing principalities. “On-ne Nash” is mentioned as the manner in which some Russians distinguish someone as “not one of us," underscoring the insider/outsider viewpoint they have been apt to adopt throughout history.
Russia and the Russians shows readers how the rise of Moscow into a powerful player in the world of eastern Christianity was fully realized by the early 1500s. With the collapse of the Byzantium Empire at the hands of the Ottomans, Russia-with the ascendant Moscow in the lead-begins to take on itself the mantle of non-Western Christianity. To hear Hosking tell it, Moscow labeled itself “The New Rome” and gained an inflated sense of its importance. During this century of Russia’s expanding geographical empire, Ivan IV invites in wild raiders known as the Cossacks, a group of people who would make multiple appearances throughout the narrative.
The Time of Troubles takes up ample word count and receives a detailed recounting. From 1584 to 1613 the Rus lands went through one upheaval after another, a circumstance owed to internal chaos.
According to Hosking, “The tsar was ‘God’s anointed,’ and the state had not become separated from his person.”
And it was the installation of a czar in 1613 which helped turn the page on the Time of Troubles. The crowning of Mikhail Romanov as czar in that year would begin a dynasty which would last for the better part of three centuries. Peter I, better known as Peter the Great, was a member of the Romanov family who was on the throne from 1682 to 1725; the book lays out his modernizing of the Russian army and his efforts to establish the still somewhat disparate Rus lands as a military power. During Peter’s reign Russia would join Austria and Venice in the Holy League to combine forces against the Ottoman Empire, showing a willingness to partner with other European powers. Peter the Great would also send the Russian military to war against Sweden’s Charles XII over control of the Baltic in 1700. It would take two decades, but Russia would ultimately emerge victorious over the Swedes.
Alexander I, arguably the most well-known of Russia's numerous czars, would rule for twenty-four years. His time in power coincided with Napoleon’s ill-fated 1812 invasion. While this would be a proud time in the country’s history, the book details how the second half of the 1800s saw a decline in Russia’s prestige.
A big blow was dealt by the country’s loss in the Crimean War, fought to ensure Russia did not gain access to the Holy Land or the Black Sea. The author makes this loss out to be a humiliating one for Russia, the sort of circumstance which forced it to examine what wholesale changes might be needed to restore their international standing. The Russo-Japanese War of the early twentieth century was presented as yet another instance when Russia was beaten back by a foreign power; the fact that it was done at the hands of a country racially different than their own added another layer to that setback.
The ending of serfdom under Alexander II saw Russia similar struggles to the United States after slavery was ended in the latter country. Integrating a group whose previous status had consisted of working land for masters and little else into a society not entirely ready to welcome them with open arms paralleled the questions raised during the years of American Reconstruction.
Russia and the Russians, as it should, describes Russia’s descent into infighting between the White and Red Russians once World War One was forfeited and Czar Nicholas II abdicated. To hear him write about it, the events set off by Red October in 1917 led to years of anarchy in the country, with Vladimir Lenin and Bolshevism temporarily coming out on top in the struggle.
The end result of the Russian Revolution was Communism and the creation of the Soviet Union, a union which held inherent tension in it to begin with. The book does a good job of analyzing the internal inconsistencies in the USSR, including the ideological pretzels early leaders had to tie themselves into when explaining how the ultimate “withering away” of the state required a massive, centralized apparatus over far-flung eastern European land.
The academic debates over turning over more local power to the various Soviet republics at the risk of empowering bourgeoisie elements in those very republics are largely squelched with the coming to power of Joseph Stalin. By that point debate is minimized and dissent is a thing of the past, and the Communist experiment seemed to devolve into domination by a coercive regime.
The treatment of countries like Ukraine, which faced mass starvation thanks to Soviet policies during 1932-1933, are precursors to unrest which would explode later in the twentieth century thanks to built-up hostility toward the Soviet Union’s leadership. But before that can be looked at, the book walks readers through World War Two (The Great Patriotic War according to Hosking)-Operation Barbarossa and the subsequent brutal fighting between Germans and Russians is explained as well as it can be in a book not wedded to one particular time frame in Russian history. The ultimate Allied victory, and the manner in which it was quickly overshadowed by the onset of the Cold War, becomes the focus of the latter portion of Russia and the Russians.
World War Two “generated a self-confident and authoritarian ruling class, and also among the population an appreciable classless, multiethnic patriotism.” This is how the author describes the postwar period, and the immediate confidence boost this gave Russia is shown to slowly whittle away during the twentieth century’s back half.
Nikita Kruschev and Mikhail Gorbachev feature prominently in the final three decades before the Soviet Union’s collapse, and the slow thawing of tensions with the West-and the subsequent backing off (to some degree) on state censorship and elimination of gulag style punishments-serve as precursors to the collapse of the USSR. This collapse was completely finished by Christmas Day 1991.
The book concludes with the twenty years since the end of the Communist empire, and it shows this to be a time of instability and confusion in Russia. Massive inflation, fights over what a democratic Russia should or would look like, and foreign policy disagreements over how to approach the countries they once “owned”-particularly Chechyna-feature prominently as the twentieth century slides in the twenty-first. (Reading between the lines, it is clear Hosking liked Gorbachev but is no admirer of Vladimir Putin)
This is a solid book for beginners to Russian history. Many of its chapters could have been expanded into books of their own, and restraint is shown in not delving too deeply into segments in Russia's history which would have expanded the page count into the thousands. This balanced work of nonfiction is recommendable for any reader seeking to gain a better of understanding of Russia's growth and development.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
March 28, 2015
Finished Geoffrey Hosking's 'Russia and the Russians: A History'. This journey this book has taken me on has been amazing. Thus far, there has been no compendium on Russian history that has had the insight, clarity or detail as Hosking's second edition has. An impressive collection of analysis and information that spans the military might of Steppe conflict of the Golden Horde, the era of Tzarship and political corruption of the Russian Autocracy. To the inception of the Marxist-Lenin Proletarian Revolution, the rise and fall of the influence of Orthodox Christianity to eventually the fall of the Soviet Union. Each event and others in-between are covered in immense and careful detail so as to immerse the reader with a myriad of accurate historical information to understand why the Caucasus region is one of the most interesting areas of the world.
Hosking's second edition is phenomenal, as his analysis is supplemented with historical context, historic governmental policies as well as documented correspondence of historical leadership and key subjects. Such intricate detail, allows the reader to understand from a more personal view how societal, political, environmental, economical and religious issues and policy developed the country Rus and the Soviet Union was, to what Russia is today. His attention to the correlation of foreign interaction with Russian citizenry and leadership provides an enlightening and intimate view into the Pre-Soviet, Soviet and Post-Soviet mindset and just how one of the greatest powers of the Eastern Hemisphere came to be and ultimately changed the world.
Akin in scope and purpose of Howard Zinn's 'A Peoples History of the United States', Hosking's Russia and the Russians will satisfy any russophile and most certainly is an invaluable addition to any Eastern world historians collection. An impressive, informative and amazing read!
Hosking's second edition is phenomenal, as his analysis is supplemented with historical context, historic governmental policies as well as documented correspondence of historical leadership and key subjects. Such intricate detail, allows the reader to understand from a more personal view how societal, political, environmental, economical and religious issues and policy developed the country Rus and the Soviet Union was, to what Russia is today. His attention to the correlation of foreign interaction with Russian citizenry and leadership provides an enlightening and intimate view into the Pre-Soviet, Soviet and Post-Soviet mindset and just how one of the greatest powers of the Eastern Hemisphere came to be and ultimately changed the world.
Akin in scope and purpose of Howard Zinn's 'A Peoples History of the United States', Hosking's Russia and the Russians will satisfy any russophile and most certainly is an invaluable addition to any Eastern world historians collection. An impressive, informative and amazing read!
December 22, 2022
Tedious read, this: with a focus more on culture than delineated events laid out chronologically (hence the chronology section at the end) I found this book tough to stay focused on and interested in.
First published in 2001 and (updated?) in 2004, Hosking writes with a generally objective, if not amicable, perspective. This short time ago it might be argued that Russian-US, and perhaps Russian-global relations were at an all-time high.
"Russia will not go away", Hosking writes in his preface, "it will continue to play a major part in shaping the twenty-first century world, and by no means a negative part." As I write this on December 21, 2022, just hours ago Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy addressed the US Congress in Washington on Russia's invasion of his country. "Our two countries are allies" he said, and asked for more military aid. If things escalate, Russia could be the cause of the third world war.
Besides self-education, I read this book eager for a better understanding of Russia's cultural history, and perhaps an educated guess as to Putin's interpretation of it, and as to how it may fit into his schemes. The "motive for studying Russia closely" is that to "most Europeans and North Americans, Russia is the great Other, understood yet not understood, the culture in whose mirror we better appreciate our own." This last statement is most certainly true!
While I learned quite a bit here, I feel that this book has some serious drawbacks.
For one, Hosking's narrative is disorganized and confusing. He seems to operate under the presumption that the reader is already familiar with this history. "Riga went through a second Bloody Sunday in 1905..." (339) but he'd never mentioned the first. When was the first? We find out some 30 pages later when Hosking McFlys back to the past. (On Sunday 9 January 1905 nervous soldiers fired on petitioning workers in St Petersburg, massacring 200, p 366.)
Hosking also uses what may be accepted Russian spellings but are uncommon and unconventional, which was confusing and redundant. For instance I've never seen Leo Tolstoy's name spelt Lev Tolstoii. And there are many other examples such as that. He also spells czar "tsar", which I know is common, but is in my opinion incorrect. The word czar comes from Caesar.
Hosking introduces many Russian words and terms, with supposedly the Russian spelling, and never provides any pronunciations for them. That was also pretty annoying.
Many distinctions are never made, either: Ivan IV (aka Ivan the Terrible), Catherine II (the Great), Ivan III (the Great, 1440-1505; was Ivan the Terrible's grandfather--I found this out from another source), and so on. You all knew that Peter I was aka Peter the Great, that's why Hosking casually starts referring to Peter the Great later on. Because everyone knows that, and readers only read this book to fact-check.
On the other hand, Hosking gives an interesting background to the formation of the Russian peoples.
The Rus and Slavs would coexist, and later the rise of Muscovy as the center of power and seat of the Moscovite grand princes would come to terms with the Mongols and the Golden Horde.
But there are conspicuous absences in Hosking's history. Somehow he deemed it unnecessary to mention in his narrative Alaska, Canada, and California as being the furthest extent of the Russian empire. This is not only pertinent history but it speaks to the character and ambition of the Russian peoples, to brave the Bering Straits to expand their empire. And astoundingly he leaves out Czar Alexander II's sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867.
"Russkaia Pravda" was the early Russian guideline to conduct. Pravda is "that which is right, in all senses": truth, justice, and fairness. And an early ethnic, nationalist accountability and pride was to promote pravda. But sadly this seems rarely, if ever was the case. From the earliest of times the peasants suffered from an oppressive lordship. "It is true that the Russian term for the state, gosudarstvo, means literally 'lordship', and so does not distinguish ownership from political authority."
There is much fascinating history here; I would've liked it to be more clear and complete. "Peter [the Great] had great difficulty in finding for his schools students who were literate enough to cope with the curriculum, and who would not dissipate their time and stipends on the 'pursuit of Bacchus and Venus' rather than of learning." This most visionary czar's ambitions outstripped his peoples' means, but he remains the most influential and pivotal leader in Russia's history throughout the czarist era.
Again, while I learned quite a bit from this tedious book, Hosking makes some dubious statements and judgement calls. Gorbachev was a somewhat honest orator, and his policy of glasnost, or "frankness and openness" was similar to Stalin's cleansing purges--in the cleansing sense. This was a major stretch. Somehow mass genocide and (somewhat) candid public speaking (and espousal of the removal of corrupt politicians) are on the same plain. But again, the book was written in somewhat "friendlier" times.
I felt that Hosking didn't devote enough ink to the "truly great" Leo Tolstoy. To digress, I believe that Tolstoy would've been mortified and outraged at the actions of Putin and the Russian army in Ukraine. War and Peace is not just a beautiful and brilliant novel; it's a philosophy, a guidebook for proper and honorable behavior. And provided within are examples (characters) of those who do and those who don't. I certainly do not believe that the man who wrote of Nikolai Rostov meeting Marya for the first time, with bowed head and bended knee, and knocking out cold a low-life servant who was ready to take advantage of her in the face of the city's evacuation, would approve of the conduct of Putin and his army.
Russia has actually made much progress in the course of its history. Gorbochev's handling of Chernobyl in 1986 was negligent and criminal--and yet Gorbochev was progress over Stalin. Russia is backward country, as Hosking says. And today millions of people are threatened by essentially the actions of one man--a Russian president.
While I walk away from this book with a better understanding, it's still mostly a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
As Volodomyr Zelenskyy said tonight, "Russians are still poisoned by the Kremlin". Putin needs to cut the shit or be removed.
First published in 2001 and (updated?) in 2004, Hosking writes with a generally objective, if not amicable, perspective. This short time ago it might be argued that Russian-US, and perhaps Russian-global relations were at an all-time high.
"Russia will not go away", Hosking writes in his preface, "it will continue to play a major part in shaping the twenty-first century world, and by no means a negative part." As I write this on December 21, 2022, just hours ago Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy addressed the US Congress in Washington on Russia's invasion of his country. "Our two countries are allies" he said, and asked for more military aid. If things escalate, Russia could be the cause of the third world war.
Besides self-education, I read this book eager for a better understanding of Russia's cultural history, and perhaps an educated guess as to Putin's interpretation of it, and as to how it may fit into his schemes. The "motive for studying Russia closely" is that to "most Europeans and North Americans, Russia is the great Other, understood yet not understood, the culture in whose mirror we better appreciate our own." This last statement is most certainly true!
While I learned quite a bit here, I feel that this book has some serious drawbacks.
For one, Hosking's narrative is disorganized and confusing. He seems to operate under the presumption that the reader is already familiar with this history. "Riga went through a second Bloody Sunday in 1905..." (339) but he'd never mentioned the first. When was the first? We find out some 30 pages later when Hosking McFlys back to the past. (On Sunday 9 January 1905 nervous soldiers fired on petitioning workers in St Petersburg, massacring 200, p 366.)
Hosking also uses what may be accepted Russian spellings but are uncommon and unconventional, which was confusing and redundant. For instance I've never seen Leo Tolstoy's name spelt Lev Tolstoii. And there are many other examples such as that. He also spells czar "tsar", which I know is common, but is in my opinion incorrect. The word czar comes from Caesar.
Hosking introduces many Russian words and terms, with supposedly the Russian spelling, and never provides any pronunciations for them. That was also pretty annoying.
Many distinctions are never made, either: Ivan IV (aka Ivan the Terrible), Catherine II (the Great), Ivan III (the Great, 1440-1505; was Ivan the Terrible's grandfather--I found this out from another source), and so on. You all knew that Peter I was aka Peter the Great, that's why Hosking casually starts referring to Peter the Great later on. Because everyone knows that, and readers only read this book to fact-check.
On the other hand, Hosking gives an interesting background to the formation of the Russian peoples.
The Rus and Slavs would coexist, and later the rise of Muscovy as the center of power and seat of the Moscovite grand princes would come to terms with the Mongols and the Golden Horde.
But there are conspicuous absences in Hosking's history. Somehow he deemed it unnecessary to mention in his narrative Alaska, Canada, and California as being the furthest extent of the Russian empire. This is not only pertinent history but it speaks to the character and ambition of the Russian peoples, to brave the Bering Straits to expand their empire. And astoundingly he leaves out Czar Alexander II's sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867.
"Russkaia Pravda" was the early Russian guideline to conduct. Pravda is "that which is right, in all senses": truth, justice, and fairness. And an early ethnic, nationalist accountability and pride was to promote pravda. But sadly this seems rarely, if ever was the case. From the earliest of times the peasants suffered from an oppressive lordship. "It is true that the Russian term for the state, gosudarstvo, means literally 'lordship', and so does not distinguish ownership from political authority."
There is much fascinating history here; I would've liked it to be more clear and complete. "Peter [the Great] had great difficulty in finding for his schools students who were literate enough to cope with the curriculum, and who would not dissipate their time and stipends on the 'pursuit of Bacchus and Venus' rather than of learning." This most visionary czar's ambitions outstripped his peoples' means, but he remains the most influential and pivotal leader in Russia's history throughout the czarist era.
Again, while I learned quite a bit from this tedious book, Hosking makes some dubious statements and judgement calls. Gorbachev was a somewhat honest orator, and his policy of glasnost, or "frankness and openness" was similar to Stalin's cleansing purges--in the cleansing sense. This was a major stretch. Somehow mass genocide and (somewhat) candid public speaking (and espousal of the removal of corrupt politicians) are on the same plain. But again, the book was written in somewhat "friendlier" times.
I felt that Hosking didn't devote enough ink to the "truly great" Leo Tolstoy. To digress, I believe that Tolstoy would've been mortified and outraged at the actions of Putin and the Russian army in Ukraine. War and Peace is not just a beautiful and brilliant novel; it's a philosophy, a guidebook for proper and honorable behavior. And provided within are examples (characters) of those who do and those who don't. I certainly do not believe that the man who wrote of Nikolai Rostov meeting Marya for the first time, with bowed head and bended knee, and knocking out cold a low-life servant who was ready to take advantage of her in the face of the city's evacuation, would approve of the conduct of Putin and his army.
Russia has actually made much progress in the course of its history. Gorbochev's handling of Chernobyl in 1986 was negligent and criminal--and yet Gorbochev was progress over Stalin. Russia is backward country, as Hosking says. And today millions of people are threatened by essentially the actions of one man--a Russian president.
While I walk away from this book with a better understanding, it's still mostly a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
As Volodomyr Zelenskyy said tonight, "Russians are still poisoned by the Kremlin". Putin needs to cut the shit or be removed.
September 9, 2022
3.5 stars. Covers a lot of ground and so naturally has to be fairly brief about most particulars. Also has the common problem of getting more detailed the closer to the present it gets; the last 40% or so is just on the 20th century. That's a bit of a shame, since that's the period I was least interested in (having read plenty of books on it already).
The author's obviously fairly conservative and it's necessary to read past that at times (i.e. obviously there's basically no version of a socialist state that would have pleased him). And he occasionally ties himself up in knots; e.g. trying to insist that the Tsarist government did not support antisemitism at the same time as explaining that it was funding antisemitic militias on the insistence of the Tsar himself.
Nevertheless seemed to be a fairly thorough explanation of the way the Russian state and society developed the way it did over a period of centuries, and how that laid the conditions for the revolutions in 1917.
The author's obviously fairly conservative and it's necessary to read past that at times (i.e. obviously there's basically no version of a socialist state that would have pleased him). And he occasionally ties himself up in knots; e.g. trying to insist that the Tsarist government did not support antisemitism at the same time as explaining that it was funding antisemitic militias on the insistence of the Tsar himself.
Nevertheless seemed to be a fairly thorough explanation of the way the Russian state and society developed the way it did over a period of centuries, and how that laid the conditions for the revolutions in 1917.
June 8, 2016
Something I have to note with this book--since I see it so rarely any more--is that it has a very good index. Hosking italicizes Russian words and then the index helps one find the first or second use that includes the definition. A glossary would have been quicker but, except for one time, I could always locate the initial definition of a term if I couldn't remember it.
There were a few odd lapses in the book-which is generally a thorough history-for instance, when he jumps from Lenin to Stalin while barely mentioning Lenin's death or the transition.
There were a few odd lapses in the book-which is generally a thorough history-for instance, when he jumps from Lenin to Stalin while barely mentioning Lenin's death or the transition.
November 19, 2018
Great book that covers the 1600's to now. You get the broad social movements and transformations going on, what each ruler dealt with, and usually each chapter focuses on one particular aspect or problem each ruler dealt with. Learned a lot about Russian ideology, Russian identity, and basic history!
Currently reading
August 6, 2007just started this one. so far it's great -- concise and sweeping at the same time.
July 31, 2011
I wanted a "real" survey of Russian history, not a "for dummies" book, but this was a little too scholarly for me. Very dense and took a long time to get through it.
Want to read
August 22, 2014Mongol hordes!!!!!
August 26, 2021
Mr. Hosking has written a fine thing here. If you want a well-rounded (though sometimes overly dense and scholarly) history of Russia, including an understanding of even its most recent domestic and foreign activities, you'd be hard-pressed to find better.
I've studied Russia and Russian and have lived there on two seperate occasions, albeit in major cities. Even with that direct experience, this book was eye-opening. It's one thing to see a half-alien society in your day-to-day. It's another to explore why it is, that is to say, where it's come from.
Of special note is the author's frequent reflection on what might be called the book's "theme": from its earliest days, Russia has been a society in which patron-client relationships, local mutualism, and a tendency for punctuated revolution over gradual evolution have been the defining features. Over and over again, these forces have shaped Russia, while always reinforcing themselves.
Additionally, the sections on Russia's foreign activities, particularly in its traditional imperial spheres of influence, read like a modern news story: exploit internal division to divide and weaken, then either conquer or enjoy the "stability" of a weakened foe.
Though I found this a fine read, be aware of three things that might frustrate your reading experience.
1) The writing is quite scholarly with grammatical structures and phrase choices that may be difficult to parse.
2) The author commits a common sin of experts: he occasionally glosses over terms, concepts, personalities, and histories that are very well known... to those who are already in the know. Mercifully, this doesn't happen often and is more frequent in the Soviet sections, where readers might be expected to have familiarity.
3) A glossary would have been much appreciated. Russian words are introduced and explained (usually) quite well, but then are not seen again for 20 or 30+ pages, at which point a reader unfamiliar with the language has lost the definition amidst several other Russian terms that have appeared since. That said, the index does a good job of pointing you to the original usage, so this is more quibble than complaint.
In summary, if you're willing to devote yourself to a dense read, you'll find a wealth of information on a subject that's useful in understanding current events as much as historical ones.
I've studied Russia and Russian and have lived there on two seperate occasions, albeit in major cities. Even with that direct experience, this book was eye-opening. It's one thing to see a half-alien society in your day-to-day. It's another to explore why it is, that is to say, where it's come from.
Of special note is the author's frequent reflection on what might be called the book's "theme": from its earliest days, Russia has been a society in which patron-client relationships, local mutualism, and a tendency for punctuated revolution over gradual evolution have been the defining features. Over and over again, these forces have shaped Russia, while always reinforcing themselves.
Additionally, the sections on Russia's foreign activities, particularly in its traditional imperial spheres of influence, read like a modern news story: exploit internal division to divide and weaken, then either conquer or enjoy the "stability" of a weakened foe.
Though I found this a fine read, be aware of three things that might frustrate your reading experience.
1) The writing is quite scholarly with grammatical structures and phrase choices that may be difficult to parse.
2) The author commits a common sin of experts: he occasionally glosses over terms, concepts, personalities, and histories that are very well known... to those who are already in the know. Mercifully, this doesn't happen often and is more frequent in the Soviet sections, where readers might be expected to have familiarity.
3) A glossary would have been much appreciated. Russian words are introduced and explained (usually) quite well, but then are not seen again for 20 or 30+ pages, at which point a reader unfamiliar with the language has lost the definition amidst several other Russian terms that have appeared since. That said, the index does a good job of pointing you to the original usage, so this is more quibble than complaint.
In summary, if you're willing to devote yourself to a dense read, you'll find a wealth of information on a subject that's useful in understanding current events as much as historical ones.
April 24, 2022
I am a sucker for single volume histories of a country, and this is a great rendition of that genre! The deep history of Kievan Rus is appropriately mysterious and otherworldly, the ~16th-20th century transition of Russia from a medieval place to the place that produced Tolstoy and Dostoevsky has all its contradictions revealed, and the history of the USSR is told in such a way that the arc from revolutionary enthusiasm to disillusionment and dissipation seems entirely fitting. Continual emphasis is placed on how Russia’s geographical position has shaped its politics: the multifarious ethnic groups existing all around such massive borders producing the need for a strong, centralized military power; the vast extent of territory leading to a predominantly rural lifestyle prevailing for far longer than in Europe, and that agrarian focus creating a nigh uncrossable gentry/peasant divide; the difficulties of governing over such distances making patron-client relationships more workable than law-based institutions; how the Russian Orthodox Church and the intensely communal rural institutions foster a lingering hope for some sort of messianic, leveling revolution (Hosking speaks of the tendency for Russians to expect an “all or nothing” reversal of course to be the only hope for change).
As is usually the case when I read books like this, it only serves to make me aware of how much history there is to be learned — particularly in this case the history of Russian interactions with (and abuse of) the ethnic minorities, at times outside Russia’s borders, at times within, is so rich and variegated. I read this book prompted by the Ukraine situation, and I wouldn’t say it changed my understanding that much, but Hosking does frame the problem of the Russian state as the problem of *empire.* Where and how to determine Russia’s borders — which borders make sense for the interests of the state, for the interests of the various people’s that could be part of the state — has always been the central question of Russian politics. From a historical perspective then, it is unsurprising that this conflict has arisen: negotiating borderlines, especially those borders that Slavic people exist on both sides of, has been a ceaseless process of conflict and upheaval. Which isn’t meant to naturalize the war in any sort of apologetic sense; merely to contextualize.
As is usually the case when I read books like this, it only serves to make me aware of how much history there is to be learned — particularly in this case the history of Russian interactions with (and abuse of) the ethnic minorities, at times outside Russia’s borders, at times within, is so rich and variegated. I read this book prompted by the Ukraine situation, and I wouldn’t say it changed my understanding that much, but Hosking does frame the problem of the Russian state as the problem of *empire.* Where and how to determine Russia’s borders — which borders make sense for the interests of the state, for the interests of the various people’s that could be part of the state — has always been the central question of Russian politics. From a historical perspective then, it is unsurprising that this conflict has arisen: negotiating borderlines, especially those borders that Slavic people exist on both sides of, has been a ceaseless process of conflict and upheaval. Which isn’t meant to naturalize the war in any sort of apologetic sense; merely to contextualize.
July 10, 2025
Really more of a 3.5, as it is a tale of two books smashed into one comprehensive survey.
The first sections are political and cultural institutional histories of medieval polities in Eastern Europe and what would become the Russian Empire along with brief engagements with Russian Orthodox Church. This portion of the book is too often stale and rote. It is not particularly incisive history, though it does a good job of setting up important macro themes Hosking touches on in the much stronger second half of the book.
The author's authority, depth of knowledge and use of gripping narrative increases as we approach what appears to be his specialty, Russia in the 20th century. This second half of the book is stronger, chocked full of compelling details and interesting linkages that work well with the thematic elements built in the first half. Hosking has an sympathetic eye to the tragedies of the unraveling dreams of socialism in the USSR, the suffering of Russian peasants and proletariat, as well as the well-intended but mistaken moves of Soviet leaders. Hosking also has a rather withering takes on the cruelties of authoritarianism, and the misery engendered by a system lost in its own sauce.
The first sections are political and cultural institutional histories of medieval polities in Eastern Europe and what would become the Russian Empire along with brief engagements with Russian Orthodox Church. This portion of the book is too often stale and rote. It is not particularly incisive history, though it does a good job of setting up important macro themes Hosking touches on in the much stronger second half of the book.
The author's authority, depth of knowledge and use of gripping narrative increases as we approach what appears to be his specialty, Russia in the 20th century. This second half of the book is stronger, chocked full of compelling details and interesting linkages that work well with the thematic elements built in the first half. Hosking has an sympathetic eye to the tragedies of the unraveling dreams of socialism in the USSR, the suffering of Russian peasants and proletariat, as well as the well-intended but mistaken moves of Soviet leaders. Hosking also has a rather withering takes on the cruelties of authoritarianism, and the misery engendered by a system lost in its own sauce.
September 7, 2020
It seems to happen that, with the larger history books, I get waylaid by many of life's busyness, and it takes me quite a while to read them. Hosking's book is no exception.
Compared to the recent histories I have read, I was surprised that Russia's begins much later than these others (Persia, China, and India). I generally enjoyed Geoffrey Hosking's style, and I appreciated his effort at scholarly explanation and narrative style. Occasionally I felt that he recapitulated too often and with larger stroke than what my preference is. Perhaps folks who are more versed in Russian history than I am would find more value in this.
Geoffrey does a good job bringing us into the present with Putin in power, and you have a good feel for how that happened. I found the role of the Orthodox Church fascinating in Russian history fascinating, and I derived many lessons from this that I can apply to my current American context.
As is normal with the histories I have read, there are many helpful endnotes for further study. I'm glad I read the book, and I look forward to further study in the future.
Compared to the recent histories I have read, I was surprised that Russia's begins much later than these others (Persia, China, and India). I generally enjoyed Geoffrey Hosking's style, and I appreciated his effort at scholarly explanation and narrative style. Occasionally I felt that he recapitulated too often and with larger stroke than what my preference is. Perhaps folks who are more versed in Russian history than I am would find more value in this.
Geoffrey does a good job bringing us into the present with Putin in power, and you have a good feel for how that happened. I found the role of the Orthodox Church fascinating in Russian history fascinating, and I derived many lessons from this that I can apply to my current American context.
As is normal with the histories I have read, there are many helpful endnotes for further study. I'm glad I read the book, and I look forward to further study in the future.
March 7, 2021
This book is a massive leak of scholarship unlike what I have recently read about Russian history. The surprising insights into the actual mechanisms of Russia under Soviet leadership shows that there was progressive progress. Most notably, the arc of history found itself into Soviet society much in the same way as it did for the rest of the world. Beyond propaganda, the stories of economic and civil liberties in the country as they slowly arced forward with much of the world. Of course, the massive loss of life and the crimes of the regime must also be noted. As far as the previous history of the Russian people pre October Revolution I found myself a bit lost given the familiarity of the past Tsars and locations that elude the lay reader of such historic background in the region. Overall, the history of Russia is a little like learning United States history without knowing who Abraham Lincoln is. It is somewhat a fog but that is also what makes this a heavy book that causes one to learn from extreme scholarship that Harvard University Press provides. Still, besides the dauting language, it was a very technical and positive learning experience.
July 19, 2023
Russia and the Russians is the expanded version of Geoffrey Hosking’s Russia: People and Empire: 1552–1917. Faithful to the title, this book is as much about Russian society (their ancestral customs, traditional belief, way of life) and as the state that evolved throughout the ages. From the amalgamation of the Rus’ tribe towards the establishment of the pioneering city-state Kyiv, the Mongol invasion and the rise of another prominent city-state which became the Grand Principality of Muscovy, its gradual territorial expansion as Imperial Russia, and eventually to be toppled over by the Soviet and became modern-day Russia, Hosking’s book is quite dense and detailed. This one is definitely easier to digest than the author’s previous works. The main focus of Hosking’s essay is how the Russian state failed to evolve as a civic nation (and even when it tried to do so, its approach was contradictory, difficult, and violent).
This is a very much insightful essay regarding the cause which impedes the way the Russian state developed. Looking back through the time of the Kievan Rus’ days and well until the Soviets, there seems to be a tendency of introducing reforms through coercion instead of letting it transform the society gradually. Another tendency was seeking extremely contrasting solutions against societal norms. As a result, no matter how brilliant the changes that were brought, it will always result in rejection and failure which then led to the government’s tendency to launch it by force and violence. Three examples of this were:
1. Vladimir of Kyiv (also known as Vladimir the Great) Christianising the inhabitants of Kyiv through harsh demonstrations: smashed the pagan idols, dragged them by the horses down the hill, and ordered the idols beaten continuously by twelve men with rods before dumping it in the Dnieper river. Soon after, Vladimir commanded the citizens to be baptized en-masse to the riverbank and threatened that if they refuse, they shall be the Grand Prince’s enemies.
2. Ivan IV of Muscovy (famously known as Ivan the Terrible) tried to centralize the state by creating a separate state and army (the oprichnina) and hounding down (by killing and forcefully relocating) boyars who either disagreed with him or having too many treasures (since Ivan IV needed their money to finance his foreign wars but lacking legal framework to force the nobles to give him their treasures). The once rich mercantile city of Novgorod was depopulated by Ivan IV and never rise again to its golden days.
3. Peter the Great of Russia promoted scientific endeavour on the model of European states and ordered his boyars to change their dresses to follow the European model (instead of the kaftan they usually wore), their daily conducts, and their purpose by establishing many “enlightening” educational institutions. Peter’s attempt was reasonable but he forgot that the majority still couldn’t read (the boyars sometimes delegated reading and writing to skilled professionals of humble background).
Examining those examples, how can the changes be effectively introduced if it was done in such haphazard and in-a-rushing way? Resentments were also bound to happen as the state didn’t give time for the people to accept the changes gradually.
This book has been perceptive towards the contradictory nature of the Russian state, between the Rossiiskii (state) and the Russkii (people). The modern period of World War I, World War II, and the Soviets actually took much of Hosking’s essays as those periods are actually his expertise. Still, this book is worth reading although, one must bear in mind that the book is incredibly dense (almost 800 pages).
This is a very much insightful essay regarding the cause which impedes the way the Russian state developed. Looking back through the time of the Kievan Rus’ days and well until the Soviets, there seems to be a tendency of introducing reforms through coercion instead of letting it transform the society gradually. Another tendency was seeking extremely contrasting solutions against societal norms. As a result, no matter how brilliant the changes that were brought, it will always result in rejection and failure which then led to the government’s tendency to launch it by force and violence. Three examples of this were:
1. Vladimir of Kyiv (also known as Vladimir the Great) Christianising the inhabitants of Kyiv through harsh demonstrations: smashed the pagan idols, dragged them by the horses down the hill, and ordered the idols beaten continuously by twelve men with rods before dumping it in the Dnieper river. Soon after, Vladimir commanded the citizens to be baptized en-masse to the riverbank and threatened that if they refuse, they shall be the Grand Prince’s enemies.
“Having taken his decision, he acted forthrightly, even harshly. He demonstratively smashed the pagan idols: Perun was dragged by horses down the hill, beaten continuously by twelve men with rods, and dumped in the Dnieper. He commanded besides that the citizens of Kiev should betake themselves to the riverbank to be baptized by immersion: “Whoever does not turn up at the river tomorrow, be he rich, poor, lowly, or slave, he shall be my enemy!” ~1: Kievan Rus, The Mongols, and The Rise of Muscovy, page 38.
The Baptism of the inhabitants of Kyiv, attended by Prince Vladimir the Great, painted by Aleksey Danilovich Kivshenko.
2. Ivan IV of Muscovy (famously known as Ivan the Terrible) tried to centralize the state by creating a separate state and army (the oprichnina) and hounding down (by killing and forcefully relocating) boyars who either disagreed with him or having too many treasures (since Ivan IV needed their money to finance his foreign wars but lacking legal framework to force the nobles to give him their treasures). The once rich mercantile city of Novgorod was depopulated by Ivan IV and never rise again to its golden days.
“Instead, he had inaugurated a tradition that in order to unite and mobilize, Russian rulers had to be harsh and overbearing, even to violate God’s law, to the extent of risking disunity and demoralization, and of undermining the ideals which the monarchy itself professed.” ~2: Ivan IV and The Expansion of Muscovy, page 126.
3. Peter the Great of Russia promoted scientific endeavour on the model of European states and ordered his boyars to change their dresses to follow the European model (instead of the kaftan they usually wore), their daily conducts, and their purpose by establishing many “enlightening” educational institutions. Peter’s attempt was reasonable but he forgot that the majority still couldn’t read (the boyars sometimes delegated reading and writing to skilled professionals of humble background).
“Peter might be accused—and was—of putting the cart before the horse, of promoting abstruse scientific research while the overwhelming majority of the population could not even read.” ~4: Peter the Great and Europeanization, page 208.
The Beginning of Autocracy, painted by Ilya Zorkin. Notice that Peter the Great, upon his accession as the sole Tsar, was still wearing Muscovite traditional clothing which he eventually discarded for the more “modern” attire based on the European model.
Examining those examples, how can the changes be effectively introduced if it was done in such haphazard and in-a-rushing way? Resentments were also bound to happen as the state didn’t give time for the people to accept the changes gradually.
This book has been perceptive towards the contradictory nature of the Russian state, between the Rossiiskii (state) and the Russkii (people). The modern period of World War I, World War II, and the Soviets actually took much of Hosking’s essays as those periods are actually his expertise. Still, this book is worth reading although, one must bear in mind that the book is incredibly dense (almost 800 pages).
May 7, 2018
This book sets out to tell the story of the Russian people from their first historical mention in the 9th century CE. While this is quite a long book, it becomes clear that it is challenging to tell the whole story in a single volume book. As such, there are many times when it seemed he was telling the story to a group with decent prior knowledge, which I was not a part of. Also, this is not a book that details every war or battle. He mentions the important ones it seems but does not go into great detail. Instead he tries to create a story of the Russian people, so that we can coherently follow the zeitgeist throughout their history. This allowed me to take away a more intimate understanding of the Russian people. I learned a ton, and he covered all of the particular areas I was interested in, particularly for me Russia's historical relationship with the former Soviet bloc countries.
December 24, 2025
Hosking has one of the best ways to describe (Russian) history. It is a thick one but he makes it feel like an easy read. Sometimes he yaps too much. Then you hope that the part will be over soon.
After reading some other reviews, I agree that Hosking could have used more short descriptions or a overview of people per chapter. Quite some people are named Vladimir, Ivan, Petr etc. A tree of the tsar dynasty would have helped. Catherine II could have had as much as attention as Peter I in the book, but at least she had a part dedicated to her despite that it was short.
To the readers that expect detailed chapters on the Revolution, the 1920-1940's or the Cold War, Hosking doesn't go into depth on those topics. There is enough other material that is focused on the topics so choose that for specific topics.
After reading some other reviews, I agree that Hosking could have used more short descriptions or a overview of people per chapter. Quite some people are named Vladimir, Ivan, Petr etc. A tree of the tsar dynasty would have helped. Catherine II could have had as much as attention as Peter I in the book, but at least she had a part dedicated to her despite that it was short.
To the readers that expect detailed chapters on the Revolution, the 1920-1940's or the Cold War, Hosking doesn't go into depth on those topics. There is enough other material that is focused on the topics so choose that for specific topics.
April 19, 2024
Geoffrey Hosking provides an extraordinary account of how Russian society has evolved from its inception to the 21st century.
The book touches upon social, geographical, military, economic, political, and several other dimensions of the numerous transformations from the establishment of Kievan Rus to the fall of the Soviet Union.
One of my key takeaways was the understanding of ethnic complexity in what is now considered Russia and its relationship with the Soviet Union at its different stages.
In conclusion, Hosking's comprehensive exploration of Russian societal evolution and its intricate relationship with the Soviet Union makes this book a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the complex fabric of Russian history.
The book touches upon social, geographical, military, economic, political, and several other dimensions of the numerous transformations from the establishment of Kievan Rus to the fall of the Soviet Union.
One of my key takeaways was the understanding of ethnic complexity in what is now considered Russia and its relationship with the Soviet Union at its different stages.
In conclusion, Hosking's comprehensive exploration of Russian societal evolution and its intricate relationship with the Soviet Union makes this book a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the complex fabric of Russian history.
June 22, 2021
A good introduction into Russian history, giving an overview and analysis of the empire's evolution. As with every country, there is a lot to go through, more so giving the size and complexities of the Federation. The book reads like essays about topics such as taxes, religion, culture and personalities, that span through ages of expansion and transformation. I did not find this compartmentalization particularly easy to read or to remember details, but with so much information, it is best to read more in depth books that deal with more narrow themes. I myself was particularly curious about the Asian side of Russia, a topic which was touched very little, in my opinion, in this book.
April 14, 2024
This was a truly fascinating and centuries spanning read. The history of Russia (and neighboring parts of the “empire”) is particularly interesting given current events.
I came away in particular with even greater disgust for Communists and Bolshevik’s for the ruin they made to so many millions of lives, but also a realization that pre-Soviet Russia had a ton of problems.
The experience and suffering of Russians under the Soviets also explains many aspects of our modern world and Russias place in it.
Overall a long, pretty cumbersome read but well worth it. If anything I’ve gained a lot of empathy for the Russian people.
I came away in particular with even greater disgust for Communists and Bolshevik’s for the ruin they made to so many millions of lives, but also a realization that pre-Soviet Russia had a ton of problems.
The experience and suffering of Russians under the Soviets also explains many aspects of our modern world and Russias place in it.
Overall a long, pretty cumbersome read but well worth it. If anything I’ve gained a lot of empathy for the Russian people.
March 26, 2022
Current events inspired me to read this right now. It is an in depth history, but you should have some familiarity with Russian history before you read this. The author provides lots of detail behind the scenes of major events. It is very dense, lots of information and terms ( in a way I felt like I was reading a Russian novel that had lots of characters). Not only does he examine the political and economic developments, but also cultural. One thing that really stood out, it becomes clear that the revolution of 1917 was inevitable.
April 8, 2021
Russia is packed with history and Hosking masterfully takes the reader to each relevant chapter of its historical development. Describing and explaining the most important topics such as economic development, diplomacy, war, religion (quite heavy on this side), politics and so on and so forth.
Truly one of my favorite history books so far.
Truly one of my favorite history books so far.
April 20, 2023
A book in which you will read that Russia has always been an aggressive state that attacked its neighbours such as Poland, Tatarstan, Chechnya and Finland, and that dictator Putin may have been the real mastermind behind the 1999 Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk apartment bombings in order to blame Chechens.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews