What do you think?
Rate this book
Ukraine: An Illustrated History
Ukraine is Europe's second state and this lavishly illustrated volume provides a concise and easy to read historical survey of the country from earliest times to the present. Each of the book's forty-six chapters is framed by a historical map, which graphically depicts the key elements of the chronological period or theme addressed within. In addition, the entire text is accompanied by over 300 historic photographs, line drawings, portraits, and reproductions of books and art works, which bring the rich past of Ukraine to life. Rather than limiting his study to an examination of the country's numerically largest population - ethnic Ukrainians - acclaimed scholar Paul Robert Magocsi emphasizes the multicultural nature of Ukraine throughout its history. While ethnic Ukrainians figure prominently, Magocsi also deals with all the other peoples who live or who have lived within the borders of present-day Russians, Poles, Jews, Crimean Tatars, Germans (including Mennonites), and Greeks, among others. This book is not only an indispensable resource for European area and Slavic studies specialists; it is sure to appeal to people interested in having easy access to information about political, economic, and cultural development in Ukraine.
- GenresUkraineHistoryNonfiction
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
2 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
August 8, 2018
This is history writing as it should be. The author is brilliant at illuminating the complexity of Ukrainian history in a few lucid and well chosen sentences. Take Sub Carpathian Ruthenia, for example: the history of this odd corner of Europe is anchored so beautifully in the wider story that I began to understand the wonderful complexity of the interplay between different polities and identities (some yearned for union with a "Greater Ukraine", some hankered after independence, others looked to be a part of all kinds of supra-national identities from Habsburg to Tsarist to Bolshevik, whilst many simple peasants barely had an understanding of any kind of "national" identity at all). Ruthenia is a microcosm of the whole. It is very thought provoking that an important figure in Ukraine's past like Bohdan Khmelnitsky (Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host - now there's a euphonious title) has been claimed as a hero by Tsarists, Ukrainian Nationalists, and Soviet propagandists. Truly, there is no one way to understand what is meant by "Ukrainian".
It is a melancholy fact that the Ukraine has seen more than its fair share of human suffering - and the book does not spare us the details (a photograph of child victims of an anti Jewish pogrom I found very distressing). But if the history of the Ukraine is a tragic one, it is also a monument to endurance, survival, and continuity. I found it deeply moving and I learned something new on almost every page. (Fascinating stuff on the Greek Uniate Church, for example - how strange to have a church with bearded patriarchs intoning the liturgy of Constantinople whilst simultaneously owing allegiance to the Roman Pontiff - a kind of perfect illustration of the looking-both-ways nature of Ukraine itself). All of the illustrations - the maps especially - are clear, illuminating, and abundant.
I suppose every foreigner who thinks about Ukraine thinks about Cossacks, and imagines them either as vicious thugs plying the knout against the blameless proletariat, or as romantic cavaliers with a love for the Tsar and the Orthodox faith. Of course, I incline to the latter view. I can't fault this excellent book at all, except that I wanted even more on my favourite Urkainian, Hetman Skoropadksy, who fought both the Bolsheviks and the Ukrainian Ultra Nationalists. Two of my favourite novels are Bulgakov's "The White Guard" and Sholokhov's "And Quiet Flows the Don", and this book deepened and enhanced my appreciation of those marvellous novels. Highly recommended.
It is a melancholy fact that the Ukraine has seen more than its fair share of human suffering - and the book does not spare us the details (a photograph of child victims of an anti Jewish pogrom I found very distressing). But if the history of the Ukraine is a tragic one, it is also a monument to endurance, survival, and continuity. I found it deeply moving and I learned something new on almost every page. (Fascinating stuff on the Greek Uniate Church, for example - how strange to have a church with bearded patriarchs intoning the liturgy of Constantinople whilst simultaneously owing allegiance to the Roman Pontiff - a kind of perfect illustration of the looking-both-ways nature of Ukraine itself). All of the illustrations - the maps especially - are clear, illuminating, and abundant.
I suppose every foreigner who thinks about Ukraine thinks about Cossacks, and imagines them either as vicious thugs plying the knout against the blameless proletariat, or as romantic cavaliers with a love for the Tsar and the Orthodox faith. Of course, I incline to the latter view. I can't fault this excellent book at all, except that I wanted even more on my favourite Urkainian, Hetman Skoropadksy, who fought both the Bolsheviks and the Ukrainian Ultra Nationalists. Two of my favourite novels are Bulgakov's "The White Guard" and Sholokhov's "And Quiet Flows the Don", and this book deepened and enhanced my appreciation of those marvellous novels. Highly recommended.
August 30, 2014
"It remains to be seen whether the events of 2004 marked just another change in government or whether the Orange Revolution has indeed set the groundwork for serious reform and a wide ranging transformation of Ukrainain society."
Without a doubt, this closing statement rings loud and clear and for our modern ears still begging for some sort of definite answer as we near the final months of 2014. There are more than a few moments where we realize that nearly 10 years following the Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian nation continues to fall prey to its repeated (and almost circular) history. I suppose it is appropriate to avoid the heavy propaganda war that has continued to toil underneath the persisting (and very real) violence that plagues the Ukrainian lands as of late. But it is striking to read through the historical and political divide through the lens of this modern version of what some are deeming a second Cold War. For example:
"Central to Hitler's plans for a new Germany was territorial expansion in order to assure that that the German people had sufficient living space... Hitler first turned to his immediate neighbours, annexing Austria and threatening Czechoslovakia. He accused that Slavic state of violating the rights of its three million strong German minority living in (Czechoslovakia)."
If this sounds familiar, it should come as no surprise. Many wonder whether the world had payed more attention to Hitler in these early moments whether the war could have been avoided altogether. Many still wonder about the slow and weak response of the West to Putin's continued push to protect the Russian people living on Ukrainian soil, and the impact it might have on a greater future war. The situation is complicated. But history can also offer a sure commentary. In the case of the Ukraine we be assured that the sheer "exhaustion" of changing rule, government, borders and and economics has taken a toll. Thankfully though, many who see themselves as Ukrainian (and those who genuinely are) feel they are stronger for it. Having now spent some time in this uplifting and optimistic country, it would seem there remains a spirit of determination that will not allow them to give up, even after so many years of conflict and such a complicated history.
Much of the current conflict that exists in the Ukraine can be attributed to three factors:
1. The remaining shadow of the soviet vision
2. The East/West divide
3. The decision to adapt a Unitary model (power centralized in Kiev and the President) as opposed to a federal state model (such as in Austria where individual regions are self governed under the guidance and limits of a wider national law).
The Shadow of the Soviet Vision
All three of the above issues speak to one of the most difficult aspects of defining the "Ukrainian" ethnicity. The problem lies in pushing through the mix of cultures, the constantly changing borders, the infighting and constant gravitation between aligning with surrounding peoples for the sake of stability and progress and claiming a decisive identity in opposition to an opposing national force. I would think though, given the attention on Russia in our modern day, that it is fair to say that where claims of territorial rights is broached, these rights need to be filtered through the whole of history and not just part. For example, while those in Crimea are quick to suggest a return to the "motherland" that owns them, what they neglect to recognize is that the Russians were in fact the "last" group to colonize this area. To arrive at Russia one must first move through the Greeks and Tatars and Italians above all else.
When the Ukrainian lands first moved from nomadic to settled, the southern parts were strongly Greek while the central/north/western parts were essentially Slavic. From here history presents a complicated discussion given that the Slavs are directly connected to some of the major groups that would arise, including the Russians and Belarus. From the Slavs we would arrive at the Kievan-Rus consolidation of territory, a consolidation that reached across much different borders than any of our modern day countries. Out of Kiev would rule the prince, but the ruling lands (which was known as the territory ruled by Volodymyr the Great, otherwise known as the term "Rus") was quite erratic and wide.
During the rule of Volodymyr the Great Christianity was brought in as a means of unifying the lands. The Byzatine missionaries created the Cyrillic alphabet for the Slavs as a means of unifying the land. Therefore, it was not long before to see oneself as "Rus" was to also see oneself as under the eastern rite (orthodox) church. Out of this we also find a created "common myth" of history that the land, united under power and religion, could now call their own.
As time moved forward, the Kievan-Rus land and the Christian identity grew and diversified, eventually self destructing under the inability to contain a unified structure, and also the inability to withstand invasions (such as the Mongol invasion). The book itself moves chapter by chapter through each section of this history and beyond, providing us with a map to navigate the changing structure at each fork in the road. We move then through Polish and Austrian rule, and Lithuanian rule (in the 1340's this eastern european land was divided between the Poles and Luthuania, and eventually combined in to a commonweatlh). Out of this commonwealth we see a divide between the Polish (Western leaning) Rus that adhered to the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eeasern Rus which adhered to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What complicated this moving forward was the idea of battling for a nationalistic identity as a Ukrainian from the divided peasant lands and the more direct ruling forces (nobility). At this time, the political powers and the religious were one in the same. This is what intensified the battle not just for orthodoxy, but also in the peasant lands. Moving forward, this would start a battle of allies being built around orthodoxy and social reform through the north/west and east Ukraine. The group that would defend orthodoxy would be called the Cossacks. We can see history begin to shift all over the place here as we see Russia and Poland begin to take particular control, and then Austria and Russian empires.
What is important to note here is the persistence in the Ukrainian lands throughout this process in determining and maintaining some sense of autonomy and identity under these different ruling forces. This would shift back and forth in terms of alliances and rivals, especially in terms of what allowed them the greatest opportunity thrive. What we see in the developing history at this point is the further divide between east and west, the sharpening tension between religious affiliation from east and west, and the push and shove to develop as a people, language and economy. Even as we move through the first world war and the Soviet Union, we see a certain social divide on the ground level in terms of what it meant to be an independent people. Not everyone agreed on what that looked like, and the slow infiltration (and gradual definition) of Russian peoples in to the Ukrainian culture (particularly in the eastern industrialization) made it even more complex. One can see this historical relationship coming in to full view, even in the uncertain picture of political and national battles between areas such as Romania and Poland and Austria and Germany that continued to change the traditional look of of the Ukrainian borders. While some would try and push the Ukrainian nationalism down, others would begin to stand up and fight, certainly as we move through the history of the famine and the second world war, and eventually the demise of the soviet union. The same story can be told of southern Ukraine, although it continues to travel a slightly different path, given that Crimea continue to remain the one autonomous part of the Ukraine, and the Odessa region continues to see its history outside of the lens of the central and western lens.
It would be fair to say, and I think this illustrated history points this out nicely, that the story of Ukraine is one of constant social reform in the midst of a wider battle for world power going on around them. It is not surprising to see the Ukraine seemingly stuck in the middle of a modern battle between East and West that still rages. And yet the reform still comes from the people, from the ground. It is a reform of freedom and democracy, but one that also flavours the sort of socialist construct that can allow a country characterized by the peasantry (working class, farmers, and diverse communities made up of Greeks, Romanians, Slavs, Germans, Russians, ext.) to flourish and be self dependent and cooperative. It is the same old story of powers pushing the boundary lines of their people, and of distinct ethnicities trying to weave a story of nationalist pride as an excuse to disregard the Ukrainian identity. And yet Ukraine as a country, as a people continues to exist and continues to exist. One would think that the modern landscape of overall democracy, a more united front of non-violent tactics would allow the Ukrainian independence to finally take shape and flourish. But stories of corruption and power persist, even if it has been largely non-violent. This is the unfortunate part of the Ukraine's recent history. The Orange Revolution brought hope, but it also allowed a corrupted power to hurt the socialist tendencies that make Ukraine what it is. The divide between rich and poor still remains today and is just being dealt with. The Ukraine's push to align with the West opens it up to the dangers of this sort of democracy, while the push of the East is to retain a part of the Soviet heritage. And yet, the overwhelming picture on the ground is one of a desire of a common identity as Ukrainian, even as a Russian speaking population. The balance between communist tendencies and western democracy is achieved by a united front between East and West. This is what is necessary to stop the modern dilemma. It is what Russia continues to prey upon, and it is what Russia continues to meddle between so as to keep from happening. On the other hand, the current president also has a tough road to travel so as to not throw this balance off in the other direction as well. History has dealt the Ukraine a tough hand in leaving it directly in the middle of the east/west divide without a solid sense of land and boundaries. But it has developed at the same time a strong people, a people not ready to give up and a people not willing to give in. This is what they built their visible and patriotic culture on in recent history. They have shown that when they are given the chance they rise to the challenge of creating a strong and vibrant culture and a a thriving, socially conscious economy. If the powers that be could finally quit focussing on their own squabbles and let this country be who they desire to be, it would be a wonderful thing to see what they could finally become.
Without a doubt, this closing statement rings loud and clear and for our modern ears still begging for some sort of definite answer as we near the final months of 2014. There are more than a few moments where we realize that nearly 10 years following the Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian nation continues to fall prey to its repeated (and almost circular) history. I suppose it is appropriate to avoid the heavy propaganda war that has continued to toil underneath the persisting (and very real) violence that plagues the Ukrainian lands as of late. But it is striking to read through the historical and political divide through the lens of this modern version of what some are deeming a second Cold War. For example:
"Central to Hitler's plans for a new Germany was territorial expansion in order to assure that that the German people had sufficient living space... Hitler first turned to his immediate neighbours, annexing Austria and threatening Czechoslovakia. He accused that Slavic state of violating the rights of its three million strong German minority living in (Czechoslovakia)."
If this sounds familiar, it should come as no surprise. Many wonder whether the world had payed more attention to Hitler in these early moments whether the war could have been avoided altogether. Many still wonder about the slow and weak response of the West to Putin's continued push to protect the Russian people living on Ukrainian soil, and the impact it might have on a greater future war. The situation is complicated. But history can also offer a sure commentary. In the case of the Ukraine we be assured that the sheer "exhaustion" of changing rule, government, borders and and economics has taken a toll. Thankfully though, many who see themselves as Ukrainian (and those who genuinely are) feel they are stronger for it. Having now spent some time in this uplifting and optimistic country, it would seem there remains a spirit of determination that will not allow them to give up, even after so many years of conflict and such a complicated history.
Much of the current conflict that exists in the Ukraine can be attributed to three factors:
1. The remaining shadow of the soviet vision
2. The East/West divide
3. The decision to adapt a Unitary model (power centralized in Kiev and the President) as opposed to a federal state model (such as in Austria where individual regions are self governed under the guidance and limits of a wider national law).
The Shadow of the Soviet Vision
All three of the above issues speak to one of the most difficult aspects of defining the "Ukrainian" ethnicity. The problem lies in pushing through the mix of cultures, the constantly changing borders, the infighting and constant gravitation between aligning with surrounding peoples for the sake of stability and progress and claiming a decisive identity in opposition to an opposing national force. I would think though, given the attention on Russia in our modern day, that it is fair to say that where claims of territorial rights is broached, these rights need to be filtered through the whole of history and not just part. For example, while those in Crimea are quick to suggest a return to the "motherland" that owns them, what they neglect to recognize is that the Russians were in fact the "last" group to colonize this area. To arrive at Russia one must first move through the Greeks and Tatars and Italians above all else.
When the Ukrainian lands first moved from nomadic to settled, the southern parts were strongly Greek while the central/north/western parts were essentially Slavic. From here history presents a complicated discussion given that the Slavs are directly connected to some of the major groups that would arise, including the Russians and Belarus. From the Slavs we would arrive at the Kievan-Rus consolidation of territory, a consolidation that reached across much different borders than any of our modern day countries. Out of Kiev would rule the prince, but the ruling lands (which was known as the territory ruled by Volodymyr the Great, otherwise known as the term "Rus") was quite erratic and wide.
During the rule of Volodymyr the Great Christianity was brought in as a means of unifying the lands. The Byzatine missionaries created the Cyrillic alphabet for the Slavs as a means of unifying the land. Therefore, it was not long before to see oneself as "Rus" was to also see oneself as under the eastern rite (orthodox) church. Out of this we also find a created "common myth" of history that the land, united under power and religion, could now call their own.
As time moved forward, the Kievan-Rus land and the Christian identity grew and diversified, eventually self destructing under the inability to contain a unified structure, and also the inability to withstand invasions (such as the Mongol invasion). The book itself moves chapter by chapter through each section of this history and beyond, providing us with a map to navigate the changing structure at each fork in the road. We move then through Polish and Austrian rule, and Lithuanian rule (in the 1340's this eastern european land was divided between the Poles and Luthuania, and eventually combined in to a commonweatlh). Out of this commonwealth we see a divide between the Polish (Western leaning) Rus that adhered to the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eeasern Rus which adhered to the Eastern Orthodox Church. What complicated this moving forward was the idea of battling for a nationalistic identity as a Ukrainian from the divided peasant lands and the more direct ruling forces (nobility). At this time, the political powers and the religious were one in the same. This is what intensified the battle not just for orthodoxy, but also in the peasant lands. Moving forward, this would start a battle of allies being built around orthodoxy and social reform through the north/west and east Ukraine. The group that would defend orthodoxy would be called the Cossacks. We can see history begin to shift all over the place here as we see Russia and Poland begin to take particular control, and then Austria and Russian empires.
What is important to note here is the persistence in the Ukrainian lands throughout this process in determining and maintaining some sense of autonomy and identity under these different ruling forces. This would shift back and forth in terms of alliances and rivals, especially in terms of what allowed them the greatest opportunity thrive. What we see in the developing history at this point is the further divide between east and west, the sharpening tension between religious affiliation from east and west, and the push and shove to develop as a people, language and economy. Even as we move through the first world war and the Soviet Union, we see a certain social divide on the ground level in terms of what it meant to be an independent people. Not everyone agreed on what that looked like, and the slow infiltration (and gradual definition) of Russian peoples in to the Ukrainian culture (particularly in the eastern industrialization) made it even more complex. One can see this historical relationship coming in to full view, even in the uncertain picture of political and national battles between areas such as Romania and Poland and Austria and Germany that continued to change the traditional look of of the Ukrainian borders. While some would try and push the Ukrainian nationalism down, others would begin to stand up and fight, certainly as we move through the history of the famine and the second world war, and eventually the demise of the soviet union. The same story can be told of southern Ukraine, although it continues to travel a slightly different path, given that Crimea continue to remain the one autonomous part of the Ukraine, and the Odessa region continues to see its history outside of the lens of the central and western lens.
It would be fair to say, and I think this illustrated history points this out nicely, that the story of Ukraine is one of constant social reform in the midst of a wider battle for world power going on around them. It is not surprising to see the Ukraine seemingly stuck in the middle of a modern battle between East and West that still rages. And yet the reform still comes from the people, from the ground. It is a reform of freedom and democracy, but one that also flavours the sort of socialist construct that can allow a country characterized by the peasantry (working class, farmers, and diverse communities made up of Greeks, Romanians, Slavs, Germans, Russians, ext.) to flourish and be self dependent and cooperative. It is the same old story of powers pushing the boundary lines of their people, and of distinct ethnicities trying to weave a story of nationalist pride as an excuse to disregard the Ukrainian identity. And yet Ukraine as a country, as a people continues to exist and continues to exist. One would think that the modern landscape of overall democracy, a more united front of non-violent tactics would allow the Ukrainian independence to finally take shape and flourish. But stories of corruption and power persist, even if it has been largely non-violent. This is the unfortunate part of the Ukraine's recent history. The Orange Revolution brought hope, but it also allowed a corrupted power to hurt the socialist tendencies that make Ukraine what it is. The divide between rich and poor still remains today and is just being dealt with. The Ukraine's push to align with the West opens it up to the dangers of this sort of democracy, while the push of the East is to retain a part of the Soviet heritage. And yet, the overwhelming picture on the ground is one of a desire of a common identity as Ukrainian, even as a Russian speaking population. The balance between communist tendencies and western democracy is achieved by a united front between East and West. This is what is necessary to stop the modern dilemma. It is what Russia continues to prey upon, and it is what Russia continues to meddle between so as to keep from happening. On the other hand, the current president also has a tough road to travel so as to not throw this balance off in the other direction as well. History has dealt the Ukraine a tough hand in leaving it directly in the middle of the east/west divide without a solid sense of land and boundaries. But it has developed at the same time a strong people, a people not ready to give up and a people not willing to give in. This is what they built their visible and patriotic culture on in recent history. They have shown that when they are given the chance they rise to the challenge of creating a strong and vibrant culture and a a thriving, socially conscious economy. If the powers that be could finally quit focussing on their own squabbles and let this country be who they desire to be, it would be a wonderful thing to see what they could finally become.
June 1, 2015
Книга містить досить стислий огляд, фактично "маршрутний лист" історії України в межах її суцільної етнічної території на початок XX століття (сучасні кордони плюс Закерзоння та Слобожанщина; Клини не згадано, Кубань - тільки про заселення) від скитів і греків до 2007 року.
Звичайно, в такому стислому викладенні не знайшлось місця альтернативним теоріям, зауваженням деяких дослідників тощо: історія викладається в досить консервативному руслі, з різних гіпотез згадується о��на або кілька домінуючих, без спроб аналізу та порівняння - на це в книзі просто немає місця.
Звісно, я не узнав з книги нічого нового - та й не очікував цього. Мені було цікаво побачити альтернативний погляд на нашу історії, як її може викладати людина вільна від наших пост-колоніяльних болів.
Ось що я побачив:
1. Книга проходить галопом по темах, Хмельниччина - одна тема, греки і скити - також одна тема. Немає притаманного вітчизняним історикам "смакування" особливо важливих, як на їх думку, подій: князі, Сагайдачний, Хмельниччина.
2. Найбільше уваги приділено "довгому XIX" (від поділів Польщі до Світової Війни) та XX століттям. Чим далі від сьогодення - тим менше деталізація. Це знов ж таки відрізняє книгу від робот "патріотичних" істориків, які приділяли велику увагу державності Київської Русі.
3. Викладення дуже помірковане. Красномовним прикладом є опис Волинської трагедії, який містить дві фотографії на розвороті: українське село спалене АК, та польське село спалене УПА.
4. В тексті мимохіть згадується те, про що не люблять прямо казати українські історики: велику роль в поневоленні українського народу в царські часи зіграла зрада народу його елітами при недалекоглядності низів. Адже ні для кого не є секретом, що Малоросія придумана в Києві, захоплення українських земель та підпорядкування церкви Москві обґрунтовано киянами, а промосковська Січ дослужилася царю аж до свого знищення.
5. У порівнянні з вітчизняними авторами, книга приділяє велику увагу національним меншинам, конфесіям, ідентифікації та самоідентифікації населення України.
Звичайно, в такому стислому викладенні не знайшлось місця альтернативним теоріям, зауваженням деяких дослідників тощо: історія викладається в досить консервативному руслі, з різних гіпотез згадується о��на або кілька домінуючих, без спроб аналізу та порівняння - на це в книзі просто немає місця.
Звісно, я не узнав з книги нічого нового - та й не очікував цього. Мені було цікаво побачити альтернативний погляд на нашу історії, як її може викладати людина вільна від наших пост-колоніяльних болів.
Ось що я побачив:
1. Книга проходить галопом по темах, Хмельниччина - одна тема, греки і скити - також одна тема. Немає притаманного вітчизняним історикам "смакування" особливо важливих, як на їх думку, подій: князі, Сагайдачний, Хмельниччина.
2. Найбільше уваги приділено "довгому XIX" (від поділів Польщі до Світової Війни) та XX століттям. Чим далі від сьогодення - тим менше деталізація. Це знов ж таки відрізняє книгу від робот "патріотичних" істориків, які приділяли велику увагу державності Київської Русі.
3. Викладення дуже помірковане. Красномовним прикладом є опис Волинської трагедії, який містить дві фотографії на розвороті: українське село спалене АК, та польське село спалене УПА.
4. В тексті мимохіть згадується те, про що не люблять прямо казати українські історики: велику роль в поневоленні українського народу в царські часи зіграла зрада народу його елітами при недалекоглядності низів. Адже ні для кого не є секретом, що Малоросія придумана в Києві, захоплення українських земель та підпорядкування церкви Москві обґрунтовано киянами, а промосковська Січ дослужилася царю аж до свого знищення.
5. У порівнянні з вітчизняними авторами, книга приділяє велику увагу національним меншинам, конфесіям, ідентифікації та самоідентифікації населення України.
January 12, 2013
This book provides an excellent overview of the extremely complex history of what is now the country of Ukraine. Obviously by covering from the earliest known inhabitants of the region through each of the myriad conquerors right up to present day there is not much depth in any one subject. If there is a particular time period or ethnic group that you are looking for information about there are likely other books that would be better.
Personally I enjoyed the concept of relating the history of the territory instead of any specific ethnic group. I came into the book with a good background on the Ukrainian people but gained an appreciation of the other inhabitants of the area and the various sub-groups within the larger "Ukrainian" ethnicity. The maps which accompany each chapter also enhance the book by allowing the reader to follow the evolution of the borders over time.
In summary: recommended for the layperson who desires an understanding of how the constantly changing borders of this region have contributed to the modern people of Ukraine.
Personally I enjoyed the concept of relating the history of the territory instead of any specific ethnic group. I came into the book with a good background on the Ukrainian people but gained an appreciation of the other inhabitants of the area and the various sub-groups within the larger "Ukrainian" ethnicity. The maps which accompany each chapter also enhance the book by allowing the reader to follow the evolution of the borders over time.
In summary: recommended for the layperson who desires an understanding of how the constantly changing borders of this region have contributed to the modern people of Ukraine.
Read
August 8, 2009\
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews