What do you think?
Rate this book
Tybet. Historia
Położony na północ od Himalajów Tybet słynie z wyjątkowej kultury i kontrowersyjnej asymilacji ze współczesnymi Chinami. Jednak region ten w XXI wieku można właściwie zrozumieć tylko w kontekście jego niezwykłej historii.
Sam van Schaik ożywia dzieje Tybetu, opowiadając historie zaangażowanych w nią ludzi, począwszy od czasów świetności tybetańskiego imperium w VII wieku po dzień dzisiejszy. Bada powstanie buddyzmu tybetańskiego, tryumf i upadek dalajlamów, uwikłanie w „wielką grę” na początku XX wieku, poddanie się chińskim rządom komunistycznym w latach pięćdziesiątych XX wieku oraz niespokojne czasy ostatnich dziesięcioleci.
Książka Tybet. Historia rzuca światło na złożone relacje kraju z Chinami i wyjaśnia często niezrozumiałe aspekty tybetańskiej kultury. Van Schaik przedziera się przez warstwy historii i mitów, tworząc fascynującą narrację, która oferuje czytelnikom lepsze zrozumienie tego ważnego i zarazem kontrowersyjnego zakątka świata.
Sam van Schaik ożywia dzieje Tybetu, opowiadając historie zaangażowanych w nią ludzi, począwszy od czasów świetności tybetańskiego imperium w VII wieku po dzień dzisiejszy. Bada powstanie buddyzmu tybetańskiego, tryumf i upadek dalajlamów, uwikłanie w „wielką grę” na początku XX wieku, poddanie się chińskim rządom komunistycznym w latach pięćdziesiątych XX wieku oraz niespokojne czasy ostatnich dziesięcioleci.
Książka Tybet. Historia rzuca światło na złożone relacje kraju z Chinami i wyjaśnia często niezrozumiałe aspekty tybetańskiej kultury. Van Schaik przedziera się przez warstwy historii i mitów, tworząc fascynującą narrację, która oferuje czytelnikom lepsze zrozumienie tego ważnego i zarazem kontrowersyjnego zakątka świata.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
April 22, 2019
It's hard to know what to think of a Tibet scholar whose Tibet history begins with an attempt to obfuscate the actual geographic location of his subject. Van Schaik's book on the history of Tibet begins in the preface with "Where is Tibet?" and proceeds to call into question not only where Tibet is located but also how Tibet is defined as a culture, its identity, and its claim to being an legitimate independent culture.
While the rest of the book presents a relatively non-biased look at Tibetan history, other reviewers who claim Van Schaik is "neutral" or "has no political axe to grind" must not have read this preface where he immediately plunges us into the China-Tibet controversy, into "a war of wildly differing visions" (p.xvi). "To even talk about 'Tibet' is to simplify and distort" he continues, pointing out that there are sub-divisions and sub-identities within Tibetan culture as if this is another fact that disqualifies its claim to being a legitimate culture. "How can one write a history of Tibet when we can hardly say where 'Tibet' begins or ends...?", suggesting again that Tibet is somehow different in this way from every other major world civilization (such as China itself whose borders have changed radically for thousands of years).
Van Schaik's purpose may be to deromanticize and set straight Western misconceptions about Tibet (of which there are many) but in doing so he also comes across as supporting the Chinese Communist agenda of delegitimizing Tibet as a unique and independent culture that has also been independently governed over much of its history. Most of his points are true of just about any civilization that's been around for a few millennia - territorial boundary changes, overlapping with current neighboring country border, linguistic and regional subdivisions within the culture, differing sects, schools of thought, political groups, etc. What major ancient civilization has not gone through such changes over the course of its history?
One also wonders why Van Schaik's history makes no mention of the thousands of years of Tibetan people's history prior to his arbitrary starting point, the 7th Century. Does a culture exist or have a history only when it "arrives on the world stage"? Others such as Bellezza's The Dawn of Tibet: The Ancient Civilization on the Roof of the World have shown that Tibetans have occupied this region of the world for thousands of years prior to when Van Schaik starts his history.
Like others, I learned a ton from Van Schiak's book and I appreciate his scholarship, his engaging narrative, and his awareness that it is his narrative. If you want a history of Tibet written from an objective perspective that will deflate your romantic view of it as a Buddhist Shangri-La, this is a good place to start.
My view is that it's high time that the Tibetans themselves write their own history from their own perspective and take control of the narrative of who they are as a people, a culture, a civilization. To my knowledge no such history exists except in the form of a Buddhist history of Tibet.
While the rest of the book presents a relatively non-biased look at Tibetan history, other reviewers who claim Van Schaik is "neutral" or "has no political axe to grind" must not have read this preface where he immediately plunges us into the China-Tibet controversy, into "a war of wildly differing visions" (p.xvi). "To even talk about 'Tibet' is to simplify and distort" he continues, pointing out that there are sub-divisions and sub-identities within Tibetan culture as if this is another fact that disqualifies its claim to being a legitimate culture. "How can one write a history of Tibet when we can hardly say where 'Tibet' begins or ends...?", suggesting again that Tibet is somehow different in this way from every other major world civilization (such as China itself whose borders have changed radically for thousands of years).
Van Schaik's purpose may be to deromanticize and set straight Western misconceptions about Tibet (of which there are many) but in doing so he also comes across as supporting the Chinese Communist agenda of delegitimizing Tibet as a unique and independent culture that has also been independently governed over much of its history. Most of his points are true of just about any civilization that's been around for a few millennia - territorial boundary changes, overlapping with current neighboring country border, linguistic and regional subdivisions within the culture, differing sects, schools of thought, political groups, etc. What major ancient civilization has not gone through such changes over the course of its history?
One also wonders why Van Schaik's history makes no mention of the thousands of years of Tibetan people's history prior to his arbitrary starting point, the 7th Century. Does a culture exist or have a history only when it "arrives on the world stage"? Others such as Bellezza's The Dawn of Tibet: The Ancient Civilization on the Roof of the World have shown that Tibetans have occupied this region of the world for thousands of years prior to when Van Schaik starts his history.
Like others, I learned a ton from Van Schiak's book and I appreciate his scholarship, his engaging narrative, and his awareness that it is his narrative. If you want a history of Tibet written from an objective perspective that will deflate your romantic view of it as a Buddhist Shangri-La, this is a good place to start.
My view is that it's high time that the Tibetans themselves write their own history from their own perspective and take control of the narrative of who they are as a people, a culture, a civilization. To my knowledge no such history exists except in the form of a Buddhist history of Tibet.
September 20, 2019
Прекрасный учебник истории — примерно как вернуться в пятый класс и читать истории про разных древних людей просто так, без дурацких вопросов в конце каждой главы.
Однако все равно все лучше бы воспринимать с известной долей скепсиса. Например, автор пишет нам, что геше Вангъял в 1951 году свинтил из СССР в США (где потом и основал первый буддистский монастырь и т.д.). Хотелось бы мне посмотреть, конечно, как ему это удалось. На самом же деле (так вышло, что я немного чего-то про это знаю), не в 51-м, а в 55-м. И не из СССР, а из Индии. Если же быть до конца точными, из СССР он свинтил в 1923-м вместе с НКВД-шной разведывательной экспедицией в Тибет под видом паломничества и под руководством Сергея Борисова (который, заметим в скобках, весной 1918-го и во Владивостоке наследил). Но, будучи умным калмыком, с разведгруппой этой Вангъял, носивший тогда другое имя, быстро расстался, еще не дойдя и до Лхасы, и в ССР больше не возвращался никогда (да и маловероятно, чтобы работал на советскую разведку в настолько глубокой конспирации; хотя тема это для конспирологического триллера богатая). А наша автор просто и объяснимо запутался в хитросплетениях поздних стадий Большой игры.
Однако все равно все лучше бы воспринимать с известной долей скепсиса. Например, автор пишет нам, что геше Вангъял в 1951 году свинтил из СССР в США (где потом и основал первый буддистский монастырь и т.д.). Хотелось бы мне посмотреть, конечно, как ему это удалось. На самом же деле (так вышло, что я немного чего-то про это знаю), не в 51-м, а в 55-м. И не из СССР, а из Индии. Если же быть до конца точными, из СССР он свинтил в 1923-м вместе с НКВД-шной разведывательной экспедицией в Тибет под видом паломничества и под руководством Сергея Борисова (который, заметим в скобках, весной 1918-го и во Владивостоке наследил). Но, будучи умным калмыком, с разведгруппой этой Вангъял, носивший тогда другое имя, быстро расстался, еще не дойдя и до Лхасы, и в ССР больше не возвращался никогда (да и маловероятно, чтобы работал на советскую разведку в настолько глубокой конспирации; хотя тема это для конспирологического триллера богатая). А наша автор просто и объяснимо запутался в хитросплетениях поздних стадий Большой игры.
April 1, 2026
8/10
A little patchily written in places, but likely the best, most even-handed popular history of Tibet you're likely to find. Kind of darkly amusing how much political intrigue underpinned a society and people that's often so badly misrepresented in the Western imagination.
A little patchily written in places, but likely the best, most even-handed popular history of Tibet you're likely to find. Kind of darkly amusing how much political intrigue underpinned a society and people that's often so badly misrepresented in the Western imagination.
March 6, 2017
A very readable and balanced biography of Tibet. This book delivered exactly what I was hoping: a basic knowledge of Tibet's story, and some understanding of the controversy around its history.
As the author points out in his introduction, the debate over Tibet's identity has turned into a war, and " in a war like this, history plays perhaps the most important role". One side of the debate points out that Tibet has always been strongly linked to China, having lived under its influence since the XIIIth century, and as a region of China since the Manchu dynasty in the XVIIIth century. The other side argues that Tibet has its own culture, history, and has been independent throughout its history, its relation with China being one of priest and patron. On the center of that debate, China's annexation of Tibet in 1949 and the subsequent establishment of the Tibetan government in exile.
The first interesting point in that controversy is how fluid the conception of nation-state was. The notion of sovereign nations we have today in the West is not a good way to gauge what happened in Central Asia in the period covered by the book. Empires would have circles of influence over other countries, of different intensities. Under Mongol rule, the Tibetans would be ruled by local rulers and pay tribute. The Manchus' intervention in a local strife and subsequent decision to influence over the choosing of the tulips, point to a strong influence, but as pointed out this did not equate to direct rule and Tibet was free to self-govern as long as order was maintained.
As for the cultural differences, what remains clear here is that the cultural histories are intertwined. After all, Buddhism in Tibet started in the VIIth century with the marriage of emperor Songtsen Gampo to a Buddhist Chinese princess. From the revival of Buddhism in Tibet until the end of the Manchu dynasty, Tibet would yield considerable religious influence over China, with lamas and other religious dignitaries being frequently summoned to the Chinese capital. It is striking that, before the advent of "modern China" in the early XXth century, cultural differences created more animosity and violence within Tibet, with the rivalry between different schools, than between Tibet and its neighbors.
At the end, what seems to have destroyed the Tibetan desire for independence is the advent of modern technology. Ever since the end of the Tibetan Empire, Tibet was never able to build a significant army. Therefore, a patron was always in order, to provide for order at home and protection from beyond. In exchange, Tibet provided a mix of tribute, religious influence and prestige. When it took months to undertake a perilous journey from Lhasa to Beijing or Mongolia, this worked well, since the suzerainty did not have the intention of taking over direct administration over the country. But as travel and communications evolved rapidly in the XIXth century, that incentive to keep hands off faded. The stipulation in the Simla Accord of Tibet as a "suzerain" of China simply had no place in the XXth century. In the same way as Tibetans were caught off-guard by the superior warfare technology of the British in 1903, they were surprised by the disappearance of the possibility of special influence relations between nation states. This is not just an abstraction: the difficulty faced by the 13th Dalai Lama to build an army and modernize Tibet are a demonstration of the difficulty faced by Tibet to transform itself and build an effective defense against China, both military and diplomatic: "lack of haste may have been a dearly held principle of Tibetan life, but there was no stopping the speed of change as the XXth century unfolded". When the communists emerged victorious from the civil war, with no incentive to remaining in a special relation with Tibet and no deterrence, annexation was a matter of time. It is indicative of the disconnect between the Tibetan way of life and the way the game was played in the XXth century that, when Chinese troops started to mobilize, radio messages from the border east to warn Lhasa fell on deaf ears because the ruling Kashag was hosting its annual multi-day picnic.
So where to now? The Tibetan government in exile has done an incredible job in creating sympathy abroad for Tibetan culture and its cause for independence. However, with China's economic rise and the increasing integration of Tibet (you can now go by train from Lhasa to Beijing in a few hours), chances of further autonomy seem slim. As the Chinese and the Tibetans become richer, and the leaders of Tibet's government in exile become older, it appears the fate of the autonomous region will become tied with that of China itself: if the country goes in the way of further representation and openness, then there might be a way for Tibet to achieve further autonomy. However, if the status quo remains, then there is simply no incentive for Beijing to grant increasing autonomy to the Tibetans, and demonstrations and protests like the 200 ones will only be met with more repression. The idea of Tibet is now, more than ever, linked to how China itself will evolve.
As the author points out in his introduction, the debate over Tibet's identity has turned into a war, and " in a war like this, history plays perhaps the most important role". One side of the debate points out that Tibet has always been strongly linked to China, having lived under its influence since the XIIIth century, and as a region of China since the Manchu dynasty in the XVIIIth century. The other side argues that Tibet has its own culture, history, and has been independent throughout its history, its relation with China being one of priest and patron. On the center of that debate, China's annexation of Tibet in 1949 and the subsequent establishment of the Tibetan government in exile.
The first interesting point in that controversy is how fluid the conception of nation-state was. The notion of sovereign nations we have today in the West is not a good way to gauge what happened in Central Asia in the period covered by the book. Empires would have circles of influence over other countries, of different intensities. Under Mongol rule, the Tibetans would be ruled by local rulers and pay tribute. The Manchus' intervention in a local strife and subsequent decision to influence over the choosing of the tulips, point to a strong influence, but as pointed out this did not equate to direct rule and Tibet was free to self-govern as long as order was maintained.
As for the cultural differences, what remains clear here is that the cultural histories are intertwined. After all, Buddhism in Tibet started in the VIIth century with the marriage of emperor Songtsen Gampo to a Buddhist Chinese princess. From the revival of Buddhism in Tibet until the end of the Manchu dynasty, Tibet would yield considerable religious influence over China, with lamas and other religious dignitaries being frequently summoned to the Chinese capital. It is striking that, before the advent of "modern China" in the early XXth century, cultural differences created more animosity and violence within Tibet, with the rivalry between different schools, than between Tibet and its neighbors.
At the end, what seems to have destroyed the Tibetan desire for independence is the advent of modern technology. Ever since the end of the Tibetan Empire, Tibet was never able to build a significant army. Therefore, a patron was always in order, to provide for order at home and protection from beyond. In exchange, Tibet provided a mix of tribute, religious influence and prestige. When it took months to undertake a perilous journey from Lhasa to Beijing or Mongolia, this worked well, since the suzerainty did not have the intention of taking over direct administration over the country. But as travel and communications evolved rapidly in the XIXth century, that incentive to keep hands off faded. The stipulation in the Simla Accord of Tibet as a "suzerain" of China simply had no place in the XXth century. In the same way as Tibetans were caught off-guard by the superior warfare technology of the British in 1903, they were surprised by the disappearance of the possibility of special influence relations between nation states. This is not just an abstraction: the difficulty faced by the 13th Dalai Lama to build an army and modernize Tibet are a demonstration of the difficulty faced by Tibet to transform itself and build an effective defense against China, both military and diplomatic: "lack of haste may have been a dearly held principle of Tibetan life, but there was no stopping the speed of change as the XXth century unfolded". When the communists emerged victorious from the civil war, with no incentive to remaining in a special relation with Tibet and no deterrence, annexation was a matter of time. It is indicative of the disconnect between the Tibetan way of life and the way the game was played in the XXth century that, when Chinese troops started to mobilize, radio messages from the border east to warn Lhasa fell on deaf ears because the ruling Kashag was hosting its annual multi-day picnic.
So where to now? The Tibetan government in exile has done an incredible job in creating sympathy abroad for Tibetan culture and its cause for independence. However, with China's economic rise and the increasing integration of Tibet (you can now go by train from Lhasa to Beijing in a few hours), chances of further autonomy seem slim. As the Chinese and the Tibetans become richer, and the leaders of Tibet's government in exile become older, it appears the fate of the autonomous region will become tied with that of China itself: if the country goes in the way of further representation and openness, then there might be a way for Tibet to achieve further autonomy. However, if the status quo remains, then there is simply no incentive for Beijing to grant increasing autonomy to the Tibetans, and demonstrations and protests like the 200 ones will only be met with more repression. The idea of Tibet is now, more than ever, linked to how China itself will evolve.
January 27, 2026
I am going to try avoid getting myself embedded in any mires, but I loved this book. I am not educated enough on the subject to know what he gets "right" or "wrong," but I found this to be an endlessly readable history of a country (see...) so many Westerners know almost nothing about past James Hilton.
The chapters that cover like 500-1700 are endlessly fascinating to me, and I love that this is an actual scholarly text that cites the sources. The bibliography will feed me for years when I am ready to dive into it. It's convoluted and messy overall (the history, that is) but it reads like a clear story.
Once the ROC and PROC get involved, well, yeah. I think he strikes a nice balance, but I have been raised on our own western narratives.
In the end though I'll just say, if you want a fascinating, engaging glimpse into the history of Tibet then you can't go wrong with this. The histories of the Tsenpos, and then the Dalai Lamas, the trysts with Mongolians, Ming, Qin, Han, Communist Chinese, the British, the CIA, India, Sikkim, the Soviets, it's fascinating.
I’m Tibetan
Tibetan: a name which is matched by a reality
Tibetan: standing on the earth, touching the heavens
Remember
Don’t ask me my surname
My surname is not Li, my surname is not Wong
If you insist on asking for my surname
I’ll tell you I am a follower of the Buddha
I am a strong nation blessed by the Tibetan gods
My left shoulder is a hawk
My right shoulder a yak
My body is a lamp under the statue of the Buddha, never extinguished.
The chapters that cover like 500-1700 are endlessly fascinating to me, and I love that this is an actual scholarly text that cites the sources. The bibliography will feed me for years when I am ready to dive into it. It's convoluted and messy overall (the history, that is) but it reads like a clear story.
Once the ROC and PROC get involved, well, yeah. I think he strikes a nice balance, but I have been raised on our own western narratives.
In the end though I'll just say, if you want a fascinating, engaging glimpse into the history of Tibet then you can't go wrong with this. The histories of the Tsenpos, and then the Dalai Lamas, the trysts with Mongolians, Ming, Qin, Han, Communist Chinese, the British, the CIA, India, Sikkim, the Soviets, it's fascinating.
I’m Tibetan
Tibetan: a name which is matched by a reality
Tibetan: standing on the earth, touching the heavens
Remember
Don’t ask me my surname
My surname is not Li, my surname is not Wong
If you insist on asking for my surname
I’ll tell you I am a follower of the Buddha
I am a strong nation blessed by the Tibetan gods
My left shoulder is a hawk
My right shoulder a yak
My body is a lamp under the statue of the Buddha, never extinguished.
September 4, 2025
Fascinating!
The question of Tibet is still unanswered, even after over 75 years of struggle. This gives a very high-level view of each of Tibet's eras starting from the 8th century to the 2010s. I learned a lot!
The question of Tibet is still unanswered, even after over 75 years of struggle. This gives a very high-level view of each of Tibet's eras starting from the 8th century to the 2010s. I learned a lot!
May 1, 2025
A well-written history that permits the reader to navigate the major themes, events and personalities without drowning in excessive detail!
February 14, 2026
An excellent, well-written overview of the history of Tibet from 7th to 21st century, including some useful passages summarising some of the diverse areas of Tibetan Buddhist thought.
January 14, 2019
Tibet: A History was published in 2011, but I wish I had been able to read it 20 years ago. It is written in an informative and approachable style, that is not too academic. This history explodes any illusions of Tibet as having been a paradise of serene Buddhist practitioners.
Before it became part of communist China in 1959, Tibet's history was violent, and full of political intrigue and manoeuvring. Tibet was often at the centre of a web of power struggles from all directions - China, Mongolia, India, Nepal, and Russia, to name a few. Sometimes Tibet was the conquering and advancing force, and sometimes it was under siege from all sides struggling to maintain territory. Tibet as a nation did not exactly exist for most of its history, and when its political leaders did eventually seek to identify Tibet in this way, and declare its independence at the beginning of the 20th century, it was too little too late in the political arena. China had too much influence and too much power.
The history of Buddhism in Tibet is fascinating, and at times shocking. The importance of this religion is central to Tibet spiritually, but Buddhism also been used continually as a means of controlling the population and for political expediency. Political power was deeply woven into religious power and wealth. The Gélug was the most recent of the four schools of Buddhism in Tibet, arising in the 15th century, and it eventually came to be the most powerful. Before the Chinese took over in the 20th century, about half of the farmland was owned by the monasteries, of which there were thousands, and about a quarter of the population were monastics. Only about a fifth of those monastics however, the reader is told, were seriously studying the Buddhist teachings, and even fewer dedicated their lives to meditation practice. The most dedicated practitioners were also the poorest. Monks might be as likely to be involved in violent feuds over land and wealth, as the secular leaders of the clans.
It is easy to see from this historical work how communist China could regard the general population of Tibet as deprived, uneducated, and lacking freedom. The belief that communism would free the Tibetan people and improve their lot in life was not just empty rhetoric. The Chinese solution however, the Cultural Revolution, was shockingly violent and unsympathetic to the culture and religion of Tibet. It was distressing to read of the suffering of the Tibetan people since 1959 and to the virtual eradication of Tibetan culture.
For anyone interested in Tibetan Buddhism this is an important book to read. It puts into perspective many aspects of Tibetan culture that manifest within the presentation of religious practice. For me it has also explained some prejudices and sectarian stances I have encountered in the presentation and practice of Tibetan Buddhism in the West.
Before it became part of communist China in 1959, Tibet's history was violent, and full of political intrigue and manoeuvring. Tibet was often at the centre of a web of power struggles from all directions - China, Mongolia, India, Nepal, and Russia, to name a few. Sometimes Tibet was the conquering and advancing force, and sometimes it was under siege from all sides struggling to maintain territory. Tibet as a nation did not exactly exist for most of its history, and when its political leaders did eventually seek to identify Tibet in this way, and declare its independence at the beginning of the 20th century, it was too little too late in the political arena. China had too much influence and too much power.
The history of Buddhism in Tibet is fascinating, and at times shocking. The importance of this religion is central to Tibet spiritually, but Buddhism also been used continually as a means of controlling the population and for political expediency. Political power was deeply woven into religious power and wealth. The Gélug was the most recent of the four schools of Buddhism in Tibet, arising in the 15th century, and it eventually came to be the most powerful. Before the Chinese took over in the 20th century, about half of the farmland was owned by the monasteries, of which there were thousands, and about a quarter of the population were monastics. Only about a fifth of those monastics however, the reader is told, were seriously studying the Buddhist teachings, and even fewer dedicated their lives to meditation practice. The most dedicated practitioners were also the poorest. Monks might be as likely to be involved in violent feuds over land and wealth, as the secular leaders of the clans.
It is easy to see from this historical work how communist China could regard the general population of Tibet as deprived, uneducated, and lacking freedom. The belief that communism would free the Tibetan people and improve their lot in life was not just empty rhetoric. The Chinese solution however, the Cultural Revolution, was shockingly violent and unsympathetic to the culture and religion of Tibet. It was distressing to read of the suffering of the Tibetan people since 1959 and to the virtual eradication of Tibetan culture.
For anyone interested in Tibetan Buddhism this is an important book to read. It puts into perspective many aspects of Tibetan culture that manifest within the presentation of religious practice. For me it has also explained some prejudices and sectarian stances I have encountered in the presentation and practice of Tibetan Buddhism in the West.
May 13, 2022
After reading about China (America Second: How America's Elites Are Making China Stronger by Isaac Stone Fish) I wondered, was Tibet a historical part of China? Is the movement to “Free Tibet” something that I should support? Should Tibet be a part of China? Has it always been a part of China? Stone Fish told us that even talking about Tibet would preclude doing business with the Chinese Communist Party, and they control everything in the country. The Dalai Lama is in exile. If you let him visit your college campus Chinese students will protest and the Chinese government with stop supporting that school. What is the deal with Tibet and China?
“Tibet: A History” by Sam Van Schaik was recommended by Isaac Stone Fish. It is a well-researched comprehensive history of Tibet from the 7th century CE to the present. It is so detailed about many of the internecine rivalries among Tibetan leaders that it makes you wonder how he got the information, and how it was preserved over the centuries.
For the first thousand or so years of Tibetan history, the fate of Tibet seemed to rotate among three axes: China, Mongolia, and Central Tibet. When Genghis Khan invaded and ruled China, Tibet was part of his empire. China eventually broke from the Khans and Tibet was free for a while to find its own way, but descendants of the Khans took control of Tibet from time to time anyway. Eventually a Chinese emperor appeared who coveted Tibet and incorporated that mountain enclave into its territory. Most often through the centuries, as Buddhism’s manifestations waxed and waned, Tibetan lamas were the traditional spiritual advisors to the rulers, Mongol or Chinese, or even Manchu. This relationship lasted into the 20th century in various forms.
Within Tibet, rivalries abounded, simmered, and exploded at times into open internecine warfare. Monks in monasteries trained in the art of fighting would fight an outside enemy if there was one or fight other monasteries for dominance. The rise of the Dalai Lama began in the 16th century but the tradition of finding spiritual descendants among the population was longstanding even before the Dalai Lama grew to prominence. For instance, right through modern times, the Panchen Lama, from a separate sect of Buddhism, vied with the Dalai Lama for dominance in religious and political matters, but the Panchen Lama stayed in China after the Chinese Communists took over and never developed the kind of popular following that the Dalai Lama has nurtured.
The fighting among the Tibetan Buddhists surprised me, but apparently, like any people in ancient times, struggled for political dominance and the wealth and power that came with it were universal. Buddhism itself, imported at first from India and then expanded and refined, had multiple forms, but did not prohibit fighting, killing and struggles for dominance. They fought over Buddhist theory: is enlightenment achieved slowly though study, meditation and good deeds, or is enlightenment something that happens in a flash? Public debates were held and there were fights. The people, before and after Buddhism were very superstitious. Magic played a role. Incantations, marches around monuments and monasteries and curses were used. Poisoning and outright murder of leaders and would-be leaders was common. Tibet was a microcosm of the world.
Everything changed in the 20h century, but then nothing changed. The British, in India already, marched by force into Tibet. The Dalai Lama and others hoped that the British could push back the Chinese and give Tibet room for independence. This relationship with Britain and eventually other European powers and the US continued without relief for the Tibetans until Mao Tse Tung and the Chinese People’s Army made the final move and invaded Tibet. Mao considered Tibet to be a traditional part of China and he broached no argument. He did allow Tibet some self-rule and moved to make cultural changes slowly, at first.
After years of trying to work with Mao and China to establish Tibetan independence, the Dalai Lama finally fled the country in disguise though the lines of the surrounding Chinese PLA, to Dharamasala, India where a government in exile was formed. Even then negotiations continued leading to the now famous meeting with Mao where the Dalai Lama was told that “Of course, religion is poison;” a scene dramatized in Marti Scorsese’s film Kundun.
Tragically, during the upheavals of Mao’s Cultural Revolution Tibetan leaders were abused and killed, often by young students driven to a frenzy by Mao’s exhortations to rid the country of reactionary people and thought. Monasteries were destroyed, priceless artifacts smashed and books and treatises dating back a millennium were burned. They tried to destroy Tibetan language, religion, and culture. It is amazing that the information to write this book survived the chaos and destruction.
Our modern, hippie sensibility of magical, mountainous Tibet and wise spiritual Buddhism stems from the Tibetan Buddhist diaspora, as Tibetan Buddhists gradually came to the west, and eventually to the United States where they found a ready audience of listeners and eventually followers. The Dalai Lama found a role as teacher and spokesperson for his people. The Chinese Communist party considers him to be a terrorist!
Unfortunately, what I learned about Tibet is that is has been a backward isolated mountain country for centuries that has been a part of China or Mongolia or semi-independent for centuries. Our modern concept of Tibet is so new as to be at odds with its history. The claim of Tibetan independent has as much weight as the claim that Tibet has been a part of China. The two are as linked as the moon and the Earth.
I feel for Tibet; sympathy is natural. The Tibetan people suffered in a feudal system for years; a system finally destroyed by the Chinese only to be replaced by Communism. The Tibetans fought over the “truth” of Buddhism until the Chinese settled the argument and stifled all religion. Tibet developed a unique and beautiful culture, marred by internal fighting and corruption, until the Chines came in to end the fighting and wipe out that culture. It seems that what the Dalai Lama represents is truly a new, modern Tibetan culture, built far from the ruins of the old culture.
The writings and speeches of the Dalai Lama are wise and beautiful. We should cherish that but it seems that Tibet will be a part of China for a long time.
“Tibet: A History” by Sam Van Schaik was recommended by Isaac Stone Fish. It is a well-researched comprehensive history of Tibet from the 7th century CE to the present. It is so detailed about many of the internecine rivalries among Tibetan leaders that it makes you wonder how he got the information, and how it was preserved over the centuries.
For the first thousand or so years of Tibetan history, the fate of Tibet seemed to rotate among three axes: China, Mongolia, and Central Tibet. When Genghis Khan invaded and ruled China, Tibet was part of his empire. China eventually broke from the Khans and Tibet was free for a while to find its own way, but descendants of the Khans took control of Tibet from time to time anyway. Eventually a Chinese emperor appeared who coveted Tibet and incorporated that mountain enclave into its territory. Most often through the centuries, as Buddhism’s manifestations waxed and waned, Tibetan lamas were the traditional spiritual advisors to the rulers, Mongol or Chinese, or even Manchu. This relationship lasted into the 20th century in various forms.
Within Tibet, rivalries abounded, simmered, and exploded at times into open internecine warfare. Monks in monasteries trained in the art of fighting would fight an outside enemy if there was one or fight other monasteries for dominance. The rise of the Dalai Lama began in the 16th century but the tradition of finding spiritual descendants among the population was longstanding even before the Dalai Lama grew to prominence. For instance, right through modern times, the Panchen Lama, from a separate sect of Buddhism, vied with the Dalai Lama for dominance in religious and political matters, but the Panchen Lama stayed in China after the Chinese Communists took over and never developed the kind of popular following that the Dalai Lama has nurtured.
The fighting among the Tibetan Buddhists surprised me, but apparently, like any people in ancient times, struggled for political dominance and the wealth and power that came with it were universal. Buddhism itself, imported at first from India and then expanded and refined, had multiple forms, but did not prohibit fighting, killing and struggles for dominance. They fought over Buddhist theory: is enlightenment achieved slowly though study, meditation and good deeds, or is enlightenment something that happens in a flash? Public debates were held and there were fights. The people, before and after Buddhism were very superstitious. Magic played a role. Incantations, marches around monuments and monasteries and curses were used. Poisoning and outright murder of leaders and would-be leaders was common. Tibet was a microcosm of the world.
Everything changed in the 20h century, but then nothing changed. The British, in India already, marched by force into Tibet. The Dalai Lama and others hoped that the British could push back the Chinese and give Tibet room for independence. This relationship with Britain and eventually other European powers and the US continued without relief for the Tibetans until Mao Tse Tung and the Chinese People’s Army made the final move and invaded Tibet. Mao considered Tibet to be a traditional part of China and he broached no argument. He did allow Tibet some self-rule and moved to make cultural changes slowly, at first.
After years of trying to work with Mao and China to establish Tibetan independence, the Dalai Lama finally fled the country in disguise though the lines of the surrounding Chinese PLA, to Dharamasala, India where a government in exile was formed. Even then negotiations continued leading to the now famous meeting with Mao where the Dalai Lama was told that “Of course, religion is poison;” a scene dramatized in Marti Scorsese’s film Kundun.
Tragically, during the upheavals of Mao’s Cultural Revolution Tibetan leaders were abused and killed, often by young students driven to a frenzy by Mao’s exhortations to rid the country of reactionary people and thought. Monasteries were destroyed, priceless artifacts smashed and books and treatises dating back a millennium were burned. They tried to destroy Tibetan language, religion, and culture. It is amazing that the information to write this book survived the chaos and destruction.
Our modern, hippie sensibility of magical, mountainous Tibet and wise spiritual Buddhism stems from the Tibetan Buddhist diaspora, as Tibetan Buddhists gradually came to the west, and eventually to the United States where they found a ready audience of listeners and eventually followers. The Dalai Lama found a role as teacher and spokesperson for his people. The Chinese Communist party considers him to be a terrorist!
Unfortunately, what I learned about Tibet is that is has been a backward isolated mountain country for centuries that has been a part of China or Mongolia or semi-independent for centuries. Our modern concept of Tibet is so new as to be at odds with its history. The claim of Tibetan independent has as much weight as the claim that Tibet has been a part of China. The two are as linked as the moon and the Earth.
I feel for Tibet; sympathy is natural. The Tibetan people suffered in a feudal system for years; a system finally destroyed by the Chinese only to be replaced by Communism. The Tibetans fought over the “truth” of Buddhism until the Chinese settled the argument and stifled all religion. Tibet developed a unique and beautiful culture, marred by internal fighting and corruption, until the Chines came in to end the fighting and wipe out that culture. It seems that what the Dalai Lama represents is truly a new, modern Tibetan culture, built far from the ruins of the old culture.
The writings and speeches of the Dalai Lama are wise and beautiful. We should cherish that but it seems that Tibet will be a part of China for a long time.
May 12, 2016
Sam Van Schaik writes in a manner allowing for leisurely reading yet highly informative Tibetan history from 700 AD to present in only 269 pages. Don't be deterred by the seemingly impossible task of writing decent 1,300 year history in this length as it is brevity at it's best. The author captures the Chinese-Tibetan dynamic wonderfully with vignettes that result in a thorough understanding and very enjoyable reading experience. Perfect for anyone seeking a basic understanding of an amazing people and culture we so often overlook yet has so much to offer the world.
November 11, 2012
Recommended. The most straightforward and concise history of Tibet available in American and British markets. If you're familiar with Tibetan history, it's probably a little controversial on the subjects of Tibet's early history, which itself makes it interesting.
July 4, 2015
a pretty good story about tibetan history, for general public, and maybe some undergraduate teaching
May 11, 2026
On April 28 Smita, an Indian ex-colleague, made a surprise visit to our office in Lisbon. She had a recording session later in the afternoon, and we had time for lunch. As we had the meal and spoke randomly, I asked her about an Indian temple she had once taken us to. Joana, another colleague, a Portuguese, asked if it was Buddhism that they practiced there. No, it was Hindu. For Buddhism there is Tibet. Is there? Yet as soon as I mentioned Tibet, Joana added that it was "recently occupied". Duh, as if each time we mention Tibet we need to add a disclaimer. She did that so automatically that I couldn't but blame it on her Western indoctrination. There was an awkward pause, and we didn't dive any deeper, but I was hooked on the topic. What did I really know about Tibet after all? I needed a book.
And a book I got. History often starts twice, once when people inhabit a land and then it starts again when they acquire writing. That's were our history starts and it begins at a high point, with Songtsen Gampo laying the foundations of a highlander empire. It was not a bit Buddhist at the time, but a new state needed a new religion. So it starts with an empire, and a script, and the first steps of Buddhism in Tibet. And then it all falls apart. Buddhism vanishes, Dark ages.
Then the religion returns, this time as a grassroots movement. Monasteries sprang all over the place, translation work was in due course. It was a time of pluralism and tolerance. Then the Mongols came, they chose the Sakya school and elevated it over the rest. The pluralism of the early formative period was over.
There will be many other schools fighting for dominance before the Gelug rise, backed by yet another Mongol force, right before the Manchus arrive. While they supported the dalai lama, they also cultivated the panchen lama as a political counterweight.
As the Qing power eroded and the British started approaching from India, the rules of the game changed again. Beijing realized Tibet was slipping through fingers, they had to act. Tibet was to be firmly incorporated into the Chinese state, and prefereably sinicized, pretty much what happened in inner Mongolia and Manchuria at the time. Except it was 1911, and Qing fell.
The British seized the opportunity to severe Tibet from China for good, right as the Russians secured an independent Mongolia. But Tibet is not a random patch of steppe, it's the largest and highest plateau on the Earth, so you better control it. So China never accepted the Simla aggrements imposed by the British. Two world wars later China finally put itself together, while Tibet was backward and partisan as ever since the fall of their empire. The time was ripe for China to move in.
So is Tibet annexed? Is it liberated? The answer is blowing in the wind. When it blows from the West it's occupied. When it blows from the red East, it's returned back to where it always belonged. With rapid modernization on its way, a crackdown on the theocratic establishment was inevitable, just like in Henry VIII's England or in Pombal's Portugal. And with catastrophic collapse of the Qing empire, it's not surprising that the new China is built within the nation-state framework, so the imperial peripheries must dissolve in a homogenous uniform nation. That's the relentless logic of the modern times, repeating itself again and again, especially in the third world, where rapid and radical modernization was not an option, but a matter of survival.
P.S. But I am digressing. I'm grateful to Joana for unintentionally challenging me with her political reflexes. I filled in hours of reading into that awkward pause, and the answer is still inconclusive. Except now there is some nuance to the question.
And a book I got. History often starts twice, once when people inhabit a land and then it starts again when they acquire writing. That's were our history starts and it begins at a high point, with Songtsen Gampo laying the foundations of a highlander empire. It was not a bit Buddhist at the time, but a new state needed a new religion. So it starts with an empire, and a script, and the first steps of Buddhism in Tibet. And then it all falls apart. Buddhism vanishes, Dark ages.
Then the religion returns, this time as a grassroots movement. Monasteries sprang all over the place, translation work was in due course. It was a time of pluralism and tolerance. Then the Mongols came, they chose the Sakya school and elevated it over the rest. The pluralism of the early formative period was over.
There will be many other schools fighting for dominance before the Gelug rise, backed by yet another Mongol force, right before the Manchus arrive. While they supported the dalai lama, they also cultivated the panchen lama as a political counterweight.
As the Qing power eroded and the British started approaching from India, the rules of the game changed again. Beijing realized Tibet was slipping through fingers, they had to act. Tibet was to be firmly incorporated into the Chinese state, and prefereably sinicized, pretty much what happened in inner Mongolia and Manchuria at the time. Except it was 1911, and Qing fell.
The British seized the opportunity to severe Tibet from China for good, right as the Russians secured an independent Mongolia. But Tibet is not a random patch of steppe, it's the largest and highest plateau on the Earth, so you better control it. So China never accepted the Simla aggrements imposed by the British. Two world wars later China finally put itself together, while Tibet was backward and partisan as ever since the fall of their empire. The time was ripe for China to move in.
So is Tibet annexed? Is it liberated? The answer is blowing in the wind. When it blows from the West it's occupied. When it blows from the red East, it's returned back to where it always belonged. With rapid modernization on its way, a crackdown on the theocratic establishment was inevitable, just like in Henry VIII's England or in Pombal's Portugal. And with catastrophic collapse of the Qing empire, it's not surprising that the new China is built within the nation-state framework, so the imperial peripheries must dissolve in a homogenous uniform nation. That's the relentless logic of the modern times, repeating itself again and again, especially in the third world, where rapid and radical modernization was not an option, but a matter of survival.
P.S. But I am digressing. I'm grateful to Joana for unintentionally challenging me with her political reflexes. I filled in hours of reading into that awkward pause, and the answer is still inconclusive. Except now there is some nuance to the question.
As he approached old age, Zur the Elder began to cultivate his nephew, Zur the Younger, as his successor. Zur the Younger was not a monk: indeed, the elder Zur had advised him to marry a wealthy woman so that he would have enough money to receive teachings and copy books. Zur the Younger specialised in the practice of ‘liberation’, ritual killing in order to bring beings to enlightenment. This was considered a particularly advanced practice, and stories of those who practised it spread fast. Once, it is said, Zur the Elder and his disciples passed a lice-infested bitch with puppies. While Zur the Elder petted the animals, Zur the Younger killed them all and proceeded to pick the lice off the corpses and eat them. The other disciples were horrified, but the elder Zur explained that his nephew had achieved what he could not, protecting these dogs and their parasites from the bad rebirths that were otherwise to be their fate.
March 14, 2019
Tibet's glorious history of thousands of years from medieval to modern ages is compacted in this book akin to the style of story.
It all starts with the great tsenpo; Songsten Gampo who was legendary in the stature captured Chang'an, capital of Tang empire to force, emperor Teizong sign the treaty of brotherhood and friendship acknowledging the might of Tibet for first time. Songsten, a great king of Yarlung dynasty not only showed military might, but also unified the warring clans of Tibetan region with the help of Buddhism (for that he married Nepalese princess; Bhrikuti to bring Buddhism into full force and another Chinese princess). This was a thumping force which engrained Buddhism into the fabric of Tibet. The great tsenpo invited many sadhus and monks from India who helped to spread Buddhism in Tibet and far reaches till present day Mongolia and earned god-like status.
Most important of these monks were Padmashambavana (Guru Rinpoche), Dīpamkara Śrījñāna (Atisha), etc. The influence of Hindu monks travelling from Nepal and particularly India had immense effect of Tibet with the conversion of Sanskrit Tantras and Buddhist scripts to Tibetan.
After this stable and peaceful era there was fragmentation of Tibetan ruling family which caused havoc and ban of Buddhism. At far reaches of Kham, Buddhism remained to come back roaring during the renaissance period under Triseng Detsen and finally falling out after death of Darma king.
Sam Schaik has littered this book with the references of Chinese threat throughout the history; the struggle for equality and independence. Tibet, even though home to fierce Khampa warriors never had a serious disciplined army to withstand foreign invasion. These threats were managed prudently throughout the time with various diplomatic alliances; like great Sakya monk Pagpa with Kublai Khan, Fifth Dalai lama with Gushi Khan or Pholhane with Qing emporer; first with Lazhang Khan and then with Qianlong.
Not only Chinese, Nepalese (Gurkha) or other Western Khanates poised risk to Tibet, there was serious infighting within the different schools of Buddhism, each vying to stronghold the authority. The struggle within the various schools of Buddhism like Nyingma, Gelug, Kagyu and Sakya were finally settled with Dalai Lama being the supreme leader in the land from newest school of Gelug. The Tibetan great monk Tsongkhampa's ideas helped to establish Gelug Buddhist school.
Dalai Lamas (From Gelug school) played important role to unify the religion and political character into one body and helped to fend off Chinese influence may it be from Yuan, Qing or East India.
This book shows how difficult and full of struggles, the relation between Chinese and Tibetans has been. Chinese under many empires; even if they were founded by fierce Mongols or Manchus always treated Tibet as inferoir or vassal state. Tibet always knew they were equal to Chinese and vied for patron-priest relationship.
Coming to 20th century, almost all the glory of Tibet was erased virtually overnight after Kuomintang; Chinese nationalists first floated the idea of unifying five races to great motherland of China under Dr. Sun Yetsen. Kuomontang fled to Taiwan after defeat to Communists. Then, in 1950s the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong's cultural purge lunacy destroyed most of the Tibetan history and culture. This eased a down a little after Hu Yoabang who was more prudent initiated to loosen the grip. The exile of Kesag and Dalai Lama to McLeod Gung in Dharmasahala, India has continued the struggle for independent Tibet. There have been efforts of Tibetan mutiny- Chisu Gangdrug with CIA's support, but these were swiftly quashed in Tibet and remaining Khampas refugees in Nepal had similar fate with Nepalese army suppressing them.
With mighty influence in international arena and military force of China, it is difficult to see 'Free Tibet' any time soon.
It all starts with the great tsenpo; Songsten Gampo who was legendary in the stature captured Chang'an, capital of Tang empire to force, emperor Teizong sign the treaty of brotherhood and friendship acknowledging the might of Tibet for first time. Songsten, a great king of Yarlung dynasty not only showed military might, but also unified the warring clans of Tibetan region with the help of Buddhism (for that he married Nepalese princess; Bhrikuti to bring Buddhism into full force and another Chinese princess). This was a thumping force which engrained Buddhism into the fabric of Tibet. The great tsenpo invited many sadhus and monks from India who helped to spread Buddhism in Tibet and far reaches till present day Mongolia and earned god-like status.
Most important of these monks were Padmashambavana (Guru Rinpoche), Dīpamkara Śrījñāna (Atisha), etc. The influence of Hindu monks travelling from Nepal and particularly India had immense effect of Tibet with the conversion of Sanskrit Tantras and Buddhist scripts to Tibetan.
After this stable and peaceful era there was fragmentation of Tibetan ruling family which caused havoc and ban of Buddhism. At far reaches of Kham, Buddhism remained to come back roaring during the renaissance period under Triseng Detsen and finally falling out after death of Darma king.
Sam Schaik has littered this book with the references of Chinese threat throughout the history; the struggle for equality and independence. Tibet, even though home to fierce Khampa warriors never had a serious disciplined army to withstand foreign invasion. These threats were managed prudently throughout the time with various diplomatic alliances; like great Sakya monk Pagpa with Kublai Khan, Fifth Dalai lama with Gushi Khan or Pholhane with Qing emporer; first with Lazhang Khan and then with Qianlong.
Not only Chinese, Nepalese (Gurkha) or other Western Khanates poised risk to Tibet, there was serious infighting within the different schools of Buddhism, each vying to stronghold the authority. The struggle within the various schools of Buddhism like Nyingma, Gelug, Kagyu and Sakya were finally settled with Dalai Lama being the supreme leader in the land from newest school of Gelug. The Tibetan great monk Tsongkhampa's ideas helped to establish Gelug Buddhist school.
Dalai Lamas (From Gelug school) played important role to unify the religion and political character into one body and helped to fend off Chinese influence may it be from Yuan, Qing or East India.
This book shows how difficult and full of struggles, the relation between Chinese and Tibetans has been. Chinese under many empires; even if they were founded by fierce Mongols or Manchus always treated Tibet as inferoir or vassal state. Tibet always knew they were equal to Chinese and vied for patron-priest relationship.
Coming to 20th century, almost all the glory of Tibet was erased virtually overnight after Kuomintang; Chinese nationalists first floated the idea of unifying five races to great motherland of China under Dr. Sun Yetsen. Kuomontang fled to Taiwan after defeat to Communists. Then, in 1950s the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong's cultural purge lunacy destroyed most of the Tibetan history and culture. This eased a down a little after Hu Yoabang who was more prudent initiated to loosen the grip. The exile of Kesag and Dalai Lama to McLeod Gung in Dharmasahala, India has continued the struggle for independent Tibet. There have been efforts of Tibetan mutiny- Chisu Gangdrug with CIA's support, but these were swiftly quashed in Tibet and remaining Khampas refugees in Nepal had similar fate with Nepalese army suppressing them.
With mighty influence in international arena and military force of China, it is difficult to see 'Free Tibet' any time soon.
October 21, 2022
A very readable book, if too concise. The author has delivered a well-researched but largely anecdotal account that focuses on the key players in Tibetan history. However, there are some unacceptably big gaps; one obvious large hole in the narrative is the story of what happened to the immature Dalai Lamas - between the ninth and twelfth - more than one of whom was murdered by their elders due to power struggles. The author mentions this briefly in one sentence, after having skipped one hundred years of history between/during the 18th and 19th centuries, without informing the reader that he has actually skipped that much time.
Likewise, the early periods of history in this book are focused almost exclusively on real and mythical figures and their doings, without at the same time attempting to build any sense of deep perspective or context. Songsten Gampo - the 33rd king - appears like the only one ever, and a few legendary Indian holy men simply appear suddenly on the scene all alone; and there seems to be no one else but them in the story of early Tibet.
So, this book tries to cover a lot of ground in a short space. For the most part, it succeeds at least, to lay out and explain some of the complexities between Tibet, Mongolia, China and Manchuria - and their extremely long and drawn out relations of society, religion and culture - i.e.: the "priest-patron" analogy. Or, what Mao said to the Dalai Lama about his opinion of religion the last time they met.
But what is missing from this history are detailed portraits comparing the everyday lives of Tibetans from within the context of their own unique social and ethnic groupings: what are the lamas and the nomads to each other? Who were the central Tibetan nobility and the Khampas? These folk all appear nominally, but we learn next to nothing about their individual lifestyles, economic activities, favorite foods, and we learn zero about the nitty gritty nature of Tibet's ageless feudal social structure, much less about how it evolved.
On the other hand, we do learn about the character of various Tibetan Buddhist schools, and how each one comes to adopt a particular social structure and relationship with each other and, later, with various authorities, especially the modern Chinese and Western hipsters.
However, the author never once even states that Tibet was probably the modern world's one and only - first and last - real theocracy! Very little information is given about Tibet's religious government and it's relationship, if any, with the greater society. What was the state of relations between the lamas and ordinary folk? How did one become a monk instead of remaining a yak herdsman? Or were only noble, privileged kids permitted the necessary education? None of these intimate social dynamics are fully examined.
That all said, the author does detail a lot about the complex political postures put on by the British, as well as the intrigues, treaties and failure of the Dalai Lamas to understand the new Chinese communist government as events unfolded chaotically during the reign of the inimitable and wacko Chairman Mao...
Anyway, the author's conclusion is quite well put: "For some, independence from China is not a viable or even particularly desirable option. Others fear that, without independence, Tibet will simply disappear. What is Tibet? Surely the most important answers will be those put forward not by foreign historians or political theorists, but by Tibetans themselves."
Likewise, the early periods of history in this book are focused almost exclusively on real and mythical figures and their doings, without at the same time attempting to build any sense of deep perspective or context. Songsten Gampo - the 33rd king - appears like the only one ever, and a few legendary Indian holy men simply appear suddenly on the scene all alone; and there seems to be no one else but them in the story of early Tibet.
So, this book tries to cover a lot of ground in a short space. For the most part, it succeeds at least, to lay out and explain some of the complexities between Tibet, Mongolia, China and Manchuria - and their extremely long and drawn out relations of society, religion and culture - i.e.: the "priest-patron" analogy. Or, what Mao said to the Dalai Lama about his opinion of religion the last time they met.
But what is missing from this history are detailed portraits comparing the everyday lives of Tibetans from within the context of their own unique social and ethnic groupings: what are the lamas and the nomads to each other? Who were the central Tibetan nobility and the Khampas? These folk all appear nominally, but we learn next to nothing about their individual lifestyles, economic activities, favorite foods, and we learn zero about the nitty gritty nature of Tibet's ageless feudal social structure, much less about how it evolved.
On the other hand, we do learn about the character of various Tibetan Buddhist schools, and how each one comes to adopt a particular social structure and relationship with each other and, later, with various authorities, especially the modern Chinese and Western hipsters.
However, the author never once even states that Tibet was probably the modern world's one and only - first and last - real theocracy! Very little information is given about Tibet's religious government and it's relationship, if any, with the greater society. What was the state of relations between the lamas and ordinary folk? How did one become a monk instead of remaining a yak herdsman? Or were only noble, privileged kids permitted the necessary education? None of these intimate social dynamics are fully examined.
That all said, the author does detail a lot about the complex political postures put on by the British, as well as the intrigues, treaties and failure of the Dalai Lamas to understand the new Chinese communist government as events unfolded chaotically during the reign of the inimitable and wacko Chairman Mao...
Anyway, the author's conclusion is quite well put: "For some, independence from China is not a viable or even particularly desirable option. Others fear that, without independence, Tibet will simply disappear. What is Tibet? Surely the most important answers will be those put forward not by foreign historians or political theorists, but by Tibetans themselves."
August 30, 2022
Unde se află Tibetul? Poate fi greu de găsit chiar şi într-o librărie. Librarii nesiguri sau stresaţi par să ştie foarte rar ce au de făcut cu cărţile despre Tibet. Unii le pun direct pe raftul dedicat Chinei. Alţii, conştienţi că această strategie nu e populară în rândul multor persoane care nu trăiesc în China, le găsesc un loc undeva în secţiunea „Asia, generalităţi”. Alţii lasă la o parte latura geografică şi aşază aceste cărţi pe raftul dedicat budismului, îngăduindu-i Tibetului să se elibereze în totalitate de complicatele chestiuni politice şi geografice. În Londra există o librărie universitară în care a devenit
un obicei să se modifice etichetele de pe rafturile pe care se află şi cărţi despre Tibet: cineva şterge „China” de pe ele şi scrie „Tibet” dedesubt; apoi vine altcineva, şterge cuvântul „Tibet” şi scrie din nou „China”. Şi tot aşa. Situaţia dificilă în care se află aceste cărţi e semnificativă pentru confuzia care domneşte în privinţa Tibetului.
un obicei să se modifice etichetele de pe rafturile pe care se află şi cărţi despre Tibet: cineva şterge „China” de pe ele şi scrie „Tibet” dedesubt; apoi vine altcineva, şterge cuvântul „Tibet” şi scrie din nou „China”. Şi tot aşa. Situaţia dificilă în care se află aceste cărţi e semnificativă pentru confuzia care domneşte în privinţa Tibetului.
February 3, 2024
Van Schaik presents the history of Tibet as a constant motion between extremes, from conquering to being conquered, from unified to split, from ruling to being rules, and all back again. He shows, perhaps with some overdue detail, the many divisions within Tibetan society, between clans, between different schools of Buddhism, between approaches to the currently ascendant power in the region. He then shows the people that marked turning points in this swings, the unifier, the ruler, or the catalyst for division, or the one that lost the power. In this way he takes the reader from the 7th century to the present age, putting into context the small slice of Tibetan history that seems to overshadow everything else, it’s relationship with (within) China. Definitely an interesting, well-written, mostly engaging, and well worth the read.
July 2, 2025
I decided I really wanted to read a book on Tibet and this one kept coming up as relatively unbiased... At least in comparison to most things.
I do feel the writing and word choice and structure etc meant it did favour Rivet/Dalai Lama History over Chinese so I might try to find one that leans the other way next time. But overall the bias aligned with my personal views so I didn't mind.
Overall I really enjoyed the book and for what it is it's great. It's not too long so I'd say it's more of a taster than a deep dive which makes sense given it's not super academic style (tons of sources though !)
I do feel the writing and word choice and structure etc meant it did favour Rivet/Dalai Lama History over Chinese so I might try to find one that leans the other way next time. But overall the bias aligned with my personal views so I didn't mind.
Overall I really enjoyed the book and for what it is it's great. It's not too long so I'd say it's more of a taster than a deep dive which makes sense given it's not super academic style (tons of sources though !)
January 28, 2021
La storia del Tibet è bellissima e ricca di storie di incontri tra etnie diverse: contaminazione dei costumi, mutamento dell'assetto geopolitico e via discorrendo.
Un libro che narra la storia di una nazione come se fosse un vero e proprio racconto, non eccessivamente tecnico ma non per questo non valido.
Certo, la storia dei tibetani dovrebbero essere i tibetani stessi a raccontarla, ma (tralasciando che è esattamente ciò che dice l'autore a fine libro) solo perché una storia è già stata raccontata non vuol dire che non possa essere narrata di nuovo.
Un libro che narra la storia di una nazione come se fosse un vero e proprio racconto, non eccessivamente tecnico ma non per questo non valido.
Certo, la storia dei tibetani dovrebbero essere i tibetani stessi a raccontarla, ma (tralasciando che è esattamente ciò che dice l'autore a fine libro) solo perché una storia è già stata raccontata non vuol dire che non possa essere narrata di nuovo.
March 3, 2022
A weak five stars. I wish this had gone more into theological conflicts between Bon and Buddhism (only lately "resolved" by the Dalai Lama declaring Bonpo a school of Buddhism) and between the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as political conflicts between the monasteries that were the ruling class for the last few centuries. Nevertheless an excellent read for anyone curious about the history of Tibet.
April 16, 2023
This book did a good job of capturing 1,400 years of Tibetan history (from 7th century CE to present) in less than 300 pages. A lot to cover but a good overview with plenty of footnotes and a good bibliography for further digging into details. I would highly encourage people who only know about Tibet from its religious tradition to read this book to get a more well-rounded perspective and understanding the historical forces that have given rise to such an alluring religious tradition.
February 19, 2018
A good introduction the the region. I've always found Tibet to be very interesting subject, but then again that's true of most places I know little about. The discussions on various schools of Buddhism can be a little overwhelming at times, but that just makes me want to read more.
July 8, 2019
Fascinating book covering 1,400 years of complex, somewhat controversial history in a concise manner. I read this book in preparation for an upcoming trip to the region and feel that I am embarking with a much better understanding and appreciation for the Tibetan cultural and political history.
August 10, 2019
Sam Van Schaik offers everything that one could possibly want in a history - thoroughness, rich detail, structured in a well-written and succinct narrative. For anyone who wants to know about Tibet's past, I enthusiastically recommend this as *the* book to read first.
May 25, 2020
Easy-to-read historical narration of Tibet from Songtsen Gampo to contemporary post-occupation Tibet. Van Schaik does the hard job of putting together 1200+ years of Tibetan history in one book and tells that story in an engaging manner.
May 1, 2025
Most likely the best written English Book on Tibetan History, mostly free from political partisanship. Encompasses every major historical instance in great detail and great understanding of the culture.
July 22, 2025
I came to this book because I wanted to understand the conflict between the Kagya and Gelug schools of Tibetan Buddhism ('red hats' and 'yellow hats' respectively). I found the book extremely well written and very readable, providing a fantastic overview of Tibetan history for those who know little about the subject.
February 4, 2017
A good primer that would have been better with less Buddhism and more politics, economics, and social structures.
July 13, 2017
A fantastic overview of the layered and complex history of Tibet.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews