What do you think?
Rate this book
Crimea: A History
In 2014 Crimea shapes the headlines much as it did some 160 years ago, when the Crimean War pitted Britain, France and Turkey against Russia. Yet few books have been published on the history of the peninsula. For many readers, Crimea seems as remote today as it was when colonized by the ancient Greeks.
Neil Kent's book recounts the history of the Crimea over three millennia. A crossroads between Europe and Asia, ships sailed to and from Crimean ports, forming a bridge that carried merchandise and transmitted ideas and innovations.
Greeks, Scythians, Tartars, Russians, Armenians and Genoese are among those who settled the peninsula since antiquity, a demographic patchwork that reflects its geography. The religious beliefs of its inhabitants are almost as the Hebraicized beliefs of the Karaim Tartars, Islam, Judaisim, Russian and Greek Orthodoxy, as well as Roman Catholicism. This mosaic is also reflected in places of worship and the palaces which still adorn imperial Romanov Massandra, the 'noble nest' of Prince Voronzov at Alupca or the Palace of Bakhchisaray built for the Tartar Khan. For some two centuries balmy Yalta and its environs were a veritable Black Sea Riviera, where Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met at the end of the Second World War.
Neil Kent's book recounts the history of the Crimea over three millennia. A crossroads between Europe and Asia, ships sailed to and from Crimean ports, forming a bridge that carried merchandise and transmitted ideas and innovations.
Greeks, Scythians, Tartars, Russians, Armenians and Genoese are among those who settled the peninsula since antiquity, a demographic patchwork that reflects its geography. The religious beliefs of its inhabitants are almost as the Hebraicized beliefs of the Karaim Tartars, Islam, Judaisim, Russian and Greek Orthodoxy, as well as Roman Catholicism. This mosaic is also reflected in places of worship and the palaces which still adorn imperial Romanov Massandra, the 'noble nest' of Prince Voronzov at Alupca or the Palace of Bakhchisaray built for the Tartar Khan. For some two centuries balmy Yalta and its environs were a veritable Black Sea Riviera, where Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met at the end of the Second World War.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2015
1 person is currently reading
41 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 23, 2025
I bought this book in Edinburgh in 2022 and only recently opened it.
Crimean Tatars are reduced to dry numbers, with no real history or context. The 2014 occupation of Crimea is described as a “referendum,” as if it happened peacefully and by agreement.
By choosing neutral language, the book ignores violence, pressure, and the voices of people who were affected. This isn’t an honest attempt to explain history - it smooths it over.
I didn’t need to read the whole book to understand that.
Crimean Tatars are reduced to dry numbers, with no real history or context. The 2014 occupation of Crimea is described as a “referendum,” as if it happened peacefully and by agreement.
By choosing neutral language, the book ignores violence, pressure, and the voices of people who were affected. This isn’t an honest attempt to explain history - it smooths it over.
I didn’t need to read the whole book to understand that.
October 19, 2017
This book started out with good intentions, but got lost somewhere along the way. I think that somewhere was around 1780.
If you are writing a narrative-style social history and covering a topic as openly racist as Britain's Near&Middle East policy in the 19th century, and your reader can't tell if you are critiquing it or endorsing it, or are even aware of it having consequences, then something has gone very wrong.
Also, commas are not designed to be flung like confetti to land in random locations throughout the text.
Editors are your friends.
I do want to give credit for an engaging, if confusing, writing style, and including some useful and interesting social details that I haven't seen in previous reading on the topic.
If you are writing a narrative-style social history and covering a topic as openly racist as Britain's Near&Middle East policy in the 19th century, and your reader can't tell if you are critiquing it or endorsing it, or are even aware of it having consequences, then something has gone very wrong.
Also, commas are not designed to be flung like confetti to land in random locations throughout the text.
Editors are your friends.
I do want to give credit for an engaging, if confusing, writing style, and including some useful and interesting social details that I haven't seen in previous reading on the topic.
August 17, 2017
Unclear prose, moves way too fast, barely offers any commentary at the conclusion.
May 25, 2025
One of the sloppiest books I have ever read. Spelling mistakes, incorrect names, random punctuation — sorely in need of an editor. The prose is often incoherent, and at times I was only able to follow because I already knew the details from previous readings. The author skips over centuries of Crimean Tatar history, and wastes then several pages on a lengthy digressions about 19th century noble palaces and the celebrity guests who stayed there.
December 17, 2025
I was so excited to see a history of Crimea, the place I was born, available in a bookshop for the first time. However, I have never read a book so full of Russian propaganda and talking points, some repeated verbatim in the epilogue. I can't even list out all the misconceptions this book propagates.
September 27, 2022
Too ambitious a project for such a limited talent. It is not a concise history, but a jumbled mess. It reads more like a frenetic outline than a connected narrative. This subject deserves better.
November 21, 2016
I am just going to list the things that were not right with this book to start.
1. You already have to be a Phd. candidate in Russian history, ancient history and classical history to have any idea what is going on in the first 70 pages.
2. Even if you were a PhD. candidate, Kent throws out so many names, terms, places and cultures without giving any baseline as to who they are and/or why they are significant that it is almost impossible to understand exactly what is going on.
3. The writing is so dry that even if you did understand what was going on it would put you to sleep.
4. Sentences would go on three or four separate tangents, making the book unreadable.
This is the first book in over two years that I could not finish, it was just too difficult. The book was so dry it was unreadable, so disjointed that it was uninformative, and so mind twisting that it made me car sick while reading it in my bed. I am sorry, but this book is no where near readable.
1. You already have to be a Phd. candidate in Russian history, ancient history and classical history to have any idea what is going on in the first 70 pages.
2. Even if you were a PhD. candidate, Kent throws out so many names, terms, places and cultures without giving any baseline as to who they are and/or why they are significant that it is almost impossible to understand exactly what is going on.
3. The writing is so dry that even if you did understand what was going on it would put you to sleep.
4. Sentences would go on three or four separate tangents, making the book unreadable.
This is the first book in over two years that I could not finish, it was just too difficult. The book was so dry it was unreadable, so disjointed that it was uninformative, and so mind twisting that it made me car sick while reading it in my bed. I am sorry, but this book is no where near readable.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews