What do you think?
Rate this book
Russia: The Once and Future Empire From Pre-History to Putin
Through the centuries, Russia has swung sharply between successful expansionism, catastrophic collapse, and spectacular recovery. This illuminating history traces these dramatic cycles of boom and bust from the late Neolithic age to Ivan the Terrible, and from the height of Communism to the truncated Russia of today. Philip Longworth explores the dynamics of Russia’s past through time and space, from the nameless adventurers who first penetrated this vast, inhospitable terrain to a cast of dynamic characters that includes Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, and Stalin. His narrative takes in the magnificent, historic cities of Kiev, Moscow, and St. Petersburg; it stretches to Alaska in the east, to the Black Sea and the Ottoman Empire to the south, to the Baltic in the west and to Archangel and the Artic Ocean to the north. Who are the Russians and what is the source of their imperialistic culture? Why was Russia so driven to colonize and conquer? From Kievan Rus’---the first-ever Russian state, which collapsed with the invasion of the Mongols in the thirteenth century---to ruthless Muscovy, the Russian Empire of the eighteenth century and finally the Soviet period, this groundbreaking study analyses the growth and dissolution of each vast empire as it gives way to the next. Refreshing in its insight and drawing on a vast range of scholarship, this book also explicitly addresses the question of what the future holds for Russia and her neighbors, and asks whether her sphere of influence is growing.
398 pages, Hardcover
First published July 13, 2006
53 people are currently reading
299 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 - 30 of 34 reviews
October 17, 2017
Long have I wanted to clarify the history of Russia in my mind. When younger, I wanted very much to visit before the Soviet Union collapsed to see the 'iron' behind the curtain. Searching for a book to provide an overall history while being somewhat objective wasn't easy, but this library check-out did the trick.
Philip Longworth has broken Russian history into separate empires, specifically:
The Kievan Empire (85-1240)
The Muscovite Empire (1400-1605)
The Romanov Empire (1613-1917)
The Soviet Empire (1917-1991)
Methodically, he has traced the beginnings of Russian identity (Slavic, Viking, Byzantine) and how it combined with the environment to produce a nation that has puzzled the rest of the world. As the boundaries increased or subtracted, depending on the era, the Russians became more and more of a main power, from Ivan III to Peter the Great to Catherine the Great to Alexander I. The German lineage inherent in many of the Russian rulers was a surprise to me, but even they became passionately Russian (at least the strong ones did). If the book were to be updated, there would be The Putin Empire, showing the progress made after the craziness of the 1990s.
Because of the slaughter of Nicholas I, the paranoia of Stalin, the Cold War leftovers, and the ongoing us-against-the-world defensiveness, Russia will always have something of a bad name. But after reading this, I gained a better perspective for how such a large territory with so many different ethnicities and cultures and religions and perspectives could forge ahead, regardless of whether a Lenin or Andropov or Yeltsin was in place. Published in 2005, the author shows some respect for the rise of Putin, though I wonder what that view would be now.
Funnily enough, when I think of the Russian rulers, I think of the English Tudors. Just don't cross them.
Book Season = Winter (Russia's saving season)
Philip Longworth has broken Russian history into separate empires, specifically:
The Kievan Empire (85-1240)
The Muscovite Empire (1400-1605)
The Romanov Empire (1613-1917)
The Soviet Empire (1917-1991)
Methodically, he has traced the beginnings of Russian identity (Slavic, Viking, Byzantine) and how it combined with the environment to produce a nation that has puzzled the rest of the world. As the boundaries increased or subtracted, depending on the era, the Russians became more and more of a main power, from Ivan III to Peter the Great to Catherine the Great to Alexander I. The German lineage inherent in many of the Russian rulers was a surprise to me, but even they became passionately Russian (at least the strong ones did). If the book were to be updated, there would be The Putin Empire, showing the progress made after the craziness of the 1990s.
Because of the slaughter of Nicholas I, the paranoia of Stalin, the Cold War leftovers, and the ongoing us-against-the-world defensiveness, Russia will always have something of a bad name. But after reading this, I gained a better perspective for how such a large territory with so many different ethnicities and cultures and religions and perspectives could forge ahead, regardless of whether a Lenin or Andropov or Yeltsin was in place. Published in 2005, the author shows some respect for the rise of Putin, though I wonder what that view would be now.
Funnily enough, when I think of the Russian rulers, I think of the English Tudors. Just don't cross them.
Book Season = Winter (Russia's saving season)
July 21, 2019
Just finished. Took a moderate pace of ~chapter/day. First look into history of Russia and it proved sufficient. There are dense paragraphs which sweep through several names, places & dates (the sort of overload that discourages young students from liking history class). Yet an overall arc, a clear chronology is given by the author. The bibliography is massive; the footnotes are extensive and allow for much further research; there are a handful of maps showing the geographical evolution of Russia; a dozen illuminating photographs, of Siberia, factories, peoples, posters; and the author maintains keen degree of objectivity in addressing certain arguments.
Personally, it was most fascinating to learn of the north. And the steppe nomads. And how the Caucasus has always been a region of import. And the Vikings. The reactions between Sweden and Russia; or how Poland and Ukraine are tied to Russia.
For scholars, this book will be something of an overview, for nothing is discussed at great length. For those mildly interested, this book might prove too dense to stick with, it’s not very long but can feel saturated with information. For me, it was a fine experience, no complaints, quite worthwhile.
Personally, it was most fascinating to learn of the north. And the steppe nomads. And how the Caucasus has always been a region of import. And the Vikings. The reactions between Sweden and Russia; or how Poland and Ukraine are tied to Russia.
For scholars, this book will be something of an overview, for nothing is discussed at great length. For those mildly interested, this book might prove too dense to stick with, it’s not very long but can feel saturated with information. For me, it was a fine experience, no complaints, quite worthwhile.
May 3, 2014
A knowledgeable survey of the gyrations of the Russian empire.
I got this book in 2007 as a research text for a project I had in mind. But that project never got off the pad (the story of my life!), so the book remained unread. Then, with the recent unrest in Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea, I realized that I knew very little about Russia and I wanted to know more. Luckily, I already had some books in my library.
Longworth's book has given me a good overview of Russian history. I found the pace to be good, neither too hurried nor too detailed, but offering relatively more coverage of recent history, as seems fitting for a contemporary reader. And the author's basic thesis was one I found surprising: that Russia has almost always been an imperial state, and it is unique among empires in having undergone a cycle of expansion and collapse four separate times since AD 850. Russia's heraldic emblem should be the phoenix.
The first of the four was the Kievan Empire, centered on Kiev, lasted from 850 to 1250, and was a commercial arrangement. Next came the Muscovite Empire from 1400 to 1605, centered on Moscow and arising partly in response to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. Internal rebellions and external pressures combined to topple this empire as well. The third empire was that of the Romanovs, from 1613 to 1917. This was a true empire in the standard sense: there was an active effort to expand and annex territory in all directions, which was, in the main, successful for a long time, eventually reaching as far east as Alaska in North America. But again, internal social problems and lack of economic development, combined with external threats, culminating in World War I, brought about the collapse of the empire.
The fourth empire was the Soviet one, arising from the ashes of World War and reconstituting the country on a wholly new ideological basis. The state was, as ever, harsh and authoritarian with its subjects, but was nonetheless able to rouse great patriotic fervor for a long time and make great strides in development, even as millions of people died or were liquidated in the process. But the Soviet empire too collapsed in 1991. The author, looking for the causes of the collapse, comes up with a selection of minor causes that did not satisfy this reader.
As of 2005, when the book was published, the empire was starting to show signs of life again under the new premiership of Vladimir Putin. It would be interesting to hear Longworth's view of events since then, especially recent ones concerning Ukraine. As of now (May 20014), the revival of empire is explicitly on Putin's agenda, and Russians are enthusiastically behind him.
My understanding, based on reading this book, is that Russia's unique imperial personality is ultimately due to geography: the vast spaces and harsh climate of the country have shaped a people that is used to toiling hard for a modest return, and has accustomed them to both cooperation and authoritarian rule. Having many other states pushing on it from all sides has also shaped its political psychology. Russia has experienced near-death experiences at least three times from foreign invasion: Sweden, France, and Germany have all tried to conquer Russia, and all found that they had bitten off more than they could chew.
The author is open-minded about the Soviet state, and seems to think that it might have been able to work for much longer if certain aspects of it had been tweaked. He notes, for example, that a large opinion survey taken in the USSR in, I think, the 1970s, showed that people were generally happy--as happy as, say, people in the United States. I'm skeptical, not only because free expression of one's opinions could be dangerous in the USSR, but because people were ignorant of just how great a gulf existed between their own quality of life and that of people living in the West. I'm much more persuaded by the argument of Acemoglu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty: that the tendencies in all societies is for elites to appropriate ever more power and wealth to themselves at the expense of the great majority of their fellow citizens and of the prosperity of the country as a whole. For them, the USSR was a case in point of this process.
Longworth is also guardedly optimistic about Vladimir Putin, finding him to be a cautious, shrewd operator who is keen on the rule of law. I wonder whether he still holds that opinion.
Whatever the case, I think that the author has got something with his theory of the expansion/collapse cycle of Russian history. Whatever one thinks of current events, it appears that Russia has turned the corner from its latest collapse and is starting down the road to empire once again. Will they ever get the memo that empires just don't work?
I got this book in 2007 as a research text for a project I had in mind. But that project never got off the pad (the story of my life!), so the book remained unread. Then, with the recent unrest in Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea, I realized that I knew very little about Russia and I wanted to know more. Luckily, I already had some books in my library.
Longworth's book has given me a good overview of Russian history. I found the pace to be good, neither too hurried nor too detailed, but offering relatively more coverage of recent history, as seems fitting for a contemporary reader. And the author's basic thesis was one I found surprising: that Russia has almost always been an imperial state, and it is unique among empires in having undergone a cycle of expansion and collapse four separate times since AD 850. Russia's heraldic emblem should be the phoenix.
The first of the four was the Kievan Empire, centered on Kiev, lasted from 850 to 1250, and was a commercial arrangement. Next came the Muscovite Empire from 1400 to 1605, centered on Moscow and arising partly in response to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. Internal rebellions and external pressures combined to topple this empire as well. The third empire was that of the Romanovs, from 1613 to 1917. This was a true empire in the standard sense: there was an active effort to expand and annex territory in all directions, which was, in the main, successful for a long time, eventually reaching as far east as Alaska in North America. But again, internal social problems and lack of economic development, combined with external threats, culminating in World War I, brought about the collapse of the empire.
The fourth empire was the Soviet one, arising from the ashes of World War and reconstituting the country on a wholly new ideological basis. The state was, as ever, harsh and authoritarian with its subjects, but was nonetheless able to rouse great patriotic fervor for a long time and make great strides in development, even as millions of people died or were liquidated in the process. But the Soviet empire too collapsed in 1991. The author, looking for the causes of the collapse, comes up with a selection of minor causes that did not satisfy this reader.
As of 2005, when the book was published, the empire was starting to show signs of life again under the new premiership of Vladimir Putin. It would be interesting to hear Longworth's view of events since then, especially recent ones concerning Ukraine. As of now (May 20014), the revival of empire is explicitly on Putin's agenda, and Russians are enthusiastically behind him.
My understanding, based on reading this book, is that Russia's unique imperial personality is ultimately due to geography: the vast spaces and harsh climate of the country have shaped a people that is used to toiling hard for a modest return, and has accustomed them to both cooperation and authoritarian rule. Having many other states pushing on it from all sides has also shaped its political psychology. Russia has experienced near-death experiences at least three times from foreign invasion: Sweden, France, and Germany have all tried to conquer Russia, and all found that they had bitten off more than they could chew.
The author is open-minded about the Soviet state, and seems to think that it might have been able to work for much longer if certain aspects of it had been tweaked. He notes, for example, that a large opinion survey taken in the USSR in, I think, the 1970s, showed that people were generally happy--as happy as, say, people in the United States. I'm skeptical, not only because free expression of one's opinions could be dangerous in the USSR, but because people were ignorant of just how great a gulf existed between their own quality of life and that of people living in the West. I'm much more persuaded by the argument of Acemoglu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty: that the tendencies in all societies is for elites to appropriate ever more power and wealth to themselves at the expense of the great majority of their fellow citizens and of the prosperity of the country as a whole. For them, the USSR was a case in point of this process.
Longworth is also guardedly optimistic about Vladimir Putin, finding him to be a cautious, shrewd operator who is keen on the rule of law. I wonder whether he still holds that opinion.
Whatever the case, I think that the author has got something with his theory of the expansion/collapse cycle of Russian history. Whatever one thinks of current events, it appears that Russia has turned the corner from its latest collapse and is starting down the road to empire once again. Will they ever get the memo that empires just don't work?
June 2, 2020
The premise of this was excellent. It offered a truly fresh perspective and I was excited from the first few pages at the difference in thought that this would offer. I was disappointed. It was not executed as well as it could have been. I found pertinent parts of history were glossed over that shouldn't have been, for example Catherine the Great was merely maybe a page and disregarded with the same importance as a Siberian farmer. The photos included were just, odd and irrelevant. This promises an overarching view of Russian history, which it does but only in a view of what is important to prove the authors point. It's like the author forgot his these halfway through or something. The idea of four Russian empires is something worthwhile though and I'm glad I read this.
August 10, 2022
I did not finish this book, moved it to my abandoned shelf… could not stand seeing Slavs named Russians and the territory of the Kyiv Rus - Russia. Even Moscovia did not exist at that time, so what are we taking about..? This book skips a lot of major milestones of the development of the Slavic world, and is confusing, meaning wrong, in so many aspects to those who studied all this history in school: 5th grade or university, does not matter. Also the transliteration is so bad and conflicting, when you say Dnieper, you say Kyiv - no other options…
March 22, 2023
I found a copy of this at the library. A good introduction to Russian history that is perhaps shallow and even a little glib in places, which is to be expected considering its breadth. It doesn't appear that the author did much original research and doesn't have a startlingly original thesis other than that Russia has historically been four empires in the past and has always risen again when past empires have fallen. Aside from a general chronology (again though, there is not enough depth on Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Lenin, Stalin, etc. or the major events like the war of 1812, Crimean War, WWI, Bolshevik revolution) the book excels in outlining the vast geography of Russia, from the Baltic to the Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia and the Pacific and the diverse and varied peoples who have historically been a part of Russia's empires. The introduction and early chapter on the prehistory of Russia prior to Medieval Kievan Rus was the strongest part of the book. It's worth noting that the book was published in 2004 and follows the rise of Vladimir Putin coming in the wake of the chaos created by the collapse of the Soviet Union and Boris Yeltsin's tenure as president. It would be interesting to learn the author's thoughts on the events of the current and previous years (2022-2023). Recommended but in a lukewarm way: there are probably other books out there that cover this material in a better manner, but this was a serviceable introduction for someone like me who had little knowledge beforehand.
June 28, 2024
A good intro concise history of Russia. There are problems, but a good place to start
February 9, 2011
Because recorded Russian history spans c. 850 CE to the present, I didn’t expect extremely detailed accounts of the various eras. However, information is missing. For example, the only mention of Lenin is that he led the Bolsheviks in overtaking St. Petersburg’s ministers in the waning days of the Romanov Empire. That’s it. Nothing more about Lenin. Longworth offers no explanation of who the Bolsheviks were, or how they came about. My main interest lies in this period exactly. I still don’t know what the Cultural and October Revolutions were, or even if they’re the same things because no mention is made of them; if Longworth does describe these events, he doesn’t label them as such. Though much is made of the Russian Orthodox Church and its importance during Tsarist Russia (and earlier), there is no mention of how atheism became predominant in Soviet culture. Finally, the editing/proofreading was horrible and distracting. Who misspells McDonald’s?
May 26, 2014
Ultimately unsatisfying. While the first sections of the book are likely accurate portrayals of Russian history, they are too rushed to take much away from. I found the final sections dealing with the era from the Revolution on to be overly sympathetic to the Soviet era and Stalin in particular. The last chapters on Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin slip from history to opinion.
He makes brief mention of an incident of a Russian SST crashing at the 1973 Paris Air Show. I checked other sources, and found his description of the incident to be inaccurate. Add to this the spelling and other sloppy editorial errors, such as using the word "effect" rather than "affect" (I too caught the "MacDonald's" error spotted by another reviewer), and much of this work become suspect.
While I gained some historical insight into the current situation with Ukraine and Russia, this is not a work that I can recommend.
He makes brief mention of an incident of a Russian SST crashing at the 1973 Paris Air Show. I checked other sources, and found his description of the incident to be inaccurate. Add to this the spelling and other sloppy editorial errors, such as using the word "effect" rather than "affect" (I too caught the "MacDonald's" error spotted by another reviewer), and much of this work become suspect.
While I gained some historical insight into the current situation with Ukraine and Russia, this is not a work that I can recommend.
February 18, 2017
This is an insidious book, that fools you for quite a while into thinking it is an interesting and readable history ... bit pro-Russian for objectivity, perhaps ... and then whammo, suddenly you realise you are in fact reading total garbage. Possibly if I'd known more about Russian history before 1800 I would have spotted it earlier. My bad. This piece of crud could have been written by Vladimir Putin's propaganda department, and I'm not wholly convinced it wasn't. Do not cast this book aside lightly - throw it, with great force, into the nearest waste bin.
January 5, 2020
Insightful history of Russia
Most Western historians seem to be hostile to Russia even if they feign neutrality for the sake of appearing of objective. Philip Longworth's book, on the other hand, feels truly objective and therefore offers a true insight even to someone who had read many books on Russia.
Most Western historians seem to be hostile to Russia even if they feign neutrality for the sake of appearing of objective. Philip Longworth's book, on the other hand, feels truly objective and therefore offers a true insight even to someone who had read many books on Russia.
August 26, 2016
A good history. Emphasis on Russian control of rivers and portages but also lots of discussion about Rus lack of financial enterprises. Russia has a lot of raw materials but no infrastructure to get the money into the country to develop these resoucres. Good maps.
August 6, 2012
I'm still working on it, but Longworth is too much the apologist for Russian history (and this is before the 1917 revolution).
August 28, 2025
It is an easy to read book. I learned alot this book about Russia including that it is a relatively new country.
July 9, 2022
VERY BIASED; PRO-STALIN; DENIES HOLODOMOR;
SKIPPED ALL MAJOR HISTORICAL EVENTS; 99% FLUFF
AUTHOR SKIPS ALL MAJOR RUSSIAN-HISTORY SUBJECTS! He basically skips Peter The Great. In one sentence, author mentions Peter the Great tortured and killed his son for "treason" but never tells any of the details. Author barely touches on Catherine the Great. This book is mostly just lists of wars divorced from reason, benefit, strategy, effect, etc.
AUTHOR SKIPS NAPOLEON! This book is missing essential and key details. He mentions Napoleon tried to take over the world and then mentions on less than 3 pages, how one general gave up Moscow to Napoleon; a strategy that made Napoleon lose. That's it.
AUTHOR SKIPS WWI! It is mentioned very subtly as going on in the background. Author does not even address it.
AUTHOR SKIPS & DENIES THE HOLODOMOR (Holocaust of Ukraine)! This book is shockingly biased in favor of Communist Russia and Stalin. Author covers the topic of Ukraine choosing to join the Communist USSR and simply claims that "peasants were known as kulags." (Pg 247) No details or explanation or definition. As if there were no negative connotation to the slang name-calling or the fact that it was all Russian propaganda and name-calling in order to justify exterminating farmers! He doesn't tell you it was a term meaning "fist" and used to label and dehumanize 300,000-1 million people in order to annihilate them mostly via execution and mass starvation. Worse, HE ACTUALLY DENIES THE HOLODOMOR AND THAT THEY WERE EXTERMINATED (Pg 248).
SKIPS COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF RUSSIA. Author basically goes from Nicholas/Romanovs to suddenly stating that Lenin is ruling. No story telling or details given. Skips Marxism.
99% FLUFF. This book is almost entirely fluff. Details no one reading a history about Russia cares about. Author focuses on small insignificant details and skips most of the major events. No subject is covered in detail. It's nearly all boring details about nothing.
SKIPPED ALL MAJOR HISTORICAL EVENTS; 99% FLUFF
AUTHOR SKIPS ALL MAJOR RUSSIAN-HISTORY SUBJECTS! He basically skips Peter The Great. In one sentence, author mentions Peter the Great tortured and killed his son for "treason" but never tells any of the details. Author barely touches on Catherine the Great. This book is mostly just lists of wars divorced from reason, benefit, strategy, effect, etc.
AUTHOR SKIPS NAPOLEON! This book is missing essential and key details. He mentions Napoleon tried to take over the world and then mentions on less than 3 pages, how one general gave up Moscow to Napoleon; a strategy that made Napoleon lose. That's it.
AUTHOR SKIPS WWI! It is mentioned very subtly as going on in the background. Author does not even address it.
AUTHOR SKIPS & DENIES THE HOLODOMOR (Holocaust of Ukraine)! This book is shockingly biased in favor of Communist Russia and Stalin. Author covers the topic of Ukraine choosing to join the Communist USSR and simply claims that "peasants were known as kulags." (Pg 247) No details or explanation or definition. As if there were no negative connotation to the slang name-calling or the fact that it was all Russian propaganda and name-calling in order to justify exterminating farmers! He doesn't tell you it was a term meaning "fist" and used to label and dehumanize 300,000-1 million people in order to annihilate them mostly via execution and mass starvation. Worse, HE ACTUALLY DENIES THE HOLODOMOR AND THAT THEY WERE EXTERMINATED (Pg 248).
SKIPS COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF RUSSIA. Author basically goes from Nicholas/Romanovs to suddenly stating that Lenin is ruling. No story telling or details given. Skips Marxism.
99% FLUFF. This book is almost entirely fluff. Details no one reading a history about Russia cares about. Author focuses on small insignificant details and skips most of the major events. No subject is covered in detail. It's nearly all boring details about nothing.
October 13, 2025
NOT RECOMMENDED.
it's *maybe* a decent summary until the discussion of the Romanov dynasty, - there until present (2006) was a terrible and too brief summary of Russian events with many obvious omissions that even I noticed with practically zero knowledge of Russia. Although the length of this book is what tempted me, it was a slug to get through and I would have preferred a better written 500 page book over this!
(Highly recommend Bloodlands by Snyder for a much better and accurate picture of the Soviet & WW2 era!)
Also lol to this author's justification that the mass murder of Ukrainians before ww2 was unfounded and it was more likely just a simple oopsie and that Stalin "felt bad" ?????????
it's *maybe* a decent summary until the discussion of the Romanov dynasty, - there until present (2006) was a terrible and too brief summary of Russian events with many obvious omissions that even I noticed with practically zero knowledge of Russia. Although the length of this book is what tempted me, it was a slug to get through and I would have preferred a better written 500 page book over this!
(Highly recommend Bloodlands by Snyder for a much better and accurate picture of the Soviet & WW2 era!)
Also lol to this author's justification that the mass murder of Ukrainians before ww2 was unfounded and it was more likely just a simple oopsie and that Stalin "felt bad" ?????????
December 1, 2025
a useful survey
Though it does not cover the latest events, this quick summary of Russian history is helpful in balancing so much Western writing that emphasizes cruelty and incompetence and suffering as hallmarks of a mostly sad Russian history. Here we get context that helps explain the course of the region’s progress through the centuries against the unique challenges it’s people faced and are facing.
Though it does not cover the latest events, this quick summary of Russian history is helpful in balancing so much Western writing that emphasizes cruelty and incompetence and suffering as hallmarks of a mostly sad Russian history. Here we get context that helps explain the course of the region’s progress through the centuries against the unique challenges it’s people faced and are facing.
December 7, 2017
I actually really enjoyed this book. A very good overview and it reads surprisingly well.
March 28, 2022
Useful background on the three historical empires of Russia.
October 11, 2023
An excellent account
November 11, 2023
I mainly just read the last three centuries of the Rise And Fall of the Russian empire
July 7, 2021
Excellent on Muscovy and the Imperial era up to the 18th century, but the analysis of the late imperial and Soviet eras is curious.
It may be relevant that his bibliography for the 19th century to the early days of Bolshevik power, is mostly pre 1950s secondary sources. But as he approaches the Stalin era, he liberally sources from modern research and analysis once again.
Longworth is far more focused throughout in foreign policy and the expansion of empire than he is with domestic and social history or the politics of the later tsars.
He is a fine writer and there are lots of interesting asides and stories that he pulls in from the periphery that are usually left out in this kind of survey, and he is fairly lighthearted about giving his sometimes very idiosyncratic opinions.
It may be relevant that his bibliography for the 19th century to the early days of Bolshevik power, is mostly pre 1950s secondary sources. But as he approaches the Stalin era, he liberally sources from modern research and analysis once again.
Longworth is far more focused throughout in foreign policy and the expansion of empire than he is with domestic and social history or the politics of the later tsars.
He is a fine writer and there are lots of interesting asides and stories that he pulls in from the periphery that are usually left out in this kind of survey, and he is fairly lighthearted about giving his sometimes very idiosyncratic opinions.
Read
August 4, 2011Overview:
This is a well-written bird's eye view of the history of the Russian people. It's argument is that unlike other "empires," Russia's identity/strength doe s not disappear when her Empire falls. Russia has gone through four or five major empires in the past 1300 years. She becomes (relatively) stronger after each fall.
Content:
There isn't much to add that other historians haven't said, aside from the above thesis. But I do want to look at some historiographical interpretations. The author does a good job in descriping the psyche of the Russian people. While fascinating, and having me convinced, it really can't be proven scientifically. But scientific knowledge has its limits, too. The author paints Russian figures "warts and all." Sometimes this leads to too critical an analysis of the Russian church. I was displeased that scant (if any) reference was made to the legend of the conversion to Orthodoxy of the Rus.
Final thoughts:
The book is useful in summarizing difficult parts of history. The narrative is smooth and compelling. Someone commented that the author is a left-ist revisionist historian blaming the West for Russia's ills. Maybe. While I am more "right wing" (I hate the term) than the author, I think there is some truth to the criticisms. One interesting note is the author ends the book (written in 2004) with a note of cautious optimism for Russia. Putin's Constantinian leadership of Russia further strengthened the author's case. This is a good book worth reading.
This is a well-written bird's eye view of the history of the Russian people. It's argument is that unlike other "empires," Russia's identity/strength doe s not disappear when her Empire falls. Russia has gone through four or five major empires in the past 1300 years. She becomes (relatively) stronger after each fall.
Content:
There isn't much to add that other historians haven't said, aside from the above thesis. But I do want to look at some historiographical interpretations. The author does a good job in descriping the psyche of the Russian people. While fascinating, and having me convinced, it really can't be proven scientifically. But scientific knowledge has its limits, too. The author paints Russian figures "warts and all." Sometimes this leads to too critical an analysis of the Russian church. I was displeased that scant (if any) reference was made to the legend of the conversion to Orthodoxy of the Rus.
Final thoughts:
The book is useful in summarizing difficult parts of history. The narrative is smooth and compelling. Someone commented that the author is a left-ist revisionist historian blaming the West for Russia's ills. Maybe. While I am more "right wing" (I hate the term) than the author, I think there is some truth to the criticisms. One interesting note is the author ends the book (written in 2004) with a note of cautious optimism for Russia. Putin's Constantinian leadership of Russia further strengthened the author's case. This is a good book worth reading.
July 22, 2014
This book served its purpose. I'm a lover of history, and the history I covered over my college years included the U.S. Western Europe, and Asia/Middle East. What was conspicuously absent was the history of Russia. This text covered that period with a well written overview of the period. Yes, more detail during certain periods might have been nice, but this book was intended as an overview and it was well written and footnoted.
My inspiration for reading this now was the Ukraine-Russia issues now. Reading this book helped put it all into focus, where the two entities have shared histories going back to 600 C.E. It helped me understand better the rhetoric between the two nations today based upon histories that have overlapped over the centuries. It also explains the desire Putin has to extend Russia's borders one more time.
My inspiration for reading this now was the Ukraine-Russia issues now. Reading this book helped put it all into focus, where the two entities have shared histories going back to 600 C.E. It helped me understand better the rhetoric between the two nations today based upon histories that have overlapped over the centuries. It also explains the desire Putin has to extend Russia's borders one more time.
October 8, 2014
Some parts, especially the rather recent period...say the last 500 years...were excellent. But the further back it goes, the more difficult the history is to understand. I think it's partly due to a lack of general familiarity and partly due to the difficulty of pronouncing the names of people and places with so many letter combinations unfamiliar to the Western ear...or at any rate, to my ear. Some of the names all seemed to run together, making it difficult to remember and sort out.
My having previously read several books of more recent Russian history made the last half of this book easier going. Such a large area was covered, both in time and geographical area, and my general knowledge of the subject keeps increasing. I enjoyed this book, but I wouldn't recommend it as a person's first introduction to Russian history.
My having previously read several books of more recent Russian history made the last half of this book easier going. Such a large area was covered, both in time and geographical area, and my general knowledge of the subject keeps increasing. I enjoyed this book, but I wouldn't recommend it as a person's first introduction to Russian history.
August 29, 2012
I read half of this book before and the rest a few months after a trip to Russia this year. I found the narrative compelling and surprisingly readable for a history book. I seemed to have a greater interest in the latter half, which also, of course, is the more recent history. It is a good overview of a very long history of a vast and complex country, which has lived through at least four empires (Kievan, Muscovite, Romanov, Soviet). I would be very interested to read the author's comments on Russia's past few years, since completing his book in 2004 [published in 2005].
There are handy maps at the front, a handful of black-and-white sketches and photographs, a chronological table at the end, extensive footnotes and a decent-looking index. And some typos.
There are handy maps at the front, a handful of black-and-white sketches and photographs, a chronological table at the end, extensive footnotes and a decent-looking index. And some typos.
April 6, 2009
I think I would've gotten a bit more out of this if I had already studied a fair amount of Russian history. There were times I found myself wanting more detail, especially once it got to the more "current" events (current like 1900 on). I did learn some things though so maybe this will be a jumping off point for future study...
April 19, 2010
Great as an introduction but not you typical scholar-book which is good and bad. Good because it is easy to read, but the first chapter is kind of speculative and some other chapters draw conclusions which are open for debate.
June 8, 2015
Great book if you're looking for cold facts, but tedious. The prose was uninteresting and just described facts, which was great, but it did not seem to describe events in an interesting way.
I probably could have gotten the same thing in less time from a bullet-point lecture.
I probably could have gotten the same thing in less time from a bullet-point lecture.
June 20, 2021
Very well written. Excellent in every way.Little dated ,as it was completed in2004 , so has been overtaken by more recent events.
Recommended for history buffs and the reader interested in Russian history.
Recommended for history buffs and the reader interested in Russian history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews