What do you think?
Rate this book
Russia, New Edition: A Short History
Distinguished Professor Abraham Ascher offers an impressive blend of engaging narrative and fresh analysis in this perennially popular introduction to Russia.
Newly updated on the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, A Short History begins with the origins of the first Slavic state, and continues to the present-day tensions between Russia and its neighbours, the rise of Vladimir Putin, and the increasingly complex relationship with the United States.
Newly updated on the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, A Short History begins with the origins of the first Slavic state, and continues to the present-day tensions between Russia and its neighbours, the rise of Vladimir Putin, and the increasingly complex relationship with the United States.
288 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2002
67 people are currently reading
457 people want to read
About the author
Abraham Ascher
22 books5 followersAbraham Ascher is Distinguished emeritus Professor of History at the Graduate School of the city University of New York. A highly respected scholar, he is the recipient of numerous awards, and the author of seven books and over thirty articles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
June 19, 2016
I don't know how this book managed this: making thousands of years of Russian history interesting and understandable to me. This is in part because Russian history IS so very interesting and chaotic. The other part, as my Russian friends will probably want me to realize, is that it has been majorly condensed, important elements left out, etc...it is, after all, only 252 pages long.
All I know is I feel much more knowledgable than I did before I read it. I don't feel confused, or manipulated by ideology--the writer I think made a pretty fair attempt to address the East vs. West tug of war that has always happened there, will continue to happen.
I think this book especially puts Putin into perspective, and the people who continue to support him. I see the Russians this way: they are an incredibly intelligent and deep thinking people, but they are also used to bearing pain and keeping their large and soulful thoughts to themselves, or deflecting them into the arts. Part of the Russian need to feel longing and pain as a part of their character, or something. It is a land of beauty, creativity, and strong patriotism.
The nasty side of Russia is its continued ineptness at practical solutions for its society, its inevitable corruption that has morphed through various government systems and leaders. The workers have always been used, and they retaliate by dragging their feet and succumbing to corruption. Sometimes it feels in this book that the government changes in name only: idealized leaders hold centralized power for long periods of time, opposition be damned. Russians are more susceptible, I think to being attracted to the cult of personality, whether it is a tzar, Rasputin,Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev , Brezhnev, Yeltsin or Putin. They want the devil they know, I think, fearing above all else the instability that has returned again and again to wreck their country. They will believe against hope.
Anyone who thinks that the Russians are going to become more Westernized or Americanized in the coming years needs to read this book and some Russian tea leaves. Although oil is presently holding up the Russian economy for some lucky Russians, the state of affairs for many others is not so nice. Russians are immigrating west in droves--probably eliminating more of the liberalizing elements that could make Russia a better place. Putin has learned the Russian leadership game that a title bears little meaning: he has been ruling Russia as its head for something like 18 years --bouncing between the presidency and prime minister office (sometimes substituting in Medvedev as a placeholder) : is it small wonder that in the US the average person has no idea what office runs the show in Russia--no office, it's Putin.
Russia will be Russia, and although the internet and other Western influences will probably keep it from sinking into the horrors of Stalinism, it's doubtful it will assimilate with the West for the sake of world peace. Putin, like many of his countrymen is a competitive man--he wishes us to know Slavic greatness.
All I know is I feel much more knowledgable than I did before I read it. I don't feel confused, or manipulated by ideology--the writer I think made a pretty fair attempt to address the East vs. West tug of war that has always happened there, will continue to happen.
I think this book especially puts Putin into perspective, and the people who continue to support him. I see the Russians this way: they are an incredibly intelligent and deep thinking people, but they are also used to bearing pain and keeping their large and soulful thoughts to themselves, or deflecting them into the arts. Part of the Russian need to feel longing and pain as a part of their character, or something. It is a land of beauty, creativity, and strong patriotism.
The nasty side of Russia is its continued ineptness at practical solutions for its society, its inevitable corruption that has morphed through various government systems and leaders. The workers have always been used, and they retaliate by dragging their feet and succumbing to corruption. Sometimes it feels in this book that the government changes in name only: idealized leaders hold centralized power for long periods of time, opposition be damned. Russians are more susceptible, I think to being attracted to the cult of personality, whether it is a tzar, Rasputin,Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev , Brezhnev, Yeltsin or Putin. They want the devil they know, I think, fearing above all else the instability that has returned again and again to wreck their country. They will believe against hope.
Anyone who thinks that the Russians are going to become more Westernized or Americanized in the coming years needs to read this book and some Russian tea leaves. Although oil is presently holding up the Russian economy for some lucky Russians, the state of affairs for many others is not so nice. Russians are immigrating west in droves--probably eliminating more of the liberalizing elements that could make Russia a better place. Putin has learned the Russian leadership game that a title bears little meaning: he has been ruling Russia as its head for something like 18 years --bouncing between the presidency and prime minister office (sometimes substituting in Medvedev as a placeholder) : is it small wonder that in the US the average person has no idea what office runs the show in Russia--no office, it's Putin.
Russia will be Russia, and although the internet and other Western influences will probably keep it from sinking into the horrors of Stalinism, it's doubtful it will assimilate with the West for the sake of world peace. Putin, like many of his countrymen is a competitive man--he wishes us to know Slavic greatness.
June 8, 2012
I rate this "It was OK".
I understand that covering over a thousand years of history in 250 pages is a real challenge. I think the author misses the mark for other reasons.
The chapters on the Tsars often twist in time. Five pages after a Tsar has died, well into a new reign, the book suddenly goes back to the prior Tsar, without any reason or linkage to the new subject.
There is a lack of footnotes (19 for the whole book) which, when the author challenges widely held assumptions, does not lend credence to some of his thoughts.
He discusses Catherine II (the Great) who ruled during the Age of Enlightenment and is credited with some reforms. He states that "Catherine merely paid lip service to the principles of enlightenment" His example is the Pugachev rebellion (1774). But in describing it, he notes that Catherine refused to let Pugachev be tortured, and that he was executed before his body was dismembered (Dismemberment while alive was the punishment for treason). There is ample evidence that she tried, with some successes, to curb some of the army's and nobles excesses.
Other reviewers have noted the tone change in the section on Vladimir Putin. This is an added section in the 2nd edition. Although I wouldn't challenge any of his facts about Putin, it is too editorial a tone for a "history".
Also in need of some editing cleanup. The Organic Staute of 1832 under Nicolas I says: "the kingdom of Poland shall never cease to be an integral part of our empire - and that they shall henceforth form with the Russians one single nation, one fraternal people."
Poland was part of an indivisible Russia, not an "invisible part" as the book reads.
I understand that covering over a thousand years of history in 250 pages is a real challenge. I think the author misses the mark for other reasons.
The chapters on the Tsars often twist in time. Five pages after a Tsar has died, well into a new reign, the book suddenly goes back to the prior Tsar, without any reason or linkage to the new subject.
There is a lack of footnotes (19 for the whole book) which, when the author challenges widely held assumptions, does not lend credence to some of his thoughts.
He discusses Catherine II (the Great) who ruled during the Age of Enlightenment and is credited with some reforms. He states that "Catherine merely paid lip service to the principles of enlightenment" His example is the Pugachev rebellion (1774). But in describing it, he notes that Catherine refused to let Pugachev be tortured, and that he was executed before his body was dismembered (Dismemberment while alive was the punishment for treason). There is ample evidence that she tried, with some successes, to curb some of the army's and nobles excesses.
Other reviewers have noted the tone change in the section on Vladimir Putin. This is an added section in the 2nd edition. Although I wouldn't challenge any of his facts about Putin, it is too editorial a tone for a "history".
Also in need of some editing cleanup. The Organic Staute of 1832 under Nicolas I says: "the kingdom of Poland shall never cease to be an integral part of our empire - and that they shall henceforth form with the Russians one single nation, one fraternal people."
Poland was part of an indivisible Russia, not an "invisible part" as the book reads.
June 2, 2023
I don't remember why I borrowed this; maybe because after reading The Idiot I was kinda interested in learning a bit about Russian history? Whatever the reason, I'm glad I did; this was really fascinating. It's condensed enough that you don't need to be versed in Russian history or politics to get a grasp on the events described, but it was still full of a lot of enough intricate details to be an immersive and interesting read. It of course gets more detailed the closer we get to the current day, and all the facts about the last tsars and the fall of the Romanovs and the subsequent revolutions were so interesting. Especially when we got an understanding of peasant life and serfdom in Russia's history and how oppressed the lower classes were, and why the politics moved in the ways that it did. We got just enough about Stalin and Trotsky that I want to read books about them, or at least rewatch some old documentaries. The version I had was last updated in 2009, and some of the things it says about Putin in those last chapters are extremely prescient. Listened to the audiobook as read by John Pruden which was a must; I enjoy reading history textbooks but with writing this dry, I need an audiobook to keep me concentrated. I'm glad I checked this out. Makes me want more short histories of other European countries.
August 10, 2020
Yaklaşık 2000 yıllık bir tarihi, bir kültürü ve majestik olayları 300 küsür sayfada anlatmak herkesin harcı değil. Ascher'in biyografisine baktığınızda Rusya tarihi hakkında gerçekten söyleyecek çok şeyi olan birisi olduğunu rahatça görüyorsunuz.
Ben yine genel akışı öğrenip genel kültür seviyesinde konuları öğrenmeyi amaçlamıştım ve bu amacıma rahatça ulaştım. Ama geçmişinde deli derya değişimler, devrimler, ikilemler olan bir ülkenin tarihini bu kitaptan derinlemesine öğrenmeyi tabii ki beklememek lazım.
ABD ve Avrupa volümlerinde olduğu gibi bu kitap da giriş için şahane bir kaynak. Üstelik yazar kitabın sonunda daha derin okumalar için mis gibi bir de kaynak listesi paylaşmış daha ne olsun.
Bir yıldızı neden kırdım peki, düşük editörlük kalitesi sebebiyle. Upuzun cümleler, anlatım bozuklukları, çok daha sade yazılabilecekken İngilizce'den kelime kelime çeviri yapıldığı için anlamını kaybeden ifadeler vardı. Bunların Ascher dedemle ilgisi yok ama Say Yayınları'nın çok daha iyisini yapabileceğini biliyorum.
Ben yine genel akışı öğrenip genel kültür seviyesinde konuları öğrenmeyi amaçlamıştım ve bu amacıma rahatça ulaştım. Ama geçmişinde deli derya değişimler, devrimler, ikilemler olan bir ülkenin tarihini bu kitaptan derinlemesine öğrenmeyi tabii ki beklememek lazım.
ABD ve Avrupa volümlerinde olduğu gibi bu kitap da giriş için şahane bir kaynak. Üstelik yazar kitabın sonunda daha derin okumalar için mis gibi bir de kaynak listesi paylaşmış daha ne olsun.
Bir yıldızı neden kırdım peki, düşük editörlük kalitesi sebebiyle. Upuzun cümleler, anlatım bozuklukları, çok daha sade yazılabilecekken İngilizce'den kelime kelime çeviri yapıldığı için anlamını kaybeden ifadeler vardı. Bunların Ascher dedemle ilgisi yok ama Say Yayınları'nın çok daha iyisini yapabileceğini biliyorum.
May 31, 2022
Good succinct history of Russia from Kievan Russ to the early Putin presidency. Published before the Georgian war so interesting to see the author's opinions on Putin's behavior as a quasi-autocrat (at the time). Really good background context on Russia's history with authoritarianism and development struggles.
November 19, 2022
Political and social history. Little argument/analysis.
August 23, 2018
This book was what I'd expect from a "short history". Short and sweet. Although I was a bit disappointed in the last chapter that was added for this Revised Edition. Sounded more like a New York Times editorial and less like something a historian would write, but otherwise a decent overwiew in ~300 pages.
December 27, 2018
Make sure you read the 2017 revised version. It's 30% longer than the first edition. It is exactly what I wanted, a book about the history of Russia. There were a lot of gaps in my knowledge and this book was perfect to fill them. It's too bad it ends in a giant WW3 cliffhanger (joke).
March 9, 2019
This book is fairly effective in telling what happened, but doesn't spend nearly enough time trying to understand why it happened. It's useful enough as an intro, but little more.
August 17, 2024
have you ever read a book about russia by a guy who thinks that america is a democracy? well i did. the whole thing too.
April 16, 2023
This is my third Russian history book this year. I have been super interested in how the Russian past has so strongly impacted the country's development and its place in the world at present. This book gave some good insight into how things came to be and are currently, and it was done in an easy-to-follow voice without becoming overwhelming. As it stated in the front of the book, writing a "short" history of Russia can be a challenge, but I think this author did a fine job of hitting the finer points without losing sight of the big picture.
I found the explanations of the emerging political systems in the early 1900's to be more thorough than in previous books and that helped to make much of the upheavals clearer for me this time around. This updated version also shed some light on current events and how they are having a ripple effect with the rest of the world.
I found the explanations of the emerging political systems in the early 1900's to be more thorough than in previous books and that helped to make much of the upheavals clearer for me this time around. This updated version also shed some light on current events and how they are having a ripple effect with the rest of the world.
April 3, 2018
Was exactly what I wanted, a introduction to Russian history. Definitely needs rereading, it's hard to remember details over such a long time period. Already helping me with contextualizing Russian lit!
March 22, 2025
Good, short, concise. Though, as you can imagine, with any history of an entire nation that has a centuries, long history, it doesn’t get into enough depth. But if you want an overview, it’s great and then you can find a book just on the area you wanna learn about
July 27, 2018
The book does what it says on the label, and duly delivers a potted history of Russia/Soviet Union from its earliest beginnings – around 1,000 years ago, but mostly from the rise of the Romanovs, around 300 years ago.
In a way, I bought it in order to answer one central question to myself, namely when exactly was Russia a “great” nation? I’m not sure I know the answer any more clearly now – quite a significant criticism of a book surely designed to offer instant insight.
At one or two points Ascher actually mentions Russia’s ‘greatness’ in passing, as in the phrase ‘Great Power’. But there’s little in the text to support the idea. A large army, perhaps? What else? There’s precious little beyond that.
Perhaps I’m being slightly unfair to look for nuance in such a short (270 pages) account, which restricts itself more or less completely to a factual account of who did what politically. Not much room left to paint a picture of what Russian society tasted like, or Russian culture felt like. He does mention Pushkin (once) as the father of the Russian language, and Turgenev gets a quick mention too (but only as the inventor of the word ‘nihilism’). There’s a tantalising paragraph or so too, on Russia’s own sense of exceptionalism in the nineteenth century – apparently, one that rivalled America’s contemporary conviction of its own superiority. But there isn’t really anything of substance to explain why it should have felt that way, labouring as it did under the weight of one incompetent Tsar after another, and trailing at least a century behind Europe in most other spheres. I still find myself wondering whether Russia was only ‘great’ because Catherine happens to have acquired a lot of mostly empty land.
Another modest feature of the book is that, according to Ascher, pretty much every single leader Russia/Soviet Union has produced was either useless or a defective person – or both. Not even the two “Greats” – Peter and Catherine – escape that entirely; to the point where I found myself almost waiting for the barbs when a new person stepped into the frame. Maybe he was right, maybe they were all unsavoury characters, but I find myself wanting to read something more detailed to be sure!
It’s a bit of a contradiction, it turns out, to write a potted summary that satisfies. Certainly, I found this one left me wanting to know more at many junctures. But as a sort of schoolboy crib, cramming the facts for an exam, it certainly isn’t bad. Otherwise, look for a more detailed account!
In a way, I bought it in order to answer one central question to myself, namely when exactly was Russia a “great” nation? I’m not sure I know the answer any more clearly now – quite a significant criticism of a book surely designed to offer instant insight.
At one or two points Ascher actually mentions Russia’s ‘greatness’ in passing, as in the phrase ‘Great Power’. But there’s little in the text to support the idea. A large army, perhaps? What else? There’s precious little beyond that.
Perhaps I’m being slightly unfair to look for nuance in such a short (270 pages) account, which restricts itself more or less completely to a factual account of who did what politically. Not much room left to paint a picture of what Russian society tasted like, or Russian culture felt like. He does mention Pushkin (once) as the father of the Russian language, and Turgenev gets a quick mention too (but only as the inventor of the word ‘nihilism’). There’s a tantalising paragraph or so too, on Russia’s own sense of exceptionalism in the nineteenth century – apparently, one that rivalled America’s contemporary conviction of its own superiority. But there isn’t really anything of substance to explain why it should have felt that way, labouring as it did under the weight of one incompetent Tsar after another, and trailing at least a century behind Europe in most other spheres. I still find myself wondering whether Russia was only ‘great’ because Catherine happens to have acquired a lot of mostly empty land.
Another modest feature of the book is that, according to Ascher, pretty much every single leader Russia/Soviet Union has produced was either useless or a defective person – or both. Not even the two “Greats” – Peter and Catherine – escape that entirely; to the point where I found myself almost waiting for the barbs when a new person stepped into the frame. Maybe he was right, maybe they were all unsavoury characters, but I find myself wanting to read something more detailed to be sure!
It’s a bit of a contradiction, it turns out, to write a potted summary that satisfies. Certainly, I found this one left me wanting to know more at many junctures. But as a sort of schoolboy crib, cramming the facts for an exam, it certainly isn’t bad. Otherwise, look for a more detailed account!
July 8, 2020
I have only just started but I wanted to get a few thoughts down. His writing style is good, straightforward, and pretty readable considering the scope of the book. Some of the things that give me pause, however, and the general gist I get is that early Russian history is not the author's main interest or area of expertise. He's vague, not terribly objective, and has a lot of hand-wavey explanations.
For example, he uses the word "backwards" a lot to describe many aspects of Russian history, which seems like both a vague word as well as one with a lot of connotation. Do we mean agrarian? Underdeveloped? Decentralized? Unequal? Non-democratic? Impoverished? Saying "backwards" doesn't give you any real information and just sounds dismissive and uninformative.
Another example is he described the Cyrillic alphabet as being developed from "an earlier form" invented by Cyril and Methodius, which is a common misconception that I'd hope a Russian scholar would be aware of. C&M invented the Glagolitic alphabet, and their students invented Cyrillic. Glagolitic was almost entirely an original invention of C&M, but Cyrillic was based largely on the Greek alphabet with only a few of the Glagolitic characters adapted to it. Saying Glagolitic was "an early form of Cyrillic" is like saying Gandalf is an early form of Dumbledore. One was inspired by the other but in form and function they are completely different writing systems.
For example, he uses the word "backwards" a lot to describe many aspects of Russian history, which seems like both a vague word as well as one with a lot of connotation. Do we mean agrarian? Underdeveloped? Decentralized? Unequal? Non-democratic? Impoverished? Saying "backwards" doesn't give you any real information and just sounds dismissive and uninformative.
Another example is he described the Cyrillic alphabet as being developed from "an earlier form" invented by Cyril and Methodius, which is a common misconception that I'd hope a Russian scholar would be aware of. C&M invented the Glagolitic alphabet, and their students invented Cyrillic. Glagolitic was almost entirely an original invention of C&M, but Cyrillic was based largely on the Greek alphabet with only a few of the Glagolitic characters adapted to it. Saying Glagolitic was "an early form of Cyrillic" is like saying Gandalf is an early form of Dumbledore. One was inspired by the other but in form and function they are completely different writing systems.
June 10, 2019
A Brief overview of Russian History.
Perfectly fine for a neophyte like myself, but nothing spectacular, just the facts, ma'am. This book surveys the millenium and a half of Russian history well enough. I learned quite a bit.
The main issue is Ascher never really figures out how to deal with the Russia/Soviet slippage. How do you talk about the USSR by only talking about Russia and not talking the other fourteen republics beyond Russia that made up the Soviet Union. Ascher does so by trying to pretend that they are not there. As you might imagine, that did not work very well. Because it happened in German, the fall of the Berlin Wall is mentioned, though that is one of the more important events in Russian/Soviet history. He mentions that both Khruschev and Breznev came out of Ukraine, but, when he is discussing statistics of the devistation of some of the state-engineered famines, he only gives stats for Russia. It is all very confusing.
Otherwise, though, this is a perfectly good intro to Russian history.
Perfectly fine for a neophyte like myself, but nothing spectacular, just the facts, ma'am. This book surveys the millenium and a half of Russian history well enough. I learned quite a bit.
The main issue is Ascher never really figures out how to deal with the Russia/Soviet slippage. How do you talk about the USSR by only talking about Russia and not talking the other fourteen republics beyond Russia that made up the Soviet Union. Ascher does so by trying to pretend that they are not there. As you might imagine, that did not work very well. Because it happened in German, the fall of the Berlin Wall is mentioned, though that is one of the more important events in Russian/Soviet history. He mentions that both Khruschev and Breznev came out of Ukraine, but, when he is discussing statistics of the devistation of some of the state-engineered famines, he only gives stats for Russia. It is all very confusing.
Otherwise, though, this is a perfectly good intro to Russian history.
May 28, 2017
Russia in particular it has been to the two countries which have always been important to me: Israel and Iran. I have often wondered why it was able to defeat Iran on so many occasions in the 19th century, and why it played such an important role in Israel's history, both before and after the founding of the state in 1948. This book, provides short, yet informative and concise account of Russia's history from the Mongol invasion until very recently. Its easy to read, yet full of useful information. Four out of five. Recommend this book
August 5, 2018
Good overview
This is a good overview for those like myself with little knowledge of Russian history. Read this, then decide which parts of Russian history that you want to research more.
This is a good overview for those like myself with little knowledge of Russian history. Read this, then decide which parts of Russian history that you want to research more.
November 25, 2022
Otro excelente libro para conocer la historia de Rusia, con muy buenos capítulo y subcapítulos, cortos y concisos, en el que la prosa es sencilla de leer.
Una buena introducción mencionado el debate sobre si Rusia pertenece a oriente o occidente, cada uno con sus posturas, también se muestran las cosas únicas del país como su combinación de diferentes influencias extranjeras, una nación sin una salida a aguas calientes, con muchos recursos como el carbón y el petróleo, pero que también tiene su lógicas propias, en comparación con otros países europeos como su ingreso a la revolución industrial o el propio zarismo.
Hay un buen abordaje sobre la rus de Kiev y la dominación mongola explicando sus principales aspectos, y el como la horda dorada, le dio autonomía a los moscovitas o la propia eliminación de la veche, como lo poco democrático que tenía el territorio ruso.
Se aborda bien el ascenso de Moscú en su expansión y hasta la llegada de los romanov, haciendo un buen abordaje de la servidumbre y como está tenía elementos occidentales, pero otros autóctonos, que rozan la esclavitud, sin serlo, debido a la individualidad de los siervos, una idea interesante del autor, que va en relación en como esa práctica atraso el campo ruso al poco incentivo de inovar por parte de los terratenientes.
Se aborda la occidentalizacion de Rusia por parte de Pedro y Catalina, los viajes del primero y las ideas que trae; de la segunda su relación con la ilustración y la revolución francesa, tenemos a un zar como Alejandro I que es una combinación entre lo liberal y lo autocrático de Rusia, un país donde el estado policial es ineficiente y muy burocrático, idea a tener muy en cuenta.
Se aborda muy bien las reformas de Alejandro II y las contrarefomas de sus sucesores, cosa que tuvo implicaciones a la hora de las revoluciones de principios del siglo XX, donde se abordan las reformas liberales de Stophy que pudieron haber evitado tal vez las revolucion de octubre, luego de esto se describe los gobiernos de Lenin con la NEP, el impulso industrial de la unión soviética y todo lo que implíco el gobierno de Stalin, que era tal su paranoia que eliminó soldados que fueron hasta Berlín para que no trajeran ideas de Europa a Moscú.
En la época de la unión Soviética se narra todo el estancamiento de este país visto desde la larga duración, no se abordan muchos aspectos positivos de la unión Soviética, esta parte está más centrada en mirar cómo todo llevo al colapso Soviético de 1991, en el que Yelstin igual profundizó la crisis de la naciente Rusia con la terapia de choque.
Se aborda muy generosamente el gobierno de Putin, en el que se basó en eliminar selectivamente a opositores y rodearse de gente débil fácil de controlar, hay menciones a las relaciones de Rusia con EEUU, sus intervenciones militares, y sus política interna y externas que llevó a protestas en el 2011 y a que no se celebrase el centenario de la revolución bolchevique. En esta parte se puede decir que el texto tiene una mirada más crítica hacia Putin, osea más desde occidente.
En conclusión un excelente libro, que aborda varios aspectos de Rusia, que le hace falta más gráficos y mapas, pero que sin lugar a dudas es uno de los mejores para introducirse a la historia de Rusia.
Una buena introducción mencionado el debate sobre si Rusia pertenece a oriente o occidente, cada uno con sus posturas, también se muestran las cosas únicas del país como su combinación de diferentes influencias extranjeras, una nación sin una salida a aguas calientes, con muchos recursos como el carbón y el petróleo, pero que también tiene su lógicas propias, en comparación con otros países europeos como su ingreso a la revolución industrial o el propio zarismo.
Hay un buen abordaje sobre la rus de Kiev y la dominación mongola explicando sus principales aspectos, y el como la horda dorada, le dio autonomía a los moscovitas o la propia eliminación de la veche, como lo poco democrático que tenía el territorio ruso.
Se aborda bien el ascenso de Moscú en su expansión y hasta la llegada de los romanov, haciendo un buen abordaje de la servidumbre y como está tenía elementos occidentales, pero otros autóctonos, que rozan la esclavitud, sin serlo, debido a la individualidad de los siervos, una idea interesante del autor, que va en relación en como esa práctica atraso el campo ruso al poco incentivo de inovar por parte de los terratenientes.
Se aborda la occidentalizacion de Rusia por parte de Pedro y Catalina, los viajes del primero y las ideas que trae; de la segunda su relación con la ilustración y la revolución francesa, tenemos a un zar como Alejandro I que es una combinación entre lo liberal y lo autocrático de Rusia, un país donde el estado policial es ineficiente y muy burocrático, idea a tener muy en cuenta.
Se aborda muy bien las reformas de Alejandro II y las contrarefomas de sus sucesores, cosa que tuvo implicaciones a la hora de las revoluciones de principios del siglo XX, donde se abordan las reformas liberales de Stophy que pudieron haber evitado tal vez las revolucion de octubre, luego de esto se describe los gobiernos de Lenin con la NEP, el impulso industrial de la unión soviética y todo lo que implíco el gobierno de Stalin, que era tal su paranoia que eliminó soldados que fueron hasta Berlín para que no trajeran ideas de Europa a Moscú.
En la época de la unión Soviética se narra todo el estancamiento de este país visto desde la larga duración, no se abordan muchos aspectos positivos de la unión Soviética, esta parte está más centrada en mirar cómo todo llevo al colapso Soviético de 1991, en el que Yelstin igual profundizó la crisis de la naciente Rusia con la terapia de choque.
Se aborda muy generosamente el gobierno de Putin, en el que se basó en eliminar selectivamente a opositores y rodearse de gente débil fácil de controlar, hay menciones a las relaciones de Rusia con EEUU, sus intervenciones militares, y sus política interna y externas que llevó a protestas en el 2011 y a que no se celebrase el centenario de la revolución bolchevique. En esta parte se puede decir que el texto tiene una mirada más crítica hacia Putin, osea más desde occidente.
En conclusión un excelente libro, que aborda varios aspectos de Rusia, que le hace falta más gráficos y mapas, pero que sin lugar a dudas es uno de los mejores para introducirse a la historia de Rusia.
September 12, 2025
Writing a short history of Russia is one of those tasks that is almost designed to expose the limits of the form. To compress over a millennium of political, social, and cultural history into 250 pages requires not only ruthless selectivity but also narrative skill of the highest order. Abraham Ascher’s Russia: A Short History sets out to achieve this, and while it covers the ground dutifully, it does so in a way that is structurally confused, stylistically flat, and surprisingly careless. The result is a book that offers information but little insight, a skeleton of history without the connective tissue that would make it meaningful.
The first problem is one of structure. The narrative has a habit of doubling back on itself in ways that feel clumsy. More than once a tsar is declared dead, a successor introduced, and then five or six pages later the reader is abruptly returned to the earlier reign for unfinished business. This is more than a minor lapse in organisation; it disrupts the chronology that should be the very backbone of a short history. In a long, detailed study one can afford to meander, but in a work of compression, clarity of structure is non-negotiable.
The second problem is style. Ascher’s prose is plain to the point of being deadened. A short history should feel like a guided tour, a knowledgeable historian helping us to understand not just what happened but why it matters. Here, the sentences plod. There is little rhythm, little sense of narrative propulsion. A book like this has to live off the energy of compression — that ability to capture an era in a few deft strokes — but too often it feels like a set of lecture notes converted into text. There are glimpses of interest, certainly, but they are buried beneath flat presentation.
The lack of scholarly apparatus is more troubling still. The entire volume contains just nineteen footnotes. This would be acceptable in a popular history if the author stuck to consensus views, but Ascher sometimes challenges received wisdom without support. His treatment of Catherine the Great illustrates the problem. He dismisses her as paying only lip service to Enlightenment ideals, citing the Pugachev Rebellion as evidence. Yet in his own account he admits that Catherine forbade Pugachev’s torture and insisted on his execution being swift rather than accompanied by the traditional, grotesque dismemberment. This hardly makes her a radical reformer, but it does suggest a more complex engagement with Enlightenment principles than Ascher allows. Without references or engagement with the broader scholarship on Catherine, the claim feels flat and unearned, one more pronouncement delivered without context. The same pattern recurs elsewhere: judgments offered without scaffolding, as if the reader must simply accept the historian’s word.
The book also suffers from a striking tonal inconsistency. The section on Vladimir Putin, added in the second edition, is factually accurate but markedly more editorial in style than the earlier chapters. Where the accounts of tsars and Soviet leaders are dry, bordering on lifeless, the Putin material shades into commentary, with a sharper edge that feels more like journalism than history. One can agree with the content and still find the inconsistency jarring. The voice of the book ceases to be steady.
Then there are the editorial lapses. The most glaring is a misquotation of the Organic Statute of 1832 under Nicholas I, which declared that Poland was an “indivisible part” of Russia. Ascher has it as an “invisible part.” The mistake is comical but also symptomatic. This is not a first edition; the book has been through revision. That such an error slipped through is baffling. History depends on precision, and misprints in quoted documents shake confidence in the text as a whole.
What makes the book doubly frustrating is that it exists in a crowded field where the art of writing Russian history concisely has been demonstrated with far more skill. Geoffrey Hosking’s Russia and the Russians is a model of how to balance compression with clarity. Hosking manages to trace the long arc of Russian political power while interweaving social and cultural history, and though his book is not perfect, it never feels either skeletal or careless. Richard Pipes, though highly ideological in his interpretations, nevertheless offers in works like Russia under the Old Regime a clear, provocative framework that sparks debate. Orlando Figes, in A People’s Tragedy and Natasha’s Dance, operates at a larger scale but demonstrates the power of narrative history to bring Russia alive, filling even the most abstract political changes with human texture. Robert Service’s survey histories, though uneven, provide breadth with some analytical bite. Nicholas Riasanovsky and Mark Steinberg’s A History of Russia remains a staple textbook precisely because it combines scope with balance. And for a concise but lively single-volume survey, Paul Dukes and Kees Boterbloem have produced works that are both readable and careful. Even at the more popular end of the spectrum, writers like Simon Sebag Montefiore bring narrative flair and human characterisation that make Russia’s story vivid, if occasionally at the cost of rigour. One may read him with a more sceptical eye, but one cannot deny that he engages. Compared to all of these, Ascher’s book feels anaemic. It has neither the analytical framework of Pipes, nor the balance of Hosking, nor the narrative energy of Figes or Montefiore. It offers instead a thin broth, under-referenced and under-edited, without the interpretive weight or stylistic spark that might compensate for its brevity.
And that is the true disappointment. Russia’s history is one of the most dramatic on earth, a story of tsars and serfs, reformers and tyrants, revolutions and empires. From Ivan the Terrible’s oprichnina to Catherine’s salons, from the emancipation of the serfs to Stalin’s gulag, from the poetry of Pushkin to the machinery of Lenin, from Napoleon at the gates of Moscow to Hitler’s invasion, from the collapse of the Soviet Union to Putin’s resurgence — it is a history bursting with narrative possibilities. A short history cannot capture everything, but it can at least convey the drama, the tension, the uniqueness. That this book fails to do so is not a failure of scale but of craft.
I closed Russia: A Short History not enlightened but irritated, not enriched but frustrated. The information is there, but the voice is absent. The book reads as though it were assembled rather than written, summarised rather than shaped. For the absolute beginner it may serve as a bare outline, a map of names and dates. But for anyone who cares about the craft of history — its clarity, its rigour, its narrative force — this book is a disappointment.
And perhaps that is the one lesson I did take from it. By being so unmemorable, by failing to rise to the level of its subject, it sharpened my own sense of what history should do. When I read literature — whether it was Madame Bovary with its merciless psychological detail, or Lord of the Flies with its allegorical bluntness, or even Descartes with his crystalline philosophical prose — I measure them not only by their content but by the balance they strike between clarity and depth. I expect history to meet that same standard: accuracy, yes, but also energy; brevity, yes, but also substance; analysis, yes, but also narrative life. Hosking, Figes, Pipes, Service — whatever their flaws, they remind you that history can be both concise and alive. Ascher reminds you, by contrast, of what happens when history becomes little more than notes on a page. Russia deserves better. Two stars.
The first problem is one of structure. The narrative has a habit of doubling back on itself in ways that feel clumsy. More than once a tsar is declared dead, a successor introduced, and then five or six pages later the reader is abruptly returned to the earlier reign for unfinished business. This is more than a minor lapse in organisation; it disrupts the chronology that should be the very backbone of a short history. In a long, detailed study one can afford to meander, but in a work of compression, clarity of structure is non-negotiable.
The second problem is style. Ascher’s prose is plain to the point of being deadened. A short history should feel like a guided tour, a knowledgeable historian helping us to understand not just what happened but why it matters. Here, the sentences plod. There is little rhythm, little sense of narrative propulsion. A book like this has to live off the energy of compression — that ability to capture an era in a few deft strokes — but too often it feels like a set of lecture notes converted into text. There are glimpses of interest, certainly, but they are buried beneath flat presentation.
The lack of scholarly apparatus is more troubling still. The entire volume contains just nineteen footnotes. This would be acceptable in a popular history if the author stuck to consensus views, but Ascher sometimes challenges received wisdom without support. His treatment of Catherine the Great illustrates the problem. He dismisses her as paying only lip service to Enlightenment ideals, citing the Pugachev Rebellion as evidence. Yet in his own account he admits that Catherine forbade Pugachev’s torture and insisted on his execution being swift rather than accompanied by the traditional, grotesque dismemberment. This hardly makes her a radical reformer, but it does suggest a more complex engagement with Enlightenment principles than Ascher allows. Without references or engagement with the broader scholarship on Catherine, the claim feels flat and unearned, one more pronouncement delivered without context. The same pattern recurs elsewhere: judgments offered without scaffolding, as if the reader must simply accept the historian’s word.
The book also suffers from a striking tonal inconsistency. The section on Vladimir Putin, added in the second edition, is factually accurate but markedly more editorial in style than the earlier chapters. Where the accounts of tsars and Soviet leaders are dry, bordering on lifeless, the Putin material shades into commentary, with a sharper edge that feels more like journalism than history. One can agree with the content and still find the inconsistency jarring. The voice of the book ceases to be steady.
Then there are the editorial lapses. The most glaring is a misquotation of the Organic Statute of 1832 under Nicholas I, which declared that Poland was an “indivisible part” of Russia. Ascher has it as an “invisible part.” The mistake is comical but also symptomatic. This is not a first edition; the book has been through revision. That such an error slipped through is baffling. History depends on precision, and misprints in quoted documents shake confidence in the text as a whole.
What makes the book doubly frustrating is that it exists in a crowded field where the art of writing Russian history concisely has been demonstrated with far more skill. Geoffrey Hosking’s Russia and the Russians is a model of how to balance compression with clarity. Hosking manages to trace the long arc of Russian political power while interweaving social and cultural history, and though his book is not perfect, it never feels either skeletal or careless. Richard Pipes, though highly ideological in his interpretations, nevertheless offers in works like Russia under the Old Regime a clear, provocative framework that sparks debate. Orlando Figes, in A People’s Tragedy and Natasha’s Dance, operates at a larger scale but demonstrates the power of narrative history to bring Russia alive, filling even the most abstract political changes with human texture. Robert Service’s survey histories, though uneven, provide breadth with some analytical bite. Nicholas Riasanovsky and Mark Steinberg’s A History of Russia remains a staple textbook precisely because it combines scope with balance. And for a concise but lively single-volume survey, Paul Dukes and Kees Boterbloem have produced works that are both readable and careful. Even at the more popular end of the spectrum, writers like Simon Sebag Montefiore bring narrative flair and human characterisation that make Russia’s story vivid, if occasionally at the cost of rigour. One may read him with a more sceptical eye, but one cannot deny that he engages. Compared to all of these, Ascher’s book feels anaemic. It has neither the analytical framework of Pipes, nor the balance of Hosking, nor the narrative energy of Figes or Montefiore. It offers instead a thin broth, under-referenced and under-edited, without the interpretive weight or stylistic spark that might compensate for its brevity.
And that is the true disappointment. Russia’s history is one of the most dramatic on earth, a story of tsars and serfs, reformers and tyrants, revolutions and empires. From Ivan the Terrible’s oprichnina to Catherine’s salons, from the emancipation of the serfs to Stalin’s gulag, from the poetry of Pushkin to the machinery of Lenin, from Napoleon at the gates of Moscow to Hitler’s invasion, from the collapse of the Soviet Union to Putin’s resurgence — it is a history bursting with narrative possibilities. A short history cannot capture everything, but it can at least convey the drama, the tension, the uniqueness. That this book fails to do so is not a failure of scale but of craft.
I closed Russia: A Short History not enlightened but irritated, not enriched but frustrated. The information is there, but the voice is absent. The book reads as though it were assembled rather than written, summarised rather than shaped. For the absolute beginner it may serve as a bare outline, a map of names and dates. But for anyone who cares about the craft of history — its clarity, its rigour, its narrative force — this book is a disappointment.
And perhaps that is the one lesson I did take from it. By being so unmemorable, by failing to rise to the level of its subject, it sharpened my own sense of what history should do. When I read literature — whether it was Madame Bovary with its merciless psychological detail, or Lord of the Flies with its allegorical bluntness, or even Descartes with his crystalline philosophical prose — I measure them not only by their content but by the balance they strike between clarity and depth. I expect history to meet that same standard: accuracy, yes, but also energy; brevity, yes, but also substance; analysis, yes, but also narrative life. Hosking, Figes, Pipes, Service — whatever their flaws, they remind you that history can be both concise and alive. Ascher reminds you, by contrast, of what happens when history becomes little more than notes on a page. Russia deserves better. Two stars.
July 31, 2019
A good survey of Russian history, so great for people who don't know much (like me). Ascher starts with the question of whether Russia is European or Asian. The answer, unsurprisingly, is both and neither. It started off more Asian, being under the yoke of the Mongols shortly after the Muscovy became a powerful state. In fact, the subsequent tribute paid to the Mongols (later called Tatars) gave Muscovy a big boost relative to its neighbors because they took a cut and kept good relations with the Tatars. After the Rurik Dynasty died out and the Romanovs took over, Russia looked more and more to the west.
The key turning points were Peter the Great's rule, where he was enamored of western technology and fashion and the Great Northern War with Sweden, which made Russia a European power. Russia's destruction of Napoleon's Grand Army made Russia appear to be a dominant power, but its weak economy and military became apparent as the Concert of Europe broke down and it was defeated in the Crimean War. Although it tried to reform and modernize, its efforts were half-hearted and it collapsed during WWI.
The subsequent rise of the Soviet Union changed a lot of Russian culture in principle but not in practice, especially under Stalin, who acted like a czar and treated the workers like serfs. Khrushchev tried to reform the system, but was ineffective and Brezhnev didn't even try. When Gorbachev took power in the 1980s, the situation was dire. His reform attempts caused the political and economic systems of the country to collapse.
Ascher's main point, I think, is that the Soviet era didn't actually change Russia that much, as Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin both act like Czars, with an oligarchy acting like aristocracy. It did create a nostalgia in Russia for the good ole days, which were never actually that good, but time changes perspectives. Overall, the political system of Russia was, and is, more like the Byzantines than western Europeans. Hence the term "the Third Rome" for Moscow and the choice of the term Czar of the emperor.
Overall, I enjoyed it. It was an easy read and I would recommend it to anyone who wants an introduction to Russian history.
The key turning points were Peter the Great's rule, where he was enamored of western technology and fashion and the Great Northern War with Sweden, which made Russia a European power. Russia's destruction of Napoleon's Grand Army made Russia appear to be a dominant power, but its weak economy and military became apparent as the Concert of Europe broke down and it was defeated in the Crimean War. Although it tried to reform and modernize, its efforts were half-hearted and it collapsed during WWI.
The subsequent rise of the Soviet Union changed a lot of Russian culture in principle but not in practice, especially under Stalin, who acted like a czar and treated the workers like serfs. Khrushchev tried to reform the system, but was ineffective and Brezhnev didn't even try. When Gorbachev took power in the 1980s, the situation was dire. His reform attempts caused the political and economic systems of the country to collapse.
Ascher's main point, I think, is that the Soviet era didn't actually change Russia that much, as Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin both act like Czars, with an oligarchy acting like aristocracy. It did create a nostalgia in Russia for the good ole days, which were never actually that good, but time changes perspectives. Overall, the political system of Russia was, and is, more like the Byzantines than western Europeans. Hence the term "the Third Rome" for Moscow and the choice of the term Czar of the emperor.
Overall, I enjoyed it. It was an easy read and I would recommend it to anyone who wants an introduction to Russian history.
April 24, 2025
I have read some books on contemporary politics of Russia and other books on specific topics of Russian history, as also of the whole region. This is the first summary of Russian history I have read in its revised version.
It is a difficult task to summarize many centuries of history, because references to some important facts will be neglected or other events which deserve much greater attention, will be limited to short paragraphs. Despite this challenge, this effort is decent and a beginner on Russian history will understand the basic patterns.
However, there are two issues that could be raised after reading the book:
1) The author referring to the period of Kievan Rus until the years of Ivan the Terrible, uses the terms 'Russia' and 'Russians' to describe the political entity and its residents respectively. However, this is debatable, because the concept of 'Russia' emerges later during the reign of Peter the Great. The concept of 'Russian' is absent (I think) earlier, as it was happening in whole Europe for the concept of nation. There were members/residents of Kievan Rus, Mongol Empire and the duchy of Muscovy respectively.
2) In the chapter about the years of Lenin and Stalin, the author refers of course to the collectivization during the years 1928-1933 and admits that the human cost was huge, as five millions lost their lives, so that the aim of creating the collective farms can be fulfilled. The author does not refer at all to the Ukraine famine (Holodomor) as a fact, since most of the victims of this centrally artificial famine were Ukrainians. This is a very significant omission on behalf of the author.
Overall, this is a good effort. I will certainly read other introductions as well to compare the various sources.
It is a difficult task to summarize many centuries of history, because references to some important facts will be neglected or other events which deserve much greater attention, will be limited to short paragraphs. Despite this challenge, this effort is decent and a beginner on Russian history will understand the basic patterns.
However, there are two issues that could be raised after reading the book:
1) The author referring to the period of Kievan Rus until the years of Ivan the Terrible, uses the terms 'Russia' and 'Russians' to describe the political entity and its residents respectively. However, this is debatable, because the concept of 'Russia' emerges later during the reign of Peter the Great. The concept of 'Russian' is absent (I think) earlier, as it was happening in whole Europe for the concept of nation. There were members/residents of Kievan Rus, Mongol Empire and the duchy of Muscovy respectively.
2) In the chapter about the years of Lenin and Stalin, the author refers of course to the collectivization during the years 1928-1933 and admits that the human cost was huge, as five millions lost their lives, so that the aim of creating the collective farms can be fulfilled. The author does not refer at all to the Ukraine famine (Holodomor) as a fact, since most of the victims of this centrally artificial famine were Ukrainians. This is a very significant omission on behalf of the author.
Overall, this is a good effort. I will certainly read other introductions as well to compare the various sources.
February 23, 2020
I agree with Brian's review. Certainly compiling such a robust and deeply complex history into such a short book is a feat in and of itself. But perhaps that is Ascher's primary failing in this book. One would have thought Catherine the Great's section would have had more depth considering her long and impactful reign (I believe she was the LONGEST reigning Russian leader). It is criminally brief and describes Catherine's military campaigns as "belligerent" without actually describing why in any amount of depth. I'm not sure "belligerent" is a proper way to describe her strategic expansion of the Russian borders - which has had a lasting impact on Russia's geopolitical position in Western Europe/Asia (Crimea annexation, Ukraine occupation, etc.) To be honest, I'm a little disappointed at Ascher's flippant tone which seems to be a direct result of his attempt to cut corners. Akin to the many historical accounts of Catherine and obsession with her love life overshadowing the many other elements of her reign-- it seems Ascher falls into the same category, paying lip service to the more strategic elements of her rule. I was skeptical of the book up until this section. I'm nearly halfway through and not sure I want to devote more of my attention to the rest of the book.
November 11, 2017
A whistle stop of Russian history (not surprising when trying to fit 1000 years into 300 pages).
Mr Ascher does a good job of trying to keep everything straight, although as you can imagine there are a lot of different names some of which are very similar (3 tsar Alexanders in a row seems a touch excessive) which can get confusing.
A useful oversight and jumping off point to explore particular periods in more detail. I am turning to Orlando Figes' A people's century next for more on the revolution, but also want to return to the Napoleonic campaigns when I get the chance.
The version I read was republished very recently in 2017 and the final chapter attempts to summarise recent developments (up to and including Trump becoming president). Whilst history requires a certain amount of hindsight and this chapter does not pretend to be definitive, it does provide a useful summary of recent events - and a slightly scary glimpse of our future and a potential 2nd cold war.
Mr Ascher does a good job of trying to keep everything straight, although as you can imagine there are a lot of different names some of which are very similar (3 tsar Alexanders in a row seems a touch excessive) which can get confusing.
A useful oversight and jumping off point to explore particular periods in more detail. I am turning to Orlando Figes' A people's century next for more on the revolution, but also want to return to the Napoleonic campaigns when I get the chance.
The version I read was republished very recently in 2017 and the final chapter attempts to summarise recent developments (up to and including Trump becoming president). Whilst history requires a certain amount of hindsight and this chapter does not pretend to be definitive, it does provide a useful summary of recent events - and a slightly scary glimpse of our future and a potential 2nd cold war.
October 15, 2022
Pretty perfect in what you would expect. Knowing very little Russian history, I cannot judge anything on the accuracy or bias of the author. The book is a very brief history of Russia, about 1000 years of it. A thousand years of history packed into about 250 pages is an impressive feat. I now understand all the geopolitics of Russia currently in the world today... I'm kidding. I don't think it reflects poorly on the author to say that this book wasn't able to do that. It does however add some perspective, some important names and events, and some of the struggles and revolutions of Russia and her people. One of the initial questions the books poses is whether Russia can considered west as in part of Europe or east as part of Asia. I think that it is neither, and both, it can really only be considered Russia. I will have to dig into some more in depth Russian history at some later date because it is rich and turbulent and violent and bizarre.
August 25, 2025
Abraham Ascher's book, Russia: A Short History, is a very good introductory into Russian history. When I was in college, (a long, long time ago), I fell in love with the 20th Century Russia, and as a teacher, I had the opportunity to teach some Russia in World History classes, but I never had a broad overview of the entire content matter. When I saw this book, I thought that 300 pages may not adequately cover the topic, but I found it to be extremely interesting and thought provoking. It also gave a lot of insight as to why modern day Russia is in it's current state. I could have made due with a little less of the Putin era, and a little more on Tsarist Russia, but that is the author's choice. Content on Peter the Great provided some interesting content I did not learn about in other books or classes, and the portion of the book on Ivan the Terrible was very compelling.
Overall, I give Ascher's narrative a big thumbs up. A good read for any lover of history. Four stars!
Overall, I give Ascher's narrative a big thumbs up. A good read for any lover of history. Four stars!
April 29, 2020
Ascher compiles a great deal of information in this book and does so in a way that breaks up Russian history in segments. Russia has a rich and tumultuous history, filled both with tragedy and triumph. The book does an excellent job at portraying how volatile Russia has historically been, ranging from its seemingly persistent poor economy yet military endurance. It’s been defeated multiple times militarily and economically, but the book touches upon Russia’s ability to “make do”. What’s most prevalent about this book by Ascher is the undeniable influence that dictators and autocrats of Russia have done to Russian culture and policy. Ascher seems to suggest its engrained into the Russian psyche, and considering the many historical examples that reinforce this idea, it’s hard to deny the many hypocrisies and ironies behind Russia’s historical ascension.
December 12, 2017
This book was exactly what I was looking for. It gave me basics about the history and current politics of Russia. i feel that I know have a much better insight to this country and what topics about it I might wish to look into further. I would definitely recommend this for anyone who just wants more information about Russia and how it came to be, the things it has gone through, and perhaps how they may look at Western cultures today. It was an easy read and made comparisons through out to where western cultures were in terms of politics and development.
May 19, 2018
A very difficult task. As the author states early in the book, it is not possible to provide the desired detail in only 320 pages, consequently many significant things go unmentioned or briefly at best.
This is not a book for a person who is well informed on Russian history, but very good for a person wishing for an overview prior to choosing specific periods to study and enable some understanding.
The book is easy reading, but frustrating in the lack of important detail on matters such as subjects covering the health of the country and its residents through the years.
This is not a book for a person who is well informed on Russian history, but very good for a person wishing for an overview prior to choosing specific periods to study and enable some understanding.
The book is easy reading, but frustrating in the lack of important detail on matters such as subjects covering the health of the country and its residents through the years.
October 9, 2018
I enjoyed this book as a primer the political history of Russia. According to this book, for most of its history, the Russian people have lived miserable, impoverished lives because they have accepted the fact that whoever governed them had the right to rule all aspects of their lives - despite the fact that all evidence pointed to the fact that the rulers were inept - and used cruelty to cover up their ineptitude. The people didn't feel like the government existed to serve the citizenry - in fact, the people existed to serve the government and to enrich those in power. Highly recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews