Customer Reviews

Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I don't know where to start in reviewing this book. Perhaps the beginning is a good place. This book starts off well. The prologue concerning the hero myths and the origin of the comitatus seems curious at first but makes sense as the book goes on. The first chapter on the Hittites and the origin of the chariot I found fascinating. The second chapter was not quite as good, but the musings on the origins of philosophical thought and its possible diffusion via the Silk Road between China, India, and Greece was good food for thought. Which brought us up to about 500 b.c., at which point ...

The book just seemed to fall off a cliff. For the next two thousand years, the time period the majority of us are probably most interested in, all we get is a seemingly endless succession of names and dates, which tribal leader raided which tribal group, tra la tra la, with no maps and little indication of what is important out of all of this and what is not. One small example should suffice. On page 168 we encounter the sentence: "There Alp Arslan resoundingly defeated an army of the Byzantine emperor Romanus at the Battle of Mantzikert in 1071." That's it. No further reference.

Hello!!! Wasn't that the battle that initiated the papal call for the first Crusade, one of those seminal events in world history whose repercussions are still affecting the societies of Central Asia and indeed the whole world even today, almost a thousand years later? (Afghanistan, anyone?) You would think this might be a ripe field for discussion, but in fact there is not one single mention that the Crusades even happened. The Battle of the Bulge is in this book. Pearl Harbor is in this book. But not one single mention of the Crusades. Umm, wasn't that minor Central Asian group the Turks involved?

And historical personages. What we learn about Attila the Hun is that he must have had his reasons. Oh, really? (Or as my daughter would say: "No duh!") Of course he had his reasons! Hitler had his reasons as well. The question is: what were those reasons? And were those reasons good reasons? You won't find out here.

Tamerlane. Now there's a person I'd like to learn more about. Didn't he rule during some sort of golden age in Central Asian history? I've often heard about him over the years, but never truly learned much in detail. And now I can honestly say that I still haven't. After one quick paragraph outlining all his major and minor victories and defeats, we are given this:"The legacy of Tamerlane and the Timurids was to be in patronage of the arts." That's it? Yep, that's it.

The book does get interesting again in chapter 9, when he gets into a discussion of the littoral system and how the newly opened up European sea trade to the Far East affected the Silk Road economies, but then ...

The book falls right off the cliff again, and is a jumble right through to the end. I won't go into his extended rant against Modernism because other reviewers have already done that. He has some valid points, but mostly he just sets up straw men and tears them down as easy targets, rarely focusing on the larger picture. His prescription seems to be that if only the central Asian countries could unite and form some kind of European Union-type organization, and reinstitute a Victorian Era-style noble aristocracy based on the comitatus system (see, we did get back to it in the end), then the world might suddenly find itself living in peace and harmony.

Yeah, right.

A good book deserves to be written about the empires of the Silk Road. Unfortunately, this is not it.

I purchased this book thinking I had found a Central Eurasian companion to Norman Davies' magisterial "Europe." Alas, "Empires of the Silk Road" is too strange to fit comfortably on the same shelf.

Though Beckwith makes many interesting points, particularly at the beginning of the book (the sections on national founding myths and the comitatus are worth a glance), one senses trouble on the horizon when Central Eurasia is defined, not geographically, but rather as any place where the "Central Eurasian culture complex" took root. Though there are doubtless merits to this approach, the result is that, instead of a history of the "Empires of the Silk Road," Beckwith has attempted to write a history of the entirety of Eurasia.

This approach becomes particularly problematic in the last third of the book, when Beckwith more or less abandons his supposed topic for meager summaries of 20th century events. Casting the 20th century in terms of the rise of "Modernism," the reader is given 1-2 page summaries of the Great Depression, First and Second World Wars, and Communist takeovers of Russia and China. Presumably, anyone interested in purchasing this book will have at least a passing interest in world history and therefore possess considerably deeper knowledge of these subjects than is presented; one is therefore left to conclude that these sections were included to allow the author space to snipe at Modernism, a movement that Beckwith never bothers to define but that he clearly loathes.

Furthermore, many of these summaries are risible. For instance, the Iranian revolution is cast as the overthrow of an innocent and benevolent monarch ("the young shah gradually began a wide-ranging liberalization and modernization of Iran...[leading to] prosperity, stability, and... growth"). Though Khomeini and his ilk deserve only contempt, to let the noxious Iranian monarchy off so lightly is a disservice to the reader.

In summary, the better parts of "Empires of the Silk Road" provide a useful and perhaps necessary corrective to Eurocentric bookstore shelves. The book will doubtless appeal to those interested in a quick overview of the Scythians, Sogdians, Tamerlane, and other fascinating cultures and notables. However, the peculiar final chapters will be off-putting to many, and make it difficult to recommend this uneven title.

Somewhere along the path to writing a history of the so-called Silk Road, Christopher Beckwith got lost in a diatribe about "Modernism" and all the accoutrements that accompany it. I'm not sure what the point was, other than to rail about the injustice of it all. That aside, there's much to commend here. Beckwith's mastery of the linguistics and philology of the Central Eurasia is impressive. Certainly his passion for the subject leaps off the page. And one can admire his efforts to rescue the peoples of Eurasia from obscurity and myth. The prologue and epilogue are worth reading in their own right. It's the detours into invective and moralizing that lead his caravan astray.

Writing a history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the present is clearly an ambitious undertaking given the vast geographical region, the large number of people groups, and the length of time. I have to give Christopher Beckwith a great deal of credit for attempting such a history and compiling a short narrative (~360 pages) that is at least somewhat coherent.

Beckwith did an excellent job of explaining the "Central Eurasian Culture Complex" and how it affected ancient Central Eurasian sociopolitical development. Chapter 10, which adroitly explained how the Littoral system created by European colonialism effectively shut down the Silk Road, was also particularly informative.

The rest of the book was difficult to follow without prior knowledge of the geography of Central Asia, the major people groups mentioned in the book, and how linguistics can be used to determine the movements of ancient peoples. The first five chapters were so littered with names of ethnic groups and their movements that it was virtually impossible to assimilate enough of the information to develop a general picture of what happened during those periods. Subsequent chapters referenced some of these groups, seemingly at random, so even though the history itself was easier to follow in those chapters, the obscure references made for difficult reading.

Unfortunately, the end of the book disintegrated into a lengthy diatribe about the deleterious effects of "modernism" and "populism" upon Central Eurasia. Because neither term was well-defined, it left the conclusions of the book in an unnecessary state of ambiguity. The diatribe was even more confusing because the book said almost nothing about the culture of these Central Eurasian groups. It is difficult to argue that "modernism" destroyed a vibrant culture when the value of that culture was never communicated.

Also, the end of the book spent so many pages explaining the developments of surrounding areas(Russia, Europe, China, and India), that the history of Central Eurasia was essentially lost in the mix.

Overall, this book presented a great deal of information about an area of history that has very little written about it and managed to get all of it into one book. However, the book was hard to follow and deviated significantly from its intended purpose at several critical junctures and was, therefore, not terribly useful to someone (like me) who was looking for a solid general history of the region.

recounting the history of what the author terms 'Central Eurasian [henceforth CEA] Culture Complex,' which - geographically speaking - spread from Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula (i.e., Koguryo kingdoms) in the East to as far as the Pannon Plain/Carpathian Basin in the West, and in some respects even beyond those frontiers. One of the central themes connecting diverse peoples in this diachronic-synchronic/vertical-horizontal study is the presence of the oath-sworn guard corps (Latin 'comitatus') that gradually grew in number and formed the heart of CEA nations until the adoption of world religions in the Middle Ages (p. 15 passim). Maintaining the steady flow of luxury goods so as to reward their services played no small part as the raison d'etre for commerce along the Silk Road.

You can read about the war charioteer Hittites, Ashvins/Wu-sun-s, Mycaneans; the state foundation struggles regarding Scythians vs. Cimmerians, Hsiung-nu-s vs. Tokhars, Huns vs. Goths, Turks vs. Avars, Mongols vs. Jurchens; as well as about the Arab conquest in Central Asia, the Khazar kaganate, imperial Tibet, Uighurs, and sundry. By extending the analysis to maritime-based trade (littoral systems) and subsequent European (Portuguese, Dutch, British, Russian) expansion/colonization in Asia, the Orientalist scholar may have cast his net far too wide. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the last two chapters (pp. 263-319, concerning 19-20th centuries), which, as other reviewers have already noted, are way too sketchy, overly generalizing, at times propagandistic, and even off tangent. Don't ask me what importance T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" or Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" holds for CEA history. Rather, the author could have breathed a word or two, say, about the Manchu-Chinese/Tibetan conflict vis-á-vis the Gurkha-ruled Nepal, the Opium Wars, the Crimean War, the 'Great Game' b/w Russia and Britain for the control of Central (and Inner) Asia, etc.

Nitpicking or not, allow me to make a slight correction at this point w/ regard to the following assertion: "[After the demise of the Sakyapa overlordship, circa 1357, w]ith the partial exception of brief interregnum periods, Tibet continued to be largely unified under the rule of one or another Mongol state down to the defeat of the Junghars by the Manchu-Chinese (p. 258 fn. 80)." This is clearly untrue. There was almost zero Mongol influence in Central Tibet (ÜTsang), let alone their central authority, during the Pakmodrupa priest-kings (1358-, nominally, 1618) and the Rinpungpa governors/castellans (roughly, 1491-1566). Under the reign of the Tsangpa rulers (1567-1642) certain Tibetan factions, mainly but not exclusively the Gelukpas, sought contact w/ various Mongol tribes in order to secure their military aid. The Mongols' role during the early stage of the Dalai lama's regime (1642-1720) was that of a hired sword to subdue internal and external opposition.

The main corpus is best read simultaneously with the endnotes, of which there are 111 (pp. 385-426), that offer some real insights and marshal relevant evidences. The same is true for the epilogue entitled 'The Barbarians' (pp. 320-62), which goes a long way to dispel a host of long-held misconceptions, and the two appendices ('The Proto-Indo-Europeans and their Diaspora,' pp. 363-74; 'Ancient Central Eurasian Ethnonyms,' pp. 375-84). As a methodological tool, turning the ruling paradigm of centre-periphery inside out facilitates bringing some well-deserved 'historical justice' to this marginalized region in crucial observations, such as:

+ "In every recorded case when the traditional Graeco-Roman, Persian, or Chinese empires of the periphery [!] became too powerful and conquered or brought chaos to the Central Eurasian nomadic states, the result for Central Asia, at least, was economic recession. The Han Dynasty destruction of the Hsiung-nu resulted in chaos...it was several centuries before the Türk, the next nomadic people who understood the Silk Road, could restore the system...When the Chinese and Arab alliance against Tibetans and the Western Turkic empire...succeeded...the result was chaos..., bringing with it severe recession, followed by rebellions and revolutions led by Sogdians and other merchant people [740-60s CE] that affected most of the continent. Finally, when the Manchu-Chinese and Russians partitioned Central Eurasia and the Ch'ing Dynasty destroyed the Junghar Empire [1755]...the economic devastation they wrought...was so total that even at the turn of the millennium in AD 2000 the area had not recovered (pp. 257-8)."
+ "There was a constant drain of people escaping from China into the realms of the Eastern Steppe, where they did not hesitate to proclaim the superiority of the nomadic life-style. Similarly, many Greeks and Romans joined the Huns...where they lived better and were treated better (p. 76)."
+ The primary goal of fortifications along the borders of peripheral empires from China through Persia to Rome ('limes' network or the Byzantine military governorships called 'theme') was offensive in nature, "to hold territory conquered from neighbouring states and to prevent loss of population to them (p. 330)."
+ "[T]he vast majority of the silk possessed by the Central Eurasians in the two millennia from the early Hsiung-nu times [4-3rd c. BCE] through the Mongols down to the Manchu conquest was obtained through trade and taxation, not war or extortion (p. 23)."
+ Raids of steppe people were, in many cases, triggered by the breaches of treaties, or were made at the request of some peripheral power against local enemies (divide et impera), e.g., the Manchus were called upon by the Chinese Ming dynasty to crush rebellion; the Mongols' aim was to uproot their Jurchen (Chin dynasty) adversaries (p. 335); Uighur Turks (757 CE) were invited to quell the An Lu-shan revolt -- their sacking of Loyang (762) "was authorized by the financially strapped T'ang court as a reward or payment (p. 338)."

For reasons unknown, the following essays by the same author of the present tome have not found their way to the bibliography (pp. 427-55): 'Tibet and the Early Medieval Florissance in Eurasia,' in: Central Asiatic Journal 21 (2), 1977: pp. 89-104; in collaboration w/ Michael Walter: 'Some Indo-European Elements in Early Tibetan Culture,' in: Tibetan Studies 7, Vol. 2: pp. 1037-54, Vienna 1997.

Despite what one reviewer notes as a distracting issue in the plaint over modernism, this book, especially the beginning and notes, is an exciting take on the ever-mysterious history, or lack of it, of the Indo-Europeans, an epic in itself, for scholars, after the Homers. The Indo-European linguistics question is notably arcane and this review of the weighty issues that confound simple understanding inspires hope that some resolution of the ethno-maniacal mythologies here might be possible. It is hard to determine the validity of the issues in this field, but it is useful to consider this perspective when confronted with the 'Aryan invasion theories'. The book is filled with a lot of useful information. Many of the proposals, such as the manner of creole formation as an explication of the mysteries of Indo-European linguistic diversity, are especially interesting, if open to non-critical acceptance by the non-specialist. All in all, a splendid read, and possibly the beginnings of sanity on this question.

I am, at best, an amateur historian, so I didn't bring a deep knowledge of subject that some others do, and thus cannot speak to conflicting theories or anything like that. I was merely someone interested in learning about the central Eurasian region, particularly where it related to the more Classical period and earlier. This book goes well beyond that, of course, as it carries the story up to the modern day. While it wasn't my main intended focus, the latter chapters did help expand what I know about the development of the region in more recent times.

There were several really interesting discussions in the book. One of the most interesting, to my mind, was the idea that in developing a massive trade and exchange network the Scythians and related peoples of Central Eurasia may have helped facilitate the sudden blooming of Classical philosophical thinking.

Now, having said that, the book certainly does have its short-comings. Specifically, it suffers from a decided lack of visuals to help explain the movement of people and armies. There is a steady stream of people and place names, movements and conflicts, which I found very challenging to keep straight. The included maps on the insides of the book covers help a bit, but really only with place names.

The other issue I had was the rant the author goes on about Modernism in the latter part of the book. It starts off fine, as he keeps it clearly linked to the subject matter, but before long the readers finds himself in the middle of a discussion of the impact of Modernism on art and music. It doesn't last all that long, but it's enough to have you wondering if maybe some pages from an art history book got mixed in.

Overall, the book did what I expected of it - expanded my knowledge of this history of the Central Eurasian peoples.

This book is revolutionary and exciting to read. Beckwith challenges traditional ideas on just about everything he talks about, not only Central Eurasian culture but everything connected to it too, for example, individual names and words and what they mean for history. The author explains how the old biased ideas are wrong, and what Central Eurasians were really like. I read the reviews on this site and see that some readers don't like his criticism of Modernism or other ideas they believe in, so they gave the book a bad rating. But as an artist myself I think it was heroic for him to challenge the modern establishment in the arts. His argument explains so much, including the destruction of all those churches, synagogues, Buddhist temples, etc., which he details. Some readers just want more of the same old wrong story. But the point of Beckwith's book is not raw facts or old, wrong ideas, it's the context that makes the history of Central Eurasia understandable. The book completely rewrites Central Eurasian history, and I would say all of Eurasian history. It's an important book and a great read.

Good overview from pre-history to present of the peoples and Empires that has influenced so many other cultures and Empires. If your interest is in Xsiungnu, Xianbei, Mongols, Avars, Junghars or Jurchens, this is the book for you. Beckwith is pretty much a dedicated iconoclast... Steppe tribes were not barbarians, (they preferred to trade); there was no atavistic desire on their part for war (they were impacted on the periphery by expanding empires); and they may have been the prime movers of culture and language between the Eurasian hinterland and periphery empires. It's all fascinating.

Beckwith deals with central themes and develops a thematic element into the narrative. A narrative with extreme detail on each tribe would be impossible in a book under about 2000 pages, so Beckwith tries to put the train of Eurasian Historical study on the right track by analysing our prejudices against percieved barbarians.

Beckwith shows that most myths-of-origin of eurasian peoples and/or cultures (such as Rome's Romulus and Remus) have many elements in common. Surprisingly often they involve immaculate conception and babies left to be found by strangers. In addition there is a "commitatus" that extended throughout the reign of almost all Eurasian tribes and Kingdoms - a central guard with oath loyalty to the leader/ruler.

The essay towards the end of book on "Barbarians" is or particular note: these central Eurasian tribes were the central conveyors of culture and trade. The Silk Road was dependent upon central political and cultural control of the Eurasian heartland. When littoral trading started and Russia and China expanded and shut down the Eurasian Central political independence in thet 17th and 18th Centuries, then this motor of trade and ideas was stopped. It was replaced by a littoral trade with European powers penetrating from the periphery into the region. Therefore it never was the cultural harbinger of change that was central Eurasia.

Maybe a little too "Cooks-Tour" like for most, but certainly gets you thinking a lot about some central received ideas of prehistory barbarian tribes. Essential for any study of the Roman, Greek, Indian or Chinese empires.

This book lacks a soul. It is old fashioned history of the worst kind, dry factoids strung out one after the other. There is nothing about ethnography: who were some of these tribes? There is nothing about culture, aside from the poems that open most chapters. Nothing about practices: were they all male dominated? Was there no variation? I searched in vain to learn something about the culture, technological innovations, food, whatever that the steppe peoples brought to the lands they conquered or migrated into. Not there.

No one is fleshed out. NAmes parade thru the pages but you never learn any stories about them that make them come alive, only facts. I thought they stopped teaching history this way 20 years ago.

The cover art is the only illustration in the entire book. I suspect the author has never been to any of these places, but surely there are Getty images available for the sweep of the steppes, Samarkand, Urumchi, etc? In a book that deals with who conquered where, when, there is not a single map showing the sweep of empires as they moved across the steppes. Too challenging to do I reckon, but it makes the manuscript much poorer. This book reads more like an outline. Maybe someone who is a good writer will use it as a basis for a decent book on the topic. The Hittite stuff in the front you can get in many better written histories.