Customer Reviews

Russia and the Russians: A History

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I came to this book from a more scholarly standpoint, hoping to find an in-depth and insightful history of Russia. The book delivered well on my expectations but, in the end, I found myself enjoying it on a more popular level. Hosking's research and presentation are excellent, and he does a remarkable job of tying vast amounts of material together with concision and eloquence, but there is a lot of important information that has been left out.

Much that I would deem important had been omitted from his account, leaving rather perfunctory sections where the book feels 'glossed over' or generalized. Still, the lack of detail can be overlooked, especially because the book was clearly designed for a more popular audience. In this case, the details might have bogged down the momentum of the work.

It is this momentum--while still managing to craft a brilliant big-picture look at Russia--that makes Hosking's book shine. This is less a story of a handful of Tsars and more a story of Russia's people--their triumphs, failures, struggles, and lives. We trace Russia as a cultural and national identity through the ages, stopping to examine the influence and force of individual Tsars, but always focusing on what the people were doing.

Russia was not defined only by its Tsars. It was also defined by its people. This is a tale for them, and it is resonating and fascinating. Although it lacks the hard and fast research of other histories, relying more on generalizations and conclusions, Hosking tells his story well and has crafted perhaps the most human of all Russian histories.

Regardless of whether you are a scholarly or a casual reader, I would expect that you would find this book difficult to read all the same, albeit perhaps for different reasons. I approached "Russia and the Russians" as a casual reader, and thus I am writing my review from this perspective, in the hope that it may be of benefit to others.

In reading this sweeping history of Russia, I had hoped that the author would have been able to provide an overall "big picture" of how the Russian nation, and perhaps even the Russian character, developed. To his benefit, Hosking actually did begin his book along these lines by discussing Russia's unique geopolitical situation and some of her unique cultural traits. Although he may have tried to follow up on this by explaining how these various geopolitical and cultural issues affected how the Russian people responded to specific historical events at various points in the text, the lack of organization in Hosking's writing still made it quite difficult for me to appreciate how important the geopolitical, cultural, and economic forces were in shaping the course of Russian history.

When I say Hosking's writing lacked organization, I mean that he would at times jump from one discussion to another without any warning or that he would suddenly go back in time to discuss events that happened earlier than what he had previously been focusing on to begin with (again without any warning). Additionally, I thought most of the maps in the book did very little to support what was being discussed in the text (i.e. towns and rivers that were being mentioned in the text were not shown on the maps), which I found to be a nuisance. Although a number of reviewers have criticized this book for its liberal use of Russian words, I think Hosking is justified in this regard since he usually reserves such words to define uniquely Russian concepts. Although this book does not contain a glossary of Russian vocabulary, I found that the index was just as helpful in finding the page where a Russian word was initially defined.

Is "Russia and the Russians" worth reading? In hindsight, despite my mixed feelings, I still feel that my time reading this book was justified. Although there were some parts that were treacherous to read (primarily due to the dry and abstract presentation of the material), there were other parts that I found absolutely delightful (such as Hosking's discussion of cultural movements during the various historical periods).

Bottom line: If you're a serious Russophile, you may be able to overlook the book's shortcomings and still find this an enjoyable read, whereas if you're just looking for entertainment value, you will most likely not find it here.

I may not have taken a course(s) on Russian history recently, but I believe I can tell a good book on Russian history when I read one. And this ain't one of them. Hosking's lack of organization, lack of scholarship in some chapters, and extremely tedious narrative style make this book uncomfortable to read. Some reviewers have suggested that since the history of Russia lacked direction during its course, this trait will inevitably be reflected in any attempt to analyze and chronicle the history of that country. The conclusion of this misguided speculation is that Russian history is difficult to narrate and we should therefore be happy reading what Mr. Hosking has produced for us. Although I agree that the history of Russia is indeed rich and complicated, nevertheless, one only has to look at all of the brilliant works that have been written on the subject in the past to see how well other historians have rendered this complex story in a clear and understandable manner. Examples include "Natasha's Dance" by Figes, "Russia under Western Eyes" by Mahlia, "Lenin's Tomb" by Remnick, and "A History of Russia" by Riasanovsky. I have yet to read a positive review on Hosking's "Russia and the Russians" that did not get mixed up by romanticizing the grandeur and the spectacle of Russian history, instead of focusing on the merits of the book. It makes me wonder whether those positive reviewers actually read the book.

I am no expert on Russian history or culture, although I do consider myself an admirer. Since there are so many outstanding books available on the market that deal with the subject of this unique and mysterious country, I regret spending the time that I did on this three-star wonder. If you are looking for a good first book on Russian history, I would strongly encourage you to look elsewhere.

Unfortunately, Hosking's book is an organizational catastrophe. While it is obviously difficult to compile a comprehensible volume on the long, involved history of a country like Russia, Hosking can do better than his discontinuous chronology. Chapters will backtrack 50 years from the previous page; some cultural and reform movements are glossed over in 2 pages (while they lasted 25 years). At any given page the reader is lost in time, stranded in Hosking's interminable ocean of quotidian facts and foreign names.
While the prose is tolerable and at times quite colorful, the read suffers from its lack of fluidity. If you are casually interested in Russian history, this book is fantastic. If you are stuck with it for class (like me), reconstructing the movements and trends of historical Russia is a task made no easier by this poorly footnoted, wretchedly organized tome.

This excellent one volume work on the Russians is history at its finest. The reading is easy, digestible and fascinating. Insights into the birth and struggles of the Orthodox Christian church, the 'Third Rome' and the creation of Kieven Rus. The stories of Ivan the Terrible are fascinating and make excellent comparison to his intellectual descendant, Stalin.

Stalin and the soviet system are also fascinating subjects. THe author spends a good amount of time discussing RUssia's minorities and this is probably the strongest point in the book. For instance we learn of the rise of nationalism in the Caucuses, central asia, Finland, Ukraine and the Baltic states. We learn also of how Islam is actually a new creation among the Cauceses and in Central Asia, that in fact most of these peoples were not converted to Islam in the 1800s but the rise of Russia, the decline of the Ottomans and the entrance of Sufism actually solidified and normalized Islam in these socieites that had been very tribal with their own distinct customs.

The conflict in Chechnya and current RUssia under Yeltson helps make sense of Yeltsins disposal of Gorbachev and then subsequent bombarding of the 'White House'. A must read and a brilliant one volume popular history.

Seth J. Frantzman

Parts of this book are excellent, indeed. The author takes us through the deep roots of the Russian experience of shared risk and shared expectations. We see that Russian communism did not emerge fully fledged from the fertile minds of Marx and Engels. This seems to be the author's strength and he does it very well. This book may best be thought of as a history of Russian communism with some Russian history thrown in.

There are huge gaps in this book. The author deals with WW II in some depth, but even there he omits some of the most significant events of the war. The author deals little with Korea, WW I, the Russo-Japanese War, the Crimean War and the fascinating history of, and events in, the Caucasus. He inexplicably ignores the history of the development of Siberia and the east. This is a disservice to readers who expect, as the book cover proclaims, "A History" that might be comprehensive.

The author has a muddled view of more modern events. He refers to "... America's eventual military defeat ...: in Vietnam". He deals much more kindly with the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, writing only that "...the Soviet leaders found themselves by the mid-1980s in a strategic stalemate." Having fought in Vietnam myself, I can accept many descriptions of that strange adventure - some phrases that come to mind are "Colossal strategic blunder", or "complete failure of American foreign policy" or any number of others except America's "military defeat".

Knowing, as I do, men who fought in the Red Army in the Afghan invasion late in the campaign, I can also attest that none of them thinks that it ended in a "strategic stalemate". These two references suggest an agenda that, while it might be popular in the ivory towers of the University of London, does not reflect an accurate interpretation of the military history of the late 20th century. It seems that the author's slant on those events is USSR good, America bad. I disagree.

The author's style is unusual. At times he writes a very readable narrative of events as he understands them. At other times his grammar and syntax are difficult to understand and he uses words that are seldom encountered in ordinary English. Those passages seem more like assignments given to ambitious history students, later to be included in this book.

This is the first book I have come across that professes to be a history but includes the author's personal views of then-current events. When reading a history I do not expect to encounter phrases such as I remember or in my opinion. I expect history writers to offer reasonably unbiased narratives of history, suggest some causes and effects, and let me form my own opinions.

The author does a reasonably good job of relating post-1991 events. However, he either barely mentions or completely ignores the role of the KGB (now the FSB) in ruling, rather than governing, modern Russia. In fact, the role of the Russian state security apparat, whether the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, MVD or FSB is largely ignored. One wonders why.

This book is not a comprehensive history nor is it a consistently entertaining read. I would recommend it to students of Russia as merely another interpretation of Russia's past and I would certainly not recommend it as one's only Russian historical reference.

Hosking's book is a great one-volume look at Russian history. It begins in the first millennium AD. It continues with Russia's struggles with the Mongols and the Ottoman Empire, and it chronicles the nation's efforts to become a great European power. The tsars and the Communist era are both well-documented, and the narrative ends at the year 2000, after almost a decade of Russia's post-Communist transition period.

A recurring theme in the book is that the size, vulnerability, and geographic location of Russia all explain why Russians have turned repeatedly to collectivism and authoritarianism, and why Russia has always looked to control the nations near it in order to have a buffer zone between it and other great powers--the ex-Soviet republics that seceded at the end of the Cold War are still referred to as the "near abroad" by some Russians.

Hosking believes that Russia will continue to be a formidable power in the decades to come. Many do not agree with him. Other nations in Asia are booming, while Russia continues to have low birth rates and very high (60% - 70%) abortion rates. It is estimated that a sixth of Moscow's population is Muslim, and half the Russian army could be Muslim by 2015. The country also faces social difficulties such as alcoholism and suicide (although the flat tax instituted there has contributed to a big surge in the economy and living standards since 2000). Some have even speculated that an explosively growing China will simply move into and take over the oil-rich territory of eastern Siberia in coming decades.

Whether Russia survives in its present form will be one of the most fascinating stories that will unfold on the world stage over the course of the twenty-first century.

I am fascinated with Russian history and have read many books on the subject, including another of Hosking's books on russian history: Russia: People and Empire. I agree with the numerous reviews claiming the book tends to over generalize on several topics which had he omitted these sections the book would have been a more tidy 400 pages rather than the 600 plus. Overall, however, his use of russian vocabulary is spot on and necessary to convey the notion that russian history is complex and requires more effort to comprehend and memorize compared to other histories. I had a love/hate relationship with this book as I read it and I must recommend trying out an introductory book on russian history before spending your time on this if you are not already of intermidiate knowledge. Had this been my first read on Russian history I would have been lost for the most part, as I was when I read my first book on russian history in college, the before mentioned Russia: People and Empire, I had to put that book down and come back to it several years later to appreciate it. Overall this is a good book to read to reinforce your previous readings of Russian history, however I did not find any new insights or conclusions not already presented over and over again in Russian history. The reviews on the back of the book do not support what the pages actually contain. I will still proudly present this book on my bookcase as it was at times difficult to read, engaging and good practice for my growing Russian vocabulary.

Above my desk is a large map of the world. A hefty section of this map is Russia.

What have I heard and read about Russia? KGB, Russian Mafia, oil, beat Hitler from the East in WW Two, Epic battle at Stalingrad, and oh yes - Stalin.

But what do I know about Russians - the people?

"Russian and the Russians" is exactly what the title describes.

What I came away with is 1) Russia is more than that little slice of Western Russia, i.e., Moscow and St. Petersburg. 2) It's amazing that Russia has been able to hold it together considering the diverse ethnic groups, geography and assorted religious influences. 3) A healthy respect for the Russian people and their love for "their mother earth".

A very readable history which I plan to re-read in the future.

Riveting. Great re-visit on Russian history for the layperson. One point of weakness, the ear of the 1960's when the author himself is in the USSR, the pronoun "I" enters into the book. Can't stand when authors use the first person to describe history. "I" am reading the story and "I" am not a part of this story.