Russia: A 1000 Year Chronicle of the Wild East (Martin Sixsmith)

This is a book I have been reading for a while, and with my impending move out of Miami, am obliged to finally finish and return to the library. It is a history of Russia. My motive in choosing it was that, while I had a lot of US history, a fair amount of European history, a bit of Chinese and Japanese (especially as they pertained to the west), and a few other bits here and there, I did not truly have any idea of Russian history. On seeing this book on the new-books shelf, I figured it would be an interesting choice.

A caveat: I am 182 pages in out of 530; the death of Rasputin, about to start the roller-coaster ride of the revolution. The beginning opens explaining a bit about the author - he is not Russian, but a European with a love of Russia and a significant research background into it. The style of the book is a mixture of historical facts, cultural examinations, and personal anecdotes of exploring the areas where key events occurred.

The first overriding theme that struck me was this: the author had incorrectly subtitled the work. Rather than "A 1000 year chronicle of the Wild East," it would better have been named "All the times Russia missed its chance for a constitutional monarchy, from a European point of view." The author is quick to point out every time Russia could have become a more western style democracy but didn't. There is not really any discussion about whether/how this would have worked for Russia. He does discuss how the overriding cultural feelings of the time were summed up in the belief that centralized autocratic power was the only way to protect Russia's borders, and how this feeling came about from several centuries of invasions followed by several centuries of occupation by the golden horde. Frankly, based on the descriptions of the book, I'm amazed the distinct culture that is now Russia didn't get more absorbed by the Huns than it did. Perhaps that's me as a citizen of these United States, in which the usurpation of power by the federal government has been so slow and gradual, and a function of the power which we permitted to the government (rather than hostile takeover, for the most part), that the correct word to use now is 'The' instead of 'These'. It is interesting to note how the different paths seem to be leading us to similar places. I digress.

I'm not sure if its a good thing or a bad thing that the author refrains from discussing the implications of creating a constitutional monarchy. On the one hand, the pace of the book is good and portraying the events without boring by analysis is a wonderful quality in the book. On the other hand,  I'm definitely intrigued as to why he feels that it is the correct solution. You can either say that its development is similar to Europe's, in little states bonding together for protection or being overrun and absorbed, or you can say that it is the opposite, in that once a centralized power gained an advantage over neighboring states it was mostly outward conquest. If you approach it from the former point of view it lends itself to the possibility of a constitutional monarchy. The latter point of view requires more centralized power and the ability to make quick decisions for tactical purposes.


More later.