The Story of Russia

by Orlando Figes

Orlando Figes is a British historian who has penned many books on the history of Russia. With the current war in Ukraine, it seemed a good time to learn about the story of Russia. The book goes back to the controversial origins of Russia – the Normanist controversy (because the Vikings were Normans). Was Russia created by Russians, or foreigners? It looks at the complex mix of groups of Slavs, Vikings, Khazars which influenced the creation of Kievan Rus, the invasions by the Mongols, Swedes and Teutonic Knights, to the rule of the Tsars of Russia through to Stalin, modernity and Putin.

There is a lot to cover there, but Figes commands a formidable knowledge of Russian history. I also really liked the approach he took, incorporating the mythic origin stories of Russia, the dispute of Grand Prince Vladimir or Volodymyr to Ukrainians, and who can really claim him as theirs. Figes does not miss out the politicial, symbolic gestures, such as the statue Putin had created that is just slightly taller than the Ukrainian one of. There is little known about him, but the cult of this medieval saint began with Ivan the Terrible using him as the basis of his claim to be the sole legitimate successor to the Kievan rulers and emperors of Byzantium. The mythic basis, dispute and questions is rarely discussed and not understood by westerners and yet is intrinsic to the national identity of Russians.

The Golden Horde

This book covers a lot of history, so some sacrifices have to be made, especially when it only clocks in at three hundred pages. I felt the coverage of the Mongol horde, and it’s influence was excellently done. Despite critics arguing that the Mongols had limited impact on the Rus, Figes mentions the questions around their influence on Russia, noting how it actually brought surprising technological advances – postal system driven by speedy and well trained Mongolian horses, or more importantly, how the Tsars emulated the ‘khan’ or Byzantine emperor – the terms becoming confused. There was no illusion about who had the power though, particularly under Ivan.

In Russia’s history, there is a recurring tension between the people and the powerful ruler. Paradoxically, sometimes to its detriment, Russia’s people have suffered massively. But post-Stalin, many people saw his excesses as the justice of a strong, powerful ruler. Stalin is, unsurprisingly, covered in some detail, and the overview seems balanced, to the point, but still full of interesting points.

In the early 2010s, millions of Russians watched the TV show The Court of Time, in which figures and episodes from Russian history were judged in a mock trial which advocates presenting evidence, witnesses and a jury of the viewers who reached their verdict by voting on the telephone. The judgements which they reached do not hold out much hope for a change in Russian attitudes. Presented with the facts of Stalin’s war against the peasantry and the catastrophic effects of collectivisation, 78 per cent of viewers still believed that his policies were justified (a ‘terrible necessity’) for Soviet industrialisation; only 22 per cent considered them a ‘crime’ against the peasantry. (pp.282)

The challenge a book like this has is they often fall into pro-Western viewpoints. But Russia needs to be examined through the lens of its national identity, suffering, invasions and religion, for the history becomes tainted when pro-Western views are the looking glass. This book succeeds by establishing the mythos of Russia, first of all, their search for structure and identity. Despite Westernised elite growing out of Peter the Great’s reforms, they were culturally apart from the peasantry, clinging to orthodox beliefs, (mentioned pp.116-7) and it is necessary to understand this tension rather than simply looking at westernised materialist democracy as the goal.

Instead, Figes, when criticising Putin’s viewpoint, explains why his view of the history doesn’t mesh with reality. Analysis remains objective, even when current tensions and opinions are understandably inflamed given his aggression against Ukraine. In fact, this is the area where it’s usually easiest to criticise historians writing about Russia, but this book doesn’t fall into the trap.

Occasionally, I did wonder if some points were glossed over, such as Napoleon’s invasion, but this speaks more to the brevity and efficiency of the book. In fact the repercussions of Napoleon’s influence are focussed on instead, and this is a book about Russia not Napoleon, and it might be more my preconceptions that I expected more on this invasion for example. Nevertheless, there is an organised efficiency with which Russian terms, institutions and facts are disputed, dealt with and moved on from. It is brilliant non-fiction writing, never getting bogged down but ensuring you know the facts.

Final score

This book really is, as the recommendation from Anne Applebaum adorning the cover says, The history book you need if you want to understand modern Russia. It judges things from a balanced viewpoint but one which truly understands Russia. Even sections where I thought I knew quite a bit I learned new things, and I opened myself to a much better understanding of Russia. It just might be the best history book I’ll read this year and maybe ever. It really does do everything a history book should set out to do, and is strongly recommended. It truly is hard to find criticisms, perhaps the book could have been longer, but receives the 10 out of 10 because it excels in so many areas.

10/10