If you’ve ever walked into a graduate-level seminar on Slavic studies or spent a late night cramming for a midterm on the Romanovs, you’ve seen it. That thick, imposing spine. Nicholas Riasanovsky’s name is basically synonymous with the English-speaking world's understanding of the Russian past. Honestly, it’s rare for a textbook to survive decades of regime changes, archival openings, and shifting academic fads without becoming a total relic. Yet, A History of Russia by Nicholas Riasanovsky remains the "Big Green Book" that everyone loves to hate and hates to leave behind.
It’s dense. It’s dry in spots. But it’s also remarkably fair.
Most history books pick a side. They either treat Russia as a tragic victim of its own geography or a scary "other" that’s destined to be at odds with the West. Riasanovsky, who taught at Berkeley for years, didn't really do that. He had this specific way of balancing the "State School" of history—which says the Tsars and the government drove everything—with the "Social School" that looks at the peasants and the soul of the people. It’s why people still buy the eighth and ninth editions today.
The Man Behind the Legend
Nicholas Riasanovsky wasn’t just some random academic. He was the son of a Russian historian, Valentin Riasanovsky, and his family fled the Russian Far East after the Revolution. They went to Harbin, China, then the U.S. He lived the history he wrote about. You can feel that personal connection in the text, even if he keeps it professional. He’s not just reciting dates. He’s trying to explain why a country that looks so much like Europe on the surface acts so differently in practice.
When the first edition dropped in 1963, the Cold War was screaming. Most American books back then were basically propaganda. They focused entirely on the "Evil Empire" or the "Communist Threat." Riasanovsky took a breath. He went back to the Kievan Rus. He looked at the Mongols. He understood that you can’t explain Stalin if you don't understand Ivan the Terrible. He treated Russian history as a long, continuous thread rather than a series of explosions.
Mark Steinberg eventually joined him as a co-author for the later editions to help modernize the social history bits. It was a good move. Steinberg brought in more about gender, culture, and the "vibes" of the street, which balanced Riasanovsky’s heavy focus on high politics and intellectual thought.
What Makes This Specific Book Different?
If you pick up a copy of A History of Russia, the first thing you notice is the structure. It’s not just a timeline. Riasanovsky breaks things down into "The Internal Program" (what was happening at home) and "Foreign Policy." Then he usually adds a section on "Economics and Society" and "Culture."
It sounds boring, but it’s actually genius for a student.
💡 You might also like: Virgo Love Horoscope for Today and Tomorrow: Why You Need to Stop Fixing People
You don't have to hunt for information. If you want to know what Dostoevsky was doing while Alexander II was freeing the serfs, you just flip to the culture section of that chapter. It’s all there. He doesn't bury the lead.
The "Norman Theory" Headache
One of the best examples of his nuance is how he handles the origins of Russia. There’s this huge debate: were the first Russian leaders Vikings (Normans) or Slavs?
- Pro-Westerners love the Norman theory.
- Russian nationalists hate it because it suggests they couldn't govern themselves.
Riasanovsky just lays out both sides. He tells you what the Primary Chronicle says, shows you the archaeological holes in the story, and lets you decide. He doesn't preach. That’s a rare quality in a field where everyone has an agenda.
The Mongol Yoke
Then there’s the "Mongol Yoke." Some historians say the Mongols ruined Russia and held it back for 200 years. Others say they actually helped by unifying the princes and giving them a postal system and better taxes. Riasanovsky walks that middle line. He acknowledges the destruction but also shows how the Moscow princes used the Mongol system to eventually take over. It’s sophisticated. It’s not "good guys vs. bad guys." It’s just messy, human reality.
Why Modern Readers Might Struggle With It
Look, it’s not all sunshine. If you’re looking for a fast-paced narrative like a Simon Sebag Montefiore book or a Robert Massie biography, you’re going to be disappointed. Riasanovsky is a scholar first.
The prose can be a bit... stiff.
He uses words like "proclivity" and "antithetical" where "liking" or "opposite" would work. It’s very much a product of mid-century academia. Also, because the book covers so much ground—from the 800s to the 2010s—it can feel like a whirlwind. You’re learning about Peter the Great’s navy on one page and his tax on beards the next. It’s a lot to process.
📖 Related: Lo que nadie te dice sobre la moda verano 2025 mujer y por qué tu armario va a cambiar por completo
Another thing? The maps. In older editions, the maps are these tiny, black-and-white drawings that are almost impossible to read. If you’re trying to track the shifting borders of Poland-Lithuania, you’re better off having Google Maps open on your phone.
The Peter the Great Obsession
If you read closely, you can tell Riasanovsky has a bit of a thing for Peter the Great. Most Russian historians do. Peter is the pivot point. Everything before him is "Old Russia," and everything after is the "Empire."
Riasanovsky spends a lot of time on Peter’s reforms. He’s fascinated by how one guy could force a whole country to shave their beards, wear French coats, and build a city on a swamp. But he also doesn't shy away from the cost. He points out that Peter basically turned the peasants into slaves to pay for his new army. He shows the "Two Russias" that Peter created: an educated elite that spoke French and a massive peasantry that lived in the Middle Ages.
This "dualism" is the core theme of the book. It explains why the Revolution happened in 1917. The two sides of Russia just couldn't talk to each other anymore.
Dealing with the Soviet Era
Writing about the USSR while it still existed was a minefield. Riasanovsky managed it by sticking to the facts. He didn't get bogged down in the "is Communism good or bad?" debate. Instead, he looked at how the Soviet state was actually just a more extreme version of the Tsarist state.
- The Tsar had the Secret Police; Stalin had the NKVD.
- The Tsar had the Orthodox Church; Stalin had the Party.
- The Tsar wanted warm-water ports; the Soviets wanted a buffer zone in Europe.
It’s a "continuity" argument. It suggests that Russia is Russia, no matter who is in the Kremlin. That’s a controversial take! Some people think the 1917 Revolution was a total break from the past. Riasanovsky argues it was just a change of clothes.
Is It Still Relevant in 2026?
You might think that after the invasion of Ukraine and the total shift in global politics, an old textbook would be useless.
👉 See also: Free Women Looking for Older Men: What Most People Get Wrong About Age-Gap Dating
Nope.
Actually, it’s more relevant now. To understand why Vladimir Putin talks so much about the Kievan Rus or why he thinks Ukraine and Russia are "one people," you have to go back to the sources Riasanovsky cites. The book gives you the historical vocabulary to see through the propaganda. It shows you that these territorial disputes aren't new. They’ve been happening since the 1600s.
If you’re trying to get a handle on the current situation, you need the long view. Riasanovsky provides that. He reminds us that Russia has survived "Times of Troubles" before. It has a habit of collapsing and then rebuilding itself in a new, even more centralized way.
How to Actually Read This Book Without Falling Asleep
Don't read it cover to cover. Seriously. It’s 700+ pages. Unless you have a massive exam, you’ll burn out by the time you hit the Time of Troubles.
- Pick an era. If you’re interested in Catherine the Great, just read that chapter. The book is modular enough that it makes sense.
- Check the "Suggested Readings." Even if the book is old, the bibliographies at the end of each chapter are gold mines. They point you to the specialized books that dive deeper into specific topics.
- Focus on the "Conclusion" sections. At the end of major sections, Riasanovsky usually sums up the "State of Russia" at that moment. These are the most insightful parts of the book.
- Compare it to newer stuff. If you read Riasanovsky alongside something newer, like Orlando Figes or Sheila Fitzpatrick, you can see where the historical consensus has changed. It’s like a "spot the difference" game for nerds.
What Most People Get Wrong About Riasanovsky
A lot of people think his book is "Pro-Western." They think because he lived in America, he must have hated the Russian system. That’s not really true. If anything, he’s deeply sympathetic to the Russian people. He sees the tragedy in their history. He sees a country that is constantly trying to modernize but gets pulled back by its geography and its traditions.
He’s also not a "Great Man" historian. Even though he talks a lot about Peter and Catherine, he spends plenty of time on the mir (the peasant village commune) and the intelligentsia. He understands that history happens from the bottom up just as much as the top down.
The Actionable Insight: Building Your Historical Library
If you’re serious about understanding Eastern Europe, you can’t just rely on Wikipedia or YouTube documentaries. You need "anchor books." A History of Russia is an anchor.
Next Steps for the History Buff:
- Audit your edition: If you’re buying a used copy, try to get at least the 7th edition or later. The updates by Steinberg on the post-Soviet era and social history are vital.
- Cross-reference with Culture: When Riasanovsky mentions a writer like Turgenev or a composer like Mussorgsky, go listen to the music or read a short story. It makes the "Culture" chapters stick much better.
- Map it out: Keep a physical map of the Russian Empire circa 1914 next to you. Seeing the sheer scale of the land helps you understand why the "State School" of history thinks a strong central government was the only way to keep it together.
- Check the footnotes: Riasanovsky was a master of sources. If a particular event puzzles you, look at who he’s citing. It’s usually the person who wrote the definitive book on that one specific thing.
Ultimately, Riasanovsky’s work isn't just a textbook. It’s a map of a very complicated, very old soul. It doesn't give you easy answers, and it won't tell you what’s going to happen tomorrow. But it will stop you from being surprised by what happens today. That’s about as much as you can ask from any historian.