Scan barcode
A review by sonofatreus
Peter the Great: His Life and World by Robert K. Massie
4.0
All in all, this was a good biography of Peter the Great. At least, it was easy to read and seemed comprehensive, but I knew very little about him before this so I can't assess it in that regard.
It's broken into different eras of Peter's life. Probably 2/5 of it covers his time expanding Russia's borders against Sweden and other rivals. I found this to be the least interesting of the work. Much of turned into field descriptions, tactics, and battle narratives. That's never been my favorite kind of history. The other 3/5 were more to my tastes, describing Peter's life and upbringing, how he came to rule, the many changes he made, the development of St. Petersburg, etc. In some cases, this was like reading fiction, it was so surprising. The Streltsy uprising, for one, was a particularly violent time in Peter's life.
As for Massie's writing, like I said, it's easy enough to read. He was writing in the 80s, so some of his descriptions or concerns are a little outdated. For the most part, though, there are few indications that he was writing at a time that would become the end of the USSR. He only mentions modern Russia a few times, mostly in footnotes. The biggest tell is his use of "the Ukraine" as a term, but he won't be faulted for that.
It's broken into different eras of Peter's life. Probably 2/5 of it covers his time expanding Russia's borders against Sweden and other rivals. I found this to be the least interesting of the work. Much of turned into field descriptions, tactics, and battle narratives. That's never been my favorite kind of history. The other 3/5 were more to my tastes, describing Peter's life and upbringing, how he came to rule, the many changes he made, the development of St. Petersburg, etc. In some cases, this was like reading fiction, it was so surprising. The Streltsy uprising, for one, was a particularly violent time in Peter's life.
As for Massie's writing, like I said, it's easy enough to read. He was writing in the 80s, so some of his descriptions or concerns are a little outdated. For the most part, though, there are few indications that he was writing at a time that would become the end of the USSR. He only mentions modern Russia a few times, mostly in footnotes. The biggest tell is his use of "the Ukraine" as a term, but he won't be faulted for that.