Take a photo of a barcode or cover
pepperthephoenix's Reviews (821)
Inside Central Asia by Dilip Hiro. Published in 2009 by Overlook Duckworth
This book is a great overview of Central Asia from the rise of the Soviet Union to 2009. This book discusses Turkey, the Central Asian states, and Iran. It picks up where Rashid’s book left off. While Rashid focused mostly on Central Asia immediately after the Soviet Union disintegrated, Dilip focuses on how the countries tried to rebuild themselves after the fall of the wall.
Hiro organizes his book based on country influence. He starts the book with Turkey, discussing how it went from a secular republic to an increasingly Islamic republic, traveling through the Central Asian states, and ending with Iran, creating a bookend of influences in Central Asia. This is an interesting way to weave a story together, creating an insightful examination of how the ancient Turkic and Persian influences continue to affect Central Asian culture and politics. It also paints an interesting picture of how interconnected the region still is, despite the Soviet’s attempts to shatter the tribal relationships.
That was the most interesting aspect of the book was how much survived the terror that was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union tried to destroy tribal relations by creating states (taking territories from other tribes to encourage rivalries) by replacing it with the communistic version of tribalism. Yet, this didn’t destroy the tribal system, it just forced it underground. Additionally, the Soviet Union claimed that they destroyed Islam in Central Asia, but again, they only forced it to the underground, laying the foundation for the Islamic Extremism that would be seen in the 21st century.
Reading this book and Rashid’s book, makes me realize how much the U.S. failed after the fall of the Soviet Union. A lot of the extremism that the U.S. deals with today comes from Central Asia. While the U.S. made a lot of mistakes, they seemed to have exasperated the problem left behind by the Soviet Union. The Cold War created an environment were the choice was between capitalistic democracy and communistic society. Many of the people in Central Asia turned to Islam as a third decision. Thus, the two countries made Islam a political tool that the U.S. will turn into a cause for war in the 21st century.
Pros:
A very insightful look into a region that is mostly ignored in the U.S. but is a vital region for the 21st century. The shape of the narrative also provides a keen understanding of how the region has been influenced over the years and how remnants of its past survived the Soviet Union. It also poses the question: can authoritarian regimes truly destroy culture and religion, or can it only force it to the underground?
Cons:
It assumes that the reader has some familiarity with the region’s history. Also, while it is a useful overview of the region, it isn’t an in-depth insight into the region. It barely discusses the human rights offenses that are being committed on a daily basis, it discusses women’s rights but only briefly, and it doesn’t discuss any culture or literary developments.
This book is a great overview of Central Asia from the rise of the Soviet Union to 2009. This book discusses Turkey, the Central Asian states, and Iran. It picks up where Rashid’s book left off. While Rashid focused mostly on Central Asia immediately after the Soviet Union disintegrated, Dilip focuses on how the countries tried to rebuild themselves after the fall of the wall.
Hiro organizes his book based on country influence. He starts the book with Turkey, discussing how it went from a secular republic to an increasingly Islamic republic, traveling through the Central Asian states, and ending with Iran, creating a bookend of influences in Central Asia. This is an interesting way to weave a story together, creating an insightful examination of how the ancient Turkic and Persian influences continue to affect Central Asian culture and politics. It also paints an interesting picture of how interconnected the region still is, despite the Soviet’s attempts to shatter the tribal relationships.
That was the most interesting aspect of the book was how much survived the terror that was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union tried to destroy tribal relations by creating states (taking territories from other tribes to encourage rivalries) by replacing it with the communistic version of tribalism. Yet, this didn’t destroy the tribal system, it just forced it underground. Additionally, the Soviet Union claimed that they destroyed Islam in Central Asia, but again, they only forced it to the underground, laying the foundation for the Islamic Extremism that would be seen in the 21st century.
Reading this book and Rashid’s book, makes me realize how much the U.S. failed after the fall of the Soviet Union. A lot of the extremism that the U.S. deals with today comes from Central Asia. While the U.S. made a lot of mistakes, they seemed to have exasperated the problem left behind by the Soviet Union. The Cold War created an environment were the choice was between capitalistic democracy and communistic society. Many of the people in Central Asia turned to Islam as a third decision. Thus, the two countries made Islam a political tool that the U.S. will turn into a cause for war in the 21st century.
Pros:
A very insightful look into a region that is mostly ignored in the U.S. but is a vital region for the 21st century. The shape of the narrative also provides a keen understanding of how the region has been influenced over the years and how remnants of its past survived the Soviet Union. It also poses the question: can authoritarian regimes truly destroy culture and religion, or can it only force it to the underground?
Cons:
It assumes that the reader has some familiarity with the region’s history. Also, while it is a useful overview of the region, it isn’t an in-depth insight into the region. It barely discusses the human rights offenses that are being committed on a daily basis, it discusses women’s rights but only briefly, and it doesn’t discuss any culture or literary developments.
The Empire of the Steppes: a History of Central Asia by Rene Groussett. Published in 1970 by Rutgers
I picked this book up two years ago because I had a vague interest in the steppes and Central Asia and I’m really glad I did. While it is an old book, originally published in 1939, it is surprisingly sympathetic to the various tribes and races discussed. There are some glaring word choices that reveal its age (like using orientalist unironically), but it didn’t impact the overall reading experience. It is an in depth and compelling overview of the steppes from early human history to the 18th century. The first two chapters of the book are hard to get through, especially for someone like me who didn’t know anything about the region before reading the book. I’d actually recommend skipping the first two chapters and start with Genghis Khan as that is when Groussett’s writing shines the brightest.
This book is considered to be a must read for anyone who is interested in Central Asia and I think that’s true for two reasons. One, it provides a great foundation for understanding Genghis Khan’s and Tamerlane’s empires. Two, it seems to be the origin of many stereotypes and misconceptions about the region, especially in its relationship to the West.
I like to read older books, because I like to see how the narrative of a region, a person, or a historical event has evolved. This book was very insightful, because a lot of modern narratives surrounding Central Asia, seem to have either originated with this book or became popular with this book.
There are three narratives that comes up often in this book which seem quaint:
• There was a battle between the Christian West and the Islamic East and the ‘good’ Mongols were those who either tolerated Christianity or were outright hostile to Islam
• Tribes can be understood through generic traits and they were uncivilized and barbaric and only became civilized through interactions with sedentary tribes
• Genghis Khan won because there is something inherently warriorlike about his tribes, not because of a utilization of technology or tactics
That being said, it is clear that Rene respects Genghis Khan and those chapters are the most exhilarating and interesting. It does a great job painting the extend of Genghis’ domain and the unstable nature of the region. I didn’t realize how many civilizations Genghis Khan’s forces either interacted with or conquered. It was also a fascinating look at Persian, Russian, Turkic, Eastern European, and Middle Eastern kingdoms and the development of those regions-regions that are never discussed in American history classes.
I also enjoyed the time Rene spent on discussing Batu and Subutai. I was vaguely aware of these two warriors because of Phob’s gorgeous look on Deviantart. I’d recommend checking them out. Rene provides a surprisingly insightful look at Batu’s achievements and his place within Genghis Khan’s kingdom. Again, I didn’t realize that Batu lead the Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe, getting all the way to Hungary nor did I realize how integral he was to deciding who would succeed Genghis after he died.
Rene is just as detailed when describing Tamerlane’s conquest, but it is obvious that he is not as impressed with Tamerlane as he was with Genghis Khan. I was also disappointed with how he handled Attila. Attila got a few pages and that was it.
Overall, this was an interesting book to read as long as one kept in mind the quaint theories that drive the core of the book.
Pros: It provides an in depth and fairly complimentary look at Genghis Khan’s and Tamerlane’s empires. The best part of the book are the chapters dealing with Genghis Khan’s conquests. I found it insightful and it gave me a great understanding of how the region has been shaped by nomadic tribes. In America, I don’t think we understand nomadic lifestyles nor did we give them enough credit in shaping world history. This book gave me the overview of life on the steppe that I was lacking.
Cons: It is an old book and so some of the word choices are quaint and the major theories that the book rests on are incorrect or stereotypical. Additionally, the first two chapters of the books are dense, a lot of it has proven incorrect, and hard to get through. I would recommend skipping to the chapters that discuss Genghis Khan as that is the heart of the book.
I picked this book up two years ago because I had a vague interest in the steppes and Central Asia and I’m really glad I did. While it is an old book, originally published in 1939, it is surprisingly sympathetic to the various tribes and races discussed. There are some glaring word choices that reveal its age (like using orientalist unironically), but it didn’t impact the overall reading experience. It is an in depth and compelling overview of the steppes from early human history to the 18th century. The first two chapters of the book are hard to get through, especially for someone like me who didn’t know anything about the region before reading the book. I’d actually recommend skipping the first two chapters and start with Genghis Khan as that is when Groussett’s writing shines the brightest.
This book is considered to be a must read for anyone who is interested in Central Asia and I think that’s true for two reasons. One, it provides a great foundation for understanding Genghis Khan’s and Tamerlane’s empires. Two, it seems to be the origin of many stereotypes and misconceptions about the region, especially in its relationship to the West.
I like to read older books, because I like to see how the narrative of a region, a person, or a historical event has evolved. This book was very insightful, because a lot of modern narratives surrounding Central Asia, seem to have either originated with this book or became popular with this book.
There are three narratives that comes up often in this book which seem quaint:
• There was a battle between the Christian West and the Islamic East and the ‘good’ Mongols were those who either tolerated Christianity or were outright hostile to Islam
• Tribes can be understood through generic traits and they were uncivilized and barbaric and only became civilized through interactions with sedentary tribes
• Genghis Khan won because there is something inherently warriorlike about his tribes, not because of a utilization of technology or tactics
That being said, it is clear that Rene respects Genghis Khan and those chapters are the most exhilarating and interesting. It does a great job painting the extend of Genghis’ domain and the unstable nature of the region. I didn’t realize how many civilizations Genghis Khan’s forces either interacted with or conquered. It was also a fascinating look at Persian, Russian, Turkic, Eastern European, and Middle Eastern kingdoms and the development of those regions-regions that are never discussed in American history classes.
I also enjoyed the time Rene spent on discussing Batu and Subutai. I was vaguely aware of these two warriors because of Phob’s gorgeous look on Deviantart. I’d recommend checking them out. Rene provides a surprisingly insightful look at Batu’s achievements and his place within Genghis Khan’s kingdom. Again, I didn’t realize that Batu lead the Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe, getting all the way to Hungary nor did I realize how integral he was to deciding who would succeed Genghis after he died.
Rene is just as detailed when describing Tamerlane’s conquest, but it is obvious that he is not as impressed with Tamerlane as he was with Genghis Khan. I was also disappointed with how he handled Attila. Attila got a few pages and that was it.
Overall, this was an interesting book to read as long as one kept in mind the quaint theories that drive the core of the book.
Pros: It provides an in depth and fairly complimentary look at Genghis Khan’s and Tamerlane’s empires. The best part of the book are the chapters dealing with Genghis Khan’s conquests. I found it insightful and it gave me a great understanding of how the region has been shaped by nomadic tribes. In America, I don’t think we understand nomadic lifestyles nor did we give them enough credit in shaping world history. This book gave me the overview of life on the steppe that I was lacking.
Cons: It is an old book and so some of the word choices are quaint and the major theories that the book rests on are incorrect or stereotypical. Additionally, the first two chapters of the books are dense, a lot of it has proven incorrect, and hard to get through. I would recommend skipping to the chapters that discuss Genghis Khan as that is the heart of the book.
