The Icon and the Ax by James Billington

The Icon and the Axe : An Interpretive History of Russian Culture

 
The Icon and the Ax is subtitled an "interpretive history" of Russia.  It tells the story of Russia from its origins as the Kievian Rus through the 1960s Soviet Union when the book was written.  The author, James Billington, loves Russia and this comes through clearly when he laments the Soviet destruction of Russian culture. During early Russian history the focus of the story is on leaders and historical events.  As the narrative draws closer to the present the emphasis shifts to philosophy, thought and the arts in Russia. If you are interested in Russia and willing to invest some effort, I strongly recommend reading this book. 

Depending on your previous knowledge you will gain different insights from this book.  If you already about the history of the arts (writing, plays, music, painting...) and philosophy in Europe, you will come to understand how Russian thought compares, draws, and influenced European thought.  If you already know the facts and events in Russian history, you gain a better understanding of why these events happened and how they affected the Russian psyche.  If you start without much knowledge of their of these topics (my case), you will learn the plot of Russian history and gain insights into how Russians think.  Unfortunately, if you do not already have a lot of background information, the book will take some effort to follow.  There are allusions to and discussion  many different thinkers, politicians, czars, books, plays, paintings and historical events.  It can be difficult to keep them all straight at times. 

The Icon and the Ax and is long and densely written.  Each chapter is about 40 pages and I read at a pace of one chapter per weekend.  It was limited by the amount of mental energy it took to read and digest the information in each chapter.  Reading at this pace it will take a long time to finish this book, so I recommend taking some notes after each chapter.  This will help you retain the information and you can refer back to these notes while reading future chapters.  Reading this book is a worthwhile--but not easy--mental endeavor.

While many threads ran through this book, in this review I will only discuss a few of the ones I found especially interesting.

• When you read at all about Russia, you are guaranteed to hear about the intellectual battle over whether to follow Europe or Asia and how Russia is part European and part Asian.  I was always a little confused by this because the Russians (to my knowledge) have never interacted extensively with the Japanese, Chinese or Indians (the centers of the East) and are not Buddhists. 
  
  I got a better understanding of this struggle from this book.  The Mongol (Tartar) invasion which overthrew the Kievan Rus had a large influence on the development of Russia.  The Tartars remain in Russia to this day and the effects of their invasion linger.  The Russian have at times both hated the Tartars and viewed them as national heroes. 
  
  There are also the "Old Believers" who wanted to follow the traditional Orthodox Christian beliefs and Russian ways and fled from Peter the Great into Siberia.  The Old Believers and their thoughts have been present ever since.  Their "Eastern" ideals battled with Peter's "Western" secular goals. 
  
  Various philosophical ideas from Western Europe have flowed into Russia and been met with resistance.  They have been seen both as corrupting Russia and destroying its morals at the same time as being a path to wealth and greatness. 

• Russian leaders have often tried to import the successes of Western Europe without following the reforms that Western Europe underwent to attain these successes.  This led to numerous problems because the Western successes were a byproduct of political reforms and decreasing government power not random occurrences. 
  
  A cyclical pattern ensued.  A Czar would bring in intellectuals from the West, start printing presses, and grow the universities in the hopes of growing industry and developing a Russia as a cultural leader.  Intellectual discourse would ensue, but eventually the intellectuals would question the Czar.  Why should he/she be an absolute ruler?  What gave him the right to rule the country at his whim? 
  
  Academic discussion of this matter was not what the Czar had envisioned.  It was upsetting to a monarch whose power had not had his power checked like those of the Western monarchs.  If left unchecked, discussion of this topic probably would have spelled an end to the Czars.  The Czars seeing this problem would crack down on the intellectuals and roll back the freedoms. 
  
  On the surface the "openings" were major changes, but most of the change was shallow and in the end a facade.  

• Russian thought is very dark.  My first experience of it was reading Crime and Punishment my senior year in high school.  Until recently I hadn't thought of this as being typical Russian literature, but it appears to be typically Russian. 
  
  Over the course of history many Russian intellectuals have committed suicide or gone insane.  Hamlet is one of the most popular plays in Russia.  Morbid thoughts probably stem from Russian suffering and failed political reforms.  At low points in Russian history so many men were being killed that the sex ratio reached 20 to 1 in parts of Russia. 
  
  Unsurprisingly Russians are drawn to theories where their suffering leads to some greater good or redemption for the world.  They like unifying theories of history which bring meaning to their suffering and a direction for the future.  

• I had not realized the disillusionment and consequent apathy Russians felt at the time of the writing of this book (the 1960s).  The Russians lost a war to Japan and the First World War at the beginning of the 20th century.  Both wars involved massive losses of life.  The Russians then endured Stalin:  his purges and destruction killed millions.  When things could not get any worse, the Second World War came.  Although the Russians won World War II, they were nearly drowned in their own blood.  When Russia emerged from World War II, Stalin remained at its helm and his killing continued. 
  
  Billington talks about how the Communist leadership was upset [at the time of the book's writing] by the apathy of the youth.  The young generation was not weeded by war and had access to more education than their parents, yet they would not buy into the plan the communist party had for them.  How can you blame someone who has seen their father, grandfather, and probably great grand father killed by the government for not expecting to live a life worth investing in?  How can you blame someone whose grandparents fought for a revolution which turned into a bloodbath for not working for great societal changes? 
  
  Every Russian you meet today had a family member killed in World War II.  In the 1960s these dead men and women were not ancestors but parents, siblings, and friends. 

White Devil by Steven Brumwell

White Devil: A True Story of War, Savagery And Vengeance in Colonial America

I finished reading White Devil by Stephen Brumsell a while ago, but it was very interesting so I read through my notes in order to review it. I have already made one post from this book about Robert Rogers getting scurvy on my primary blog. White Devil tells the story of Robert Roger's raid on St. Francis during the French and Indian War. Although the focus is on one particular battle, Brumwell tells the story within the context of the war as a whole.

While there are a vast number of lessons that can be drawn from this book, the interactions between and differences among the interacting cultures was the most interesting to me. In a way it hearkens back to a hierarchy of cultures I have proposed earlier. The groups discussed will be

1. French and English gentry and officers
2. Town dwellers in the new and old world
3. English farmers
4. French and English woodsmen
5. Native Americans
   

1. French and English gentry and officers

English and French officers and political leaders were at the top of the social ladder. In general they held everyone else in disdain and demanded unquestioning submission from military subordinates. Penalties in the British army were severe; I do not know about the French army. This led the officers to try and replace the independent frontiersmen with more controllable regulars as scouts and skirmishers. Today these officers are are stereotyped as being stupid and having bad tactics (see the movie The Last of the Mohicans as an example). This was sometimes the case as with Thomas Gage who did not perform well during either the French and Indian War or the American Revolution, but he was an exception not the rule. A few examples of skilled leaders who died leading their men are Wolfe, de Montcalm, and Howe. These men were not familiar with the American wilderness having grown up in Europe, but this lack of experience does not mean the lacked in intellect. In any case, it is undisputed that this caste controlled the grand strategy and strategic levels of the war.

1. Town dwellers in the New and Old World

These men formed the backbone of the armies. They were not the best fighters in world history, but modern opinion does not give them enough credit. These people did not live out on the frontier and most of them had spent their entire lives living in urban areas. They were not a warrior caste raised from the cradle to handle a gun and they were not skilled woodsmen; however, they went into battle with arguably the most hardened tribal warriors in the world and the best light infantrymen of all time. American soldiers face similar tribal warriors in Afghanistan today, but the modern Americans have a vast technological superiority. The English line troops had only muskets and so were on a technological parity with their opponents. These men fought realizing that they would most likely be tortured to death if captured. I do not think many from this group served in the ranger units, but their bravery cannot be questioned.

3. British farmers

I don't think Brumwell really distinguishes between the farmers and city dwellers in his book, but I think there is a difference. This category of men were farmers from America or recently conquered highlanders from Scotland. These men had a more martial spirit and were physically stronger than the city folk, but they did not have experience in the back woods. As the British began to field regular light infantry units in hopes of replacing the rangers, this category of men volunteered to fill the ranks. They learned their skills from Robert Rogers and went out on long ranging trips away from the safety of the army. Many of these men met their deaths during these excursions, but the fact that they reached the point of being able to battle the natives on close to equal terms is a wonder in itself. The Highlanders were brought to the colonies by the English for two reasons: first, to kill them off so they would not rebel again and second, because they were a tribal people they might be better able to deal with the natives. This did not turn out to be the case because the highlands were not a dense forest; the Scots were no good in the woods (without training).

French and English woodsmen

These men grew up on the frontier. They were in many ways as the same as the Native Americans, but there were some differences. First, I don't think they ever attained parity in wilderness fighting with the natives. The English at least did not have the cultural background of the Natives and came down with scurvy, a nutritional disease the Indians knew how to avoid. The English officers hated their rangers because of they were rebellious, but knew the officers could not do without them. Like the Indians, there were not many of these frontiersmen. It was impossible to replace casualties and my guess is that most of this class was just about exterminated during the war. The French were friendly with the Native Americans and traded with them as opposed to the British frontiersmen who were their enemies and usually trying to take their land. Consequently, the French woodsmen often went out to fight as one war party with the Natives.

Native Americans

The Native Americans drew upon a much smaller population base than England and France. They were impressed by the bravery of the European soldiers who made frontal assaults while taking lots of casualties, but the Indians would not risk their lives in this manner themselves. Each native death was a tragedy for the small Indian populations, so they quickly broke from contact whenever they were on the losing side of a fight. Even in such British victories as the Battle of Bushy Run, the British suffered more casualties than the Indians. One thing that the Indians could not do was empathize with their white opponents. They depopulated the Colonial countryside killing women and children without remorse, yet they are angry to this day that the English soldiers attacked their women and children at St. Francis. What was an weekly occurrence (having houses torched and families slaughtered) for the Colonists, was a once in a war happening for the Indians. The natives also tortured their captives to death frequently, so our modern image of the noble savage is not entirely true. Their fighting and wilderness skills were second to none. They often defeated vastly superior numbers of European soldiers and the main reason the raid on St. Francis was successful was that most of the Native warriors were gone. The native warriors of the Eastern North America may have been the best light infantry warriors in the history of the world.

From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia

From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia

Yale Richmond organized cultural exchange programs between the Soviet Bloc and the US during the cold war. He wrote this book to help Americans understand and do business in Russia. He has also written From Da to Yes to help Americans understand Eastern Europeans. Two additional books of his which I have not read are Understanding the Americans: A Handbook for Visitors to the United States helping people to understand the US and Into Africa: Intercultural Insights helping people understand Africans. From Nyet to Da was the first book of Richmond's that I read and it helped me understand my interactions with Russians.

To begin with one must understand the history of Russia. Russia sees itself as the third Rome; the first was in Italy, the second in Constantinople, and the third in Moscow. The word Czar means Caesar in Russian. Similar to Constantinople/Istanbul the third Rome sees itself as a bridge between the East and the West. The Mongols conquered and ruled Russia for some time (their descendants are the Tartars) giving Russians experience with Asiatic peoples. Russia also borders China and reaches all the way to Alaska which was formerly a part of Russia. Russia has been cut off from the West at times which made it miss the Renaissance. Since Russia lags generally lags behind Western Europe in terms of standard of living and technology it views its Western neighbors with a mixture of envy and contempt.

One helpful way to understand Russia (for me) is to compare and contrast it with the United States. I think in many ways the US is moving towards becoming a "Russia." Russians themselves see the US as a kindred country, so the approach should be mutually agreeable.

• Both countries are large and have dominated world relations for most of the 20th century. Russia has the largest landmass of any country in the world. The US does not have as large of an official territory, but its military empire spans the globe with bases in over 130 countries.
  
• Both countries have a strong German connection and have a love and hate relationship with Germany. Germans are the predominant ethnic group in the US and many American schools were taught in German until the First World War. Many Russians of German ancestry serve in the Russian bureaucracy; because of their efficiency, they help the (disorderly) Russians in their pursuit for order. Both Russia and the US battled Germany during both World Wars and had warm feelings for Germany between the world wars. In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg describes how America intellectuals fell in love with Hitler. Germany and the Soviet Union formed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at the beginning of the Second World War. Today Germany companies are the best at dealing with Russian bureaucracy.
  
• The American personality is tends towards individualism while the Russian personality tends toward collectivism. Americans look back on the their history and see a rugged pioneer hacking his way through the wilderness with his family. Russians look back and see the Mir an agricultural collective (almost as communism on a small scale) which allowed its inhabitants to survive the harsh Russian winters. I believe both nations are moving closer together in this regard. America is leaving its capitalistic roots while Russia has dissolved the Soviet Union. Both countries are moving towards the fascistic corporatism where large corporations run the country and operate on a system of public losses and private profits.
  
• Order is a related to individuality. Russians love order but tend to be a very disorderly people. Americans love individualism but end up complaining about how much conformism exists within the United States.
• Countries are usually referred to as a mother or a father. Germany is an obvious fatherland while Russia is a Mother country. The US is a neuter country at the present time; this is because it is moving from its German origins to becoming more of a matriarchal state. In 100 years America will no longer be the "home" land but the "mother" land.
  
• Russians are a very warm and emotional people. It takes a little while to get to know them, but once you do, they are great friends. Americans are a little big different. We are very easy to get to know but we never let our guard down all the way. I wonder if this is related to the different ways thoughts are policed in the USSA and the USSR. In the USSR if you complained about the government, you could get into big trouble. Consequently Russians needed to be careful in case the person they were speaking to was one of the (many) informants. In the US(S)A, we have political correctness. No one cares what you really think, but you can get into big trouble if you make an offensive joke or comment. We will speak with you but never tell you what we really think. Russians are coconuts: hard on the outside, soft on the inside. Americans are peaches: soft on the outside, hard on the inside.
  
• Americans tend to be more flexible and make compromises easily. They try to get a job done quickly and inexpensively. Russians follow instructions strictly so they can be inflexible. They want to get the job done and get the best deal possible.
  
• Russians do not equate time and money. For an American time equals money although many Americans decry this outlook. As an American I have to plan out my visits to Russians carefully. I think of my day in terms of spending a half hour on this and forty-five minutes on that. When I stop by to see a Russian friend, I will end up sitting, talking, and eating until late into the night.
  
• Alcohol is an important societal issue in both Russia and America. The traditional Russian drink is Vodka and apparently Russians drink a lot of it. A couple of Russians I have met thought this was an incorrect or old stereotype, but most have agreed with it. Russians seem to be open about and enjoy alcohol. Americans have a schizophrenic relationship with alcohol. During the 1920s alcohol was banned entirely. Many Americans feel alcohol is bad, but Americans still drink, mostly binge drinking. Americans are repressed and guilty about alcohol.
  

From Da to Yes: Understanding the Eastern Europeans

From Da to Yes (Interact)

Yale Richmond worked organizing cultural exchanges for the United States during the Cold War. He gained a lot of experience dealing with countries which were behind the Iron Curtain and in this book he shares his understanding of each country. I have written a summary of this book on my other blog.

• Overview
  
• Balts
  
• East Slavs
• Non-Slavs
  
• South Slavs
• West Slavs
  

Cultural Books

• From Da to Yes: Understanding the East Europeans by Yale Richmond
• From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia
• The Icon and the Ax:  An Interpretive History of Russian Culture by James Billington