Being interested in the historical expansion of Russia across Asia, I had high hopes for this book, since it was produced by the same publisher that gave us the excellent historical atlases of Europe and North America. However, unlike Colin McEvedy's invaluable works, I think this book was unfocused, convoluted and sloppy.
Where McEvedy's works were the epitome of conciseness, and could cover a half century's worth of continental-wide geopolitical change in a single page, this purported historical_atlas_of Russian history is crammed full of photos, cartoons, paintings and page after page of unnecessary text. Rejecting the brilliant simplicity of McEvedy's books, whose method was to generally show a snapshot of the political map in a single year, with accompanying text explaining the changes since the previous map, this book often shows hundreds of years worth of overlapping border changes on a single map, with different colored arrows- representing military campaigns- snaking their way through the resulting mishmash. The effect is often utter confusion.
Certain important subjects are given short shrift while comparatively insignificant areas receive inordinate attention. Russian expansion into Asia is dealt with by a single very, very bad map, and while the maps dealing with the expansion into the Caucuses and "the Stans" are ok, the explanatory text is unsatisfactorily cursory. Conversely, we are given much information on the location of various factories and industries within Russia, as well as maps of Moscow and the Sevastopol battlefield. The layout of the book is chronologically deranged as well. Can anyone explain to me why you would have a map of 1930s Europe, then have an entire chapter dealing with the history of the 20th century USSR until its dissolution, and_then_throw in a mere 2 maps on WWII? Similarly, why would you have a page with a map on the breakup of the USSR, and_then_finish the book with a chapter on Khrushchev's agricultural policies?? It just doesn't make sense.
You can learn from this book. It has some good maps and some good information. However, "some" is he operative word. Too much dross and too little editing spoiled what could have been a very useful work.
