"Ivan the Terrible: A Military History-Alexander Filjushkin " Topic

I've just finished reading it. It provides an interesting and fairly detailed look at the Russian military system in Ivan's regin as well as accounts of his campaigns against the Tartars, Ottomans, Poles&Lithuanians, Swedes and the Livonian order.

However ther works had a number of flaws. The author has had limited access to non-Russian sources which shows in numerous places. The description of the Swedish army is poor and filled with errors while the description of th eforces of Livonian order was even worse.

The Russo-Swedish war of 1554-1557 is blamed on Swedish "expansionism", a claim not supported by any Swedish soruces. Gustav I is in fact on record as being very much against any offensive war with Russia as it would demand resources Sweden did not have. Furthermore just prior to the war the Swedish army in Finland numbered barely 900 regulars compared to the 11500 regulars in Sweden. Hardly a deployment for an expansionist war in the east. Checking the Swedish sources would have prevent that rather significant error.

There are also some odd gaps in the campaign descriptions when the author is covering the Baltic war. After an intial description of the Russian attack on Reval in 1570 the author almost entirely seems to forget about the Russo-Swedish warfare in Estonia. The next time the Swedes appear is in 1578 despite the fact that there was extensive campaigns launched by both sides in the 1571-1577 period.
(Battle of Lode 1573, Siege of Wesenberg 1574, the siege of Reval 1577)

There is some chauvinism as well.
Russian atrocities in Livonia are regarded as either propaganda or in effect blamed on the Livonians since they resisted rather than submited to the Tsar.

When describing the battle of Wenden 1578 the authors breakes down the Swedish_polish force into it's separate parts in order to give the apperance of a huge force. In reality the troops number only some 4000-4500 men. Hardly the mass of troops suggest in the book.

The long period of warfare in the Baltic is somewhat artificially divided into a number of "Wars" in order to proclaim Ivan & Russia the winner in some of them.

The fact that Russian lost nothing of importance by way of territory is used as proof that Ivan did not realy lose the wars. The fact that he expended huge resources with no gains to show for it in Livonia or or Estonia is ignored.

Despite it's flaws I do think that the book is worth buying. It provides an insight into the Russian military system I have not seen in English before and provides the Russian viewpoint of the Baltic wars. Biased but usefull.

From Pen & Sword,

Alexander Filjushkin is the author of five books, published in Russia in 1998-2007. His articles have been published in Russia, USA, Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Greece. He is a member of 'Composite Author of the German Encyclopaedic History of Baltic Lands', and the Program of studies of Polish and Russian Historical Memory (in cooperation between St. Petersburg University and Wroclaw University).

Alexander has worked hard for an insight of the epoch of Ivan the Terrible, bloody tyrant, in libraries and archives of Russia, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine etc. He has discovered many new documents about Ivan the Terrible and his military policy and visited the battlefields of main fighting's personally.

Today Alexander Filjushkin is working in St. Petersburg state university. He is a Head of the Department of Slavic and Balkan Studies of the Historical Faculty. Ivan the Terrible is his first publication to be released in the United Kingdom.

I've ordered mine.

Rich

The work is focused on the Russians, Russian forces get 40 pages. The opposing forces only 15. The description of the Tatars is short as with the other armies, don't know the subject so i can't say that it is good or bad. It seems to be ok. No decent English sources for the Swedes or Livonians of this period I'm afraid.

I have not read the Osprey so I can't really compare the two. From what I've heard about the Osprey this book seems to be more evenhanded. To be honest is is hard to tell how much of the bias is the authors and how much is bias found in his sources.

No osprey style plates, the illustratiosn are mostly period artwork and modern day photos of items & fortifications.

This is essentially an academic work writen in a popular style. The mere sie of the book insures that it provides more information on the subject than any osprey. However it's focus is diffrent, there is more on large scale warfare, diplomacy and politics and less on uniforms, arms & equipment.

I do find some parts annoying but that is because I have access to the extensive sources on some parts of the subject. But I don't regrett buying it at all.

I do not see much info on this guy on Russian book sites- in US or Russia… Only available book by him- in Russian- is on Andrei Kurbski. I am not sure he that well known in Russia…

Its in no way comparable to Osprey. Osprey is usually lavish on illustrations and rather shortish on content, while I agree with Daniel in his estimation that it is "essentially an academic work writen in a popular style"

If you want to know what happened (with a focus on Ivan and the Russian viewpoint) it looks like a reference work for the future. If you want to know how they looked like, its not for you. Illustrations are mainly contemporary prints and maps.

Alexander Filjushkin, according to the book, is head of the department of slavonic and balkan history at the St Petersburg university. Until now he has only published in Russian and thus for Russian readers. I assume his bias is not worse then that of many western authors, if from another angle.