Author-comp. by M. K. Baskhanov, Moscow: Eastern Literature, 2005, 295 p., ill.

The reviewed publication should be considered one of the most significant works in modern Russian Oriental literature. The book includes about 400 biographical articles about Russian military Orientalists, which are compiled mainly on the basis of service records stored in the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA) in Moscow. These brief but very informative references contain surnames, first names, patronymics, years of life, data on social origin, education, information about military service, and brief descriptions of military and Oriental studies activities. The bibliographic sections given in the notes to the articles create a fairly complete source base of Russian military Oriental studies from the second half of the XVIII century to 1917.

page 197

In the preface to this handbook, it is rightly emphasized that military Oriental studies as a practical form of Russian orientalism had turned into an independent branch of knowledge about the East by 1917. Its development was primarily determined by the military-strategic and military-administrative needs of the Russian Empire, the need to develop the Caucasus, Turkestan, the Amur Region and Primorye, which were annexed to the Romanov monarchy in the XIX century. Russian military orientalists were often the first European researchers of remote little-known regions of Asia, and created their most valuable scientific descriptions (N. M. Przhevalsky, P. K. Kozlov, B. L. Grombchevsky, etc.).

The study of the educational qualification of officers and generals-orientalists makes it possible to come to the conclusion that by 1917, for the most part, they had a complete, completed secondary, and often higher military education. According to our calculations, 176 people (almost 47%) graduated from military academies (primarily the General Staff Academy), 118 people (more than 25%) received special training at the officer courses of Oriental languages at the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (St. Petersburg), at the Tashkent Officer School of Oriental Languages and at the officer department of the Eastern Institute (Vladivostok).

Observations on the dynamics of the military and scientific careers of this group of Russian Orientalists give a very interesting result. Most of them served exclusively in the Asian part of Russia, moving from one part of it to another, and only at the end of their lives did they return to Europe. Thus, General N. I. Grodekov served successively for 50 years in the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Amur region, and again in Central Asia, and only spent the last years of his life in St. Petersburg (pp. 67-68). General Ya. F. Barabash for 17 years of service in the Far East became the largest researcher of the Amur Region, Transbaikalia, Manchuria and Mongolia, then held responsible military and administrative posts in Central Asia for 18 years and spent only the last four years of his life in St. Petersburg (pp. 25-26).

Among the questions that arise when analyzing the materials of the reviewed dictionary, the topic of criteria for classifying certain specialists as military orientalists should be highlighted. According to the compiler, these were only officers who were (or for some time were) in military service. Meanwhile, out of the field of research, thus, were Orientalists-military officials who were on the staff of the Ministry of War, but wore not military, but so-called state ranks. Especially many such orientalist practitioners served in the Turkestan region, where they performed very valuable works on statistics, topography, military medicine, etc. Unfortunately, the dictionary does not include all military orientalists. Thus, the contribution to orientalism of the remarkable battle artist, reserve ensign V. V. Vereshchagin, the Consul General of Russia in Kashgar, retired staff captain N. F. Petrovsky, and a deep connoisseur of Bukhara, retired second lieutenant A. F. Gubarevich-Radobylsky, remained unnoticed.

Some of the references given in the dictionary are incomplete and contain inaccuracies: M. Alikhanov-Avarsky ended his life with the rank of Major General, not Colonel; A. A. Davletshin passed away not in 1918, but in 1920; A. O. Dugamel was not a major general at the end of his service, but a colonel. general of infantry, member of the State Council and senator; professional artilleryman A. P. Ermolov became in 1817 a general of artillery, not of infantry.

These comments do not reduce the overall, very positive impression of the dictionary of M. K. Baskhanov and can be corrected with its new, much-needed edition. The fundamental, painstakingly executed work of M. K. Baskhanov is undoubtedly an outstanding phenomenon in the circle of reference books on the history of Russia and not only has a purely informational value, but can also be considered as a new, highly first-class source for conducting special analytical research on the history of Russian Oriental studies. M. K. Baskhanov's dictionary is a valuable collection of materials, the analysis of which allows us to study more deeply and comprehensively the processes and phenomena characteristic of the development of Russian military orientalism.

Permanent link to this publication: