Biographical essays on "second-tier" historical figures are rare in Russian historiography. Historians typically focus on prominent historical figures—grand princes, sovereigns, and those in their inner circle, who "tightly surrounded" the throne and determined the state's foreign and domestic policies. The figure of the Uglich prince Andrei Vasilyevich Bolshoi, the younger brother of Ivan III, is precisely that kind of secondary figure in Russian history, rarely the subject of close study by historians. S. Yu. Shokarev corrects this error and, in his biography of the Uglich prince, recreates his portrait against the backdrop of the historical events of the second half of the 15th century, a time when the early modern Russian state was emerging. Of particular interest in this work are the author's reflections on the problem of Russia's alternative historical paths. Contrasting the idea of centralization/overcentralization of the Russian state with the concept of a "feudal confederation," S. Yu. Shokarev proceeds from the premise that the choice made at that time proved suboptimal for both the state and society. At the same time, he believes that, under the prevailing conditions of that time, there was no other choice but to create a strong, autocratic, centralized state. The reviewer, while noting the merits of the work, disagrees with this formulation of the problem. He proceeds from the premise that the early modern state, due to its institutional weaknesses, caused by the underdevelopment of its power infrastructure, could not be truly centralized, neither autocratic, nor strong. It possessed full external and, especially, internal sovereignty. The alternatives proposed by historians such as S. Yu. Shokarev, in the reviewer's opinion, are impossible due to their detachment from historical reality. This is the book's main weakness and shortcoming.
Biographical essays on "second-tier" historical figures are rare in Russian historiography. Historians typically focus on prominent historical figures—grand princes, sovereigns, and those in their inner circle, who "tightly surrounded" the throne and determined the state's foreign and domestic policies. The figure of the Uglich prince Andrei Vasilyevich Bolshoi, the younger brother of Ivan III, is precisely that kind of secondary figure in Russian history, rarely the subject of close study by historians. S. Yu. Shokarev corrects this error and, in his biography of the Uglich prince, recreates his portrait against the backdrop of the historical events of the second half of the 15th century, a time when the early modern Russian state was emerging. Of particular interest in this work are the author's reflections on the problem of Russia's alternative historical paths. Contrasting the idea of centralization/overcentralization of the Russian state with the concept of a "feudal confederation," S. Yu. Shokarev proceeds from the premise that the choice made at that time proved suboptimal for both the state and society. At the same time, he believes that, under the prevailing conditions of that time, there was no other choice but to create a strong, autocratic, centralized state. The reviewer, while noting the merits of the work, disagrees with this formulation of the problem. He proceeds from the premise that the early modern state, due to its institutional weaknesses, caused by the underdevelopment of its power infrastructure, could not be truly centralized, neither autocratic, nor strong. It possessed full external and, especially, internal sovereignty. The alternatives proposed by historians such as S. Yu. Shokarev, in the reviewer's opinion, are impossible due to their detachment from historical reality. This is the book's main weakness and shortcoming.