The first half of the book, going from ancient times until the Russian occupation at the start of the nineteenth century, is a real rough read, and the reason I took so long to finish the book. Rayfield, easily one of the foremost English historians on Georgia, effectively just lists off kings and battles. It seriously at times simply goes "this king began his reign this year, and married this wife, had these children, and fought these battles. He died this year, and then this king came along." For nearly 200 pages it goes on like that, real dry reading, the type of thing you'd expect from early medieval chronicles or something of the sort.

However this is partially redeemed in the second half. The writing definitely improves, and there is more to it than listing off rulers, though that still plays a prominent part until the (temporary) end of Russian rule (1918-21). This section provided a lot of information and details, though he is somewhat critical of the Georgians as a whole at times, suggesting that because Mein Kampf and The Prince are best sellers in 2010 or so means they lack political sophistication. To try and paint an entire country of 4 million like that is near impossible to do, and not something that should have been included.

The book also lacks on the sourcing, and maps. Now, granted I can understand if the publishers wanted to limit the endnotes/bibliography, but its quite pitiful, there only being a handful of sources listed, and few endnotes to consult. As for the maps, they were real small and hard to properly consult, which was a shame considering the volatile nature of the region throughout history. Better maps would definitely help people trying to read the book to try to understand where things were happening, and not have cities/landmarks printed in microscopic type. ( )