Towards the beginning Pop explains that Rome conquered Dacia (ancient Romania) for the same reasons it conquered other states, because it was “culturally superior.” He deploys the classic argument of colonialism, that it was both inevitable and edifying. As a sort of fucked up framing device, he ends the book talking about how, post-Ceaușescu, the Romanians are now clamoring for true democracy and Western ideals.

Startlingly, aside from these uncritical appraisals of dominating, corrosive cultures, Pop provides a nuanced (if very, very distilled) account of Romanian history from pre-Rome all the way to the 1990s. As long as you are okay with taking Pop’s word for everything, because he cites no sources in text, then you’ll get a general idea of the ebb and flow of empires and alliances in Europe and the Middle East and how Romania was impacted. Helpful maps for each section show the status of the Romanian boundaries around each major historical turning point, mostly in the form of updates on Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia, the three nations which would later (mostly) become Romania.

Romanians and Romania also shows how precarious the situation has been and continues to be in Eastern Europe, and in Romania especially. With Russia and the U.S. both constantly trying to close the empire gap, Romania is among a handful of countries that are particularly at risk because it has a precedent of being taken over so much, the same precedent that superpowers take advantage of (though do not need) to justify modern-day “annexation.”

As a bonus, I learned more about how huge and durable the Ottoman Empire was from Pop than I ever have from other sources. The West really out here wanting to forget that the Muslim world is as ancient, powerful, and precise as the christian empires. Don’t get me wrong, religion is religion and it is always a nightmare; this particular elision is still racist.

If you’re like me and your goal is to fill in broad sociopolitical gaps, then this book is great. Like every history book, it should be read carefully and critically. It lacked the veneer of “objectivity” but really is no different from any other history book in its levels of bias.