Peter the Reformer

[alexander]

One of my history papers dealt with the reforms the czar Peter The Great imposed on the Russian people, sharing is everything, so here you go :)

 

Peter Alexeyevich Romanov, was the last son from the second marriage of Alexei Mihailovich Romanov, born in Moscow. When his father died in 1676, young Peter was only 4 years old, his oldest brother Fyodor the third became the successor to the throne for the 6 years to follow. Fyodor did not leave any children, as he died, the fight for the throne between the Miloslawski and Narishkin families broke out only to be settled by the the council of Boyar Duma, which selected, then a 10 year old Peter, to take the throne of the Russian Empire as it proclaimed Peter, Czar, with his mother as a regent. Alexei's daughter, Sophia started a rebellion (of the Streltsy), as a result of much bloodshed, many of Peter's relatives were killed, this was to shape Peter's character for the rest of his life, as well as leaving a traumatic mark in his past.

Sophia ruled as an autocrat in Peter's name for about 7 years, young Peter however did not mind such happening as it gave him time to spend in the German sloboda; a section of Moscow where foreigners could reside, engaged in mock ship battles with his own built ships as well as sailing along the Moscow river. In 1689 Peter overthrew his half-sister, forcing her to reject her position and royal name, and and gave the throne to his mother, Natalya Narishkina, and only after her death in 1694 Peter finally becomes the ruler, and yet not the only czar, as his brother Ivan was still alive, but was incapable of ruling, he however died in 1696, so Peter was left as not only the ruler, but also the czar of the Russian Empire.

Peter knew that he wanted to change Russia; from very early on he saw the advantages of European systems over Russian, heavily influenced by seamen and traders from different European countries, Peter wanted more then anything to reform the Russian army, but with no plans of any kind, and facing many oppositions, he brutally repressed every uprising due to his earlier experiences in life, everyone involved got punished. Peter was beginning to regain czar power and thus further promoting and improving Russian autocracy.

Peter many times traveled outside of Russia and all throughout Europe, he was especially interested in improving the Russian navy. By 1697 Peter sent out many young Russian nobles to study nautical matters in the main ship-building countries in Europe in hopes of bringing back specialists capable of designing and building ships that would rival that of any other navy in the world, as well as teaching them European manners and traditions. To further extend his Europeanization, he changed the calendar from the traditional Russian calendar which began on September 1st and the year enumeration began from the approximated beginning of the world, in favor of the Julian calendar that was used in Europe and starts on January 1st and counts years after the birth of Christ, at the same time as the world was moving to Georgian calendar which is set 13 days forward from the Julian.

After making peace with the Ottoman empire, Peter turns his abrupt attention to the posed problem of finding new trade routes with Europe, Peter needed a so called window to Europe, and he could not find a better spot then the delta of the Neva river, which resided in the newly acquired territory from the Fins. The position of the fort which peter named after St Peter and Paul, was a strategic move, just up the river, near a curve on an island (Hare island), just where the 2 parts of the Neva river that contact the Gulf of Finland come together. To further his Europeanization of Russia, Peter contacts a few architects to propose a plan to build a European city in Russia, eventually Peter settles for a plan proposed by Domenico Trezzini, designed like Venice with broad streets and wide open spaces, combined with the elegance of huge buildings, cathedrals and palaces, as well as an Admiralty, which is to become one of the first Russian naval academies, Peter was building a capital.

The gulf is also a great place to start building ships, surrounded by rich marshlands, there is plenty of wood available for a large scale ship building operation. Peter then furthers his attempt to enlarge his army, by instituting a sort of draft; he passes a law that requires any settlement of over 20 households to send one draftee to the army per 20 households in the settlement. Peter needed further funding for his large scale projects such as St. Petersburg, so he went off to modify Russian tax structure to a per capita system, where taxes were collected per head. The power of the Russian army grew ever stronger, crushing Swedes at Poltava on June 27, 1709, Peter continued driving Swedes back in Ukraine, and later in 1714, Peter captures Livonia (northern part of modern Latvia), Ingria, Estonia, and Russians were already occupying most of Finland, thanks to Peter's now powerful navy, he was able to crush Swedes in the sea, as well as on land. The Northern war was ended at the treaty of Nystad, that made Russia give back most of occupied Finland, except for some parts surrounding the newly proclaimed, in 1712, capital of Russia, Saint Petersburg. On October 22, 1721, Peter was proclaimed and recognized as the Emperor of All Russia, title that finally gave Peter the power of an Absolute Monarch, signifying success of Peter's stride to yet again regain power over all Russian people.

Peter ruled mercilessly, but to explain more about his personality, I should mention Peter's tremendous strength, he was able to roll up metal plates, which he commonly demonstrated at parties he had at the Petergof Palace, he commonly used the nobility to his amusement, after drunken parties in Petergof, he would make them ride semi-domesticated horses with no saddles or stirrups for his own amusement. The Czar also liked to entertain himself with curing soar teeth by pulling them, in fact the bag of teeth he pulled from the nobles and serfs alike is still showcased in the Kunstcamera museum in St. Petersburg.

Peter's reforms did not only touch his power and army, he declined to nominate the new Patriarch of Moscow in 1700, it was not a favorable solution for the church, so after much disputes, and Peter felt that the church took power away from him, so in 1721, following the advise of Fiofan Prokopovich he created the Holy Synod, a selection of ten clergymen who formed a council that was to replace the position of the Patriarch and Coadjutor, who is a Patriarch's deputy. Following his Church reforms, Peter decided to create the order of precedence, that would decide the rank of a person by merit and service to the Emperor, at the same time depriving Boyars of much of their power, this system remained in place until 1918, when monarchy was overthrown by the Bolshevik revolution.

So where, if at all did Peter fail in his reform in Russia. Well, it is hard to decide, as there was no defined plan to begin with, there was just a dream, and to as much as we know, Peter fulfilled most of his goals, not to the extent he might have wanted, but certainly a big push in that direction. His real failure can be summed up in the explanation of the building the capital city.

Peter spent massive efforts on building his city, that was based on the swamp, a city based on small islands at the mouth of the Neva river, his fortress required massive amounts of wooden poles to be driven into the ground to support a massive fortress, with 30-36 foot high and up to 60 feet thick walls with some outer wall sections made of granite. In about 1713 Peter decided that the city was going to build three churches, exchange centers, shops, colleges as well as private houses, that every noble man had to build, depending on his wealth. At one point in time, there was so much stone needed for the construction of the city that Peter disallowed the erection of any stone buildings in the rest of Russia, punishable by banishment. But then one day the czar decided that he would be better off by moving the trade and main settlement to Kronstadt, an island just into the Gulf of Finland, so again, every province had to erect giant stone buildings that nobody lived in and fell into ruins some years later. Then the city was engaged into building the Admiralty and the Summer Garden on the slightly higher ground so that they would be more protected from the flooding of the river, and yet again, nobility back to the city, new places to build homes, and once again, mandatory. In his last years, yet another idea came to Peter's mind, to make another Amsterdam, so all streets needed to be replaced by canals, and the city was moved to the Vasilyev Island, which was in its entirety given to his highnesses right hand, Menshikov. And that failed as nobody dug any real deep canals, so eventually they got polluted filled in with dirt. As Miliukov promptly notes “Peter dies, and the building that had started was abandoned. The houses fell into disrepair and served merely as the butt of jokes: in other countries time creates ruins, but in Russia we build them on purpose...”

That kind of outlines Peter's character in the reforms, there are many, much of them are of intrinsic nature, endless repetition of the destruction and recreation, an never-ending source of life, and inability to fail in his plans as there just aren't any. Acts of extreme wastefulness, both resource and mental are foreshadowed by their creativity and new ways of thinking, merely outline Peter's abilities as an excellent ruler, yet everything, the violence, the random movement, individuality, all had to be there to make this special kind of reform not seem a miracle. In overtaking the power from the Boyars, the members of ancient aristocracy, and suppressing any opposition, Peter, in 25 years reforms every prospect of life for the Russian people.

 

 

Bibliography:

 

 

A. G. Dickens (Ed.). The Courts of Europe : Politics, Patronage and Royalty 1400-1800. McGraw-Hill, 1977.

P. N. Miliukov, Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul’tury(Outlines of the History of Russian Culture) (Moscow, 1995)

L. A. Nikiforov, Encyclopedia Britannica 2002 edition.

R. Wilde, The Creation of St Petersburg

R. K. Massie, Peter the Great: His Life and World (Knopf, 1980)

[Freddy]

Did Peter force the Orthodox clergy to shave their beards, which caused much dissent? Was this when the controversy over the proper "sign of the Cross" with using two or three fingers erupted? I remember my Russian History professor saying that Russia could not make up its mind whether it was a predominantly European or Asian country. Peter moved Russia far to the west.

[alexander]

Peter didn't much care for the church, he was not a religious person and in fact he liked to make fun of the clergy. However Peter did not make priests or peasants to shave off their beards, infact to this day Russian priests wear long beards and it is still a custom for them to do so.

As to the sign of the cross, while i am not aware of the sign of the cross controversy, well i am, but it was not really as big as other reforms. To this day Russians use both two and three fingers to sign the cross. The split of the Russian religion happened in the middle of the XVII century, those who didn't agree with the reforms of patriarch Nikon. In 1653 beginning with the great fast Nikon, in an effort to more integrate Greek orthodox into the church to make it easier for pagans to switch, cancelled the use of two fingers in the sign and said that now three fingers are to be used for the task. Although that was somewhat controversial, and started a small movement, the separation really didn't happen till after 1654, when Nikon decided that all church texts were going to be changed to be fully similar to old Slavic and Greek books, and that would not have been bad, if the implementation did not happen using newly printed texts from Kiev and Greece. So the church split old beleivers are still called "староверы" [staroveri] and the new beleivers are called "нововеры" [novoveri]. Peter did however push for the new beleiver movement quite hard, he wanted people to change, as he wanted everyone to become more modern...

[Freddy]

Before Peter's reign, in the late 17th century Patriach Nikon made reforms to the Orthodox Church. This resulted in a schism with those rejecting the reforms being called the "Old Believers" and those who embraced the reforms becoming "New Believers". The OB kept the two finger sign of the cross, while the NB used the three finger method. According to my old Russian history professor this was a huge controversy. Nikon also changed the liturgy and the spelling of Jesus' name. I guess some people take their religion way to seriously.

 

Peter failed to allow the bishops to elect a new patriach when old one died in 1700. Peter appointed his trusted friend and bishop to head the church thus making himself head of the church.

 

Peter required nobles to shave their beards, although the Boyers could pay 100 rubles to keep their beard.

 

http://experts.about.com/e/o/ol/Old_Believers.htm

[alexander]

that is about what i said :)

not only that, peasants and people from outside russia could have beards too, but there was a tax to be paid to get into cities and people were appointed to collect it, referring to the "one kopek" tax. Also however the fact that peter did not allow for the election of a new patriarch is correct, and russia spent something like 20+ years without one, if if am not mistaken Peter was forced to allow for a new patriarch election.

Yes he was in the head of the church... But he was peter, basically if he wanted to do something he would get it done.

Also, I have never taken a course in Russian history in US :)

[Freddy]

The office of Patriach was abolished by Peter and replaced by a 10 member ruling council.

 

From Wikipedia:

"In 1700, following Patriarch Adrian's death, Peter the Great prevented a successor from being named, and in 1721, following the advice of Feofan Prokopovich, he established the Holy and Supreme Synod to govern the church instead of a single primate (cf. Caesaropapism). This was the situation until shortly after the Russian Revolution of 1917..."

[alexander]

yes, yes i recall, he built the building for synod in St Petersburg. He was being forced to elect a new partiarch, however he chose not to in favor of a governing body for church, the Synod...

 

Sounds about right now :hihi:

[nutronjon]

Why is this man called Great? What did he do for the people? It appears to me his ego prevented him from being a great ruler. I think one of the greatest problems the world faces today is a standard that considers men like this great.

 

Now if he had modernized mining and industry, and built the infrastructure of Russia, he could have manifested wealth, and set his country on the path that would have made it rival the US. He fell far short of a great leader.

[alexander]

First of all it is simply wrong to compare Russia to US, the two countries are so utterly different, it is simply wrong to do so!

 

There are many reasons the Peter is called Great, the biggest of which is that he was Peter I, and anyone who is the first is the Great by definition, look at tzar Alexander I or Alexander the Macedonian (also called Alexander the Great or alexander the first, though there was no second really), Charles the Great, etc, any ruler that is the "First" is also the "Great"

 

I have a pong question back at you, following your logic, we should also not call Ivan IV - "the Terrible", Maximillian I - "The Last Knight", Jesus - "God", nor you - "neutronjon".

 

The thing is that Peter was a great king, perhaps in some aspects not as good as Ivan IV, Napoleon, Stalin or Hitler, but in others surpassing them both, and it seems that you lack the knowledge of Russian history, necessary to understand why indeed he was a good king for Russia at the time. Oh wait i can already hear it coming "Hitler, blah, blah, Nazi, blah, death, Napoleon, blah, blah, killed, blah, conquered, Ivan IV, blah, son, blah, executed, blah" great rulers in all cases, case and point.

 

If mining is the only reason why you don't see peter as a good ruler, then you are very mistaken, my friend, but do make an argument... (oh um, move it to peter the great thread, i will post a reply there too)

[nutronjon]

I have been listening to a tape about Russian history, so that I might be better informed for this thread. For sure, I do not know enough about the people of Russia. Where do you suggest I get better information? It appears their culture lead them to be very cooperative people. Perhaps their environment caused this?

 

As I understand, they were invaded by Vikings and then Mongols, but I do not have enough information to understand the effect of these invasions, except they appear to have lead to tolerance of cruel rulers? The conditioning of their environment and cooperative nature, leaving them poorly prepared to fight off invaders who are cruel rulers? Please notice, it is not my intention to argue, but to question and explore.

 

I am glad you mentioned Hitler because I consider him a great leader, and struggle with this paradox of thinking of someone who is also a terrible leader as a great leader. Think deeply and you realize I am not arguing, but questioning our values when we call these men Great, and I conclude- as long as we think of these men as Great leaders, we will have leaders like Hitler and Bush, and McCain (?) and this means wars, and this is not a good thing. Can we have great leaders who are not also men of war? Is there something in our nature that makes us choose leaders who are apt to lead to us to war? McCain said he doesn't understand economic issues. Bush, boosted he doesn't think much before taking action, and he has proven this. Yet, both men have gotten a lot of support as war leaders. What does this say about us? Like in Russia the leader could kill all opposition, and they had mind boggling power over the people, but in the US we are following war leaders who are economically ignorant and have little understanding of the rest of the world! Why are we calling these men Great?

[alexander]

i have suspected that you were not arguing, and its all ok, i like discussion over arguing anyways :), then we stick with this thread :D

 

I have been listening to a tape about Russian history

what's this "tape" you refer to? is that like next generation past blueray dvd technology? never heard of this tape technology :bwa: (kidding ofcourse)

 

Where do you suggest I get better information?

History books? I suggest history books that are written by Russian historians, or translations of them. Though it is always good to read outside sources as well, because they bring you perspectives that some scholars simply could not, at the time. But in order to understand the Russian mind, you have to read it :) .

 

It appears their culture lead them to be very cooperative people.

Cooperative? hmm, well sort of. let me give you the shakedown of Russian people (and it was ever-so-true in Peter's time, and Russia is very slowly getting away from that today)

 

Russian people are very cooperative with each other. i know of no other country in the world, where, if you are walking down the street and you seem to be getting frost bite on your face, you will probably be stopped by someone, who will take their mitten (or if there is no mitten, some snow in their hands) and without question start rubbing the frostbitten parts of your face to restore the circulation. That is not only true for Russian people towards Russian people, but towards anyone. (at that do understand that noone is perfect, i am talking about general population though, i think you will understand)

 

This however brings me to russian relations with the outside world, which are, to say the least, not as friendly as one may think they may be. The problem is, Russia has had so many wars, there is a tendency of people not trusting the outside, from the 300 year dominance by the Tatar-Mongols, to the hundreds of years of attempted invasions by the Poles, Prussians, Fins, etc, Russian people have learned not to trust the outside world, and block it out as much as they possibly could.

 

From very early on, Russia was a very religious country as well, so much so, that many traditions, even dating back from pagan Rus (it was called Rus for a long while (with a soft s)), are still around to this day, though in today's modern Russia they are more of a preservation of herritage, deeply, outside the cities, the traditions still live to this day. You have said it yourself, russia is mainly Eastern Orthodox Christians, and with orthodoxy comes the never-ending struggle with change. After the Russian Patriarchate split from the constantinople (1448), Peter's reform of the church split it and confused it further, the church was now "New belief" and "Old belief". The fact that it split instead of adjusting, further proves my point that change, from very long ago, Russia is not a country that is prone to change.

[Freddy]

Robert K. Massie's, Peter the Great: His Life and World (Knopf, 1980) that you cited is considered the defining work on Peter Romanov. There are several books on the Mongol/Tartar Yoke in Russian history. Russia and the Mongol Yoke. The History of the Russian Principalities and the Golden Horde, 1221-1502 by Leo de Hartog is a good source. A History of Russia by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, 1963, now in its 7th edition, is a classic survey in Russian history.

[nutronjon]

Wow, that looks like some good reading.

 

I have a few tapes narrated by Harry Reasoner titled "The World's Political Hot Spots". They don't give enough detail.

 

Hum, I have more books about Russia, in my library, than I remembered. I guess I better do some reading. Thank you all for making Russian history something to talk about. But good grief- this history is confusing!

 

Does anyone want to explain the conflict between Western Christiandom and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and what this has to do with Russia becoming totalitarian? It seems obvous we should understand this, when we discuss the Russian Communist who rejected religion. What in heck happened? What is this religious difference in Christianity that pitted Christians against each other? Or may be this is a different thread? There are at least 3 major splits in Christianity, and somehow this brings the the west to hate the Russians, and brings the Russians to totalitarianism. Back to the thread, Peter appears to love the power of a totalitarian, while wanting to free Russia from the past and modernize it. Hum, I am really confused. :)

[alexander]

It seems obvous we should understand this, when we discuss the Russian Communist who rejected religion. What in heck happened?

Actually the reason the Communist rejected religion is totally separate from the reasons russia was totalitarian, which is separate from orthodoxy differences.

 

communism is the reason that religion was rejected during the regime Communism

[nutronjon]

Good morning:), I spent my last few hours of sleep thinking thoughts stimulated by this thread, and read about Russian this morning. Now this is the intellectual stimulation that brings me to such forums. I am very happy this morning.

 

Alexander, I think your statement that communism is the reason the USSR turned from religion, needs to be explained, but not this thread. You have more to say to about the subject, please, start another thread. I think it would be as interesting as this one, and very much worth our time. That said, I can see how the subject ties into this one. WHAT GAVE PETER SO MUCH POWER? The labor of serfs supports the statement that Peter was a Great leader, but I hardly think these people welcomed his rule. He was a tyrant of the worst kind.

 

Talk about a melting pot. Russia has been a huge melting pot, dominated by one nomadic culture after another, with Iranian links in these nomadic cultures, giving Russia militaristic and despotic potential, and Greek colonies with developed commerce giving Russia democratic potential. It was periodically over run but primitive people who could then dominate for awhile. What is to survive all this change and how does anything survive such changes? Back to, what gave Peter the power to rule? What gave Bush the power to rule to the US, another melting pot?

 

Genghis Khan's morals would cause a man to tend to the frost bite on a passing stranger's face. Such morality comes from a harsh environment, where the people are forced to be nomadic, because there isn't enough good farm soil to support an agrarian way of life. In such harsh climates, if there is a God, it is nothing like the caring God of Christians, and people must depend on each other for their survival. Khan thought cities with there division of rich and poor, lead to lying and stealing and commanded his people to never settle in one place and become as the city people. He also commanded them never to choose one religion over another. Communism seems influenced by this morality. Hum, the history of Russia is complex. Back to, what gave Peter so much power, if not the church, and a tendency towards despoticism which is Iranian/Persian? The east/west divide is what?

[alexander]

Ok first off my comments on communism, i don't link people for nothing, generally if i have a short post with a link at the end, the link explains much of what i didn't take time to explain. But it's ok, let me expand on why Communism regime outlaws religion....

 

As i have indicated in the Marxist-Leninist system, religion is what they refer to as "opium for the people". In their initial manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels referred to religion in such terms:

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death-battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

 

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religion, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

 

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

 

As such, communism as communism abolishes religion in it's modern terms. Thus under Marxist-Leninist socialism religion was also abolished, which was odd, for a country that is to this day pretty religious...

 

So as to my speculation as to WHAT gave peter the power that he wielded:

First off it is wrong to call Peter a tyrant, if you are doing that then you might as well call every king that has ever executed anyone (and that would be every king) a tyrant. To you, what makes one a tyrant?

 

Anyhow, what made Peter so popular, powerful and perhaps even in parts, great.

 

Peter was a decedent of the ruling family, if that does not already provide a lot of reason as to how he became a king, i don't know what does :lol:

 

He was a young king, who was chosen by the rule of the council of the nobles (who were called Boyars), to become king when he was just 10 years old. Alexei's daughter, Sophia lead a rebellion (called the rebellion of Streltsy) in an attempt to gain control, Peter was then reproclaimed as the coruler together with Ivan, and their regent was Sophia, who basically for 7 years was the sole ruler of Russia. It is perhaps at this time, when the uprisers were killing off Peter's family, that Peter disliked the organization that was started by Ivan IV.

 

Sophia, being backed by Streltsy created an iron fist, in the hands of Peter and Ivan, when peter killed off the Streltsy, and sent Sophia to become a convent and give up her royal name.

 

Peter had lots of backing, and had greatly ambitious plans of reform, which i will touch later when i get home..... g2run :hihi:

[alexander]

... Continued

 

Changes is something that Russia needed, and not that everyone saw the need for them, but pre Peter Russia was so old, they didn't even establish which calendar they were using. Meanwhile in europe, the newest innovations and the begginings of the industrial age, and the age of reason, brought new thoughts, technologies, and ways to apply them to make the life easier.

 

The reason that peter was better then anyone else at the time to rule Russia was because of how Sophia ruled it. After unsuccessful attempts at teh crimean wars, that were presented to russians as a great success and generously rewarded, the country could not bear to be ran by the general of the Streltsy. Peter, at the time, was well consumed in any and every detail of wars and millitary, learning anything and everything he could. He had his own elite of the army, they were called poteshniye, or funny, divisions, each consisting of 100 men, and by the time peter was 17, he had 2 of these funny divisions. The reason they were funny was because they wore a different uniform then the traditional russian army. The long sleive jackets that were popular and used in the army were cut off, only to bare essentials (normal clothes). After Sophia tried to marry Peter, and after a month or so, Peter running off to his war studies, Sophia decided to take control of the throne, but the army decided against joining her, and Peter and Ivan were back on the thrown, this time as the only rulers. Fairly shortly thereafter, Ivan decided to take full control over to Peter, though he was still called a king till his early death.

 

Peter didn't even really join his ruling legacy for the first couple of years of the rule. He was studying in europe, furthering his army education, and all the time taking notes of how he wanted the russian version of something to work, like in the western world.

 

once again to be continued when i get a chance (picking up my new car today :) )