Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Peter the Great: Hero or Heel?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Dragon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Dragon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Peter the Great: Hero or Heel?
    Posted: 28-Nov-2004 at 10:07

I've always heard that Peter the Great was a great Russian hero for his efforts to westernize and modernize Russia during his rule.   I've also heard that he was an occasional buffoon and actually enslaved his people, doing them more harm than good.

So which is he?  Hero or heel?

History is the study of the past that we may understand the present.
Back to Top
Dragon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Dragon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2004 at 07:19
Nobody has any opinion about Peter the Great?
History is the study of the past that we may understand the present.
Back to Top
Dragon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Dragon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2004 at 07:20

   

History is the study of the past that we may understand the present.
Back to Top
Jalisco Lancer View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2112
  Quote Jalisco Lancer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2004 at 08:36

Dragon: chill out a little bit.
Instead of expect a comment from the other forumers would be great if you make an apportation for further discussions and replies.
Regards
Back to Top
Dragon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Dragon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2004 at 14:47

I'm just teasing . . . Ouch

Alright.  Peter the Great supposedly brought his country up to speed with Western Europe.  However, Russia was already doing quite well in relation to many of its neighbours to the east, which, due in part to Mongol invasion, it was in many ways more a part of than the west.  Kievian Rus had really important relations with Byzantium before the Mongols, and Russia had historically been more Eastern-leaning than Western-leaning.

Now, Peter the Great comes along and suggests that the West was the way to go.  He goes to Europe, acquires all sorts of new ideas and technologies, comes home and tries to implement them.  The Russian people, the vast majority of them being poor peasants, felt the change the most.  Peter's changes created huge problems for poorer Russians, and therefore he can in some ways be considered as a problem creating Tsar rather than the greatest Tsar in the history of Russia.

So was Peter the Great really all that great?  What do my fellow forumers think?

History is the study of the past that we may understand the present.
Back to Top
Jalisco Lancer View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2112
  Quote Jalisco Lancer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 00:50


Well, the Czar Peter improved greatly the russian navy and modernized Russia.

Peter could not be qualified entirely as a Heel or a Hero. His errors and merits are in the balance. What nobody can deny is the fact that he was a key player on the russian history.

Regards
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 11:46

I would say hero.  He did drastic and violent things that were totalitarian but they were necessary if Russia were to become a great country. 

Every country should be so lucky as to be blessed with their own Czar Peter if they were to succumb to backwardness.



Edited by Genghis
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
mongke View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
  Quote mongke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2004 at 22:07
If peter hadn't come along Russia would have been under foreign domination. I mean who the hell has a military that looks like its from the middle ages in the 1700s??
Back to Top
vagabond View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 524
  Quote vagabond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 00:42

Well - both - of course.

The autocratic style that he had was bred into him, and was not going to change for generations after him.  He treated his subjects as exactly that - subjects.  Those who pleased him were rewarded, and those who angered him were punished.  It was the behavior of an absolute monarch who had been raised in a harsh environment.

At the same time, he had the foresight to push, pull, drag - by whatever means necessary (including cruelty) - force his country to reevaluate their place in Europe as he was astute enought to see that, without modernization, Russia would decline rather than grow.  Few rulers - even those raised with a sense of noblesse oblige (which he certainly was not)  - have that kind of foresight.

Raised in his environment, the opportunities for despotism were great, and he certinly indulged in some, but he left the basis for a stronger, wealthier country and left the opportunity for those who followed him to continue to build on his foundations.  He stepped away from the normal pattern of the despot in that he built for the future, knowing that most of his innovations would not benefit him personally, but would benefit his country as a whole at sometime in the future.

In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 01:38

he was one of those people that I say....

It would have sucked to live under him but looking back on it from the future yes he was a good thing.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Jalisco Lancer View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2112
  Quote Jalisco Lancer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 09:42


Wellcome back, Todo
Back to Top
Murph View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
  Quote Murph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2004 at 16:57

his modernization and westernization turned russia into a modern, powerful nation

however, his authoritarian rule set the stage for hundreds of years of oppression and totalitarianism in russia

so i would say he was an "in between" ruler (as many "great" rulers are)

Back to Top
capcartoonist View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 50
  Quote capcartoonist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 10:29

Peter was typical of the greatest Russian rulers.  Visionary, ambitious, righteous, and necessarily cruel.

Look back thru Russian history.  Everytime a visionary came to power he'd make choices for his people (subjects) whether they approved or not.  Vladimir circa 1000AD decided to become an Orthodox Christian, so his people had to convert. Peter saw how backward Russia was when compared to the West, so Russia must become westernized.  The boyers revolted, so he had to put down the revolt with the usual Russian thoroughness.  Stalin saw the need for Russian to become a modern industrial nation, even if it meant the deaths of millions.  But he gave Russia an industrial base that enabled it to fight the Third Reich.

Saints or Sinners?  Or somewhere between?  Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the greatest American presidents, and look at the blood on his hands. (Though it definately pained him in ways that neither Peter nor Stalin could ever understand.)

Cap
Back to Top
capcartoonist View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 50
  Quote capcartoonist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 10:30
Hi capcartoonist:
I'm editing this post because it's a duplicate of your previous post. Probably a double click.
Wellcome to AE.
Regards

Edited by Jalisco Lancer
Back to Top
mongke View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
  Quote mongke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2004 at 21:26

I'd say he is a hero. Russia needed another Peter the great in the late 19th century to force through the reforms and overcome aristocratic opposition.

Land reform which tied in with serfdom. The west didn't have serfs and the traditional means of wealth for aristocrats(i.e. large estates) was being supplated by industrial wealth and might.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Dec-2004 at 22:47
It's easy to look back and say that he was a hero- after all he was vital in the westernizing and modernizing of Russia. He pulled it forward with him quite forcefully. I agree with Tobodai and vagabond. He was both.
Back to Top
Conquistador View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 28-Dec-2004
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Conquistador Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Dec-2004 at 01:36
The peasants  of Russia had always suffered. At least Peter the Great brought Russia "forward" while letting them suffer, instead of the other Tsars who didn't do anything good.
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Dec-2004 at 11:27

well he seems to be good to the Country

 

Back to Top
Dragon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Dragon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 16:47

First of all, I'm really sick of hearing how "backward" Russia was.  For anyone to refer to a culture as backward is really ethnocentric, in this case Eurocentric.  Just because a culture does something differently doesn't make it backwards.  If it did, then for most of recorded history the entire world has been "backward" compared to China - including Europe, yes even the holy grail that is classic greek civilization could be called backward.

More coming . . .

History is the study of the past that we may understand the present.
Back to Top
Conquistador View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 28-Dec-2004
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Conquistador Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2005 at 18:41

I'm really sick of hearing how "backward" Russia was.  For anyone to refer to a culture as backward is really ethnocentric, in this case Eurocentric.  Just because a culture does something differently doesn't make it backwards.

But who did Russia have most contact with during these years? Europe... They where a part of Europe, many of the main foreign events conserning Russia was in Europe. So it's natural to compare Russia to their "opponents" in the west, like Sweden and Poland to name a few. And compared to these states, and all the other major states in Europe at this time, Russia was backward. What I mean by that is, they didn't really do things diffrently, they did what the other European states did... the only diffrence is that they continued doing it 100, 200, 300, 400 years after all the other states in Europe had figured out, "hey, this just isn't working, lets improve our army/navy/infrastructure and so on...

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.