Military Review

2 November 1721. Peter I assumed the title of Great, Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All-Russia, and Russia became an empire

2 November 1721. Peter I assumed the title of Great, Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All-Russia, and Russia became an empire After the victory in the Northern War (1700-1721) and the conclusion of 30 August (10 September) 1721 in the city of Nishtadt peace treaty between Russia and Sweden, the Senate and the Holy Synod decided to present the title of Emperor of Russia to Tsar Peter with the following wording: “as usual from Roman of the Senate for the noble deeds of the emperors, such titles were publicly presented to them as a gift, and signed on statutes for memory to the eternal birth ”. 2 November 1721 Mr. Petr Alekseevich, upon the request of the senators, assumed the title of Great, father of the Fatherland, emperor of All-Russia, and the Russian state became an empire. Thus, the results of the victory over the mighty Swedish kingdom, the creation of an absolutist state and recognition of the authority of Western Europe by the countries of Western Europe were officially consolidated. Holland, Prussia and Sweden recognized the new status of Russia during the life of Peter, the Ottoman Empire in 1739, England and Austria in 1742, Spain and France in 1745 and, finally, Poland in 1764.

During the reign of Peter Alekseevich (from 1682 to 1725 a year) many important events occurred. As A.S. Pushkin quite correctly noted: “And Peter the Great, who alone is the whole world история! " The Streletsky riot of 1682 and the influence of the German settlement had a great significance on the formation of Peter's personality. After the removal from power of Sophia in 1689, Peter began to rule on his own. In the years 1695-1696. two Azov campaigns were committed, as a result of which Russia gained construction experience fleet and entrenched on the shores of the Sea of ​​Azov, capturing the strong Turkish fortress of Azov. This strengthened Russia's position in the southern strategic direction. True, in 1711, as a result of the unsuccessful Prut campaign, Peter had to return Azov to the Turks.

The victory over the Swedes in the bloody and protracted Northern War (1700-1721) returned to the Russian state access to the Baltic Sea. This step strengthened the military-strategic and economic position of the state. In 1703, Peter Alekseevich founded a new capital of the state - St. Petersburg. As a result of the Caspian (Persian) campaign in 1722-1723, the Russian state acquired the territories on the southwest coast of the Caspian Sea. In September 1723, the Persians signed an agreement that recognized the western and southern shores of the Caspian Sea for Russia with the cities of Baku and Derbent and the regions of Gilan, Mazandaran and Astrabad. However, after the death of Peter, the government of Anna Ioannovna considered that this region was unpromising and it was abandoned. In addition, the development of areas in the East continued. Omsk, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Semipalatinsk and other fortified cities were founded, Kamchatka was annexed to Russia.

On the initiative of Peter Alekseevich, a whole series of reforms was carried out (many were not completed), which affected almost all spheres of the life of the state and society — from military affairs and industry to religion, everyday life, the way of life of people. For the modernization of the country was used the experience of Western European countries in military affairs, in the development of the economy and culture. In Russia, recruitment duty and compulsory military service of the nobility was introduced, a strong Baltic fleet was built, and the process of creating a regular army was completed. A number of reforms were carried out in the field of public administration: in 1711, a supreme body of state power and legislation was established - the Governing Senate; 1717 — 1721 was created by the executive bodies of the board — collegiums (Foreign Affairs, Military Collegium, Admiralty Collegium, Patriotic Collegium, Commerce College, Berg Collegium, Manufactory Collegium, Yustitz College, etc.); in 1701, the patriarchy was abolished and from 1721, it was replaced by the highest state body of the church and administrative authority - the Most Holy Governing Synod, the church was completely subordinated to the state; as the supreme control bodies, the posts of procurator-general and ober-procurator were established, which were directly subordinate to the sovereign; To solve urban affairs, the Chief Magistrate was created, to which the city magistrates of all cities submitted; 1708 — 1715 a regional reform was carried out, the first 8 provinces were created, headed by governors, endowed with full judicial and administrative power, which also had military functions.

A judicial reform was carried out in the country, a series of financial reforms, a reform of autocracy — the king in 1722 issued a decree on the succession to the throne, major changes occurred in the field of estate politics, education and science. Virtually no area of ​​life, which did not affect the reforms of Peter.

In Russian historiography, Peter Alekseevich is considered one of the most prominent statesmen who determined the direction of development of the Russian Empire. At the same time, there is no unity in the assessment of its activities. Some researchers praise Peter the Great, considering the shortcomings of his rule insignificant. The latter focus on his criticism, emphasizing the cruelty of his methods, the extreme stress of human and material forces, the insignificance of foreign policy successes, excessive enthusiasm for European orders and westernization of Russia, the division of Russian society into two "people": "gentlemen" (nobility educated on the basis of European) culture and the rest of the population. Still others - they can be called “objectivists”, they recognize the merits in the activities of Peter Alekseevich, but at the same time show many of the shortcomings of his reforms.

Among the "panegyrist" Mikhail Lomonosov, who admired the acts of Peter. V.N. Tatishchev, an active participant in Peter's transformations, a political figure and historian, glorified Peter and his era. In the works of Prince M. M. Shcherbatov, along with the praises of Peter Alekseevich’s reforms aimed at the economic and cultural development of the state, as well as his successes in foreign policy and military affairs, there is also a social and political criticism. Shcherbatov directly accuses Peter I of humiliating the former significance of the aristocracy, of the ancient boyars and infringement of their legitimate rights and privileges. In addition, Shcherbatov accuses Peter of violating the moral purity of patriarchal relations, introducing Western norms.

A prominent writer, publicist and historian of the late XVIII century. and the first quarter of the XIX century. N. M. Karamzin also saw in the Tsar-reformer more greatness than all the rest. He highly appreciated the personal qualities of the emperor, called him "a great husband." In his opinion, the victory in the Northern War, Peter's activities in the field of economics and education put the Russian state on a prominent level in the political system of Europe. At the same time, Karamzin saw a flaw in that he “appropriated European customs” and “a passion for new customs for us violated the limits of prudence in him”. The historian expressed his opposition to such measures of Peter as the elimination of the patriarchate, the subordination of the church to the state, the transfer of the capital from Moscow to Petersburg, the breaking of old customs.

It is interesting to note that the views of the great Russian writer A.S. Pushkin and the early Slavophiles - I. V. Kireevsky and A. S. Khomyakov, in assessing Peter's reform, have more similarities than discrepancies. In Notes on the Russian Nobility, Alexander Pushkin emphasized the idea that “Peter I was both Robespierre and Napoleon. (Revolution embodied), ”and the attitude towards both French leaders born of the French Revolution was negative at that time in Russian society. Robespierre was hated for his cruelty and ruthlessness, Napoleon in noble Russia was considered a tyrant and a villain for the conquering wars in Europe unleashed by him, and for the invasion of Russian lands, the common people considered him an antichrist. Pushkin planned to write the history of Peter the Great (it was not completed) and for this he re-read all the documents relating to the life of the great reformer, all his writings about him, was admitted to the imperial archive. Tsar Nicholas was supportive of the writer and allowed him into the “holy of holies,” Pushkin gained access to the affairs of the first wife of Tsar Evdokia Fedorovna, Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich, also the affairs of the former Secret Chancellery. As a result, the writer became a major expert on the epoch of Peter, even the historian M. P. Pogodin, consulted Pushkin, regarding him in this area as an indisputable authority. Pushkin, having studied a lot of documents, tried to objectively convey the era of Peter, showing not only the merits, but also the shortcomings of the historical activities and the personality of Peter I. Therefore, after the death of Pushkin, Emperor Nicholas familiarized himself with the unfinished work about the reformer tsar, can not be published because of many indecent expressions at the expense of Peter the Great ".

Slavophiles believed that Peter put a lot of effort to eradicate the traditions of "Holy Russia", strengthened the stratification of society, led to the formation of an abyss between the nobility and the common people. The early Slavophiles condemned the cruelty and fury with which Peter's reforms were carried out. Pushkin and the Slavophiles noted that the decree on the succession to the throne (1722) destroyed all legality in the order of succession to the throne, and after Peter’s death, Russia was abandoned to the arbitrariness of the palace groups fighting for power. In Russia, the problem of power and imposture arose again, as during the Time of Troubles. In general, Slavophiles believed that independent Russian life reached its greatest development in the era of the Moscow kingdom, and Tsar Peter violated this gradual, evolutionary ascent of Russia. Peter, with his violent reforms, introduced alien, opposite to the beginnings of Western (German) culture to Russia. The reformer turned the right course of life of the people on the false road of borrowing. Peter did not understand the precepts of past generations, changed the past of the Russian state, did not understand the Russian "national spirit". Therefore, in order to remain faithful to the Russian national spirit and return to its roots, Russia must renounce foreign European principles.

According to K. S. Aksakov, as a result of Peter's reforms, there was a split in Russian society, the cultural class was culturally separated from the people (Zemstvo). In addition, the state began to actively intervene in the moral, economic and everyday foundations of the people, which adversely affected the general state of the Russian state and the life of the people. At the same time, the Slavophiles highly appreciated Peter as a person, recognized the benefits of some of his reforms, but on the whole considered his actions not national and harmful in their very being.

The opinion of the Slavophiles was not shared by the Westerners. So, they call supporters of the “European way” in Russia of the 1840 — 1860 era. (A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, T.N. Granovsky, V.G. Belinsky and others). Peter I, in their eyes, was a true “creator of Russia.” Westerners believed that before Peter the Russian people were not "historical." Ancient Russia, which did not know the western (German) civilization, and did not have its own, was a “non-historical” state, devoid of development, condemned to eternal stagnation. Thanks to the energetic transformations of Peter I in the West, the idea of ​​personal development, individualism, was borrowed. Historian KD Kavelin believed that Russia had exhausted ancient Russian life by the end of the 17 century, having survived before the state crisis. Peter brought the Russian state out of the crisis to a new path. Russia, before the start of its reforms, reached complete insolvency - cultural, economic and administrative, it could be saved only by fundamental reforms. The state has come to a complete decomposition, incredible efforts and extreme measures were required to save it. This made Peter Alekseevich.

Thus, the Westernizers believed that Peter's transformations were historically necessary, and were closely connected with the previous era (its negative side was the crisis of the whole system). The “Asian country,” as Belinsky called it, Tsar Peter, with his reforms, introduced him to a high European civilization, instilled ideas of humanity, humanism, and created the foundations for progress. Before Peter, the Russian people had neither history nor intelligent life.

SM Soloviev, when the 200 anniversary of the birth of Peter I was celebrated, spoke with famous public readings about the converter of Russia. The historian emphasized the organic and historical readiness of Peter's reforms. For him, the king was the benefactor of Russia, the true representative of the people. The student of Solov'ev - V. O. Klyuchevsky was also a supporter of Peter’s activities, but sometimes allowed himself to criticize his individual activities, began to emphasize elements of randomness and unplannedness in Peter’s reforms.

The disciple of Klyuchevsky, P. N. Milyukov (the future leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party), argued that Peter’s reforms were an expression of the logic of Russia's internal development, and were a process prepared by the course of development of Russia, and not planned by the tsar himself. In addition, the reforms were developed collectively, the influence of Peter was limited, the ultimate goals of the reforms were only partially realized. Miliukov also noted the “price” thanks to which Russia was elevated to the rank of a great European power — the ruin of the country and the reduction of the population.

Most historians of the Soviet era as a whole evaluated Peter’s activity positively, although they noted serfdom methods, repression, overstrain of the country's resources, the severity of wars and reforms for ordinary people. N. I. Pavlenko, E. V. Tarle, V. I. Buganov and others noted that the reforms of Peter the Great were a serious step towards progress. This viewpoint also prevails in modern Russian historiography. Although some researchers have subjected Peter to sharp criticism. So, A. Burovsky calls the tsar-reformer a "possessed sadist" and a "bloody monster", believing that most of the positive activities (including the creation of a regular army) were carried out before Peter. His actions only ruined and drained Russia, stopping its ascent, throwing it back.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lavrik
    Lavrik 2 November 2012 08: 56
    The border between true (and not geographical) Europe and the rest of the world runs along the line of separation of the two directions of Christianity: Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Peter 1 tried to overcome this barrier. Failed. Now we are trying (especially in the 90s) and we are doing it. Will not work. For the West - you are barbarians, Muslims, Orthodox and others. Talking with us, they spit through the lip. If we respect ourselves as a nation, in the transition to a multipolar world, we must create a community based on Orthodoxy, the ideas of mutual respect, internationalism that existed in Soviet times.
    1. I-16M
      I-16M 2 November 2012 09: 27
      Religion is just one of the differences between the West and Russia.
      Roots deeper wink
  2. sq
    sq 2 November 2012 10: 07
    Peter the first weight figure is ambiguous. In my opinion, his main achievement is to increase the documented vertical mobility in the state (the possibility of rising from higher layers to higher).
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 2 November 2012 11: 59
      this is called a social elevator ......... there are no ideal rulers, thanks to Peter for Petersburg, for the fleet and army, for science and education, the flourishing of art and architecture, the assembly and much more ......... .... let someone try to do more for Russia and then judge him ..... the name Tsar-laborer will remain forever
    2. strannik595
      strannik595 2 November 2012 12: 02
      this is called a social lift ......... there are no ideal rulers, thanks to Peter for Petersburg, for the navy and army, for science and education, the flourishing of art and architecture, military victories, the expansion of the territory of Russia, new cities and fortresses, fireworks at assemblies and much more ............. let someone try to do more for Russia and then judge him ..... the name "Tsar-worker" will remain for centuries
  3. Lavrik
    Lavrik 2 November 2012 10: 52
    Quote: I-16M
    Religion is just one of the differences between the West and Russia.
    Roots deeper
    The separation, which began on religious grounds, expanded over time in different directions.
  4. Lexagun
    Lexagun 2 November 2012 10: 56
    "Accepted", of course, - appropriated the bastard.
    Well, I understand that the late Romanovs had a need to whitewash and shield the "underdeveloped", But why do we need this? And it's not about the dubious achievements. The point is the implementation of alien projects on Russian soil, more specifically the German one, for which the tsar served as a screen. I understand that the mass consciousness is myphorological, but what was rolling in the era of the Romanovs today looks unconvincing and even burdens on the way to creating a new state ideology (in the mass understanding - mythology) The time has come to do this, but the "myth-makers" are not visible.
    P / S /
    I recommend to the guardians of the bright image of "Peter the Great" to study the sources (and not the biography) or statistics, for example: during the years of the reign of this character, Russia has lost up to a quarter (25%) of its population by growing territories. Dubious achievement.
  5. Ross
    Ross 2 November 2012 15: 38
    Historical figures can be judged only after the passage of time and not split up their cases into pros and cons.
    The consequences of the reign of Peter for Russia:
    1. The Romanov dynasty from the original Russian became "German" in blood. Taking into account the loss of the Russian tradition of electing tsars, the Russian people lost control over the country.
    2. The dominance of "Germans" in the army and managers - the actual control of foreigners over Russia - violent Europeanization
    3. The hard enslavement of peasants and the appearance of foreign noblemen, that is, the traditional Russian estate was disrupted.
    4. The imposition of drunkenness and tobacco, instead of the prohibitions of the times of Ivan the Terrible. Decomposition of morality.

    This is by no means highlighting some bad sides. Just what they got after the reign of Peter.
    But no one can tell how events would develop if instead of Peter there would be another, typically pro-Russian Tsar, like Ivan the Terrible, for example. Perhaps he would have achieved no less success than Peter and without such dire consequences for the country.
    1. nnz226
      nnz226 3 November 2012 22: 18
      After the reign of Peter, they received at least: "a young city - beauty and wonder of the midnight countries!" + The growth of territories profaned by the EBNut prizIdent of "new Russia!" (Baltic states, but not with some kind of drinking or smoking, deciding that they are - de - "states" ???), + knocking out of the historical process of the sworn enemy - Sweden, which has become a secondary power after the Northern War until now.
  6. atomic
    atomic 2 November 2012 20: 00
    Ross, you’re right, Peter was brought up by the Masons Gordon and Lefort, therefore he hated everything Russian. He was surrounded by thieves and adventurers from all over Europe, it was they who were invited by the Zhidomassons Baer, ​​Miller and Schlozer. The archery army system that was brilliant at that moment (under Ivan the Terrible the Russian army was the strongest in Europe and the conquests were much more significant) he replaced with a hired (dacha) one. When Sheremetyev defeated the 16-thousandth corps of General Levengaupt at Lesnaya, Karl had only 12 thousand left, against 11 thousand Peter and almost lost, Repnin and the Russian soldier helped out, but the Poltava Victoria is not rightly ascribed to Peter. Peter brought to unpreparedness and tobacco an unprecedented hitherto in Russia is homosexuality.
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 2 November 2012 20: 53
      atomic "The rifle army system, which was brilliant at that moment, (under Ivan the Terrible the Russian army was the strongest in Europe and the conquests were much more significant), he replaced it with a mercenary one." -Zelo laughed !!! Is our history being studied at a special rate in Kazakhstan? Of course, everything can be obos ... done, but not to the same extent! Under Ivan the Terrible, we played the Livonian, and won the North! Or not? So when were we stronger? What are the battles won by archers in the 17th century? As for homosexuals, I read the writings of the period of the February Revolution so it was stated there that Ivan the Terrible dabbled in boys. About this I think one thing - it's all nonsense. Our kings were normal! Peter died of a cold, which he caught after pulling people from a sinking vessel! Find at least one ruler who did like Peter, who pulled his subjects out of the icy water!
      1. atomic
        atomic 3 November 2012 05: 22
        Nagaybak, history is written in different ways. Kazan Khanate, Siberian x

        They were conquered under Ivan the Terrible precisely by archers (Cossacks). Well, if Ivan the Terrible dabbled in boys, I read the writings that Peter died not from a cold, but from syphilis. I did not repeat homosexuals in Russia before Peter.
        Read the Rossa post, that part numbered 1,2,3,4.
        1. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 3 November 2012 20: 12
          atomic "The Kazan Khanate, the Siberian Khanate, were conquered under Ivan the Terrible by the archers (Cossacks). That's exactly what they write in different ways. Where did you find the archers during the conquest of Siberia? Cossacks! with the Cossacks, now the archers are equated with them.
          1. Lexagun
            Lexagun 4 November 2012 00: 01
            The tale of how Yermak Kuchuma fought is, in general, a tale. A fairy tale in the sense. Muscovy not so much "conquered" Siberia (which one?) But inherited Kuchum, who by the way is not a Siberian at all, but a hereditary emir of Bukhara, a purebred Arab. Yermak, on the other hand, with 600 Cossacks went to Kuchum not for a war with him (it would be ridiculous to do this with the forces of 600 people, especially since it reached the headquarters of Kuchum about 300, which was no worse armed to fight (a fire battle, however, and artillery) , but in numbers several or more precisely several dozen times outnumbered the expedition of Yermak. Some researchers count up to 150 Kuchum fighters. These are more likely Kuchum's mobilization plans, and the number of those already gathered, according to various estimates, ranged from 000 to 50 fighters.

            Obviously not with Muscovy Kuchum was going to fight. After all, the Moscow ruler sent a detachment to him in the army (is it interesting as an ally or tributary?), But after settling down on a post in the Kuchum camp, the Yermak went to the council. Where the strange happened, namely the attempt. To which Ermak was just related (and not only he) due to the fact that after the failure of the Ermak detachment, the forces of the Kuchum Guard (3000 horsemen) organized an attack. Cossacks successfully settled on a sand spit repelled the assault. The second did not follow, the wounded Kuchum withdrew from the headquarters along with the guards, and his army either dispersed or began to pursue his own former leader. Ermak, however, soon dies. And everything that happens over the next 30 years is more likely reminiscent of turmoil and civil war, after which the escaped land goes to the Moscow ruler. The son of Kuchum does not really agree, but he is no longer asked. And the crown land (giving the right to the title and crown) goes to Moscow. Moreover, Moscow itself has never been and will not be crown land in the future, curious? But still, two points are more interesting:
            1) on what grounds did Moscow manage to inherit?
            military force alone, even if it were manifest, is obviously not enough.
            I suppose kinship, dynastic relations - the question requires research. wink
            2) Who solved the issue? Who approved the Moscow rulers in the status of owners of Siberia? Self-designation is excluded. The rights to Siberia were recognized for Moscow and in the future (Moscow did not immediately become the capital of a powerful empire) were not disputed by any monarchs.

            And then the Cossacks? Sagittarius? inconsequentially.
            By the way, how could the term Cossack be translated?
  7. Lexagun
    Lexagun 2 November 2012 23: 06
    The rifle army, of course, cannot correspond to the epithet "brilliant". It was generally a frank compromise caused just the same by defeats in a whole series of wars and lost wars .... no, not archers, but a noble militia. assorted armed, not coordinated, always arguing with the commanders. The militia about which the ruler could not say exactly how many it would be, who would be able to agree on the commander (remember the localism), how it would be armed, how long the courtyard people (often slaves) called up "with the condition" (class) of boyars and princes would be able to break away from their economy given to them just to ensure their ability to be drafted into the militia.

    And the reason for all these difficulties is commonplace - money. Professional mercenary army is EXPENSIVE. Now the place to start talking about the natural wealth of our country. The positive balance of foreign trade, developed industry, science, and the richest resources (we have not yet discovered oil).

    The rifle army was a transitional stage. to replace him even under Alexei Mikhailovich, as it were, to Peter's father, regiments of a foreign system were started up, the Polish army was taken as a basis (not the gentry militia - that still a freeman), the process was led by Golitsyn (the alleged prince consort), By the way, the first multi-cannon ship for the sea is also being built under A.M. ship "Eagle" 30 years before the acts of Peter. Foreign dress according to the Hungarian model also began to be introduced together with shaving (shaving) beards, A.M. himself was fond of this. He also undertook a large-scale reform in all areas of both government and religion, and the process was not over. It's just that in the process of reforms the names of institutions did not change, because the essence is not in the name. By the way, the first ruler who took care of writing an integral history of his own state was again Alexei Mikhailovich (Duma clerk Lyzlov, Scythian history in 2 volumes) What is characteristic of Peter (his entourage), she did not suit and it was he who was shown by the burgomaster of Konigsber the "tale of bygone years" , the so-called Radziwill list. This actually means that we do not know anything about Russian history for certain until this moment (1696). The set of documents for "different stories" is also completely different, which is quite indicative. The Germans, however, did not give the original, Peter took only a copy with him, the Original will later be captured by Rumyantsev along with Konigsberg. (after 50 years), publication will be banned by the Synod wink
    1. Lexagun
      Lexagun 2 November 2012 23: 07
      As for Peter's homosexuality, an unpleasant topic, but in the society (the German settlement) in which he "turned" it was not considered something unusual, although everyone understood the viciousness of this occupation, and Peter was addicted to this by his educator even before the Germans - an eternal drunkard and known just as pedo and a homo branch all over Moscow, Dyak Zotov. It is surprising that all the other children of A.M. got just a decent upbringing and education. The abandoned one (what is interesting is the reason not AM's love for a kind of son?) Was cleaned up by the Germans, not just like that, of course, although he is the fourteenth son, he has the right. Financed, or do you think that the funny shelves were financed from the state treasury? From there, just all of Peter's requests were invariably answered with a reference to the lack of funds. Attentive were found, surrounded by "care", fueled the hatred that he felt for the Pope and all his undertakings. By the way, the origin of the Naryshkin family is also curious. Naryshko, an abscess aka Mordka Kubrat, a Crimean, but not a Tatar or even a Greek, KARAIM, however, this is not a nationality, this is a religious trend of persons of a characteristic nationality wink... In 1465 he arrived in Russia. The son was nicknamed Moses, his grandson was called Isaac, (we read Boguslavsky) he will be the first to take the surname "Naryshkin", By the way, grandfather Peter 1 will be called with a characteristic Russian name - Poluekt.

      It was the dubious origin of Peter that was the reason for the "incognito" journey. After a three-month waiting for an audience with the Austrian emperor, which ended in a humiliating refusal, Peter did not risk running into direct meetings with the crowned heads.

      As for the military successes of Peter, they are more than modest. To say the least. Whenever he "wasted no trouble" intervened in the direct command of the troops, they were defeated, most often crushingly, which turned out to be pretty bad for the state. For example the Prut campaign.

      Great efforts were spent on "correcting" the image of Peter, first of all by Catherine 2. But this is a separate story. But since this topic still comes up, then not everything she (who had no blood relationship with Peter) worked out.

      Well, the case of seemingly personal heroism in saving the drowning people just characterizes Peter as a ruler who does not understand what a ruler is.
      1. Ross
        Ross 3 November 2012 13: 56
        Thank you Alex, a very competent post. In support of what you said, it is very well said in the work of the historian Roman Klyuchnik:

        "The theme of Peter the Great for me and, I am sure, for many researchers of history was and will be the most difficult. This weight is not in the absence of materials for research, but in the mass of unpleasant discoveries that are immediately discovered when immersed in the topic. First, a strong and an unpleasant contrast with what is written in the overwhelming number of books and textbooks.It cannot be said that a lot of wrong and deceitful things are written there, no - a lot is written there that is true, but it is written selectively - only the positive part, which is difficult to call even half-truth or half-lie, because more than half of the important information is purposefully hidden.It is unpleasant to get out of the huge chorus of people who write together - how wonderful and great Peter is, you immediately feel like a denigrator or a biased critic, and on the other hand, if you skip, “do not notice” negative features and events, you immediately “get lost” ”The most important negative trends and processes started by Peter, which then determined many further tragic events living in Russia until 1917. Therefore, I will not repeat what is written in a huge number of books - all Peter's merits in the material sphere: the construction of St. Petersburg, Peterhof, the fleet, etc., and to illuminate a more complete and objective picture I will pay attention to the “great merits” of Peter in the moral and ethical sphere, in society.

        Secondly, the burden for the researcher is that when a researcher plunges into the era of Peter's reign, he begins to feel strong spiritual, moral discomfort, because he is plunged into terrible human dirt: debauchery, betrayal, torture, millions of innocent victims, etc. . - even much harder than when studying the second period of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Therefore, I warn readers, especially the impressionable and the faint of heart, about these troubles and apologize, although at that time in history all this was not done by me, but I only tried to better illuminate the historical reality. And I’m sure that many readers will follow the path of Leo Tolstoy, who was “educated” correctly and for whom Peter the Great was a great idol, about whom the great writer wanted to write a peppy work, but when he got down to work and began to study historical materials in advance, he sharply wilted, I was upset, abandoned the idea and wrote:

        “A raging, drunk, rotted from syphilis beast kills people for a quarter of a century, executes, burns, bury them alive in the ground, imprison his wife, debauchery, and sodomy.”
  8. bart74
    bart74 18 November 2012 23: 21
    Under Peter, a lot of good things were done, but there were no less negative moments. The loss of almost 50% of the population, the planting of drunkenness and other "miracles". Now you can't figure it out!
    You just need to respect your story, and yet respect Peter, he really was great. I can forgive all the kings, even Khrushchev, except for Yeltsin and Gorbi.
  9. Lexagun
    Lexagun 19 November 2012 09: 34
    What are some interesting "reasons" ?! I'm talking about ".. a lot of good things .." - an argument however wink
    especially in comparison with the subsequent admission that: "50% of the population has been lost, drunkenness is imposed and other miracles have taken place" actually there is no need for comments.