Conclusion

My research of Peter the Great this semester has really given me insight into the different ways in which a ruler can persuade the public as well as to what extent some rulers will go in order to exhibit their power and insure that their power is cemented in history. As Danielle says in her concluding post, Hitler was undoubtedly a totalitarian dictator, so we wanted to see how the trends of his rule were previously exhibited by earlier rulers.

As Peter the Great demonstrated through establishing St. Petersburg and through reforming the Church, the actions of a ruler can be perceived by the public as beneficial to their lives while there are truly ulterior motives in play. As my group established initially, Hitler undoubtedly exemplifies a totalitarian dictator, however, we wanted to see how other rulers utilized similar tactics (less violently) in order to maintain their rule. As a consequence, we discovered that the period in which each ruler was in power was hugely significant in the extent to which they could fully exemplify a totalitarian dictator. While for the most part, the rulers sought the same goal of acquiring power, they were limited by their differences in means with which they could acquire such power. This gap in timing resulted in much thought about whether or not the title of totalitarian dictator could include rulers who were not as awful as Hitler.

Peter the Great changed Russia internally through reestablishing the traditional social structure and lifestyle of the Russian people by infiltrating Russian ideals with Western modernization.

Ultimately, while Peter the Great did not have access to such technological advancements as Hitler did which would have facilitated his totalitarian rule, I believe that Peter the Great was a totalitarian dictator through his internal changes to the Russian identity and his conquests outside the boundaries of Russia.

Response to "Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler"

I think that it is pretty obvious that "Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler" as Danielle puts it, I mean, let's be honest, Hitler is the go-to person when you think about being a totalitarian dictator, so it's not entirely fair to say that Peter the Great was not as bad of a totalitarian dictator as Hitler and therefore was not a totalitarian dictator. In Danielle's post "My Group and Totalitarianism", she defines totalitarianism as: "a political system whereby a state regulates every aspect of public and private life". While I understand that Hitler took this to an extreme and he DID manipulate the public, I think that Hitler also had the means (such as through propaganda and mass-communication) to manipulate the public. Peter the Great didn't rule during a period in which it was so easy to manipulate the masses. While Peter the Great couldn't EASILY influence the masses as Hitler could, Peter the Great DOES control "public and private life"--he forced the nobility to forfeit their power and join the government in order to maintain/regain their status (through the Table of Ranks), after he gained the territory where he would put St. Petersburg he forced families to relocate and move to this inconvenient and foreign (to the people) location, and he eliminated many Russian traditions through his process of westernization.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if Peter the Great was some sort of super nice ruler who wanted to have a "good reputation" in history--he wanted to cement his name in history as a POWERFUL ruler and he completely changed the Russian identity and evolved the Russian presence in Europe in order to insure that his power was forever remembered.

Response to "Holocaust Doesn't Unite Germans"

Ok so I have to admit that I wasn't entirely thinking when I was writing that post "The Great Northern War" and I said that the Holocaust united the Germans. I hadn't REALLY spent the time to phrase my idea well enough and so I completely agree with Danielle when she disagrees with that sentence. So anyways, just forget I ever said that because it is completely bogus--especially because the Holocaust wasn't warfare, it was the tragic murder of millions so it wasn't really fair for me to compare the Holocaust with the Great Northern War as if both were wars. 

That aside, I still think that it is valid to say that Hitler had more public support then Peter the Great did, and while the Germans were not necessarily united as a force, Hitler had managed to gain a foundation of support in which people CHOSE to join the Nazi party (and I know that once Hitler started to demonstrated his cruelty a lot of the members of the Nazi party joined out of fear, but initially I think that there was more of genuine support of Hitler). To contrast that, Peter the Great had a foundation of support that was formed solely out of his inherited title of "tsar"-- he had in no way been chosen to lead Russia. That is essentially what I meant to say in that sentence--that Hitler's foundation of support was more genuine because, initially, people truly chose to join his party, whereas Peter the Great lacked that foundation.

Improvement/modernization

A huge reason why Peter the Great has become such a powerful historical figure is due to his westernization of Russia. While much of this westernization was social, such as making the nobility cut off their traditionally long beards,  a huge component of this westernization was also in Peter's expansion of the military and technological capacity of Russia. As cited in this website, Peter extensively studied the Western methods of ship-building and navigation in order to establish a Russian navy and expand Russian influence beyond the Russian borders. Thus, Peter the Great adopted western techniques in order to one-up the Western European countries--he studied their techniques in order to allow Russia to infiltrate the Western world. Consequently, Peter's infatuation with Western traditions and techniques was not out of flattery but was instead a strategy to show Western Europe the Russian potential. Peter established a port on the Baltic Sea in St. Petersburg where the vessels built were constructed based upon the designs of Western fleets. Consequently, without the advancements of Western Europe, Peter the Great would not have been able to expand Russia to be as powerful as he made it.

Peter the Great and Napoleon: Equality

When I read Zak's post "Napoleon and civil liberties", I realized how Napoleon shared a similarity to Peter the Great in the necessity to compromise. While I realize that in my previous post I just discussed how Peter the Great did not manipulate the public, and I believe that this is true, I think that he instead manipulated his rule (much like how Napoleon did with the Napoleonic codes)--giving the public something while taking away something else. I saw a serious parallel between Napoleon's control over the press (making the press write only what the government issued) and Peter the Great linking the Church with the state while making the Church more tolerant.

It's interesting that while Hitler used manipulation in acquiring public support, Napoleon and Peter the Great seem to manipulate the liberties that they are giving their people creating a sort of facade of liberty while simultaneously tightening their control and power over the country.

Hitler and Peter the Great: RULE

So what I've realized is that a HUGE difference between Hitler and Peter the Great is that Machiavellian rule that Danielle and I have been discussing. Danielle's post "The War Lord! The Manipulator!" made me think about how Peter the Great didn't really have tactics in the same sense that Hitler did. While Hitler tricked the public into following his word through propaganda and manipulation, Peter the Great did not use such tactics. Instead, Peter the Great essentially just did what he said he was doing--it was much more black and white, Peter the Great just imposed his authority whereas Hitler tricked the public into supporting his authority. I think that a great demonstration of this difference in rule is through the use of religion. As Danielle discusses in her post "Hitler and Religion", Hitler uses Christianity as a tool to gain public support--he himself wasn't a super-religious man but he NEEDED the support of the Protestant churches in order to fulfill his goal of eliminating the Jews (or demonstrating his power), and he consequently molded to be whatever man was necessary in order to get what he wanted. To contrast, Peter the Great just did what he wanted. As I say in my post "Peter the Great and Religion", Peter made the Russian Church a more tolerant entity while tightening his own control over the Church in linking the Church with the state.

While both Hitler and Peter the Great were hoping to have military gains in order to demonstrate their international power, Hitler acted to get more groups (such as the Church) on his side, despite his personal attachment to or involvement with those groups--for him they were the means to an end. To contrast, Peter the Great completely followed his own beliefs--eliminating the aspects of the Church that he disagreed with and tightening his personal control over the Church--regardless of how the Church felt about this. In my opinion, this difference is the difference between wanting to gain something for the state (as Hitler did) and wanting to preserve your reputation in history (as Peter the Great did).

The Great Northern War

As Danielle explained in her post "Motivations for the Holocaust", Hitler was driven to eliminate the Jews by two main forces: his belief that the Jews were truly a lesser race and by his desire to WIN, his desire to demonstrate his power.

Hitler and Peter the Great were in sort of similar situations in terms of the international state of their country, for both Germany and Russia were isolated from the rest of the European powers. While the isolation of Germany was due to WWI and the Treaty of Versailles (1918) and that of Russia was more of a geographical isolation, in both cases, this isolation and consequent feeling of underestimation from the other European powers inspired Hitler and Peter the Great to prove the other European countries wrong and to demonstrate the true power of Germany and Russia (respectively). 

Whereas Hitler chose to demonstrate his power and unite the German people through the Holocaust, Peter the Great demonstrated his international power through the Great Northern War. This war was hugely significant in the reputation of Russia because it demonstrated Russian military power both internally and externally. There is something about a military victory that empowers and unites a country, and I think that, while Peter's military activity was fueled more by the desire to gain a powerful and strong reputation amongst the other European powers than the internal unity that it could provide, the Great Northern War (particularly the Battle of Poltava)  gained a reputation both internally and externally of strength.

The Battle of Poltava was very important in that it truly reflected Russian military and technological strength and ability--it demonstrated Russian modernism. In this battle, the Russians were prepared with more artillery and thus defeated the Swedes and gained the territory that would soon house St. Petersburg which consequently serves as a reminder of this Russian rise to power.

The influence of internal reforms

Peter the Great's internal reforms were extremely influential in allowing Russia to become a great European country for the process of Westernization helped integrate the Russian identity into that of Europe. The combination of these internal reforms with Peter's competitiveness and desire to utilize military power allowed Russia to transform itself into a European power. As described in this site, Peter travelled to the Western European countries in order to observe and study the techniques that separated the modern Western European countries from the dated and traditional Russia. In order to facilitate the modernization and transformation of Russia into a great European power, Peter the Great needed to insure that the Russian public could mold into a westernized identity. This internal reformation of westernization had two benefits, the first being that it united the Russian people as a more westernized group of people and the second being that it was very demonstrative of Peter the Great's power and influence over his country (especially the nobility). Thus Peter the Great's internal reforms revealed the power that Peter the Great maintained and the influence that he was capable of.

Peter and Alexis

I haven't really looked into how Peter the Great treated the Russian public, but I think that his treatment is best represented through the letters between Peter and his son Alexis. As a son, Alexis should be extremely close with and loved by his father, Peter, however, as the letters between Alexis and Peter reveal, their relationship was broken by Peter's devotion to the progression of the Russian state. While Peter is torn between his love for his son and that for his country, as demonstrated by him saying "my heart is much more penetrated with grief...seeing that you, my son, reject all means of making yourself capable of well-governing after me" his love for his country is ultimately more important. 

When Peter articulates specifically what bothers him about Alexis' manner of rule, Peter articulates what is most important to him in terms of modernizing and bettering a country. Peter emphasizes the necessity "to learn the art" of war and the appropriate time to use warfare, and Alexis' reluctance to enter warfare is entirely unbearable for Peter. Peter also references "the late King of France" in order to inspire Alexis to have an open mind when it comes to warfare which indirectly demonstrates Peter's love for Western ways. Finally, Peter also admits to his own mortality through his constant references to God, however, it appears to me that some of his references to God are a little insincere (which might just be the way in which I am reading this letter) and used as tools to manipulate Alexis into changing his opinion. An example of this is when Peter says: "I am a man and consequently I must die. To whom shall I leave after me to finish what by the grace of God I have begun, and to preserve what I have partly recovered? To a man, who like the slothful servant hides his talent in the earth, that is to say, who neglects making the best of what God has entrusted to him?" In this question, Peter essentially says that he doesn't want his works to be unfinished, that he doesn't want the progress that he has paved for the Russian state to digress with his death.

In his letter to Alexis, Peter demonstrates how important Russia is to him. Obviously, these letters were privately shared between the father and son, and thus, one can assume that they are very accurate depictions of Peter's priorities, which evidently don't include his own family. Peter's roughness with his own family is representative of how Peter would treat the public--with the interest of the state, not the people, always in mind (EXAMPLE: Peter forced families to move to St. Petersburg when the city was established).

Napoleon and Hitler with nobility/leaders...?

So ok so I'm starting to realize how much juggling Peter the Great had to do between maintaining his supreme power (authoritarian rule) and not making the nobility angry enough to rebel. Peter overwhelming flipped the social structure, particularly with the Table of Ranks, however, he also compromised with some nobility and allowed them to play a role in the government. So I was wondering how Hitler and Napoleon interacted with the nobility? Did the nobility make any difference at all? I think that with Napoleon the nobility would probably play a more significant role than with Hitler...I guess that with Hitler there wasn't necessarily a nobility--but something along the lines of a dominating social force that had to be dealt with. In the case of Peter the Great, the legitimacy of his crown meant that he didn't need to use force or violence to prove his power, it came with his title, but the downside to that is that he hadn't necessarily made the public fear him (kind of Machiavelli-style).
I guess I'm just wondering how differently Napoleon and Hitler interacted with the leading social groups while they were coming to power...

Why didn't the nobility rebel?

While Peter's rule did disrupt the traditional Russian identity and thus interacted with the lifestyles of the entire population, his actions were received with much more animosity by the nobility then with the majority of the population. Particularly with the initiation of the Table of Ranks, Peter completely altered the exclusive lifestyle that the nobility had grown accustomed to. It was not necessarily the Westernization that bothered the nobility for Western traditions had already infiltrated their society, but it was the complete loss of the exclusive social power that they had maintained that caused the nobility to be truly angry with Peter the Great's actions. Why then did they not rebel? I think that a major reason that the nobility did not form some sort of violent rebel force against Peter the Great is the sanctity of the title of tsar and the fact that ultimately, the nobility were subject to his rule. However, this reason alone would not stop the nobility from rebelling, and thus Peter compromised with the nobility and allowed some members to reclaim their governmental and social positions. While Peter did not allow all of the nobility to reclaim their positions, he appeased enough of the nobility that a strong alliance between the previously dominant class could not be formed. The power of the nobility is undeniable--they have the power, status, money and means to bribe others into allying with them and could have been a very dangerous enemy to Peter. However, in compromising with some nobility, Peter protected his ability to have jurisdiction without the overwhelming threat of the nobility.

Good or Bad?

So Peter the Great was obviously a selfish ruler, but I've been wondering if that automatically taints his internal reforms. While there are many cases of Peter acting without considering the public or the Russian identity--he completely changed traditional Russian culture by enforcing westernization and he moved the capital to a previously foreign territory, he did initiate an education system by laying "the foundations for the colleges" (173 Peter the Great by Paul Bushkokitch). What is interesting about this is that Peter actually began to return the power to the aristocracy in the educational realm, which contradicts his anti-nobility stance. While he had attempted to kind of reintegrate the nobility into the government in 1698, in giving nobility powerful roles in education, Peter is limiting who can access such education. I understand that education in this period was essentially exclusive to the nobility, but I feel as if in giving the nobility such powerful roles, Peter ties down the potential for education to spread to the masses and makes the educational realm something that is very exclusive and representative of the power of the nobility.
But to backtrack a little bit--I'm still pretty hung up on the fact that toward the end of his reign Peter began to restore the power of the nobility. What is so characteristic and unique about his reign is that he eliminated so much power from the aristocracy and that he managed to maintain rule and avoid a rebellion even though he completely altered the internal Russian social structure. While there was discontentment among the aristocracy, it was never voiced in a violent manner. Why then did Peter give in? I personally believe that Peter was only able to maintain his power because he was the rightful heir to the throne and the Russian people didn't want to dispute the sanctity of this inheritance. When compared to Hitler whose platform was almost entirely built upon the support of the public, it becomes clear that the only thing that maintained Peter's power was his title. While Peter undeniably changed Russian society, he did not influence the Russian public. What I mean by that is that Hitler completely brainwashed the majority of the German public and got them on his side (as Danielle's post "Tactics to Gain Power" cites that membership to the Nazi party increased from 389,000 in the beginning of 1931 to 800,000 by the end of that year), whereas in Peter's case, the Russian public was on his side (for the most part) by default.
Does this change the influence of Peter's reign or his reputation? To be honest, it's much more impressive when somone comes out of no where and completely imposes his rule and, beyond that, gains SUPPORT than it is for someone to stray from the norm of what their title entails.

Peter the Great and Religion

So while Peter's restructure of Russian society is pretty well known, I didn't really know much about how Peter interacted with the church and religion. Before doing any specific research on Peter's relationship with the church, based on what I had learned about Peter's rule, I had assumed that Peter would have strictly imposed some sort of Russian church, but perhaps one that was more secular because of Western European trends. What I found in the book ""Peter the Great" by Robert K. Massie was not far from my assumption. I found it interesting that "he accepted God's omnipotence and saw His hand in everything", just because seeing as he was an authoritarian ruler who seemed to be primarily concerned with himself, I would have thought that his faith and belief in God would have been minimal, and for that I assumed that he would have secularized the Church (783). But in fact, Peter secularized the Church to make it more tolerant of other religious sects aside from Orthodox Catholicism. So while this act was a pretty bold move, the most impressive action on the part of Peter the Great would undoubtedly be in the 1721 enactment of the Ecclesiastical Regulation. This regulation linked the church with the state (big surprise that Peter the Great wanted to control the Church too), established an institution called the Holy Governing Synod and abolished all aspects of the Church that Peter didn't agree with, inforcing that all bishops and priests were schooled in religion to terminate ignorance within the Church.
Essentially, Peter simultaneously loosened the regulations of the Church while tightening his personal control over the Church, what I see as sort of killing two birds with one stone because he allows for more enclusion within the Church (which rallies support for his actions) while he gains control over the establishment that now has a larger membership. I have to ask AGAIN...did he do it for the Russian state or for his own reputation?

The Bronze Horseman

So I was looking up images of St. Petersburg and I came across the picture of the sculpture, "The Bronze Horseman" which I had quite honestly forgotten all about. So then I started looking up some information and I found this poem of some sort that I guess kind of tells the tale of the establishment of St. Petersburg. What I though was super interesting about this work is the sense of pride and love that is associated with St. Petersburg. The writer says, "I love thee, city of Peter's making" and makes other references to his or her love for St. Petersburg and I was pretty surprised to see such an emotional attachment to St. Petersburg. I had assumed that the relocation of the Russian capital to St. Petersburg had completely disturbed and fractured the Russian identity and that Russian people felt distanced and detached from the new capital. But I guess that this poem or work proved me wrong. This work demonstrates a sense of pride, ownership over and entitlement to St. Petersburg, in the way that the capital was acquired from the Swedes, which did undeniably reveal Russian military power, but I was still pretty surprised to find such a celebration and embrace of this foreign territory. While I still think that Peter was not interested in benefiting the lives of the Russian people, I guess that the establishment of St. Petersburg did, to a certain extent, unite the people and form a sense of Russian nationalism. I mean, I'm a little skeptical of the Russian people's embrace of St. Petersburg just because I think about what would happen if all of a sudden the US acquired some new land and just decided to relocate the capital, the CENTER of the country to this random new land, and I think that while it is the ultimate way for a country to show it's power, I think that it would do more internal damage to the country than it would unite or help the country.

St. Petersburg

HEY GROUP.
So I was thinking about how Peter the Great had just uprooted the traditional Russian social structure and lifestyle and I realized that I haven't even written/thought much about St. Petersburg. I mean, while Peter the Great demonstrated his authoritarian power through his social reforms, attempts to modernize Russia and his military pursuits, I think that his establishment of St. Petersburg truly encompasses all of Peter's goals and influences on 17th-18th century Russian society. So St. Petersburg was established on territory that Peter had gained from the Swedes in the Great Northern War. In relocating the Russian capital to St. Petersburg, a territory that Russia had JUST acquired, Peter is again disrupting Russian tradition and showing that the most important thing for him is to insure that his power and the influence and spread of his power is understood by the Russian civilians as well as other European countries (since in moving the capital to St. Petersburg, Peter is encroaching on Western Europe). Peter cares more about his reputation as "Great" then he does about the Russian identity, in fact, I would say that Peter does not care at all about the Russian identity, for he seems to only truly be interested in his ability to influence and change that identity.
I think that what differentiates Peter the Great from Hitler is in their causes. Hitler, although his "cause" was terrible and unimaginably destructive, was extending his influence and his BELIEFS to the German public. To contrast, Peter the Great didn't seem to really have any "cause" except to secure his reputation. While Peter did make very aggressive and influential changes in Russian society, it is clear that his actions were not based upon his considerations of the Russian public. Peter used the Russian public as well as the Russian identity as tools that he could reshape in order to ultimately demonstrate his power and influence, which makes me wonder whether he was more interested in making Russia a great military and European power to strengthen Russia or if he was interested in transforming Russia to a European power to demonstrate his strength.