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.