Certainly, the most powerful demonstration of his approach to protection of his authority and the state against political dissent would come in the form of his uncompromising treatment of rebellion. The enormity and ethnic variations defining the Russian empire would subject it inherently to acts of rebellion, regional conflicts and various small but organized efforts at undermining the authority of the tsars. Peter took an extremely decisive approach to these threats to his authority, responding to rebellion with not the slightest withholding in retribution. This is best exemplified by the first uprising of his rule, where the streltsy emerged in support of the authority of his half-sister Sofia. Most acts of rebellion would come about in the opposition of Peter's apparently greater admiration for aspects of European rather than Russian culture. Accordingly, our research reports that "heavily influenced by his advisors from Western Europe, Peter reorganized the Russian army along modern lines and dreamed of making Russia a maritime power. He faced much opposition to these policies at home, but brutally suppressed any and all rebellions against his authority, the rebelling of streltsy, Bashkirs, Astrakhan and including the greatest civil uprising of his reign, the Bulavin Rebellion." (Hughes, 1)
Peter's response to the streltsy rebellion would help to set the tone for his low level of tolerance for civil insubordination. The tsar's forces reportedly suffered the loss of only a single serviceman as a result of the uprising. In unilateral response, Peter had 1200 streltsy rebels executed for their roles in the insurrection. Here, Peter would show his true colors to those that may have perceived his European inclinations as affectations dictating a lesser interest in rulership than aristocratic hedonism. But the transition from the Peter the wealthy young recreationalist to Peter the reformer would see his pursuits turn not just to the affairs of state and empire, but to the continuity of his own lineage. Peter may be said in this regard to have employed a certain foresight in justification of his excesses of violence. Peter adopted on behalf of tsarist Russia an understanding of his divine appointment to leadership which suggested an intellectual and spiritual hierarchy justifying his authoritarian tendencies. In this regard, he would be a catalyst in the Soviet ascendancy to feudalism. The disjointed territories of Rus and Kiev had become the province of a single crown, which Peter intended to retain for generations.
It is thus that we find even in Peter's own words a recognition of his authority as being for the good of a peasantry and court which he characterizes as lacking the wherewithal to makes its own decisions. Here, we begin to understand the perspective that drove Peter to such ends of authoritarian excess in pursuit of that which he perceived to be necessary and even progressive reform. Like most reformers, Peter would be faced not just with opposition from fringe ethnicities and border regions, but would also suffer the opposition of forces internal to his own government. It would be Peter's response largely to appeal to an even greater demonstration of his willingness to employ force against...
In a manifesto on the encouragement of factories issues in November 1723 he wrote: 'It's true that there are few who are willing to participate, for our people are like children who, out of ignorance, will never get down to learning their alphabet unless the master forces them to do so. At first they find it tedious, but when they learn their lesson they are grateful. This is evidence in the current state of affairs where everything has to be done by force, but already thanks can be heard and fruit has been produced." (Hughes, 182)
This is an illuminating perspective on exactly where Peter the Great stood in terms of preservation of rights and the extension of individual freedoms. These, he argued, were secondary in the achievement of social progress to the programming of widespread and dramatic cultural change. To his view, the importance of his intended accomplishments was such that the consequences of his means were to be overlooked to his favor. For Peter, there was a far bigger picture than the loss of individual freedom and rights. The effective occupation and governing of an empire also demanded the projection of an empire, with all the fierceness, intimidation and divine befitting one in such a position.
Thus, when we assess the change implemented in Russia and the empire beyond it as they occurred under the rule of the Peter the Great, it is appropriate to acknowledge this on two different levels. First and foremost, it is true that Peter was a strategic mastermind in reaching new borders at Russia's monarch, with his intense personal interest in naval pursuits inclining a strategy of gaining Russian access to port cities and waterways. This would push the empire to a new scope and impose the influence of Russian culture as far afield as North Africa. Peter would impose aspects of an evolving Russian cultural identity in a great many contexts that now, as parts of Eastern Europe, bear striking cultural similarities to the modern state of Russia.
However, this influence alone does not fully capture that which Peter the Great represented to the Russian people in perpetuity. As one of its great icons, its most important leaders and its most prominent legacies, Peter the Great also leaves a trail of cultural dictatorship that Russia still struggles to cast off today. In the totalitarian interpretation of communism undertaken by such figures as Lenin and Stalin, as well as in the uncompromising cronyism of the Putin administration, we can hear echoes of Peter's authoritarian decrees. Today, Peter's stamp may be most notable in the cultural proclivity of Russians to expect a mode of highly centralized, deeply uncompromising and often internally contradictory governmental authority.
Gordon, a. (1755). The History of Peter the Great, Emperor of Russia. London: F. Douglass and W. Murray.
Hughes, L. (2002). Peter the Great: A Biography. Yale University Press.
Levykin, a.K. (1999). Peter the Great (Peter Alexeevich). The Moscow Kremlin Museums. Online at http://www2.sptimes.com/Treasures/TC.2.3.6.html
NNDB. (2010). Peter the Great. Soylent Communications. Online at…
Furthermore, when groups began people naturally turned to the group leader for direction and advice. It would be accurate to state that most of the relating was to the group leader at that point. However, by exercising linking behavior, I was able to get the group members to look to each other for understanding and help. Initially, I had to point out when people were saying things that would indicate
Native American History In the Twentieth Century focuses on the famous novel written by Erdrich Louise called Tracks. This paper focuses on the theme of the novels and links them to the following novels namely, Talking Back to Civilization by Frederick Hoxie, Boarding School Seasons by Brenda Child and Major Problems in American Indian History by Hurtado and Iverson. This paper also highlights the problems, which the Native Indians
Origins, History of the IMF The International Monetary Fund was first conceived between July 1-22, 1944, at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The conference was attended by representatives of 45 nations, which were called together in order to plan and lay the groundwork for a cooperative economic framework to solve global financial crises before they occur. One key reason for the conference was to
geniuses, history will never even be aware that most people even lived at all, much less that their lives had any real purpose, meaning or worth. All ideas of human equality and natural rights are just pious little myths and fables, since only a handful will ever have the talent and intelligence to be recognized as standing out from the anonymous masses. This world is a very cruel and