Peter the Reformer

[alexander]

i have suspected that you were not arguing, and its all ok, i like discussion over arguing anyways , then we stick with this thread

I have been listening to a tape about Russian history

what's this "tape" you refer to? is that like next generation past blueray dvd technology? never heard of this tape technology (kidding ofcourse)

Where do you suggest I get better information?

History books? I suggest history books that are written by Russian historians, or translations of them. Though it is always good to read outside sources as well, because they bring you perspectives that some scholars simply could not, at the time. But in order to understand the Russian mind, you have to read it .

It appears their culture lead them to be very cooperative people.

Cooperative? hmm, well sort of. let me give you the shakedown of Russian people (and it was ever-so-true in Peter's time, and Russia is very slowly getting away from that today)

Russian people are very cooperative with each other. i know of no other country in the world, where, if you are walking down the street and you seem to be getting frost bite on your face, you will probably be stopped by someone, who will take their mitten (or if there is no mitten, some snow in their hands) and without question start rubbing the frostbitten parts of your face to restore the circulation. That is not only true for Russian people towards Russian people, but towards anyone. (at that do understand that noone is perfect, i am talking about general population though, i think you will understand)

This however brings me to russian relations with the outside world, which are, to say the least, not as friendly as one may think they may be. The problem is, Russia has had so many wars, there is a tendency of people not trusting the outside, from the 300 year dominance by the Tatar-Mongols, to the hundreds of years of attempted invasions by the Poles, Prussians, Fins, etc, Russian people have learned not to trust the outside world, and block it out as much as they possibly could.

From very early on, Russia was a very religious country as well, so much so, that many traditions, even dating back from pagan Rus (it was called Rus for a long while (with a soft s)), are still around to this day, though in today's modern Russia they are more of a preservation of herritage, deeply, outside the cities, the traditions still live to this day. You have said it yourself, russia is mainly Eastern Orthodox Christians, and with orthodoxy comes the never-ending struggle with change. After the Russian Patriarchate split from the constantinople (1448), Peter's reform of the church split it and confused it further, the church was now "New belief" and "Old belief". The fact that it split instead of adjusting, further proves my point that change, from very long ago, Russia is not a country that is prone to change.

[Freddy]

Robert K. Massie's, Peter the Great: His Life and World (Knopf, 1980) that you cited is considered the defining work on Peter Romanov. There are several books on the Mongol/Tartar Yoke in Russian history. Russia and the Mongol Yoke. The History of the Russian Principalities and the Golden Horde, 1221-1502 by Leo de Hartog is a good source. A History of Russia by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, 1963, now in its 7th edition, is a classic survey in Russian history.

[nutronjon]

Wow, that looks like some good reading.

I have a few tapes narrated by Harry Reasoner titled "The World's Political Hot Spots". They don't give enough detail.

Hum, I have more books about Russia, in my library, than I remembered. I guess I better do some reading. Thank you all for making Russian history something to talk about. But good grief- this history is confusing!

Does anyone want to explain the conflict between Western Christiandom and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and what this has to do with Russia becoming totalitarian? It seems obvous we should understand this, when we discuss the Russian Communist who rejected religion. What in heck happened? What is this religious difference in Christianity that pitted Christians against each other? Or may be this is a different thread? There are at least 3 major splits in Christianity, and somehow this brings the the west to hate the Russians, and brings the Russians to totalitarianism. Back to the thread, Peter appears to love the power of a totalitarian, while wanting to free Russia from the past and modernize it. Hum, I am really confused.

[alexander]

It seems obvous we should understand this, when we discuss the Russian Communist who rejected religion. What in heck happened?

Actually the reason the Communist rejected religion is totally separate from the reasons russia was totalitarian, which is separate from orthodoxy differences.

communism is the reason that religion was rejected during the regime Communism

[nutronjon]

Good morning, I spent my last few hours of sleep thinking thoughts stimulated by this thread, and read about Russian this morning. Now this is the intellectual stimulation that brings me to such forums. I am very happy this morning.

Alexander, I think your statement that communism is the reason the USSR turned from religion, needs to be explained, but not this thread. You have more to say to about the subject, please, start another thread. I think it would be as interesting as this one, and very much worth our time. That said, I can see how the subject ties into this one. WHAT GAVE PETER SO MUCH POWER? The labor of serfs supports the statement that Peter was a Great leader, but I hardly think these people welcomed his rule. He was a tyrant of the worst kind.

Talk about a melting pot. Russia has been a huge melting pot, dominated by one nomadic culture after another, with Iranian links in these nomadic cultures, giving Russia militaristic and despotic potential, and Greek colonies with developed commerce giving Russia democratic potential. It was periodically over run but primitive people who could then dominate for awhile. What is to survive all this change and how does anything survive such changes? Back to, what gave Peter the power to rule? What gave Bush the power to rule to the US, another melting pot?

Genghis Khan's morals would cause a man to tend to the frost bite on a passing stranger's face. Such morality comes from a harsh environment, where the people are forced to be nomadic, because there isn't enough good farm soil to support an agrarian way of life. In such harsh climates, if there is a God, it is nothing like the caring God of Christians, and people must depend on each other for their survival. Khan thought cities with there division of rich and poor, lead to lying and stealing and commanded his people to never settle in one place and become as the city people. He also commanded them never to choose one religion over another. Communism seems influenced by this morality. Hum, the history of Russia is complex. Back to, what gave Peter so much power, if not the church, and a tendency towards despoticism which is Iranian/Persian? The east/west divide is what?

[alexander]

Ok first off my comments on communism, i don't link people for nothing, generally if i have a short post with a link at the end, the link explains much of what i didn't take time to explain. But it's ok, let me expand on why Communism regime outlaws religion....

As i have indicated in the Marxist-Leninist system, religion is what they refer to as "opium for the people". In their initial manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels referred to religion in such terms:

Originally Posted by "The Communist Manifesto", 1848

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death-battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religion, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

As such, communism as communism abolishes religion in it's modern terms. Thus under Marxist-Leninist socialism religion was also abolished, which was odd, for a country that is to this day pretty religious...

So as to my speculation as to WHAT gave peter the power that he wielded:
First off it is wrong to call Peter a tyrant, if you are doing that then you might as well call every king that has ever executed anyone (and that would be every king) a tyrant. To you, what makes one a tyrant?

Anyhow, what made Peter so popular, powerful and perhaps even in parts, great.

Peter was a decedent of the ruling family, if that does not already provide a lot of reason as to how he became a king, i don't know what does

He was a young king, who was chosen by the rule of the council of the nobles (who were called Boyars), to become king when he was just 10 years old. Alexei's daughter, Sophia lead a rebellion (called the rebellion of Streltsy) in an attempt to gain control, Peter was then reproclaimed as the coruler together with Ivan, and their regent was Sophia, who basically for 7 years was the sole ruler of Russia. It is perhaps at this time, when the uprisers were killing off Peter's family, that Peter disliked the organization that was started by Ivan IV.

Sophia, being backed by Streltsy created an iron fist, in the hands of Peter and Ivan, when peter killed off the Streltsy, and sent Sophia to become a convent and give up her royal name.

Peter had lots of backing, and had greatly ambitious plans of reform, which i will touch later when i get home..... g2run

[alexander]

... Continued

Changes is something that Russia needed, and not that everyone saw the need for them, but pre Peter Russia was so old, they didn't even establish which calendar they were using. Meanwhile in europe, the newest innovations and the begginings of the industrial age, and the age of reason, brought new thoughts, technologies, and ways to apply them to make the life easier.

The reason that peter was better then anyone else at the time to rule Russia was because of how Sophia ruled it. After unsuccessful attempts at teh crimean wars, that were presented to russians as a great success and generously rewarded, the country could not bear to be ran by the general of the Streltsy. Peter, at the time, was well consumed in any and every detail of wars and millitary, learning anything and everything he could. He had his own elite of the army, they were called poteshniye, or funny, divisions, each consisting of 100 men, and by the time peter was 17, he had 2 of these funny divisions. The reason they were funny was because they wore a different uniform then the traditional russian army. The long sleive jackets that were popular and used in the army were cut off, only to bare essentials (normal clothes). After Sophia tried to marry Peter, and after a month or so, Peter running off to his war studies, Sophia decided to take control of the throne, but the army decided against joining her, and Peter and Ivan were back on the thrown, this time as the only rulers. Fairly shortly thereafter, Ivan decided to take full control over to Peter, though he was still called a king till his early death.

Peter didn't even really join his ruling legacy for the first couple of years of the rule. He was studying in europe, furthering his army education, and all the time taking notes of how he wanted the russian version of something to work, like in the western world.

once again to be continued when i get a chance (picking up my new car today )

[nutronjon]

Is Bin Laden deserving of being called Bin Laden the Great? He has followers and has achieved some military victories, although he is very disadvantaged compared to the military powers of George Bush. Is this what makes a man worthy of being called Great?

In answer to question of what makes a person a tyrant, it is a power structure that does not restrain the person. I think all kings would be tyrant. I know our dictionaries add cruelty and oppressive to the meaning of tyrant, and this unfortunately misleading. The worst tyrants are very nice people, who believe they are acting for the good of others. A tyrant is someone who can do as s/he pleases, because those who are done to can not prevent the doing. This definition includes mothers, fathers and three year old children. We tend to give bureaucrats the power of tyrants. What makes a tyrant a tyrant is the power relationship. They hold the power and those who are done to do not.

I think you have glazed over the importance of the church to Peter's power a little too quickly. What happened to the church in the west, that did not happen to the Orthodox Church?

Marx was German, and perhaps no country has been more torn apart then Germany because of religious conflict. The 30 Years War which devasted Germany, began as a conflict between Protestants and Catholic. The French also witnessed terrible conflict between Protestants and Catholics, and wars between England and France were wars between Protestants and Catholics. The democracy of the US is in part because of science and in part because of this religious conflict. The consciousness of our world was changing when Marx wrote, and this change has everything to do with the freedom of democracy or the opposite, living under a despot. This is the east/west conflict, and it is as old as Persia and Athens. This is a fascinating subject and I very mcuh appreciate your interest. You are better informed about Russian history than I am.

[alexander]

The worst tyrants are very nice people, who believe they are acting for the good of others. A tyrant is someone who can do as s/he pleases, because those who are done to can not prevent the doing. This definition includes mothers, fathers and three year old children. We tend to give bureaucrats the power of tyrants. What makes a tyrant a tyrant is the power relationship.

using this definition, almost every person is a tyrant. anyone who has ever ruled was a tyrant for sure, which makes peter yet another tyrant. Your parents would immediately become tyrants if they have ever taken a fork away from a young you. Not-so-virgin Marry was a tyrant of biblical proportions, because she must have taken rocks and stuff away from Jesus so he would not try to eat them.... The cruelty and oppressiveness should both be in the definition of a tyrant, because that is what is a modern man thinks when someone says that word.... so let's stick with that

Is Bin Laden deserving of being called Bin Laden the Great

He may very well be, and to his followers he already is the great Bin Laden. He was a worthy soldier, and a general of the Afghan rebel forces fighting the oppressive communists, who were trying to conquer them. He was a good general in that same war, and now he is the man who is leading the fight agains the non-believers in the world.... to his followers, he already is great.

You see the perspective of "the Great" is dependent on which direction you look at it... and sometimes the outside view, and the inside view differ quite greatly. You see, to you, a person who looks at someone from the perspective of "He killed a bunch of people, he killed his son for being stupid, he expanded the territory of Russia by killing more people, he is a tyrant" he may not seem like the same person who looks at him as "He changed russian tradition (feat on itself, russian traditions are very hard to temper with) and standardized a whole crapload of stuff, he opened new trading routes to europe and brought in new technologies and crop(potato) from the west. He started modernising russia, he gave it it's fleet and newer style weapons so it can defend itself. He built the impossible, a beautifully architecturally sound, truly european city... on a swamp... he built up russian economy, and it's image in the eyes of the down-looking westerners... stabelized the throne and rule line."

anyhow, this tyrant talk is useless unless you harshen your definition of Tyrant until most people don't fall in that category, then we can talk this tyrany. If you are trying to play devil's advocate, please use historical examples of what it is you don't agree with and what it is you as a russian tzar at the time would do. Till then, this discussion is more like trying to explain to a religious person that god is a fairy tale that ancient people created to explain what they could not explain about the world...

[nutronjon]

Yes, exactly, as our parents have the power of tyrants. I think the point I am making is essential to understand. The US has balanced powers, because tyranny is about the relationship of those in power with those they have power over. Unfortunately for many years, the presidency has gained unbalanced powers and Cheney and Bush have taken this to extremes, even violating international law by condoning the abuse of human beings, one of those tortured, giving false information that lead to justifying the attack on Iraq. What a mess. The US is in serious trouble, but because their dictionaries give them a poor definition of tyranny, they don't realize seriousness of the trouble.

Many years ago, the Children's Protective Services took my grandchildren and made them wards of the state. They did this by charging my daughter with allowing her husband to beat her when the children were present. That is a ridiculus charge, but well meaning people do not understand the absurbity of it. The legal system works on the side of the Protectice Service and the parents and children do not have good legal representation. A case worker is assigned to the child, and has wayyyyyy too much power to decide what happens to the children. There are no balances in the system, because everyone judges the parents by what is written in files, and those files are written to justify the case worker and the system. To stress how absurb all this was, my daughter's husband was put in prision and the state still held her children, even when the threat to them was in prison! I never dreamed there was so much to learn about tyranny as I learned when my grandchildren were wards of the state. I assure you, everyone had excellent intentions. Because they are all saw each other as very good people with very good intentions, the tyranny was even worse, than if anyone, besides my family, had been suspected of being a bad person, like Saddam. Tyranny is a matter of the relationship, and very nice people can be very powerful tyrants.

Your reasoning for saying Laden could be considered a great person is good, and it is also the reasoning that gives gang leaders power on the streets, and status to prisoners who are locked up because they are not people we want on in our communities. Perhaps when civilizations call people great, they might give some thought to the values of this greatness, and if we want everyone to act on those values.

Peter the Great was a tyrant even in the way he went about changing Russia for the good. He used serfs to acheive his own ego desires. Humanity is in serious trouble as long as it approves of what Peter the Great did even to his own people. Now had he ended serfdom and enabled his people ti individually great people, the way democracy does, not only would Russia probably have become a great power equal to the US, but I would then consider him a great man.