Does Peter I of Russia deserve the title 'The Great'?

Under Peter there were significant political upheavals. Anderson maintains that these fell well short of Lenin, argueing that Peter had no clear ‘ideology, no articulated system of genereal ideas to guide his actions’. Conversely, the poet Pushkin disagrees, stating that Peter had deliberately ‘sowed enlightenment’. Like many ‘enlightened’ monarchs, Peter believed in the power of the state over the individual. If he never used Frederick the Great’s phrase ‘the first servant of the state’, he came very close t it when he struck out ‘the interests of his Tsarist Majestry’ from a draft decree and replaced it with ‘the interests of the state’ as a proper object of a soldier’s loyalty. However, the statement of Peter being an enlightened monarch must be with caution. The Enlightenment is argued my some as not having met him and many of his reforms were generally introduced as a result of immediate necessity, rather than as part of a rational plan.

The popularity of a monarch is regarded by some as being a prerequisite for being given the title ‘Great’. Peter recognised that he lacked this, saying to a foreign ambassador ‘I am represented as a cruel tyrant’. Traditional clergy saw Peter as an anti-Christ, while in the church in general there was distrust of his anti-clerical measures, secularization and westernisation program. The traditional nobility were alienated by the introduction of state service by the cost of war with Sweden and by the apparent westernization. Peasants revolted against the extra tax burdens imposed upon them and the depression of their social status. Close allies, such as his economic adviser Ivan Pososhov, saw Peter as a figure struggling against ingrained backwardness and suspicion.

Throughout history, many rulers have been regarded as ‘Great’ because of their military genius – Alexander the Great for example. Peter, on the other hand, was no tactical master. He lacked the timing and finesse that Napoleon demonstrated at Austerlitz (1805). Nor did he come up with new tactics, unlike Gustavus Adolphus’s linear formation at Breitenfeld (1632), or the oblique attack which enabled Frederick the Great to win at Leuthen in 1757. However, it must be noted that he did have an ability to survive military defeat. His calculated withdrawal before Charles XII, which culminated in his decisive victory at Poltava (1709).

One can also be referred to as ‘Great’ because of significant territorial aggrandisement. The regions annexed by Peter I of Russia was not extensive, amounting to the Baltic Provinces, the Southern shore of the Caspian and the remote peninsula of Kamchatka. However, like Frederick the Great’s conquest of Silesia, these were to shape the future of Russia. This is particularly true of the Baltic provinces. They were closer to Europe than the rest of Russia and so were key in his attempts to westernise the state, also providing him with land for his new capital, St Petersburg, ‘The Window to the West’. This regions also meant that Russia now had access to all-season ports, hugely increasing their naval and commercial ability. The Baltic States were also notoriously strong agriculturally, this was a huge bonus to Russia. Lastly, Peter’s gain of the Baltic also resulted in the demise of Russia’s traditional enemy, Sweden.

Lastly, a monarch’s ‘greatness’ can be found by assessing whether their reputation lasted after their death.  At first he was the subject of a cult, proliferated by Feofan Prokopovich and later figures including Catherine the Great. During the nineteenth century views began to polarise. He was either the source of all Russian progress or a destroyer of tradition and culture. During the twentieth century views became even more ambivalent, he was portrayed on the one hand as the ultimate representative of the exploitative western system and on the other as one of the great heroes of Russian history who personally worked alongside his compatriots.

Therefore, the impact of Peter the Great on Russian society and imagination is unbroken, his only serious rival being Lenin. Like Peter, Lenin’s reputation was launched by the creation of a personality cult. But Lenin’s cult was destroyed by the collapse of the ideology to which it was tied. Peter has now re-emerged as the key figure in Russian history as point symbolised in 1991 by the restoration to Leningrad of its original name, St Petersburg.