Peter Alexeyevich (1672-1725), better known as Peter I or Peter the Great was the ruler of the Tsardom of Russia and later the ruler of his own Russian Empire. He is referred to as one of the greater and more impactful leaders in not only Russian but European history. Peter is best known for his vast number of reforms and changes made to Russia’s government and society. One might say that Peter the Great “changed the game” for Russia. Though, not only did Peter change Russia and his Tsardom of Russia, but he impacted bordering nations and all of Europe. Peter the Great broke serious ground in Russia’s foreign policy. Dictionary.com defines foreign policy as “a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations,designed to achieve …show more content…
Along with that he wanted to expand his kingdom throughout Asia and Europe. Throughout it all the main goal of Peter’s foreign affairs and policies were to get Russia on the diplomatic map of Russia, as well as become a great military power. In the book “Peter the Great”, by Paul Bushkovitch and in the book also entitled “Peter the Great” by Derek Wilson, the authors attempt to not only portray Peter the Great’s life but explain his ideas of foreign policy. They authors also show how his goals of getting Russia to a point of diplomatic power in Europe and giving strength to Russia’s military, effected bordering nations of Europe. The authors specifically indulged in Peter the Great’s foreign policy regarding the Great Northern War and as to how the great leader strived to create a military …show more content…
Lucky for him, through his hard push towards military strength, he was extraordinarily difficult to defeat in battle. It was 1700 when Peter realized his desperate need for a sea port, specifically the warm waters of the Baltic Sea, which was run at the time by King Charles XII of the Swedish Empire. Peter took a totally offensive approach of attack as he was desperate for a trading port and a way to expand his Tsardom of Russia to the seas. He went head on along with his troops into the city of Narva in order to capture the Estonian port from Sweden and the King Charles XII. To Peter and his admiral, Fyodor Golovin, “the capture of the Estonian port of Narva from Sweden was to be the first step in opening the window into Europe” (Bushkovitch 109). Eager and unprepared, Peter was unlucky in the battle of Narva and was defeated in November of 1700. Peter now knew the strength of opposing armies throughout Europe, and that made him go the extra mile in achieving his goal of creating a military superpower. He bolstered his army with new weapons, horses, transportation, and new troops altogether. He was executing a plan to take over the Baltic Sea and continue his tear through Europe gaining land and bodies of water along the way. Peter seemed fully invested in retrieving the Baltic Sea’s control to his home of Russia. So it invested it seemed that he was totally willing to spare himself and his men
He had an army of over 100,000 men. So Peter went to war with the Ottoman Empire wanting access to the Baltic Sea and warm-water ports. He won, so he named St. Petersburg Russia’s new capital, which is right next to the water. This allowed Russia to strengthen their navy, which is exactly what happened. Lastly, Peter the Great expanded Russia’s borders by gaining control of the warm-water ports, Poland, parts of Austria, and Manchuria all with treaties or war.
He built an army of 210,000 men and a navy from scratch (Doc4). He was a feared leader an was disliked because of how he ruled. Peter had a goal of conquering the Baltic sea because of the warm water to trade. In attempt to reach this goal, the Swedish King, Charles XII, defeated him at Narva (Doc 2). To overcome his defeat he improved his armies and worked even harder for mastery of the Baltic.
The differences between Catherine and Peter may seem as if they were greatly different rulers, yet were both strong rulers that helped Russia immensely, but made mistakes based on their personal use of power. Catherine the Great and Peter the Great were similar rulers yet their success differed. Genders played a large role in their difference of reigns because Peter being a male, made his rule much easier to get. Catherine did not have the same advantage, which made her road to empress much more
Alexander The Great’s title of “The Great” was not an exaggeration. To earn the title of “The Great”, you must've done some extremely good things as your reign as a king, queen, or emperor. Alexander The Great did many great and powerful things during his lifetime. He established an extremely powerful military, and he knew how to strategically conquer land, and he was interested in turning this conquered land into powerful areas.
Also, during this time period, Frederick William I transformed Prussia into a military state. To become an absolute ruler, Peter the Great made many reforms throughout Russia. However, all these absolute leaders had the same goal. Even though they reigned over different countries, they all strengthened their armies, raised taxes, and unified religion. One thing that all absolute rulers did was increase the strength of their army.
“The Veldt” is a short story by Ray Bradbury. This story can be analyzed using a Marxist and psychoanalytical perspective. For both of these perspectives, the main evidence is found in the kids and their relationship with their parents. For Marxist, “The Veldt” shows how the family relationship reveals the oppression of the lower class and their battle to become the new upper class. The structure of power in this can be connected to the power struggle of today’s society.
Both having a sporty background of being physical, they were involved in several wars and recognized similarly. Peter the Great was recognized by reorganizing his army and created the first Russian Navy. Louis XIV was revengeful, he attacked people who were disobedient such as nobles in exile while Peter the Great wanted to centralize power and strengthen his military such as expanded Russian borders. Peter also demanded money from mercantilist policy because of his new military. But like Peter, Louis XIV who had a semi feudal society, he wanted a mercantile nation to create an efficient army.
Peter Appleton and John Proctor are both similar and different in their own way. They both are in similar situations when they are faced with similar moral dilemmas. They both are coming from different time eras so the dilemma for both of them are of course going to be different. In John Proctors case he is facing the dilemma of him and his wife being accused of witchcraft, and with just being accused of witchcraft no one wanted to associate with you in any way. Peter Appleton’s dilemma is that he is a big Hollywood film writer and living the American dream, but things start to go down because he has been accused of communism.
Peter is ruthless becasue he feels no emotions or regret in killing/murdering his parents due to not getting his way. Peter’s father, “forbade him to take the rocket to New York”(6) and his father decided to turn off, “every machine his hand could get to”(9), which had an impact on him resulting in his plan to murder his parents without
Both Catherine the Great and Peter the Great sought to enhance and further Russia’s international position. This I believe is most consistent with classical realism as they both sought to place their country in a more powerful position, through the expansion of both their state abroad and within their nation-state. These readers without a doubt westernized Russia, but were limited by the constraints of the Russian culture and power structure. The first issue I would tackles is the attempt of Peter the Great to establish Russia as a formidable regional power by taking the traditional metrics of power such as a more centralized government and modernizing the Russian military.
He had control of his people; by his wish, his people built a city for him. However, he could not see that he had no control over nature. Peter the Great had his city built in the middle of a marsh. The benefits of the location, for trade and defense, were used to overlook the flaws in the topography of the region. The power and control of Peter the Great is symbolized in the poem by the chase scene.
The early 20th century had a remarkable impact on human kind, creating ripples in the continuum of history that are still felt in modern times. The biggest and by far the most remarkable event was World War 1. It's main trigger being the assassination of Archduke Franz the war began tragic and tense. In an attempt to prevent Germany from becoming too powerful, other European joined powers for what was to be an exhausting and long battle of attrition. The war was essentially a huge chain of events, tracing back to the Franco-Prussian War and the actions of important people like Otto Von Bismarck.
Glorious men have graced the earth and have left significant impressions on the following generations. Alexander the Great suits that profile like none other. As arguably one of the most influential military leaders in history, Alexander conquered the majority of the known world, including large-scale empires such as the Persian. Succeeding his father, Philip II, to the throne at the age of 20, Alexander commanded an already skilled military, which he schooled further in the beginning of his reign. Even militarily significant empires had no chance against Alexander 's military brilliance and so he constructed one of the largest empires in history.
Alexander the Great was the king and renown general of Macedonia. He led the Greek army against Persia and used many bold tactics in battle. Alexander the Great significantly expanded the Greek legacy by conquering territories. When he conquered a territory, he would not force the locals to assimilate into the Greek culture. This is to ensure they would not rebel against his leadership.
The European monarchs and rulers of the 17th and 18th centuries wanted to increase their power both domestically and globally by adding to their territories and populations so they used the three features of state-building: control, extraction, and integration. In the late 1700s, both the Industrial revolution and French revolution of 1789 strengthened the idea that Europeans were different from the rest of the world. It also strengthened that “Europeans were “progressing” rapidly while the rest of the world appeared to be stagnating, that Europeans were somehow exceptional—better--, even than the rest” as Robert Marks puts it in his words. (Robert Marks, Origins of the world, p-4).