The reforms of Peter the Great – more harmful than good?

The reforms of Peter the Great is commonly lauded among both Western and Russian historians as having laid the foundations of an imperial state which secured the country’s status as one of the world’s leading powers in subsequent centuries. However, a negative view of Peter the revolutionary did stem from the ‘Slavophiles’ who challenged the view of the Westernisers that Peter’s changes had been to the benefit of Russia; instead they have condemned Peter as the creator of a cultural, social and spiritual divide between masses and elite which ultimately sown the seeds of the Bolshevik revolution.

Even though most of us in the west would assume that Peter’s reforms was good and had elevated Russia as an equal to the western powers, the Slavophiles do appear to make an interesting case. So what does everyone thinks of Peter and his reforms, did it really do more harms than good?

I think a lot of this negativity stems from a post-soviet Putin vision of a middle ie Slavic way to run things between the West and East.

I would argue that the divide between the nobility and the peasantry was not a result of Peter the Greats reform but more of a consequence of a decentralized inefficient government. Peasants in imperial Russia saw very little of the outside world beyond tax collectors and the local nobility. As tax burdens grew heavier and Russia failed to modernize in the 19th century the peasantry largely stayed in the mindset of the 1600's while the nobility stayed attuned with European culture. If you must blame anyone I would blame Alexander I for his reactionary policies. The transportation, agricultural and industrial revolution in Russia would have created a greater sense of nationalism and education in the peasant resulting in the creation of a modernized middle class like it did in much of Europe. If this had happened perhaps the Russian Revolution wouldn't have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I think a lot of this negativity stems from a post-soviet Putin vision of a middle ie Slavic way to run things between the West and East.

---

The original Slavophile movement started somewhere around the 19th century and pretty much died out after a while. However, you do get these modern Slavophile political parties in Russia nowadays. I’m just curious how some can criticize Peter when most of his reforms had obviously bore fruit, later on if not in his own lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

I would argue that the divide between the nobility and the peasantry was not a result of Peter the Greats reform but more of a consequence of a decentralized inefficient government. Peasants in imperial Russia saw very little of the outside world beyond tax collectors and the local nobility. As tax burdens grew heavier and Russia failed to modernize in the 19th century the peasantry largely stayed in the mindset of the 1600's while the nobility stayed attuned with European culture. If you must blame anyone I would blame Alexander I for his reactionary policies. The transportation, agricultural and industrial revolution in Russia would have created a greater sense of nationalism and education in the peasant resulting in the creation of a modernized middle class like it did in much of Europe. If this had happened perhaps the Russian Revolution wouldn't have happened.

---

What if we take the Bolshevik Revolution out of the equation? The slippery slope that Peter had triggered the Bolshevik revolution seems far fetched, but more concrete criticisms regarding his social policies e.g. shaving off beards, forcing people to attend ballet lessons etc. are more credible. Couldn’t Peter make Russia into a great power without radically changing its cultural and heritage? Like Karazmin said: “One state may borrow from another useful knowledge without borrowing its manners”; maybe Peter overstepped the mark when he tried to completely remake Russian societies among western lines.

Many of the impediments to Peter the Great's non cultural reforms had cultural sources. Both peasant and noble were extremely xenophobic and opposed even scientific and technological reforms due to their association with the Germans. It's not to say that Peter's way was the only way but reshaping the culture was a very effective way to circumvent most of the cultural opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Many of the impediments to Peter the Great's non cultural reforms had cultural sources. Both peasant and noble were extremely xenophobic and opposed even scientific and technological reforms due to their association with the Germans. It's not to say that Peter's way was the only way but reshaping the culture was a very effective way to circumvent most of the cultural opposition.

---

Rather simplified but generally accurate assesment. Many of the reforms of Peter the Great weren't really felt in his time (military reform might be the most obvious exception) but it left the fertile soil for his succesors to capitalize on them. Scientific and cultural progress that happened afterwards owed much to the course Peter has set Russia on.

No reforms are easy, especially those that try to change much in short time span and they often leave rifts and divides to be bridged later on, but I shudder to think what might Russia look like if it hadn't even been tried.

Peter did start the gap between the nobility and peasant though his daughter Elizabeth and Catherine II really introduced luxury and French culture to the aristocrats. When he was alive the peasants and nobility had one culture. The nobles changed, the peasants did not. He did not intend this, he was simple in his way of living and eating and said the gap in France would lead to a revolution. It did later in the century. But the reforms of Peter put the country on the world stage. He defeated Sweden which was a power in Europe at the time, he started a navy, introduced Dutch agricultural stock and methods, started mines and factories, redid the ranks in the army, built St Petersburg to be the new port capital, and changed the dress and way women were treated. He introduced dance music. He did so much that Russia would not be Russia without him. It is likely that it would be a third world country, even though his predecessors were slowly changing it.

I thought that the Russian revolution was caused to a large degree by the First World War and also by Nicholas II's limitations. How can anyone seriously suggest that Peter the Great should have anticipated and prevented these factors?

I thought that the Russian revolution was caused to a large degree by the First World War and also by Nicholas II's limitations. How can anyone seriously suggest that Peter the Great should have anticipated and prevented these factors?

AFAIK any cultural divide between the peasants and the nobles was not a significant factor. When people haven't got enough to eat, and the ruler has lost the confidence and obedience of the army, then the people can get a bit feisty. They probably wouldn't care whether or not their noble overlord knows how to say bonjour.