Talk:Peter the Great/Archive 1

Untitled
I have a date fort they "would have been" if the Gregorian Calendar were in effect in Russia. This more often leads to confusion than illumination. In any case, Peter I was born on May 30, 1672, which would have been June 9, 1672 in the Gregorian calendar, and he died on January 28, 1725, which would have been February 8, 1725. Because of the confusion, it's good to state what calendar any given date is in, and I'll put that in the article. -- Someone else 18:50 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

I thought it was something to do with the Julian Calendar, but i wasn;t shore, thankyou for confirming my suspicion. -fonzy lemont williams he was in war war 2 his homeroom at dominon is 206

There's more material at Peter the Great and the Russian Empire. I'm not sure if this should be merged into Peter the Great, or linked from here, but I'm calling attention to it. Isomorphic 04:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Peter was extremely tall at six foot seven inches (2 m) and a powerful man. His gangly legs and arms prevented him from being handsome, however. Strangely enough, the legend has it that his "manhood" was so long that he had to tuck it in his boot. One can still hear people refer to this "fact" in today's Russia with regards to someone's unusually big penis ("His is like Peter's", they say)."


 * That could probably be split up and put into maybe Early Life and a new section about Legacy?--Lucky13pjn 02:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Should all that be in the lead section? Might be better in its own section, or perhaps there's a way to merge it into an existing section. Also, the "legend" leaves me skeptical that anyone could've really believed it, but what do I know? Everyking 20:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am presently expanding this page; by the time I finish, I would most likely have found an appropriate location for the above information. -- Emsworth 23:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am concerned by the removal of information from the article; I hope it's merely temporary and that User:Lord Emsworth plans to add the information back at some point, in some way. Everyking 20:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it is temporary. I will add everything necessary back in the appropriate order. -- Emsworth 00:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Auto writes:

I recall reading - possibly in a Ladybird book, that Peter was 'almost seven feet tall' and also that his eighteen months travelling through Western Europe had had some parties, not least when Peter pushed a wheelbarrow (with a Count/Boyar on board) through a hedge. Probably anecdotal - but perhaps with a grain of truth. Auto wrote. 1149 Z 14 October 2013 116.50.252.15 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

in depth
this hardly speaks of his role as an absolute monarch. that is important. There is also no mention of his penis size, which is very important also. He was rather hung.

It also didn't mention where he got the massive ammounts of money needed to fund all these wars. My understanding is that he created a large ammount of relatively strange taxes, like the beard tax. However, the article seems to portray (at least for me) the beard tax solely as a method with which he attempted to force the people to be more western. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Cannot answer about size of any of his parts of the body :-)) But he was very promiscuous. When he visited the French court, one of the French ladies noted, that most of the women in Peter's entourage (servants) were pregnant or had very young children and when asked they answered: "The Tzar mercifully gave this gift to me". --212.30.67.30 15:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The beard tax was for both purposes as most of his taxes where. During a 20 year period there were maybe 6 total months of peace. He needed the money bad. Boris B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.163.210 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was of the understanding that the Orthodox Russian Church-ers refused to shave their beards and threatened violence, so he just said "If you do not shave, you get taxed." And I don't think that anyone, uh, measured his penis and recorded it reliably. 90.178.52.11 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity
The following line is somewhat ambiguous: "desperation to turn Russia into the great modern Empire that it once was." Does this mean that Peter wanted to restore Russia to its former glory, i.e. "to restore Russia into the great modern Empire that it had once been" or does it mean that it had never been a great empire until that point, and the use of past tense for said greatness is for benefit of today's readers?--Xiphon 17:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The latter, I think. It had never been a modern empire before his time. It's a  non-NPOV sentiment of course, since for "modern" we should probably read "Western", but that was Peter's POV after all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * True. So then shouldn't I change the sentence to read "desperation to turn Russia into a great modern empire". Whether Russia has ever been a great modern empire, POV or otherwise, is largely irrelevant to this topic, all that's required is the knowledge that it was this ambition that drove him forward. Yes?--Xiphon 19:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If by modern you mean, that at the time of the pinnacle of the power, Russia was more developed than others states, the answer is no. Basically the strongest empire, or better kingdom during Byzantion times, was Kievan kingdom. After it, the city states, starting with Novgorod. But they all have fallen before Mongol incursion. --212.30.67.30 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Forget the modern issue, how about the Empire issue. Russia was prior to Peter the Great closest to being an Empire during Ivan the Terrible and that was only because he was able to add part of Ukraine at their own request, and expand to the black sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.163.210 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter the Great
Analyse the major ways in which Tsar Peter the Great (1689-1725) sought to reform his society and its institutions in order to strengthen Russia and its position in Europe

Answer all parts of the question- thank you. You're welcome.

Dear me. You'll be lucky if you get much homework help on here, which is what I assume this is after. I doubt any one will write the essay for you. Just keep referring to the question, and come to a conclusive judgement at the end and you'll be fine ;). M A Mason 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Prussian/German Culture
I've often heard that Peter the Great was enamoured with Prussian/German culture, how much truth is there to this?

About Prussia, not much. You're probably thinking of Peter III, not Peter I. Peter III was so much pro-Prussian that when Russia was at war against Prussia, he was a supporter of Prussia. After 7 years of war and hundreds of thousands of casualties, when he became emperor of Russia and learned in 1762 of the Russian victory in the war, he basically said "Oh, shit!" and proceeded to give the victory to Prussia. It is not surprising that he became quite unpopular and was soon after ousted by his wife, Catherine the Great, in a bloodless coup where the main casualties were the barricks of wine that she ordered given to the population of St. Petersburg in celebration of the event. On the other hand, about "German culture", remember that, in the history of Russia, the word "german" was often used in the more general sense of "western". Peter I did take measures leading to the "westernization" of Russia. - J. 142.169.187.53 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In general the word for strangers, including Germans, was "nemtsy", meaning "nem" = not able to speak (Russian language; so, when we speak about German influence, we speak of influence of all Nemtsy, that is, all foreigners. Also, at the time of Peter the Great there was no Germany as we know of, only the Holy Empire, which was an empty title. Peter was interested at beginning mostly about Dutch, later on also about English and German states. It is significant, that among the whole of Russian elite, he was basically the only one enamoured with sea and ships; that being Dutch preserve. His first "education" in foreign affairs was predominantly from Kukuy, the little town near Moscow where foreigners were allowed to stay. Among foreigners in Kukuy there were mostly Dutch, people from German feudal states, a lot of Scots and or Stuart followers and last, but not least, the most dominant influence in Peter's youth, Francis Lefort, who was from Suisse.--212.30.67.30 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand the question J. He/She is asking about culture not politics. It's not about Prussia, but Germany in genereal and in specific academics. Peter 'collected' academics, in particular German scholars, for the founding of the Academy of Science. One most famous example of such a 'collectable item' was G.W. Steller. Sea cow anyone? If you are interested I would read Leonhard Stejneger "G.W. Steller. The pioneer of alaskan natural history." So I would answer this question with 'yes', but restricted in the academical realm. engelsaa@uc.edu

I quote Paul Bushkovitch in his book, Peter the Great, page 50, "The autocratic Peter was obsessed with the Dutch Republic, mainly its mariners, shipbuilders, and engineers. Dutch was the only foreign language Peter knew well, and later when he attempted to learn and speak German the mixture that ensued tried the comprehension and good humor of many a foreign guest. He was fascinated with Dutch painting and architecture, with mathematics, navigation, and technology..." Perhaps it should be changed from German and Prussian to Dutch?68.193.169.74 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter I was very knowlagable in the German language, his officer corp was composed of many German officers. Rytter Dec. 3 2008

Disputed Dates and Erroneous Statistics
http://www.cityvision2000.com/history/peterthe.htm : "Born: May 30 (June 9), 1672, Moscow. Died: January 28 (February 8), 1725, St. Petersburg."

"He was a big strong man (6' 8'' inches - 2.04 meters)"

Perhaps this should be changed in the main article, but I am not sure.

I have noticed conflicting statements about Peter's strength and stature, the main being that the historical statements of witnesses say that he was tall, yet thin and frail. However, this article attributes him extreme strength, something about which seems not to logically follow from a slight build, for his size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.139.210 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Most reports say that he was very tall, over 2 meters and like many of the Romanovs very dynamic, high strung with bad nerves which a healthy taste for vodka did not seem to help. At the battle of Narva Peter I left the siege the night before Swedish army arrived leaving in command de Croy, an old Belgiem Militar. In General Hallarts journal he say´s "he had as much courage as a frog has hair on his belly" Rytter, Dec.4 2008

wait... what's almost wrong with this facts? Just a small trivia: most historians say that he died on February 8 & was born on June 9... just the same what most books do claim. Oh dear... what's wrong? I'm so confused... I can't report a wrong one...

By the way... his height is between 6'7" and 6'8"... just like most people think of... approximately 6'7.5" in my opinion...

Now... just to be clear for everybody... just type a slash between the two dates... thanks! bubbles16_22 08/22/09 0=)

Peter's Eccentricities
There are several eccentricities that are often associated with Peter the Great that go unmmentioned in the article. Apparently he would often force his guests to drink incredible amounts of liquor, and had a fascination for the awkward, "collecting" unusual persons and sometimes practicing comical and odd ceremonies featuring the same. I have read secondary sources that indicate this; however, I do not wish to edit the article for the sake of erring. Perhaps somebody could include these facets of Peter's personality in a future version of the page? Eccomi 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Massie observes that "In Peter's time, dwarfs and giants were much valued throughout Europe as exotic decorations in royal and noble households." (p.637) Also, forcing guests to drinks incredible amounts of liquor (by non-Russian standards) seems to be a Russian tradition predating and postdating Peter the Great. So I'm not sure that either habit would have been seen as eccentric by his contemporaries. J Heath 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter had a high alcohol tolerance (partly due to his size) and often get his guests drunk to hear what they would say. With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * even more fun must have been torturing his son cruelly to death (after promising him and his refugium-providers fair terms). After all, he still had one son more, and this one did not talk back, being two years old. This worthy child died soon after. ALSO ironic!!


 * Dr. Vivian Green describes a number of bizarre behaviors on Peter's part. She describes him founding a religious order whose sole function was to parody the Catholic church through blasphemies, drinking, and orgies.  He appears to have had a ruthlessly sadistic streak in which he enjoyed watching the dismemberment of women and forcibly extracting teeth from his courtiers.  More than one source describes him placing the decaptitated head of his wife's lover in her bedchamber for her to view.  Peter was, at the very least, a sadist and at worst a madman.  75.93.59.254 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to extracting teeth.. Peter was actually very interested in dentistry and although like you stated often forced others to be his test subjects, the intention was slightly more genuine than many of his other sadistic tendencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.228.98 (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the view that the article fails to provide enough information on Peter's more extreme behaviours. A casual reader would have few insights and yet for historians this is perhaps his defining trait. The argument that his habits would not be deemed odd to his contemporaries does not dismiss the importance of mentioning them here. The majority of page visitors would have none of these insights into contemporary standards of behaviour other than what we might provide.Gumsaint (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Putin's Painting
The line about Vladmir Putin having a portrait of Peter in his office seems like it should be in the history section, not the introductory paragraph.

Cultural depictions of Peter I of Russia
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate issue
Exactly what does this concern? His children? The title is not exactly effective. Schnauf 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I was just reading this article when I noticed a large amount of vandalism. I do not have the facts to fix all the problems, so I am hoping that someone here does. One example is "Peter was a shithead, with an extremely small dick of 2.03 inches (0 feet 2.03 inches), and large, fat balls." in the first caption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saxxyman66 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what this sentence used to be, so someone who does should revert the vandalism: "To improve his nation's position on the seas, Peter whored around a lot" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.223.231 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2007 March 23 (UTC)

Pyotr, or Petru?
I have just took a look at the The Bronze Horseman, and was really puzzled to find out that the name marked on it is not Pyotr, but Petru (of course, in Cyrillic). I noticed that the name marked here is indeed Pyotr. How is it possible to have one name on official statues, and another here? Is the name "Petru" the old version of Pyotr? Dpotop 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Petru (Петру) is the dative case of the name Pyotr (Пётр) (Петру от Екатерины - to Peter from Ekaterina). Alæxis¿question? 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, got it. In Romanian, "Пётр" is "Petru", and this specific name does not have a dative case (instead, you use the construction "lui Petru", literally "to Peter"). Dpotop 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I was kind of surprised given that Romanian also has cases... Alæxis¿question? 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Other names, do have a dative case. For "Maria", the dative is "Mariei". Also, if I'm not very mistaken, in Romanian the dative and the genitive are the same. Of course, I may be **very** wrong, because my last lessons of Romanian took place some 13 years ago. Dpotop 10:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Don't you use both of them (cases) like every day? Alæxis¿question? 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most substantives have a unique dative-genitive form. Thus, while the two cases exist, their forms are identical. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you much more on the subject. I am unusually old for a wikipedian, and therefore I forgot more than most of them. :) Dpotop 17:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Calendar
I changed the following paragraph: ''In 1699, Peter also abolished the traditional Russian calendar, in which the year began on 1 September, in favor of the Julian calendar, in which the year began on 1 January. Traditionally, the years were reckoned from the purported creation of the World, but after Peter's reforms, they were to be counted from the birth of Christ. Russia moved to the Julian calendar just as the rest of Europe was moving to the Gregorian calendar. Russia would stay on the Julian calendar until the October Revolution in 1917.''

In fact, the calendar used in Russia before Peter I was also Julian, but what did he change was only the date of New Year celebration and numbering of years from the birth of Christ.--Dojarca 14:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needs cites and cleanup
This article has a glaring error in regards to his religious "reforms". He did not create the Holy Synod, like all Orthodox Churches Russia had a Holy Synod from its inception [Apostolic Canon 37 ] [Canon 5 1st Ecumenical Council ]. What he created was the Most Holy Governing Synod which had a secular/lay chairman appointed by the Tsar in place of the Patriarch, as well as Tsar-appointed lay members in addition to the legitimate hierarchal members. When the monarchy fell, the office of Patriarch was restored and the lay positions were abolished, restoring the intended order, and creating the Holy Synod as it exists now.

This article needs additional cites for verification. In addition, it is also marred by Weasel / Peacock / POV / and/or original research assertions. Some examples:
 * "The memory of this violence may have caused trauma during Peter's earlier years." - Or may not? Cite?
 * "Throughout the ages it has been the habit of many historians to portray Sophia as an ambitious, Machiavellian woman..." - Who? Why? Evidence for/against this?
 * "Peter himself came to associate Sophia with the dark forces of opposition" - Oooh, scary. Who says so?
 * "Peter himself ... forgetting as do many historians that in the seven years of her regency that Peter and his mother, while pushed out of the scene, were never threatened or harmed." - Any citable evidence of Peter's forgetting this?

Please clean up these problems to improve this article. -- 201.53.4.206 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been working on the page, and I removed the citation, weasel, and cleanup tags after a few hours of work. Let's mark specific passages that need work with individual tags from henceforth.   Also, remember that the original basis for the article was the 1911 Britannica, so there will likely be remnants of the flowery speech and hyperbolic rhetoric found in said book. Historymike (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted metahistorical discussion of character of Sophia
I have deleted the following paragraph:

Throughout the ages it has been the habit of many historians to portray Sophia as an ambitious, Machiavellian woman who would do whatever it took to achieve power. By early middle age, Peter himself came to associate Sophia with the dark forces of opposition, forgetting as do many historians that in the seven years of her regency that Peter and his mother, while pushed out of the scene, were never threatened or harmed. Indeed, the often overlooked fact that Peter lived, busy and content, through the regency speaks volumes.

The paragraph asserts that many historians characterize Sophia in a particular manner (ambitious, Machiavellian) then argues that this characterization is inaccurate. There are two problems: First, the paragraph doesn’t cite any historians who depict Sophia in that manner. Second, and more seriously, Wikipedia isn’t the place to resolve disputes among historians in any event. Rather, Wikipedia should set forth the facts, and perhaps the major views among historians, to allow readers to reach their own conclusions. In this peice it repeatedly names Peter's eldest son "Alexis". I assume this was a simple typo. however it is in fact spelled "Alexei". I'm a bit of a stickler for spelling...and accuracy. Which is no doubt what Wikipedia is searching for as well. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.15.138 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Zepeian (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

potatoes
What about potatoes? There's no mention about Peter the Great introducing potatoes to Russia here even though it is an important development in Russian history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.83.84 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Peter benois.jpg
The image Image:Peter benois.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Russo-Persian War (1722–1723)
The Russo Persian war that Peter won must definitely be mentioned here. Can someone add this section to his life?--68.122.83.212 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
The wording of the "Legacy" section leaves me slightly uncomfortable. I can understand "uneducated"-- though this is a comparative value. But "superstitious" and "uncivilized" I think is somewhat perjorative. I think to say that he modernized Russia and exposed it to new ideas is able to communicate the basic idea of the section while not being nearly as prejudiced. What does everyone else think? 166.82.141.207 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

when peter was 3 he ate a watermelon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.224.6 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Start Class
I don't understand how this is Start-Class. It covers about as much as a C or B article seems to. Should this be reassesed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggie111 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

SineBot!. 5 seconds and you are already on the scene. I wanted to sign my name but, wow.

False fact about Peter's marriage
"Peter valued Catherine and married her again (this time officially) at Saint Isaac's Cathedral in Saint Petersburg on 9 February 1712." It is completely impossible, because Saint Isaac's Cathedral was build only in XIX century (started in 1818). I was unable to find exact place of their marriage but at least Saint Isaac's Cathedral should be removed from this sentense, because it is definitely false. --Andrey


 * You are mistaken. There was a St. Isaac's Cathedral in Petersburg before the present building was constructed. Just like there was St. Peter's Basilica in Rome before Michelangelo was born. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How Russian Historical Figures Viewed by Russians opposed to non-Russians.
Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great are first on my list to talk about. The translation itself tells a lot about the reputation of Ivan or Peter among English speakers at least. I am a native speaker of Russian who also speaks "American English" for 10 years. In Russian Ivan IV is known as "Иван Грозный". Adjective "Грозный" when used to describe a personality trait is a "good" or "desirable" quality to have. It is Hero quality, not a villein one. If I was to translate this adjective which became Ivan IV's last name, I would translate it as "Ivan the Fierce". The adjective "Грозный" in Russian comes from a noun "Гроза", which translates to English as "Lightening". So, in the original Russian, Ivan the Terrible is not only not Terrible, but on the contrary a person with enormous Will Power, Bravery, Prowess, Authority. It is a quality that a God may possess, but rare in men. In the most simple translation of the meaning that native speakers of Russian get from the name "Ivan Grozny","Иван Грозный", "Ivan the Fierce", (Ivan the Terrible in English) would be: A men who possesses strong will, authority, and who's will is implemented as if God himself wants it done. No man can challenge or go against his will just like a man can't challenge the force of nature. Everything that is done by Ivan the Fierce is by default right. It is right because of his Godly personality trait that allow him to decide what should be done. A person with a trait that can only be attributed to a Hero-like quality, not the villein-like. "Ivan the Terrible" = cruel, unpleasant, sadistic, unmerciful, inflicts only bad. "Иван Грозный", "Ivan the Fierce" = possesses enormous will power, authority, prowess. A man that is like a "Lightening Cloud", possesses the inner energy of a "Lightening Cloud" and physical means to enforce his will like "A Strike of A Lightening". So, Ivan the Terrible is bad person with ugly personality to English speakers, a good person with enormous inner energy, Will power, and enormous physical power and authority. Peter the Great. In Russia almost no one calls Peter "The Great". He is known in Russian as Peter I. There accomplishments for which he is given that title "The Great" could be viewed as significant, in a sense that their influence was significant on the life of people. However, in Russian to become known as "The Great" would mean that the deeds of that person brought POSITIVE change or Significant Improvement to the lives of others. The reforms of Peter I were experienced by the Russians as something of an unpleasant and counterproductive or disrespectful to the largely shared beliefs of people. Reforms are viewed negatively by a significant enough portion of the population to be Great. The building of the city of St.Petersburg is certainly a major accomplishment, but in Russia there is a saying, "St.Petersburg was built on bones". Although the city is beautiful, the number of people that perished during the construction period is so enormous that it is viewed neither negatively nor is it viewed positively. It's up in the air kind of thing. Peter I personally participated in the executions of Strel'tchy, he personally chopped the heads off of some Streltchy in front of the watching crowd. Peter I introduced serfdom into Law. The Emancipation of Serfs would come in 1861 under Alexander II rule. Who is deserving known as the Tsar Liberator. Peter I would cut the beards off of boyars and so on. Therefore, Russians do not view Peter I as "the Great" Tsar. Some see him as a reformer who opened a window into Europe, some see the window into Europe as a treat and destruction of the Russian values and culture. There is a "Great" ruler from Imperial Russia. It is Catherine the Great. Under her rule Russian Empire's territory grew significantly. Some attribute to her saying something like "I can't stop building", "I'm addicted to building". Under Catherine the Great the potatoes became massively grown in Russia(Imported from the New World). So during Catherine's rule people experienced pleasant changes, improvements, expansion etc. Therefore Peter I is just Peter I, while Catherine is Great. There is also a Russian saying to consider, "The first and last time" meaning I tried it once and disliked it so much that I will not allow it to happen again. So, Peter the First, and the Last. Meaning We Russians had one Peter for Emperor, and do not want to see a second Peter ever. Peter the Great in the West because he introduced and mostly forced Western Ideas, Customs, Way of Life on Russians which is assumed to be good and beneficial to the life of a Russian, but to Russians it complete opposite of improvement. Serfdom, clothing, public executions (not conducted for many, many years) brought back by Peter who participated himself. "An Emperor, An Absolute Ruler of Russia and Russian people is an executioner who executes people in a public setting and enjoys it. Hates everything Russian and Adores everything European. I am sure there are many examples of such interpretation which fits into the perception of the speaker of other language, while has even complete opposite meaning in Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.197.186 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you mislead people? We in Russia call Peter the Great. And the people love him much more than Catherine. Алессия (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a native speaker of English who was taught Russian to the "can pass" level, for reasons I won't elaborate on, by native speakers employed by the US government. It was 45 years ago that I stopped doing the job for which they trained me, so a lot of my language skill has drained away.


 * But I do remember my history lessons, particularly about Vanya Groznyj. While "groza" (гроза) means "storm", with implications of thunder, lightning, wind, and a lot of energy, the verb grozit' (грозить) translates as "threaten" with the implication that carrying out the threat will involve physical violence.  Someone who's "groznyj" (грозный) therefore is someone who's unpredictably violent like a bad storm and a dangerous person to be around.  Since Ivan Vasil'ich would be diagnosed and in treatment today (he was pretty crazy!) perhaps a better translation for groznyj would be "Scary", "Frightening", or even "Terrifying".  (As to what people call Pete the Tall, I have a history book that calls him Петр I Великий -- Peter I The Great) 98.118.26.43 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Military
Before Peter the Great, the military was lead by village elders who knew just about nothing about going into battle. Back then, the two major units were the Strelsy and the Cossacks, both of which were lead by foreigners. By the time of Peter's rule, the Strelsy was abolished and two new regiments were created, the Preobrazhenskii and the Semeovskii. Navy was Peter's strength and he had 48 ships of the line and 800 galleys. The officers may have been foreign, but the crews were Russian. To pay for the new and improved military, Peter charged very high taxes. He even charged a soul tax on males just for being born a man. The Old Believers were charged double because Peter thought they were a throwback to a time in Russia he wanted to move on from. Peter also taxed people on beards, horse-collars, bee-hives etc. It seemed that he would do anything to raise money Thatguyalan (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)thatguyalan
 * Thanks for bringing this up. This article addresses some of that information at the section on his early reign.  I've added a link to Military history of the Russian Empire in the see also section for now. Ryan Vesey 17:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016
OPEN "PETER THE GREAT WITH "b. 30 May (9 June) 1672, d. 28 January (8 February) 1725"

67.217.125.197 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am closing this duplicate request. Topher385 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016
Open PETER THE GREAT with:

"Born 30 May (9 June) 1672, died 28 January (8 February) 1725, ruled Russia 1696-1725"

67.217.125.197 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC) ❌ the current version is the Wikipedia standard, with IPA and other information, rather than your "bald" version, which omits much of the information - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Establishment of colleges - text needs correction
In "Later years" there is this passage:

"After 1718, Peter established colleges in place of the old central agencies of government. The new agencies were originally nine in number: Foreign affairs, war, navy, expense, income, justice, inspection. Later others were added."

The list of the initial "nine" names only seven. Have two been omitted, or should "nine" be changed to "seven"? JamesMLane t c 06:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peter the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208091353/http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/timeline.htm to http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/timeline.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060603182321/http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2002-46-3 to http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2002-46-3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526185803/http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/CMHPeter.html to http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/CMHPeter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems biased
When I tried using this article for a debate, I could only get one side of him, the good side. I'd say it's well known he was a brutal and tyrannical tyrant, and his vicious temper is also notable (did I mention he drank a lot, which likely worsened his already bad temper?). This article, at least in the English translation, makes little to no mention of this, and I think this article could show some of his bad side as well- for educational purposes, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B065:7644:ED84:386A:199C:9FC9 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Manchester?
"He travelled to the city of Manchester to learn the techniques of city-building ..."

This strikes me as quite implausible. Manchester was a market town of little national importance prior to the mid C18th. I'm no Peter-scholar, but a quick scan of the literature reveals no source of any great reliability. The main article "The Grand Embassy of Peter the Great" makes no mention of Manchester. I'm minded to add a "citation needed" tag. Does anyone have a credible source, or an opinion on the matter?

95.147.15.202 (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Popular Culture
Peter the Great is featured in Civilization 6

One of the most sanitised Wiki entries I have ever read
I can only assume this page has been 'protected' for political reasons. It certainly is no use to anyone wanting to know the true, complete picture of its subject. The whole piece needs to be revised and edited by a reputable Western historian who has no vested interest in sanitising aspects of Russian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyline UK2 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Yes I agree with this comment - this page is an exemplar of the limitations of Wikipedia. Gumsaint (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality
There is a document in the British Library entitled: 'An Account of the proceedings against Capt. Edward Rigby, at the Sessions of Goal Delivery, held at Justice-Hall in the Old-Bailey, on Wednesday the seventh day of December, 1698, for intending to commit the abominable sin of sodomy, on the body of one William Minton'. In this, the Captain, who is being tried for sodomy, is recorded to have explained to the person who informed upon him (whilst trying to seduce said person) that 'he had seen the Czar of Muscovy through a hole at sea lie with Prince Alexander.' It is possible that this was witnessed by Rigby during Peter the Great's stay in England from January to April 1698, which he may well have been involved in. Prince Alexander who is mentioned is thought to have been Alexander Danilovich Menshikov by LGBT Historian Rictor Norton. It isn't much, but if anyone else finds more on Peter the Great's potential homosexuality or bisexuality then it would be worth mentioning. Haelani (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019
In the Religion part. It would be good if you add the fact that Peter The Great confiscated bells from orthodox churches after the Narva Catastrophe where all Russian cannons were lost, so Peter needed metal to create new cannons and bells were the easiest sources of metal he had. Craboid (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please provide a reliable source for this information, and please provide the exact text you want to add and where you want to add it (what you wrote doesn't really make sense). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Reforms
Since Peter the Great implemented so many reforms, I think this page needs a separate "Reforms" chapter. Can someone create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craboid (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Ancenstry?
I'm surprised that no ancestry exists for this article. Why is that? Hires an editor (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)