Regent Sophia of Russia

[felix]

Peter the Great's  half sister.She seems to be as great as him. If she was given  the chance.

[ilyala]

she's had lots of bad publicity. she was described as cruel and ugly... i think it's mainly cause peter hated her and because russians weren't used to being ruled by women...

she was given the chance to be a ruler and she was a regent for seven years. plenty of time

she did some good and some bad... but i think she was a capable woman

[ilyala]

[Fay]

Well, not a bad looking woman, but Peter was better nonetheless

[David_Pritchard]

It is a very interesting to ask which of the two Romanovs would have made the better ruler, Sophia or Peter. To even start to address this question, one must place it in a context: "A better ruller through the ages?" or "A better ruler as seen by the Russian people at the time of their rule?"

I think history would choose Peter as the better ruler. He gets much credit for founding Saint Petersburg and a modern Navy as well as making Russia an important power. On the other hand his forced social reforms: which include shaving, western dress, changing the Russian alphabet, abandoning the old Russian numbering system and abolishing the Moscow Patriarchate were hated by much of the populace. Once one adds in the many thousands of dead serfs who perished building Saint Petersburg and the troops who were lost fighting the Swedes, Turks and Persians, I think the average Russian alive at that time would prefer Sophia and her laissez-faire policies.

DAP

[ilyala]

...but then comes the question... would they have been better in the long run?

[Dominic_Albanese]

You should really read Lindsey Hughes book on Sophie - "Sophia, Regent of Russia 1657-1704"  ISBN 0-300-04790-8

I haven't read it in a long time but I remember thinking she was not quite as capable as Peter - BUT she would have definatley moved the country forward, just not as far and as fast as Peter - again this is from recollection.

Course the people who suffered under Peter as he moved his country forward quickly might have preferred her as they were consumed by his desire to expand and bring Russia into the modern, western ages.

dca

[ilyala]

i don't think peter modernized russia for real... yes the appearance was better... but its essence remained the same...

[Dominic_Albanese]

i don't think peter modernized russia for real... yes the appearance was better... but its essence remained the same...

That's not something one hears often - I'm not sure that all the things that Peter did, as fast as he did, were good ultimatley for Russia, but how do you come to the thought that his modernization was more cosmetic than real?

Just in reorganizing the administration of the state, founding the navy, and making the state superior to the church seem to me to be huge leaps forward that anyone else would have taken generations to do.

dca

[David_Pritchard]

Dear Dominic,

I do not know your personal experience with Russia or Russians, where you have lived in Russia or travelled but Russia may have adatped to some western advancements but it never truely became western. I totally understand Ilyala's point about the transformation brought about by Peter the Great being one that is superficial.

In World War II, the Germans posted a sign on the bridge between Narva and Ivangorod that stated "Leaving Europe, Entering Asia". I dismissed this statement as simple nazi racism but on later thought and experience in Russia, I have come to believe that even though it is geographicly incorrect, the statement has at least some validity in regard to Russian culture and the Russian way of thinking.

DAP

[Dominic_Albanese]

Dear Dominic,

I do not know your personal experience with Russia or Russians, where you have lived in Russia or travelled but Russia may have adatped to some western advancements but it never truely became western. I totally understand Ilyala's point about the transformation brought about by Peter the Great being one that is superficial.

In World War II, the Germans posted a sign on the bridge between Narva and Ivangorod that stated "Leaving Europe, Entering Asia". I dismissed this statement as simple nazi racism but on later thought and experience in Russia, I have come to believe that even though it is geographicly incorrect, the statement has at least some validity in regard to Russian culture and the Russian way of thinking.

DAP

Hi David - you raise a good point, in that what I know about Russia, the Romanovs etc. is only what I've read.  So I have no first hand experience in Russian culture the way many people on here do.  I guess where you loosing me is weren't the things I talked about Peter doing real - in other words, he did those things so didn't they contribute to shaping change in the country?

Or maybe you mean that for the 'common' (for lack of a better term) people life didn't change much, despite the changes that Peter made in the government of Russia?

I think it is very plausable that you had two (or more) Russia's.  The aritocracy and country's leadership who were being effected by the change and the common man who was still just scraping to get by and/or were being trampled over by Peter's reforms...

dca

[ilyala]

the country is made of people. a small part of the people is made up of aristocracy. but most people are not part of that.

so what i tried is that yes, the aristocracy became more westernized (is that a word? ) and the palaces may have looked more modern, but the ordinary man's life and conceptions stayed the same.

a country never grows until most of its people grow with it

[umigon]

That is sure, ilyala, but I am sure that if those changes, even if they were only enjoyed by a small part of the population, made Russia grow. At least Russia was not the same after Peter...

[ilyala]

in what way was it not the same?

the boyars were not wearing beards anymore and were dressing more modernly... and yet the peasants were still serfs, which was a word to describe actual slavery because a boyar could buy and sell villages like socks. the serfdom was not abolished until alexander 2nd which was more than a century later! and even then, you think they did much better?

yes, he built a fleet. yes he managed to conquer some territory. but look at how people lived on that territory. that's what it means to progress. the people have to live better. they didn't in russia. i don't think the ordinary russian guy gave a damn about how many ships russia had as long as he couldn't place food on the table for his children.

i'm not saying peter the great was not a great tzar. he was. but let's not make him better than he was.

[cantacuzene]

I think some russian differences always remained even in high aristocracy ( a kind of 'asiatic' way of changing power by extreme violence). all depends of the point of view. European courts started to respect the increasing power of Russia, but laughed on Peter when in Europe.

     Misery was common in Russia and in France country.
certainly, there were not slavery in France or in England, but slavery trade was a reality in the West until the XIX century! So western governments were advanced in this sens, but really in their own profit.

     The fact that slavery continued in Russia does not means Peter reforms were not great. Russia entered in Europe and Europe in Russia. Only Catherine the Great and her courtisans enjoyed the affluence of western intellectuals. Only she had a correspondencee with Voltaire, but conditions of people couldn't be as they are now just because in essence , famines, epidemies, explotation, starvation, ignorance, were common to both East and West.