We will be using this blog as preparation for a timed essay question next lesson on the following question:
'Russia's success in the Great Northern War of 1700-1721 was due mainly to Peter the Great's reform of the army and navy' Explain why you agree or disagree with this view
'Russia's success in the Great Northern War of 1700-1721 was due mainly to Peter the Great's reform of the army and navy' Explain why you agree or disagree with this view
Your task is to post up what you consider to be your most important argument first of all and justify why you have made that choice.
You can also respond to other posts and argue either in support or against them. You must use evidence to back up the points that you make.
Once the discussion has ended you should use the posts as the basis for your revision for this question which you will complete next lesson.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe most important reason for why Peter succeeded in the Great Northern War is that after his defeat at Narva,it was Charles' decision to engage in a 7 year war with Poland, when he had the oppotunity to take Smolenk - the key to Moscow. While Charles was fighting Poland, the swedish army was weakened and it gave Peter the time to advance his forces into Swedish provinces and cement a position on the Baltic Sea.
ReplyDeleteOne reason for success in the GNW was the financial reforms, for example, Peter introduced "soul tax" in 1718. Also, there were taxes on common goods like coffins, beehives and beards, this brought in some money but it was used on things other than to fund war, for example, reforming education in Russia. This funded military reforms and this was the most important reason.
ReplyDeleteAnother factor was in Narva, Sweden won because they outnumbered Russian troops, also, Peter underestimated Charles, thinking because Sweden was small it wasn't strong. In Poltava, Sweden were behind because they dealt with other wars and also, Charles was distracted by Augustus, King of Poland. The weather conditions made maintaining supply lines difficult also, men froze in the extreme cold when on the field.
The Great Embassy 1717-1718 meant that there were improvememnts to technology and weaponry such as new muskets and ring bayonets. A main success from the Embassy was that Peter realised how backward Russian society was and in order to improve the war situation, this would have to change through modernisation. Peter brougt experts e.g John Perry and sent soldiers to train abroad. This can link to euducation reforms whereby Peter tried to eliminate as much ignorance as he could because Russia did not want to improve herself in terms of gaining more knowlege.
Ultimatley all these factors contributed to military and naval reforms for example soul tax funded it. Reforms to education meant improvements to the military and navy. These reforms contributed to his aim of modernisation.
We think the most important reason for Peter's success was due to the reforms he had made in the army and navy. When Peter came to power Russia was seen as a small isolated place which was frowned apon by many of the western powers. Through his process of western reforms, he was able to changed the Russian army and navy with ideas and knowledge he had gained from the Great Embassy. These reforms included proper training for all officers, rearming them with new weapons, a new uniform for all of them and hired foriegn officers to lead his army that had a lot more experience than previous ones. From our knowledge we know that Peter had always had a great interest in military and sometimes even lead his army himself, this shows that he was passionate and determined about creating a strong standing army.
ReplyDeletePeter had made military reforms before Narva, pumping vast sums of money into the army and navy through taxation methods such as the soul tax, yet still lost the battle of Narva so how can it be argued that it was his reforms that won the great northern war? surely it was the fact that Charles engaged in a 7 year war and gave Peter time to recover and regroup. SNM !!
ReplyDeletei agree with the above comments, although Sweden's weakness was an important factor in Peter's victory. for example, Sweden lost the powerful leadership of Charles after he was hit by a cannon and disabled. this emant morale in the army was lower, and inferior tacticians commanded the army. Charles also couldn't capitalise on his exellence on the battlefield because of strategic confusion: he failed to take advatnage of Russia's weakness after Narva, and he couldn't decide whether to take Moscow or St. Petersburg. this gave Peter time to build up his military and industrial base which he then used to defeat Charles at Poltava. Therefore, the most important reasons for Peter's successes were the weaknesses of Sweden.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Ivo, that Charles was a significant factor to take into account. He did make mistakes after Narva but that could be due to his self confidence with thinking he could easily beat Russia once again. If Charles attacked Peter straight away after Narva, it might be unlikley that Peter would be able to recover and fight back without being completley beaten by Charles. On the other hand, in Poltava the Swedish army did not have enough food and on top of that the roads were hard to get through. Charles either did not realise this soon enough, did not notice due to Augustus, or did not have enough time to sort it all out. (Not sure about the above sentence by the way!) Charles also relied too much on others, i.e Mazepa (for soldiers to keep numbers up).
ReplyDeleteHowever, another factor (which slightly links to military) is Peter's whereabouts on the night before Sweden struck. He took his main commander to Moscow! This meant that the man in charge was not as skilled and this could have lead to the loss. The commanders were crucial to the motivation of the army. Peter fought in Poltava himself and probably also had better preperation for tactics/strategies. This probably gave the soldiers more guidance and encouragement on the field, which they lacked at Narva beforehand.
Some great responses, but everyone needs to be a bit more precise in their use of evidence - I would like to see some dates being mentioned for a start as some people are getting their chronology confused eg Jack - the soul tax wasn't introduced until 1718 - Narva was in 1700. Emmeline - the Great Embassy was 1697-8
ReplyDeletePeter’s success in the Great Northern war of 1700-1721 was not largely due to his reforms of the army and navy. While these had helped immensely victory cannot be ascertained to them. Instead, it was down to the tactics employed whereby he withdrew deep into Russia and waited for winter. At winter the Russians were successful for a number of reasons. King Charles had advanced too rapidly and the harsh Russian winter had over stretched his supply lines. This meant his solders were both exhausted, malnutrition due to being unable to find food in the Russian winter wilderness. This is a very successful tactic that has served Russia well in defeating both napoleon and the Nazis. This is the first example of its use and through doing it peter paved the way for some of the greatest victories of all time.
ReplyDeletehttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oIAhQMTG-dU/S-bDzbu0aOI/AAAAAAAAEvU/qDS6KWpLArE/s1600/BATTLE-MOSCOW-DECEMBER-1941-WW2-EASTERN-FRONT-RUSSIAN-ILLUSTRATED-HISTORY-PICTURES-IMAGES-PHOTOS-003.jpg
You can call me sir, you are incorrect. I beleive the main reason for the Russian victory over Charles XII's Sweden was due to his complancy and arrogance. His devastating victory at Narva, 1700 helped him to develop a sense of security which wasnt deserved. Instead of invading Russia while it was weak, he chose to get involved in complicated Polish politics for 6 years. This is the most important reason beause while Peter had a period of rest, he was able to perform his extensive naval and army reforms, such as melting church bells for cannons. Without this, his reforms would not have been able to be carried out and Peter was essentially quite lucky. While Peters reforms were an important factor, he only realised his to reform after the crushing defeat of Narva, and this means that without this Peter may not have even bothered reforming at all. Indeed it is true he had plenty of time to do this before the great northern war, and chose not to. Therefore, while Peters reforms were significant they only happened due to the existance of other factors for example defeat at Narva.
ReplyDeleteIt is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passions, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMoney is the artery of war.
ReplyDeleteThe most important reason for Russia’s success in the great northern war was Charles XII’s mistakes. Charles was overconfident and underestimated Peter’s determination and strategic skill. After Peter’s defeat at Narva Charles had the opportunity to invade Russia and move on Moscow. Had Charles immediately marched on Russia, Peter would have had no time to recuperate and reinforce and Charles’ forces would not have been so diminished (as they were by Poltava). This would have undoubtedly led to Russia’s defeat. However, due to Charles’ brash decision to instead focus his attentions on Augustus and Poland, Peter was gifted with the time and space to develop his army and navy and build up a formidable force. Whilst Peter was researching military science and raising huge revenues Charles was expending his men and his money on a futile campaign to install his dominance over the Polish. This meant that by the time the two sides met at Poltava, Charles had exhausted his supplies and his troops (both physically and mentally). This, when combined with a number of other factors including Peter’s own skill, lead to Peter’s victory and Poltava and ultimately his victory of the Great Northern War.
ReplyDeletei agree the monderisation of the army is a very important factor to Peter's military success. before peter Russia were stuck in deep traditions that left Russia in the dark ages this reflected on the army. Without the reform that gave Russia training, new weponary and western generals to guide them. if peter was not in power no previous tsar would condole this. due to Peter revoultionary views and his will to implement them it meant that the Russian army could prosper and achive victory without the moderisation Russia would not be the same today. P.S Juan El Cunto you are wrong
ReplyDeleteThe most important reason why Peter was successful in the Great Northern War was not due to his reforms of the army and navy, but due to the arrogance of Charles II. Indeed, Charles had successfully demolished Peter at Narva in 1700 with a far more powerful army that trampled Peter’s desires. Following Charles successes he attacked Poland believing that this area was rightfully the Swedes. Peter took full advantage of Charles bungle and used the next seven years to implement various military reforms. Although it was the reforms that Peter implanted that resulted in his success in the Great Northern War, Charles had created an opportunity for Peter to consolidate.
ReplyDeleteSuccess was not enough for Peter, “I have conquered an empire but I have not been able to conquer myself,” this quote showing that Peter was forever striving for more success. Perhaps suggesting why he then turned attention to Pruth.
History is written by the victor; would this war or even peter himself have been considered great had it not been for his luck of cercumstances. Too many Russian lives were lost for it to be a great victory in my eyes, and they were lost due to the inexperience and eagerness of peter. In my opinion the war was not won by peter and his reforms but lost by charles and his ignorance, why not attack russia at its weakest point following Narva, why send men into the harsh winters of russian soil, and attack the ever neuatral poles before the ever war endowed Russians.
ReplyDeleteJuan El Conto.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that a fully functioning Swedish army would have lost to Russia’s measly “reformed” force? The Swedes had dominated the Baltic for half a century and were a military force to be reckoned with. They were a specialist in cold steel warfare and extremely frightening. The Russians were recently reformed legions of peasants only somewhat resembling an army. And for the most part a rabble of travellers. Conto, are you telling me the trained killing machine that was the Swedish army still wouldn’t have been able to beat the measly Russian force if there had been no winter. I sir am disgusted at your idea.
This statement shows that Peter was very conscious of the financial side of war and that ultimately war revolved around money. Peter's dependance on money can be dilineated through the sheer amount of ridiculous taxes imposed on Russia, taxes such as the "soul tax" and the "beard tax". Theses raised vast amounts of money as they affected nearly every Rusiian, including the women. millwall away
ReplyDeleteLexei, I don't think calling the Russian military "measly" is very fair. How could you say that an army that consisted only of a group of pesants becoming a team of regularly conscripted soldiers not be impressive? Also, you do not mention the navy. Russia won against Sweden in the Battle of Hango in 1714! Russias' navy was quite possibly even more superior than Swedens'.
ReplyDeleteDanny Dyre, I agree that money is an important issue but Peter's tax enforcements could have been the only solution to him in order to develop his army/navy quickly enough to make it both large and of good and strong quality? Soul tax was introduced in 1718, by the way.
klaasvankuntelaar, answers to why Charles didn't atatck straight away have been mentions in the posts a bit above you, just to let you know! I don't think "luck", as you say has anything to do with this. Also, are you implying that Peter's eagerness is a bad thing? I disagree that "History was written by the victors" how could that be, when millions of sources exist that show the hardships of the ordinary man?
Ed, are you saying that industries such as cloth mills, and iron factories being either created or sustained play no part in helping Peter win at Poltava? If these reforms of industry did not take place it would be hard for Peter to get very far, I think. I do, however, agree that Charles is a very significant factor in the victory Peter had achieved at Poltava.