Western History 113: Why was Peter I considered such a great Tsar?

Peter the Great earns the accolade as was instrumental in transforming Russia from a regional backwater into a continental power.

Peter the Great

source: biography.com

But before we get there. Lets look at his origin and the key events of his reign.

The House of Romanov rose from the Boyar class of feudal overlords to eventually ascend to power in the Grand Duchy of Moscow and later Russia. The first Romanov Tsar was Michael I who took the throne in 1613 after being elected to the position by the Zemsky Sobor (the Assembly of the Land – Russian parliament during the 16th and 17th centuries). Michael was succeeded by his son Alexei, who governed during difficult times. He was in turn followed by Feodor III who ruled between 1676-1682.

Rulers of the House of Romanov

Peter was the son of the Tsar Alexei. He was a very bright child who was raised in an environment that was very receptive to Western ideas. In 1682 Peter was chosen to rule jointly as Tsar with his half brother Ivan V Peter though was ten years old and Ivan V was in poor health. Ivan’s sister Sophia used her power as regent to push Peter aside. In 1689 she tried to seize power for herself but overplayed her hand and was ousted in a power struggle that served to elevate Peter to the seat of the Tsar.

One of Peter’s great fascinations was the navy. He also had a strong affection for the military and construction. Between 1697-1698 he disguised as a carpenter and toured Western Europe learning as much as possible about the latest technology available at the time. His aim throughout his rule was to modernize Russia and bring the country out of a Middle Ages mindset. In this regard he would enjoy success. Russia would built its first seaworthy ships during his reign.

After returning to Russia in 1698 Peter faced a revolt by the Streltsy – the Russian military corps that had been established in the 16th century. He would put down this revolt with tremendous brutality, executing or exiling many of the rebels. The Streltsy were liquidated. Soon after this Peter’s attention was turned toward an old regional rival – Sweden.

Between 1700-1721 Russia and Sweden locked horns in what became known as the Northern Wars. However Peter also faced a challenge on his Southern front from the Turks. In 1700 he made Peace with the Turks (Treaty of Constantinople) but it came at the expense of Russia forgoing their push forward from the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea. He then joined forces with Saxony and Denmark-Norway to take on the Swedes who were a dominant power in the Baltic States.

Russia was forced to mobilize to rebuild their military and focus their resources to confront Sweden who had been a power in Northern Europe for much of the 17th century. In the early part of the war the Russians were defeated at Narva (1700) but rebounded very successfully in defeating the Swedes nine years later at Poltava. This was a tremendous blow for Sweden and her King Charles XII.

Battle of Poltava (encyclopedia of the Ukraine source)

King Charles XII of Sweden - Great Northern rival of Peter.

source: nationaltrustcollections.org.uk

In 1714 the Russians would win their first naval victory at the Battle of Gangut. By 1721 Russia would acquire significant territory along the Baltic Sea after the signing of the Treaty of Nystadt. Swedish power was greatly curtailed and Russia could start looking westward toward Poland. At the same time Peter’s title changed from Tsar to Emperor.

However there were revolts against Peter’s rule most notably in Astrakhan (1705) and the Don Basin (1707-1708). Both were put down with a savage efficiency..

Still Peter faced other threats. He failed to shake the Turkish menace who attacked Russia during the height of the Northern War forcing Peter to sue for peace and eventually cede Azov to the Ottomans at the Treaty of Adrianople.

In retrospect Peter’s greatest success as a ruler was that he modernized Russia. He wasn’t the first monarch to undertake such a course of action. Ivan IV (aka the Terrible) had started the country down the pathway in the 16th century. However Peter greatly expedited the process. Russia’s military and naval credential were strengthened and her victory over the Swedes solidified the country as a power. Russia’s oldest university – Saint Petersburg state university - was established by Peter in 1724 with a strong focus on science and engineering. His gains would be built on by a later successor – Catherine the Great.

Sources

1. Peter the Great
2. Romanov Chart - Peter the Great
3. Peter the Great: A Russian Hero
4. Russia in the Age of Peter the Great

With Christianity in decline will atheism save the West against the various threats?

(Paraphrased from a Quora Question)

The issue is complex and unfortunately I am somewhat pessimistic on the likely prognosis.

You see Atheism isn’t a belief system in and of itself but rather a denial of the existence of any God. One can be a right wing or left wing atheist, an atheist collectivist or an individualist, an Ayn Rand fan or a Marxist. Take your pick. There are indeed atheists who value the Christian heritage of Europe. Some may be favorable to ideas arising from Judaism or indeed various aspects of Islam or Buddhism.

However you are correct in noting that more and more people in Western Europe (in particular) are adopting a strong agnostic stance towards theism. Christianity seems to be waning and what is replacing it is a secular worldview that seems partially rooted to a type of humanism.

The dynamic is further ahead in Europe than it is in North America but in terms of direction the US looks to follow suit. Canada certainly has.

Much of this resides in a Hegelian notion that history has a direction towards a universalism with strong progressive undertones. Market forces will be held in check by various degrees of necessary top-down intervention. The debate in the eyes of the modern secularist should be about the degree of intervention, not the actual paradigm itself.

For the secularist the global citizen operating within a multicultural framework is the ideal, stripped of historical prejudice, leading humanity forward under the framework of a worldwide community. Western Civilization will not so much disappear but transform itself into a chimera that combines the best of the other. So the thinking goes.

In and of itself this modern secularism seems to have a lot going for it after all it appears to accommodate a variety of beliefs and opinions. Toleration is its buzz word as is its twin companion - respect.

However in offering something to everyone secularism essentially weds itself to nothing. It offers very little beyond platitudes and is open to attack and ultimately erosion by dynamics that have rushed to fill the Post-Christian void.

Islamism is one such political philosophy, radical environmentalism, is another, so are the various dogmas that use identity politics of class and race to punctuate their worldview. Some of these movements are pre-Enlightenment manifestations, others are later developments. Each tends to jettison skeptical empiricism in favor of a supposed ‘ought’. They all place a predetermined collective ahead of the individual and deify their respective ideal. All are ultimately toxic. However they have a will to power.

One could make the case as Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens have in the past that science, reason and logic are the drivers that represent the way forward in a secular world and are the tools that can be used to combat the various regressions. The value of each of these aspects cannot be understated. They are indeed of immense importance in trying to understand the working of the universe.

However I am not convinced based on the evidence that they are enough. For one science is a methodology not a belief system and operates best in its zone of applicability. Using it as a driver for morality and personal comfort may suffice for a Sam Harris but it will not have a broader appeal. It is also subject to abuse and political manipulation.

You see human beings tend to prejudice emotion over reason, ignore facts that shatter their paradigm and are more inclined to be moved by appeals to the heart than the head. Why Is It So Hard to Change Minds? People can rationalize a belief system and explain away the other. Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds. Confirmation bias plays an important role in framing one’s world view and by definition short sells an objective assessment of the pros and cons of a particular issue.

Jonathan Haidt has written a great deal on the way people have framed their moral belief system

Source: socialsciencepage.

It is for this reason that discredited ideologies such as Communism/Marxism/Maoism keep re-emerging as a ‘fix it’, despite their horrendous record associated with the Stalinist Purges, the Holdomor, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian Killing Fields. At its core it offers a ‘utopia’ which has emotional appeal. It makes a claim of a ‘better world’ end goal. Who wouldn’t want that? Past failures are explained away by the No True Scotsman fallacy. No True Scotsman

Christianity in the West on a broader level offered support and appealed to people’s emotional being. It was far from perfect but it did provide for a framework of belief that offered stability. Its greatest strength was that it gave humanity intrinsic meaning that transcended the harshness of the day-to-day materialism. Murder in the Christian worldview is intrinsically evil. It is not ‘just bad’ based on Consequence, Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics.

Christianity as do other religions also provides for a vital and much needed sense of community.

Critics of course dismiss this whole line of thought as wishful thinking but for those thrown into the turmoil of life’s daily struggle it offered necessary comfort. People need that. It provided a moral structure to guide a person through the angst of one’s existence.

However the legs of Christianity in the West, like so many other institutions including our shared historical legacy, are being kicked out each day. The process is not new and in a sense has been ongoing since World War One. In 2020 we have seen this process accelerate with attacks on the common history and national Identity not just in the US but in the UK and Canada as well.

So where does this leave us? That is a very pertinent question that we face in the contemporary. Secular Humanism is vulnerable to an assault from dynamics with a greater will to power. It all too often lacks the wherewithal to counter ideologies that are destructive. By its very nature it champions accommodation and this is its Achilles Heel. Those who are aware of the Alinsky play of forcing ‘one’s opponents to live up to its ideals’ can wield this weapon effectively. There is historical precedent here in the takedown of the Weimar Republic in post WWI Germany after its constant bombardment by the twin extremes of Communism and National Socialism.

All of this is very disturbing and unless majority of people who define the center left and right and come together under a common banner that values the rule of law, our individual freedoms, a transcendence rooted in a shared national identity and value system we will be in for a difficult time in the foreseeable future.

Modern secular humanism will not be our saviour.

Seven Statements people say that indicate that they don't understand science

These cause alarm bells to ring.

1.Myth: Science proves X to be true or false.

Reality: Science doesn’t prove anything. Proof is a mathematical concept. Science operates within an inductive framework offering up evidence in support or against a particular hypothesis or another. Any scientific explanation is one fully verified piece of empirical contradiction from being tossed into the garbage heap of failed ideas.

2. Myth: If the majority of scientists agree with the explanation then it must be correct.

Reality: Science is about the evidence and is not a popularity game. If the evidence backs up the lone dissenting voice then that dissecting voice is the one we give credence to until better evidence to the contrary surfaces.

3. Myth: Scientists are objective.

Reality: Science itself ought to be objective but scientists themselves may not necessarily be so. File that under the category of being human.

4. Myth: Science will unravel the truth.

Reality: Perhaps but what is the truth. We may not even be close. The whole universe could be a hologram and we would not know it. However this is not what science does. Science functions on a pragmatic level building better and better models that have stronger explanatory capability within an empirical framework. Anything else is a combination of gravy and wishful thinking.

5. Myth: Science and Reason are synonomous.

Reality: Science requires two key aspects Reasoning/ Rationalism and more importantly Empirical evidence. If the Empirical evidence is impossible to come by then the avenue of investigation cannot be classified as scientific.

6. Myth: There is no scientific evidence for God therefore God doesn’t exist.

Reality: Science operates within the material which may or may not be all that exists. If God does exists and does transcend the material then scientific investigation will prove incapable of identifying it anyway. If God exists within the material then science could theoretically discover God. The fact that science has not discovered the material God would then strengthen the case that God doesn’t exist.

7. Myth: There is a single scientific method.

Reality: There are several ways in which a phenomenon is investigated. However the exact order of steps varies based on the problem being looked at. Some would even make the case that there is no fixed scientific method. Opinion | There Is No Scientific Method and The Scientific Method is a Myth

How relevant are the Nobel Prizes?

(My answer in Quora)

There are six Nobel Prizes awarded. Those given out for Physics, Chemistry, Medicine/Physiology are extremely relevant. They are offered to acknowledge groundbreaking empirically verified achievement in each of the big three hard sciences.

Such titans as Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Louis de Broglie and Murray Gell-Mann have won for physics. Svante Arrhenius, Ernest Rutherford, Linus Pauling and Marie Curie were awarded the prize for Chemistry (she also won for Physics). Alexander Fleming, Thomas Hunt Morgan, Watson/Crick and Konrad Lorenz were acknowledged for their achievements in the Medical Sciences.

These prize reflect the pinnacle of success in the sciences and have further highlighted the contribution to all of humanity that science has been responsible for through the invention of the transistor, our growing understanding of molecular genetics and our ability to innovate with polymerization (to name just three of many highlights).

Now this is not say that those who won each year were the most deserving. It can also be argued that several key figures in the respective discipline who should have won were regrettably omitted. Douglas Prasher in Medicine/Biology is such a figure, Gábor A. Somorjai in Chemistry is another with Gilbert Lewis - he of Lewis Dot structure fame - being a third (Lewis was nominated 41 times).

The fact that the award is not given Posthumously ensured that Rosalind Franklin who played a pivotal role in the elucidation of the double helix structure for DNA did not win the Prize when it was awarded in 1962 (she died in 1958). Although some believe that there was politics at play here that further shed a negative light on her omission.

Nobel Prizes are awarded as well for Economics, Literature and Peace - the soft Nobels. These three look to be extremely tinged with political and social bias and have lost some of their relevancy with time.

Western History 112: Who was Marie Theresa?

Queen Marie Theresa was together with Frederick II and later Catherine the Great one of the influential monarchs of the 18^th century. She blended together a strong centrist authority with the spirit of rationalism during a forty year long reign over Austria and Hungary/Bohemia between 1740-1780.

Marie Theresa Source: daily.jstor.org

Marie Theresa was the eldest daughter of Charles VI, the Holy Roman Emperor. Her controversial ascendancy was assured by her father through the mechanism of the Pragmatic Sanction that allowed her to take the throne despite the fact that she was a female. However this met with opposition from various quarters culminating in the War of the Austrian Succession during her early reign.

Domestically Marie Theresa worked to reduce the tax system in the Austrian Empire by abolishing exemptions for the large landowners. She separated the judiciary from the executive, championed higher education and increased the size of the civil service. The church hierarchy was also organized to make it answerable to the state.

Politically she threw her weight behind France in the Seven Years War in the hope of recovering Silesia  which had been lost to Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession . However her action her resulted in a great amount of debt accumulation for Thersea’s Hapsburg regime with minimum territorial gain.

In 1765 her husband Francis Stephen of Lorraine died and this seemed to have negatively impacted her. The couple had 16 children together. Two of them – Joseph II and Leopold II would become Holy Roman Emperors after her death. One of her daughters Marie Antoinette would become Queen of France.

Austria under Marie Theresa source: erenow.net

Later on she supported the partition of Poland in 1772 but expressed some reservation to the more ‘extreme’ ideas of the enlightenment. In this regard she differed from Frederick II. Austrian attempts at further expansion  was also curtailed during the War of the Bavarian Succession( 1778-79)

Overall she is regarded as a capable of ruler within the benevolent dictatorship framework.

Movie Cliches - James Bond type flicks

These were all stock in trade for your Golden Era Bond Movie.

James Bond type movies and their cliches

1. The Plot will always begin in a remote part of the world.

2. Things are never as they seem. An evil mastermind is always behind something that looks like a small time operation.

3. The Evil Mastermind has a private army in another remote part of the world. His/her operation's are either underwater, underground or in space. No attempt will ever be made to find out how this army was recruited. Was there an advert somewhere in a magazine such as Soldier of Fortune?

4. The Evil Mastermind will send some goons to kill the hero at the beginning of the movie. The hero will of course kill all of these goons.

5. A pretty woman will appear who is associated with the Mastermind. She will turn against the Mastermind toward the end of the movie after hearing the true details of the evil plans as revealed to her by the Mastermind or the hero.

6. The Mastermind will always be a person of culture enjoying and appreciating the finest foods, art, music and literature.

7. The Evil Mastermind will capture the hero, set him up in a diabolical death trap which the hero will escape from to destroy the Mastermind's plans.

8. All bombs will be defused with one second remaining on the timer.

9. The hero will succeed in reducing to rubble the Mastermind's hidden complex. The complex will either self obliterate (a popular design mechanism) or be destroyed during the course of the chaos created by the hero.

10. The hero will infiltrate the Mastermind's headquarters by knocking out one of the latter's troops and dressing up in the soldier's uniform that will of course fit perfectly.

11. Special forces or government troops will arrive at the end of the movie (from nowhere) to mop up the operations.

12. When diffusing a bomb all 50/50 guesses will prove correct.

13. The hero will be familiar with all types of machinery/equipment at the Mastermind's headquarters. No learning curve will be needed to master any machinery.

14. During the chase which can take place on either land, sea or air (and which occurs in the middle of the movie) all the Mastermind's pursuer vehicles will be destroyed. Several drivers will die of which at least one will meet their fate in an extremely grizzly death.

15. The hero will always have time for wisecracks no matter how precarious the situation.

16. The previous agent given the assignment before the hero will always be killed. Although he/she will supply enough information to make the hero's work significantly confusing.

17. The Evil Mastermind's motives are one of three types a) to destroy the world and start a new with the Mastermind's 'utopic' plans ruling supreme; b) to extract a large sum of money from the world powers; or c) to exact revenge on some country for an injustice suffered in the past.

18. Specialized weapons given to the hero will always prove useful. Most often in unexpected circumstances.

19. The hero will annoy their boss and will have a problem with discipline. Heroes will be completely fearless, adapt at any sport or art form, understand all automation, speak several languages and be somewhat of a know-it-all. The hero will be tolerated by their boss as they have of course saved the world on several occasions (put that on your resume).

20. When playing cards the hero will always be dealt the best hand and if not will succeed in bluffing towards a win.

21. Any supplemental agents bought along to assist the hero will either be captured or killed.

22. The Mastermind will often attempt an escape, after their plans have gone awry, by holding the hero's lover hostage.

23. If the Mastermind does escape. One can with full certainty expect that he/she will reappear in a sequel with even more of a diabolical plot.

24. The Mastermind often makes use of an escape pod that will be activated before the complex self obliterates.

25. The Mastermind will have a strong but psychopathic henchman who will battle the hero in a fisticuff. If the fisticuff appears at the beginning of the movie then expect a second fight between the two near the movie's end. In the second fight the henchman will die a savage death.

Western History 111: What was the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) about?

The Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI died in October 1740 and was succeeded by his daughter, Marie Theresa.  This was the first time that the Hapsburg had a female ruler and Charles had to use a great deal of diplomacy beforehand to ensure that her position would be respected on the continental scale following his death. Female succession stood in opposition against Salic law that had existed prior to the Carolingians . Nevertheless Charles appeared to be successful in his efforts, so it seemed.

Not so according to the Prussian monarch, Frederick II who used the opportunity of succession to seize and take control of the rich Hapsburg province of Silesia. His forces defeated the Austrians at Mollwitz (April 1741). However it wasn’t just the Prussians who got into the act. So did the French who joined with Bavaria and Spain to take up arms against Marie Theresa’s Austria. They were joined later by Saxony.

Frederick II of Prussia source: history.com

Marie Theresa needed an ally and she found this in Britain.  The Austrians struck back  in 1742 against the French and drove the Bavarians out of Bohemia. Austrian troops actually occupied Bavaria proper. Meanwhile the British joined by the Hanoverians and Hessians defeated the French at Dettingen (July 1743) with Savoy helping to push the French back to their borders. Bavaria would give up all claims to Austrian succession.French pride was restored by the victory of Maurice de Saxe’s troops at the Battle of Fontenoy (May 1745).

A Young Marie Theresa source: friendsinvienna.com

The war entered a Second phase in December 1745 with Frederick re-entering the fray to consolidate his position in Silesia. This would finally be recognized by the Treaty of Dresden in 1745.

From 1746 to 1748 the war became a cagey affair. The British could not commit themselves any further to continental affairs as there was a struggle back home over the Stuart claim to the British throne. The Young pretender Charles Edward was seeking to oust the ruling House of Hanover.

In 1748 the War was bought to a close by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Marie Theresa retained much of her territory except for Silesia which was now firmly under Prussian control.

One of the aspects of the War of the Austrian Succession that is worth mentioning is that it offered up many peripheral theatres of conflict. In North America the conflict  was known as King George’s War. It was in this theatre that the British captured the fort of Louisbourg (located on Cape Breton) from the French. In India the fighting was known as the First Carnatic War (Madras was taken by the French and then won back by the British).

Fort Louisbourg source: novascotia.com

The oddly named War of Jenkin’s Ear known as Guerra del Asiento in Spain was another spin off conflict that saw the British and Spanish extend the conflict into the Caribbean and Central America.

War of Jenkins Ear in a nutshell source: Epik Fails of history (Yes Epik with a k)