Peter the Great by M.S. Anderson Book Analysis

“Peter the Great” is a biography of the Russian Tsar Peter I written by Professor Emeritus M.S. Anderson and published in 1995. Anderson’s main idea throughout the book is that Peter wasn’t responsible for the ideas of the reforms during his time, however he was responsible for transforming Russia into the major power it became during his reign. Anderson argues this by providing evidence and analysis derived from his sources, as well as by providing historical evidence. The biography itself is one that presents many strengths, with a much smaller number of weaknesses. Conclusion

The primary argument presented by M.S. Anderson in his book “Peter the Great” is that although Peter may not be responsible for starting the reforms in Russia, he was the one responsible for the transformation of Russia into one of Europe’s greatest powers. Anderson first introduces this idea in the first chapter, “Russia Before Peter…” where he gives not only general information about Russia, but also information about previous Russian reformers whose reforms Peter would build upon such as Prince V.V. Golitsyn and Patriarch Nikon. Furthermore, Anderson used the first chapter to introduce his idea that Peter didn’t invent the ideas for his reforms, as Anderson closed the chapter with the following passage “Long before his (Peter’s) birth, forces of change and possibilities of new growth had been evident. He strengthened these forces and in some cases diverted them into new channels; but he did not create them. (19)” Anderson primarily argues his point through describing the progression of the Russian military. At the start of Peter’s reign and at the beginning of the Great Northern War, Anderson describes the Russian army as numerically large, however ill equipped and poorly trained. The incompetence of the Russian armed forces could be seen at the disaster siege of Narva, where according to the Saxon General Ludvig von Hallart said “they (the Russian troops) ran about like a herd of cattle, one regiment mixed up with the other, so that hardly twenty men could get into a line. (55)” and after the battle the Swedes took so many captives that they couldn’t afford to feed all of them and had to release all prisoners except for the officers. Compare this to the reformed military presented in the initial section of Chapter 5, “The Army and Navy,” which describes the reforms undertaken by Peter and the Russians on the military. The true scope the change can be seen in the quotation from a minister from Hanover, an elector state in the Holy Roman Empire, where he says that the Peter by 1719 “has put the State of War on an admirable foot, and has brought his Soldiery, particularly the Infantry, to the Reputation that yield to no one in the world. (98)” These two quotes clearly indicate how effective the reforms that took place during Peter’s reign were at creating an effective Russian army. This improvement of the Russian army not only allowed for the Russians to defeat the Swedes in the Great Northern War, it also massively increased Russia’s standing in the European politics of the time from a minor “barbarian” nation to a power equal if not greater than that of the Swedes. For the first time after the Great Northern War, Russia was seen as a great power, much to the credit of Peter and the reforms that had started before his birth. Evidence of Russia’s rise can be seen in the following quote from the French ambassador in St. Petersburg who said that Russia “formerly scarcely known by name, has today become the object of attention of most of the European powers… (86)” And while Peter may not have been solely responsible for the reforms put forth during his reign, as Anderson says “without him its (Russia’s) form would’ve been different, less abrupt, less spectacular. (86)”   

“Peter the Great” by M.S. Anderson is a book with many strengths and few weaknesses. The book’s primary strength is the author, Matthew Smith Anderson, a former Professor Emeritus of international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science and an experienced academic. Anderson being an experienced academic provides the book with a sense of trustworthiness, as the book not only was written by an expert, it was also revised and undoubtedly checked for historical accuracy by other experts. Furthermore, his status as a Professor Emeritus gives him access to many primary and secondary sources that he can use his experience to evaluate and use, meaning that any sources used are most likely trustworthy. In fact, in his biography, Anderson uses a mix of both primary and secondary sources in varying languages with most either being firsthand accounts of individuals in Russia during Peter’s time such as Johann Georg Korb, the secretary to Peter’s Austrian ambassador, or secondary sources analyzing and describing Peter’s times such as Eugene Schuyler’s work “Peter the Great, Emperor of Russia.” Explain more? The final strength presented by Anderson was that his goal for the book was to write to reach a “relatively wide and non-expert public (viii)” so he made sure to provide the proper context to understand his ideas and the book overall throughout the book, but primarily in the first chapter, “Russia before Peter…”  Among the few weaknesses of Anderson’s biography, the most prevalent would be the lack of useful maps, especially in the chapters about the Great Northern War. The book isn’t devoid of maps, however those presented are in the back of the book and largely unreadable rendering them practically useless outside getting a general understanding of what the European portion of Russia looks like. Adding additional, a quality map would bring clarity to the sometimes-confusing narrative of the war and allow the reader to better understand the geography and army movements undertaken by the Russians and the Swedes. M.S. Anderson’s work is one that presents many assets and a very few deficiencies.

Matthew Smith Anderson’s biography detailing the life and reign of Russian Tsar Peter the Great is an excellent work on the topic. Throughout the biography, Anderson effectively argues that Peter was responsible for transforming Russia into the great power it became after the Great Northern War, not for the reforms that instigated the transformation. Anderson primarily argues this through the use and quotation of sources, as well as his own historical analysis. Additionally, the biography is one with a plethora of strengths stemming from the author, as well as a few unfortunate and largely minor defects. Overall, Matthew Smith Anderson’s work, “Peter the Great” is an excellent look into the life of one of Russia’s greatest Tsars as well as the reforms that took place during his reign.

Anderson, M. S. Peter the Great. London, UK: Longman, 1995.