Comparing And Differences Of Peter The Great And Peter The Great

Peter the Great, the Russian Czar, inherited his absolutist power from his brother, Ivan V. Born in aristocracy, Peter’s dad was the Czar, and later his brother, and after his brother’s death, him. He was a firm believer in the possible benefits from the control of a single leader to make decisions for the people, and he exercised this divine right to create many renouned institutions. At the beginning of Peter’s reign, Russia was in a poor condition: many rejected modernization from the Renaissance, and large spending from his brother’s reign caused economic droughts. He took advantage of his absolutist power to help ameliorate Russia’s situation and first decided to minimalize power from the other aristocrats. The subduction of the rich allowed

Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s

Although they both are associated with different forms of governing, they actually ruled in similar manners. Charles I did not follow ordinary practices of a constitutional monarchy, and he completely dissolved the Parliament, the only “people’s power” present in the empire at that time. Peter the Great followed in the same footsteps, although he never needed to dissolve a large founded Parliament, he had to similarly dissolve another group inorder to exert his full power, namely, the aristocrats. Both leaders developed institutions within their respective empires, and although they never faced against each other, they fought surrounding countries and gained new land. Both leaders were adamant on increasing the size of their empires, but Charles I was arguably more successful as a ruler. He sent expeditions to the New World, a mission never achieved under Peter the Great. However, Peter the Great was able to reform the societal norms present when he assumed power; whereas, Charles I, even with his absolutist rule, was unable to make such a signifcant impact on the people in his empire. Unfortunately, although their rules were similarly successful, Charles I was often condemned because of his contradictions to a constitutional monarchy by practicing an absolutist form of governing, but many citizens advocated Czar Peter because absolutism was a common practice accepted by the