OCR Specification focus:
‘Mazeppa; Tsarevitch Alexis; extent of westernisation.’
Introduction
The struggles of Hetman Ivan Mazeppa and Tsarevitch Alexis reveal deep tensions in Peter the Great’s Russia, balancing westernisation with entrenched traditional resistance and dynastic instability.
Mazeppa and the Ukrainian Question
Background of Ivan Mazeppa
Ivan Mazeppa (1639–1709) was the Hetman of the Zaporozhian Cossacks in Left-Bank Ukraine. His role was central to Russian foreign relations, particularly during the Great Northern War (1700–1721). Initially, Mazeppa was a loyal ally of Peter the Great, supplying troops and resources to Russia’s campaigns against Sweden and the Ottoman Empire.
Hetman: The elected military and political leader of the Ukrainian Cossacks, holding semi-autonomous authority under Russian suzerainty.
Peter rewarded Mazeppa with privileges, land, and recognition. However, this loyalty was conditional on Russia respecting Ukrainian autonomy, a condition increasingly strained by Peter’s reforms and centralisation.
Mazeppa’s Defection
By 1708, Peter’s centralising policies and military requisitions undermined Ukrainian self-rule. Discontent among Cossack elites led Mazeppa to secretly negotiate with Charles XII of Sweden. His defection to the Swedish side at a critical stage in the war represented one of the most dramatic betrayals of Peter’s reign.
Causes of defection:
Peter’s erosion of Cossack autonomy.
Forced conscription and requisitioning in Ukraine.
Mazeppa’s fears of losing his authority.
The decision backfired at the Battle of Poltava (1709), where Peter decisively defeated Charles XII and Mazeppa’s forces.
Schematic plan of the Battle of Poltava (1709) showing the Russian fortified camp, Swedish advance, and key manoeuvres. Labels are in Swedish; arrows indicate troop movements. Use it to locate Mazeppa’s contingent alongside Charles XII against Peter’s army. Source
Mazeppa fled with Charles to Ottoman territory, dying shortly afterwards in exile. His defection, though unsuccessful, exposed vulnerabilities in Peter’s authority and underscored resistance to Russian centralisation.
Consequences of Mazeppa’s Actions
Strengthened Peter’s resolve to tighten control over Ukraine.
Justified harsher integration of Cossack lands into Russia.
Highlighted the challenges of balancing local autonomy with imperial ambitions.
Tsarevitch Alexis and Dynastic Crisis
Alexis, Son of Peter
Tsarevitch Alexis Petrovich (1690–1718) was Peter’s only surviving son from his first marriage to Eudoxia Lopukhina. Raised largely away from court, Alexis embodied traditional Muscovite values. His character contrasted sharply with Peter’s dynamic and reforming personality.
Alexis was pious, conservative, and closely aligned with the Old Believers and traditional boyar factions.
He disliked Peter’s military campaigns and westernising reforms, preferring the old Russian order.
Old Believers: A religious movement rejecting the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 1650s, representing resistance to state-driven modernisation.
Conflict Between Father and Son
By the 1710s, Alexis’s opposition to his father’s reforms became increasingly evident. When Peter demanded Alexis support his reformist vision, the Tsarevitch resisted. Their relationship deteriorated into outright hostility.
1716: Alexis fled abroad to the Habsburg Empire, seeking support against his father.
1717: Persuaded to return under promises of clemency, Alexis was instead interrogated.
1718: A trial was held; Alexis was accused of treason for conspiring with anti-reform elements.
The trial revealed divisions within Russian society, where conservatives saw Alexis as a rallying figure against Peter’s westernisation. Peter, however, saw him as a dangerous threat to state stability.
Fate of Tsarevitch Alexis
Alexis was condemned to death for treason in 1718. Before the execution could be carried out, he died in prison under mysterious circumstances, likely from torture. This episode shocked Russia and Europe, with Peter’s willingness to sacrifice his own son highlighting the ruthless drive behind his reforms.
Reinforced Peter’s image as a determined moderniser, prioritising reform over dynastic sentiment.
Eliminated a major focal point for conservative opposition.
Deepened tensions over succession, as Peter’s harshness alienated sections of the nobility.
Extent of Westernisation
Westernisation Under Peter
Both Mazeppa’s defection and Alexis’s rebellion reflected deeper societal resistance to Peter’s westernisation programme. Westernisation was not a superficial trend but a profound restructuring of Russian political, military, and cultural life.
Military: Adoption of Western training, weapons, and naval power.
Government: Bureaucratic reforms, Table of Ranks, Senate and colleges.
Culture: Dress codes, shaving of beards, and promotion of secular education.
Opposition and Limits
Mazeppa’s Ukraine: Resistance to centralisation and erosion of traditional rights.
Alexis and conservative boyars: Religious and cultural opposition to reforms.
Old Believers: Religious schism deepening divides.
Despite opposition, Peter’s reforms laid the foundation for Russia’s emergence as a European power. Yet, these tensions demonstrated that westernisation was uneven, contested, and imposed from above rather than widely embraced.
Legacy
The intertwined stories of Mazeppa and Alexis underline how opposition to reform shaped Peter’s reign. Both men embodied the conflict between tradition and modernity, making them essential case studies in assessing the extent of westernisation by 1725.
FAQ
Foreign rulers, particularly the Habsburgs, offered Alexis sympathy and potential refuge when he fled Russia in 1716. Their interest lay in weakening Peter’s Russia during the Great Northern War.
By harbouring Alexis, they provided a potential dynastic alternative favourable to conservative and anti-reform factions, even if no concrete plans to install him on the throne were pursued
Reaction was divided.
Some Cossack elites supported Mazeppa, sharing concerns over Peter’s centralisation and fearing loss of local privileges.
Many ordinary Cossacks, however, remained loyal to Peter, either due to distrust of Swedish promises or fear of Russian reprisals.
This split weakened Mazeppa’s rebellion, ensuring it never developed into a mass uprising.
The trial shocked European opinion, as monarchs rarely tried their own heirs for treason.
Peter’s actions raised questions about autocracy and dynastic security. While some admired his prioritisation of reform over sentiment, others saw it as evidence of brutality and instability in Russian politics.
Peter portrayed Mazeppa as a traitor through sermons, pamphlets, and official decrees.
Religious rhetoric was used, casting Mazeppa as betraying Orthodoxy by siding with a Lutheran monarch.
Visual propaganda linked loyalty to Peter with Russia’s divine mission.
This narrative justified tighter Russian control over Ukraine and delegitimised opposition.
With Alexis gone, Peter faced the challenge of lacking a clear heir.
He introduced the 1722 Law on Succession, granting the reigning monarch power to name their successor.
This broke with tradition, where succession usually passed to the eldest son.
The law reflected Peter’s determination to ensure loyalty to reform but also contributed to instability after his death in 1725.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
In which year did Tsarevitch Alexis die, and what was the cause of his death according to most contemporary accounts?
Mark scheme:
1 mark for identifying the correct year: 1718.
1 mark for explaining the cause: died in prison, most likely from torture (or under mysterious circumstances before execution could be carried out).
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain why Ivan Mazeppa defected to Charles XII of Sweden during the Great Northern War.
Mark scheme:
Award up to 6 marks.
1–2 marks: Simple statements (e.g., “He wanted to keep Cossack autonomy” / “He was unhappy with Peter”).
3–4 marks: Some explanation with supporting detail (e.g., “Peter’s erosion of Cossack autonomy and harsh requisitioning in Ukraine made Mazeppa fear loss of authority, leading him to look for Swedish support”).
5–6 marks: Developed explanation with range of factors and clear linkage (e.g., “Mazeppa defected because Peter’s centralising reforms threatened Cossack independence; military conscription and requisitioning in Ukraine caused resentment; Mazeppa believed Charles XII could provide protection and preserve his authority. His decision was also motivated by self-preservation, fearing that his position would be destroyed by Peter’s policies”).
