Peter the Great’s death in 1725 left Russia powerful yet unstable, sparking decades of turbulent succession, elite interventions, and fragile reigns until 1762.
Peter the Great’s Legacy
Peter the Great’s reign (1682–1725) drastically transformed Russia, laying foundations that profoundly influenced subsequent rulers despite significant instability.
The Service State
The Table of Ranks (1722) institutionalised the Service State, tying nobility to state service rather than birth alone.
Encouraged meritocracy: promotion based on ability and loyalty rather than lineage.
Introduced compulsory lifelong service for nobles, binding them to either civil or military roles.
Created a professional civil and military bureaucracy, reinforcing centralised state power.
Impact:
Ensured a steady stream of trained officials.
Created tension between traditional noble privilege and state control.
Established precedent for later rulers, though successors weakened these reforms to gain elite support.
Increased Autocracy
Peter curtailed the Boyar Duma, replacing it with the Senate, centralising power in the monarchy.
Introduced the collegiate system to oversee different branches of government (e.g. War, Foreign Affairs).
Strengthened the police state and surveillance, using the Secret Chancellery to suppress dissent.
Impact:
Cemented the Tsar as the supreme authority.
Set a model for authoritarian governance in Russia.
Created expectations of strong central leadership—leading to power struggles in weaker reigns.
Control Over the Church
Abolished the Patriarchate in 1721 and replaced it with the Holy Synod, bringing the Church under state control.
Appointed a lay official (Ober-Procurator) to oversee Church affairs on behalf of the Tsar.
Impact:
Undermined the independence of the Orthodox Church.
Integrated Church resources and ideology into the state apparatus.
Reduced clerical influence over policy, increasing secular control.
Reforms in Foreign and Domestic Policy
Expanded Russia’s reach through military victories—notably in the Great Northern War (1700–1721), gaining access to the Baltic Sea.
Founded St Petersburg, a symbol of Westernisation and modernity.
Encouraged Western education, technological innovation, and modern dress.
Introduced new tax systems, such as the poll tax, to fund military expansion.
Impact:
Modernised Russia’s institutions but alienated traditional elites.
Left a mixed legacy: admired for strength but resented for autocracy and forced reforms.
Successors grappled with maintaining reforms while appeasing discontented nobility.
Disputed Successions after Peter’s Death
Peter failed to name a clear successor, creating a power vacuum and setting the stage for elite manipulation of the throne.
Catherine I (1725–1727)
Peter’s widow, supported by the powerful Guards regiments and Alexander Menshikov, his chief adviser.
Reigned with limited power; real authority lay with Menshikov and the Supreme Privy Council.
Significance:
Marked the start of military interference in succession.
Cemented the Supreme Privy Council’s influence over imperial decisions.
Peter II (1727–1730)
Grandson of Peter the Great; chosen by Menshikov to secure his influence.
Reign marked by factionalism and short-lived reforms.
Died of smallpox at age 14.
Significance:
Demonstrated the fragility of child monarchs.
Showed how elite figures manipulated child rulers to advance their own agendas.
The Role of the Supreme Privy Council
Created in 1726 to “advise” the monarch but quickly grew into a powerful decision-making body.
Dominated by senior nobles including Menshikov, the Dolgorukys, and the Golitsyns.
Acted as kingmakers, selecting monarchs and shaping policies.
Significance:
Shifted power from the monarchy to the noble elite, challenging autocracy.
Undermined the absolute control established under Peter the Great.
Palace Coups and the Role of the Military
The period between 1725 and 1762 saw multiple palace coups, often orchestrated by military factions and elite guard regiments.
The Preobrazhensky Regiment
Originally formed by Peter the Great, this elite Imperial Guard unit held significant political influence.
Played a crucial role in supporting or deposing rulers, including the coups of 1741 and 1762.
Functions:
Acted as bodyguards, but also wielded political power.
Were often bribed or persuaded by claimants to the throne.
The Guards’ Influence
The Imperial Guards, especially the Preobrazhensky and Semyonovsky regiments, became kingmakers.
Their support became essential for any succession.
Loyal only to whoever ensured their privileges and pay.
Impact:
Militarisation of politics.
Undermined hereditary succession; might replaced right.
Created an environment of chronic instability.
Instability and Short Reigns (1725–1762)
Following Peter the Great’s death, Russia experienced a series of weak and short-lived rulers, many of whom enacted only limited reforms.
Empress Anna (1730–1740)
Niece of Peter the Great, selected by the Supreme Privy Council with conditional limits on her power.
Tore up the conditions, asserting autocratic rule once installed.
Relied heavily on German advisers, especially Ernst Johann Biron.
Harsh rule marked by noble resentment, increased bureaucracy, and repressive policies.
Reforms:
Strengthened central control but did little to reform the service system.
Continued the use of secret police and exile to Siberia.
Significance:
Reinforced autocracy but alienated Russian elites.
Increased resentment towards foreign influence at court.
Ivan VI (1740–1741)
Infant grand-nephew of Empress Anna.
Power exercised by his mother, Anna Leopoldovna, as regent.
Deposed in a coup led by Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great.
Significance:
Reign lasted just over a year.
Illustrates how child rulers were pawns in elite power struggles.
Spent the rest of his life imprisoned and was later murdered in captivity.
Patterns of Instability
Rulers were often selected for their weakness or manipulability.
Reigns characterised by:
Brief duration.
Reliance on foreign advisers.
Little meaningful reform.
Use of force to maintain power.
Each new reign brought reversals of policy, damaging administrative continuity.
Consequences:
Erosion of reform momentum from Peter’s era.
Rise of court intrigue, factionalism, and violent contestation.
Public and noble disenchantment with imperial politics.
Key Developments (1725–1762)
Peter the Great’s reforms reshaped Russia but left unresolved issues of succession.
The Service State and autocracy remained guiding principles, but often conflicted with elite ambition.
The Preobrazhensky Regiment and Guard units became decisive political actors.
The Supreme Privy Council’s influence reflected a temporary shift towards oligarchic rule.
The throne became increasingly accessible via military coups, rather than legal succession.
The period witnessed six rulers in under four decades, most lacking popular legitimacy or lasting impact.
This era laid the groundwork for the eventual emergence of stronger, more stable rulers—especially Elizabeth (1741–1762) and Catherine the Great (1762 onwards)—who would seek to restore imperial authority while navigating the legacy of Peter’s revolutionary changes.
FAQ
The Supreme Privy Council selected Anna Ivanovna in 1730 largely because they believed she would be a compliant ruler who could be easily controlled. As the niece of Peter the Great and the widow of the Duke of Courland, Anna had royal connections but no strong power base within Russia. The Council issued a set of “Conditions” that would limit her power, curtailing her ability to declare war, marry, appoint heirs, or promote officials without their consent. These were designed to shift power away from the monarchy and establish an oligarchic form of government dominated by elite nobles. The Council hoped to avoid the strong autocracy of Peter’s reign and ensure noble supremacy. However, Anna tore up the Conditions shortly after ascending the throne, demonstrating how such attempts to limit imperial power were ultimately unsuccessful. Her actions reaffirmed the enduring strength of autocracy, but the episode revealed the Council’s bold ambition to institutionalise noble dominance.
Foreign advisers played a significant and often controversial role in Russian politics between 1725 and 1762, particularly during the reigns of rulers like Anna and her successor Ivan VI. One of the most influential was Ernst Johann Biron, a Baltic German and favourite of Empress Anna. Biron effectively controlled court politics and was widely resented by the Russian nobility for his perceived arrogance, favouritism, and promotion of other foreigners to high office. This created strong anti-foreign sentiment among Russian elites, who felt marginalised in their own government. The dominance of German advisers like Biron also led to the term "Bironovschina" being used to describe the period’s oppressive political climate. Their influence extended beyond patronage into policy, with decisions often reflecting Western European models of bureaucracy and administration. However, their prominence further destabilised the court by fuelling factionalism, resentment, and xenophobia, contributing to the general instability and undermining efforts to build a cohesive Russian ruling class.
After Peter the Great’s death, the Preobrazhensky Regiment transitioned from a primarily military elite unit into a formidable political force within imperial Russia. Originally created by Peter as part of his modernisation of the army, the regiment gained symbolic prestige as his personal guard. In the post-Petrine era, its role expanded dramatically due to the instability surrounding succession. The regiment was pivotal in several palace coups, including the elevation of Catherine I in 1725 and Elizabeth in 1741. Their support became essential for any claimant to secure the throne, effectively transforming the regiment into kingmakers. Officers within the regiment were often courted with promises of privilege and promotion, leading to the militarisation of politics. Their intervention marked a departure from orderly succession and reinforced the idea that military power was inseparable from political authority. This evolution eroded the concept of legitimate hereditary monarchy and entrenched a precedent of violent, elite-orchestrated transitions of power.
Ivan VI’s imprisonment had profound symbolic and political consequences for Russian political culture. As an infant tsar deposed in a coup after just over a year on the throne, his fate underscored the fragility of imperial legitimacy in this period. After being overthrown by Elizabeth in 1741, Ivan was imprisoned in solitary confinement for the rest of his life—spanning over two decades—culminating in his assassination during a failed rescue attempt in 1764. His prolonged captivity became a cautionary tale within the Russian court, illustrating the extremes to which rulers would go to eliminate threats to their rule. It highlighted the brutal lengths taken to maintain autocracy and suppress rival claims. Politically, Ivan’s fate discouraged dissent and bolstered the culture of secrecy and surveillance that would come to define later reigns. It also symbolised the dangers of dynastic weakness, reinforcing the centrality of military support and political strength over bloodline alone in maintaining power.
Power dynamics between noble families were crucial in shaping the turbulent succession politics of post-Petrine Russia. Without a formal law of succession in place—Peter had abolished primogeniture and failed to name a successor—elite families like the Dolgorukys, Golitsyns, and later the Shuvalovs sought to fill the void. These aristocratic clans formed shifting alliances and court factions, each promoting candidates to the throne that would serve their interests. Their competition fuelled palace intrigues and led to a cycle of unstable reigns and coups. For instance, the Dolgorukys were instrumental in supporting Peter II and attempted to marry him into their family, while the Biron faction wielded immense influence under Anna. The manipulation of child rulers, such as Peter II and Ivan VI, demonstrated how noble families sought figureheads they could control. This factionalism weakened state cohesion, undermined consistent governance, and perpetuated the dominance of court politics over national administration, setting a precedent that hindered political development well into the 18th century.
Practice Questions
‘The reigns following Peter the Great were defined more by instability than reform.’ Assess the validity of this view in the years 1725 to 1762.
The years 1725 to 1762 were marked by significant instability, largely due to disputed successions and the dominance of palace coups. The reigns of Peter II, Anna, and Ivan VI were short and lacked meaningful reform, with power often resting in the hands of favourites or regents. While there were attempts at centralisation and autocracy, these were inconsistent and frequently reversed. Reform took a backseat to factional politics, military interference, and elite manoeuvring, underscoring the turbulence of the period. Therefore, the view that instability outweighed reform during this era is highly valid.
To what extent did Peter the Great’s legacy influence Russian government and politics between 1725 and 1762?
Peter the Great’s legacy remained a dominant force in shaping Russian governance after his death. The Service State continued to structure the bureaucracy, and autocratic rule remained central despite attempts to limit it, such as the conditional accession of Anna. The military, particularly the Preobrazhensky Regiment, gained unprecedented political power, reflecting Peter’s militarisation of state structures. However, successive rulers struggled to maintain his momentum for reform, leading to stagnation. Though diluted, Peter’s principles of autocracy, service, and Church control underpinned political practice, making his legacy a persistent but uneven influence during these decades.
