Talk:Peter III of Russia

Untitled

QUOTE Peter was born in Kiel. His parents were Karl Friedrich, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, and Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna, a daughter of Emperor Peter the Great of Russia and his second wife, Catherine I of Russia (a former Latvian peasant, Martha Skavronskaya)UNQUOTE

That's of course all wrong. Martha Skavronska was not a Latvian peasant since even the word Latvian did not exist then. There was no Latvia, no concept of Latvia and no Latvian peasants either. Martha Skavronska was not a Lettish serf either, she was most likely of free Polish Lithunian descent and came from minor clergy family.

Where was she from? Livonia, Courland, Lithuania? At any rate, feel free to change it. john k 19:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does that bit about Catherine's real names and nationality belong here, really? The Frederick 15:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Peter's son the tyrannical Emperor Paul" - do you really think Paul was tyrannical??

I removed the tyrannical. It sounds... i don't know, biased? - Martens

Posthumous Coronation?

I was just looking through The Book of Facts Volume 1 by Isaac Asimov. It's essentially a book of trivia - about the obscure and the weird, "interesting things". Like many books, it has on the first page an excerpt of the text. The first part of the excerpt is as follows: "Did you know that Czar Peter III of Russia was murdered before his coronation and was crowned 35 years later when his coffin was opened expressly for that purpose?". It certainly is the stuff of Trivia books. This doesn't seem to be at all reflected in the article... Perhaps another source could be found to substantiate it? I'm not going to insert it until I see some form of verification. A hasty google search indicates he ascended the throne while living... --The Chairman ^{(Shout me · Stalk me)} 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody needs to understand the difference between ascending the throne and being crowned. (188.162.64.122 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.64.122 (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Insanity?

Eleanor Herman's book "Sex with the Queen" depicts Peter III as a man who was mentally disturbed. She describes him as having a deformed foreskin which made intercourse impossible, so instead of making love to his wife he forces her to drill with a rifle at night and locked dogs in her closet to defecate on her clothes. At one point he attacked Catherine with a sword. She later describes him taking joy in watching buildings burn and makes no bones about calling him a pyromaniac. His disturbing eccentricities are not really reflected in the article. Are other sources consistent in this regard? 75.93.59.254 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He also used to play with toy soldiers in bed rather than make moves on his wife. This included dressing his servants as soldiers and ordering them to march around as well as hanging rats in Catherine's bedroom when they devoured his toy soldiers. These actions began in childhood and carried on through much of their marriage.

24.31.111.166 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These claims are based entirely on one, biased source: the memoirs of Catherine the Great. History may never know whether Peter was actually "disturbed." Trogyssy (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Time lapse between Grand Duchess Anna death & Peter's birth

Seeing as Peter was born February 21 [1728] & his mother died March 4 [1728]? wouldn't that mean he was just 'bout 2-weeks old, when she died? GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Elena Palmer

This article has undergone a lot of changes recently, based on information in a recent book by historian Elena Palmer, that takes a revisionist standpoint on Peter. While it is certainly noteworthy to add information about this, and Elenas viewpoints may soon become the generally accepted view of Peter, I fear that it is entirely too premature to rely too much of her work in this article.

Especially the summary of his reign in the "Overthrow and murder"-section seems to contain swiping generalisations of a very revisionist character, entirely based on Elena Palmer. I am referring to this in particular: "The reign of Peter the Third was certainly progressive and focused on the transformation of feudal Russia, which in its development was clearly behind other countries in Europe, to an advanced economically developed state. His reform efforts were welcomed by society as a whole.. The attempts of clerics to prevent secularization did not meet with a lot of support among the people. The aristocracy was entirely on the side of Peter. The idea that the plot against him brought together members of the government and influential nobles is not justified.." --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article seems very POVridden. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

I have removed the worst weaselwording, and reworded where general statements were made that were clearly based on Elena Palmers interpretations. However this article is still very much slanted towards the revisionist interpretation of Palmer, for example it currently lacks a mainstream description of the overthrow of Peter III. Unfortunately, as I am in the process of doing my own thesis at the moment, I don't have the time and opportunity to acquaint myself properly with the needed sources to fix this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Splendid. Do continue your work of mitigating the revisionism when you can. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

I don't understand, is she the only reliable source for Peter's reign? Most of the 'domestic policy' section, and that about his overthrow, are based exclusively on her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.247.251 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to more about Elane Palmer views on Peter, than its about Peter. Half way down the article, its gives too much prominence to her views, and mention of her name. As the other guy said, seems like she is the only source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.163.211 (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to add another voice agreeing. After having to do some major research on Catherine it appears as if the article is out of alignment with the general academic consensus and heavily favors one interpretation in one book by Elena Palmer. While this may in time come to be seen as accurate it seems misleading if not biased to list this as the primary view in a more general encyclopedic entry like Wikipedia. 207.118.9.26 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Russian Pomerania?

This sentence: "Being a Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, Peter planned the war against Denmark in order to restore Schleswig to his Duchy. He focused on making alliances with Sweden and England to ensure that they would not interfere on Denmark’s behalf, while forces were concentrated in Colberg in Russian Pomerania."

Pomerania was not Russian territory then (or never has been) and the city is Kolberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikaard (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation found

I noticed that you were lacking a citation for the statement that Paul III removed obligatory education for nobility and I have the source here. I'm just studying for a test right now and don't have time to figure out how to add the citation myself.

It is stated in the "Manifesto Freeing the Nobility from Compulsory Service" in 1762

I found an excerpt of the primary document in my textbook Kaiser, Daniel and Gary Marker. Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings 860-1860. Oxford University Press. 1994.

It's on page 230 That isn't a proper citation, and I apologize, but that is where the information comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.237 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly — ??

... he was transported to Ropsha where he was supposedly assassinated.

What's this, er, supposed to mean? He really wasn't assassinated? Or, we think he was assassinated? Or, we don't know what happened to him?

How about: where it is generally supposed that he was assassinated?

OTOH, the entry on Catherine the Great states unequivocally that "Peter III died at Ropsha, at the hands of Alexei Orlov (younger brother to Gregory Orlov, then a court favorite and a participant in the coup)."

Sca (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very happy to consider all points of view, but they are hardly set out here. What is the 'traditional' reason for his overthrow? 128.72.36.64 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The word that Catherine II (Catherine the Great) sent out was that he died of hemorrhoids. Whether this is true cannot be determined, but it is a popular belief that he died at the hands of Alexei Orlov, brother of Grigory Orlov, by Catherine's orders. I personally think the statement should be changed to something along the lines of "...he was transported to Ropsha where he later died. Though there is no current evidence on the cause of his death, many believe that he was assassinated by Alexei Orlov, brother of Grigory Orlov." I think it's safe to be relatively vague about his death as is the original statement.

Revisionist Bias

This article has a deeply revisionist bias which gives short shrift to, or simply ignores, the negative views of the overwhelming majority of reputable historians relating to its subject. As a serious encyclopedic article it fails basic standards of neutrality and needs to be substantively rewritten. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

date of birth

At top of article, I only see this for date of birth: "21 February 1728".

Need comment as to whether this is Old or New style. At the time, those styles were 11 days apart.

Neutrality

This article has been tagged since 2013. Yet there has been no discussion and only a single observation made in 2013. Since the discussion is dormant, the conditions to remove the tag have been met.---- Work permit (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Did you want to reinstate the tag and restart the discussion on revisionist bias in the article? ---- Work permit (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Some thought on an approach to fully achieve balance. The article fails to fully elaborate on Peters "generally poor reputation". For example, His love of everything prussian and his inability to speak russian. Withdrawing from the seven years war when prussia was planning to negotiate a surrender. What made a war with Denmark potentially unpopular. These issues are stated, but there isn't much text devoted to them.

Just because Peter was not as stupid, drunk, or inept as classical historians say, it doesn't mean he was a good husband or a wise and capable czar. ---- Work permit (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Economy Peasants?

Something seems missing or disjointed here: "State peasants were given higher social status than estate peasants, and all peasants under the servitude of the church were transformed into the economy peasants similar to the state peasants."

A "state peasant" was one employed by the Russian government? As opposed to "estate peasants," employed by private landowners? My guess is that "economy peasant" is some kind of error, perhaps a place where a few words went missing. Otherwise, what was an economy peasant? (Cheaper to feed?) And in what respects were economy peasants similar to state peasants?

--Jdickinson (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Russian transliteration

I corrected the transliteration of the Russian word "великого" (the genitive singular form of "великий"). In the Russian language, the letter г (IPA: /ɡ/) is pronounced like an English "v" (IPA: /viː/) when used in adjectival endings. Google Translate uses the incorrect transliteration I corrected. Matuko (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Matuko: Transliteration simply means converting from one alphabet to another, so "г" is romanized as "g", though I am not sure what is the norm in cases such as these. I would imagine it is still written as "g" despite the pronunciation as "v". Mellk (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I concede I used the wrong word—I should have used "Anglicization". Is it the point to transliterate or to provide the equivalent pronunciation in English? Wiktionary provides the latter. Perhaps clarification is needed (transliteration: Velikogo)? I have no dog in this hunt, so feel free to revert it if I edited it in error. I could have looked into it more than I did. Matuko (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Matuko: It is only a minor issue anyway so I would not worry. The lang-ru template offers a transliteration parameter which is often used in articles (if the name of the subject is not already a transliteration). lang-rus template also offers IPA for pronunciation. So I think it is typical to include transliteration (if it does not become redundant) and also IPA. I think pronunciation should be left to IPA. Wiktionary also does not provide usual romanization (for example velíkij with stress mark rather than velikiy or veliky). I think typical transliteration should be used to prevent inconsistencies or any confusion, for example "Москва" is transliterated as "Moskva" while pronunciation is more like "Maskva", and so on. Mellk (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)