Tag Archives: Peter the Great

Analysis of an “A” Paper

Posted on by
Except for some minor digressions, the author follows all the requirements stipulated in professor Qualls’ rubric. Most importantly, the paper reflects the topic of the research providing detailed and nuanced answers to the “Why?” and “How?” questions posed within the broader subject of the challenge behind bringing order into Russian eighteenth-century society. Why was order a priority?- It was necessary “to strengthen Russia’s international presence and to pacify conflict within and regulate the daily lives of the nobility and townspeople.” How did the Russian reformist monarchs of the eighteenth century cope with this challenging task? – “Peter the Great and Catherine the Great stratified and expanded governmental roles…” From the thesis to the conclusion the main ideas of the paper are clear, logical are therefore easy to follow.       
                The thesis, as well as the topic sentences are certainly controvertible, they can spark up a heated discussion, even an argument. I personally do not agree with parts of the thesis, or some of the statements throughout the paper, but see it as a positive feature, since it presents the position of the author and leads to a fruitful discussion. A simple example is the first topic sentence : “Peter’s solidified the stratification of nobles as part of his greater aim to centralize power throughout Russia.” Contrary to the author’s opinion, The Table of Ranks did not strive “to create harmony within the nobility.” Based on the novel idea of earning the noble status by merit through honorable service, the Table of Ranks was a challenge to nobility. It gave an opportunity to the lower classes to climb the ladder to level eight and above and become part of nobility. Service to the state deserved the highest praise, with Peter the Great being the most dedicated servant to his beloved Russia. So, the Table of Ranks was not about nobility (only levels eight and above out of 14 levels included nobility), or about “harmony within the nobility,” it was about service to the state and stratifying people by merit. This was Peter’s way to bring order into Russian social structure, get a better control of it and thus centralize his power as an absolute monarch.
                I applaud the author’s analysis of Catherine the Great’s statute on provincial administration. I gained a better understanding of this important document through its detailed explanation based on clear references to the primary source.
                

Document Analysis

Posted on by

From the beginning paragraph this paper, a document analysis of Peter the Great and Catherine II, clearly warranted an A. The information within each paragraph developed a clear path that aimed towards the goal of proving the thesis statement. The thesis itself expressed a clear and focused argument as well as a well organized perspective, which according to the “writing rubric” is required in order to receive an A. Furthermore only when necessary did the author include quotations in order to further prove his argument. Besides it being absolutely necessary, the majority of the paper was composed of paraphrasing of the historical documents, rather than quoting, in order to further their argument.

Each of the topic sentences within the paper expressed a controvertible statement in which always related back to the thesis statement, thus providing another requirement in receiving an A. Each sentence following the topic sentences also followed the “writing rubric” by staying within the focus of the topic sentence along with working towards proving the thesis statement.

Specifically speaking, the authors paragraph about Catherine’s reforms, which were the “Statute on Provincial Administration”, the “Charter to the Nobility”, and the “Charter to the Towns”, expresses the necessary requirements for an A. The author states and explains each of Catherine’s reforms as well as discusses Catherine’s reasons for creating each document, such as providing a response to the rise of the serf and peasant rebellion known as Pugachev’s Rebellion; thus providing the answers to the “five W questions” like “what?” “how?” and “why?”, which are crucial to any history paper.

When looking at the mechanics of the document analysis it, like the other aspects of the paper, expresses the requirements in order to receive an A. The author uses the correct Chicago formatting style by including footnotes on each page. The author writes with an active voice instead of a passive voice as well, which is also particularly important when writing a paper about history. The only mechanical error found within this otherwise mechanically flawless paper consists of a few grammatical errors.

Ultimately this paper provides every aspect needed for an A. It  initially presents a logical and well organized argument that directly answers the prompt. Furthermore each following paragraph continues in a detailed, logical way with the author writing in chronological order of Peter and Catherine’s reforms all the while remaining in the focus of proving the thesis statement.

Document Analysis 2 Paper Review

Posted on by

This document analysis, which discussed the reforms of Peter I and Catherine II, deserved the A it received. The writer included necessary contextual information for their audience, ensuring that readers would understand the topic. The writing itself is very concise, with each sentence aiding in proving the analysis’s thesis. When absolutely necessary, the author chose to use quotes to prove their point, but mostly paraphrased the historical documents in order to further his argument.

The topic sentences are controvertible and relate directly back to the thesis statement of the document analysis. Making these statements controvertible rather than factual is one of the many reasons that this paper is deemed an ‘A’. The sentences within each paragraph all stay within the constraints of the topic sentence and work towards the ultimate goal of proving the thesis.

In particular, the first body paragraph about Peter’s Table of Ranks incorporates all of the features necessary for receiving an exemplary grade. The paragraph concisely explains the Table of Ranks (providing the “what?” and “how?”) and discusses some of Peter the Great’s motivations for penning the document (providing the “why?”). Direct quotations are completely absent from the paragraph, as the author instead decided to paraphrase information from the document.

Overall, the document analysis provides a well thought out, logical argument, which answers the prompt given. The progression of the analysis is also logical, as the author chose to first discuss Peter I’s reforms and then transition to the reforms of Catherine II. The discussion of Catherine II’s reforms makes the transition seamless because the author first discusses those reforms which were similar to Peter the Great’s, and then continues on to discuss the reforms which were different from those of Peter the Great.

In regards to mechanics, the author correctly cites documents within footnotes on each page. The paper is written using active (rather than passive) voice, which is an important component of any papers written discussing history. Aside from a few grammatical errors and a few spelling errors, the document analysis is completely free from mechanical error.

Document Analysis Paper Review

Posted on by

This paper deserved an A because aside from a perfect spelling and punctuation, the author’s writing was to the point. The paper had no superfluous statements, and each sentences worked toward answering the thesis. In addition, the author does a great job at contextualizing his topic thus making it accessible to any readers.  The usage of quotes followed the same pattern: quotations from the text were only given to illustrate his point while additional references were simply paraphrases.

The argument itself was well constructed: The author’s interpretation of the reign of Peter the Great and Catherine II were correct and logical. Furthermore, the author’s analysis of the documents was used as a mean to both analyze the continuation of the reformist ideals throughout the century, but also changes within reigns, particularly that of Catherine II, thus providing solidity and depth to the argument. Such analysis of the sources allows the author to both give context and prove the thesis.

The structure of the paper was also interesting. In the case of Peter, the author started the argument through a description of the table of ranks, only referring to Peter to articulate that Russia was in need of centralization, therefore making a good usage of topic sentences. Following this brief description, the author then explained Peter’s aim behind the table of ranks as well as the consequences it had on Russia. In the case of Catherine II, this time the author first focused on the environment in which Catherine was at the beginning of her reign, period in which the Charter to the nobility was written. Then proceeded to explain why this environment caused her to create the Charter to the towns. While such method permitted the author to emphasize on Catherine’s reign, it also allowed tying the two periods in a manner that solidified the argument. In other words, the structure of the paper is organized well enough so that it eases the flow of the argument.

Peter I, Catherine II paper review

Posted on by

This paper I an A ranked paper for several reasons. It possesses all of the normal trimmings that are needed to insure that it can function as an academic piece; citations, indentations, correct spelling. It also includes the equally or even more important characteristic of being a well written essay. It has a clear statement of the characters that it will discuss (Peter I, Catherin I) fallowed by a brief statement of the timeframe they lived and worked. Fallowing that is the ever important evidence and a clear and concise thesis contained in one solid sentence. The thesis focuses on the actions that the paper is discussing, in this case the stratified and expanded government roles. The intentions of Peter the Great and Catherin II with their motivations for their actions. Later in the paper the author brings into the argument the evidence listed before the thesis. In order to do this a small amount of historical motivation is always included, often with some quotes. For example when discussing Peter the Great and the “Table of Ranks” the author mentions Peter’s affinity for the westernization of Russia and how that would be a significant motivator.

Once the Author has finished discussing Peter the Great they move on to Catherin II. They completely skip over any mention of the intervening monarchs deciding to spend more of their time properly explaining the relevance of Peter and Catherin. The transition from one monarchs to the next is seamless with a brief interlude discussing both monarchs for context. Thankfully at the beginning of the Catherin there is a much needed interlude explaining the context for Catherin’s actions and her legislation. The author tells us about the Pugachev rebellion in the beginning of her rule which shaped much of her domestic policy.

After explaining and elaborating on the actions and intentions of Catherin II the author turns their attention to what they have just learned. An excerpt from a noted authority starts off the conclusion telling us how the monarchs were perceived by the Russian aristocracy and public. Fallowing that is a brief conclusion stating what the evidence showed the author in their logical argument. There is little to no sugar coating, instead the author tells us that Peter the Great and Catherin II did not truly care about the people. Instead they did what the author believed them to have done and extended government.

What was Peter the Great Trying to Do?

Posted on by

Peter the Great is often times credited for transforming Russia and his reign is viewed as a great watershed moment in Russian history. As you read the two articles and two primary sources for Friday, think about how Peter’s reforms could lead to progress for Russia. Comment in 200-400 words, with specific examples, on how Peter’sTable of Ranks and Spiritual Regulation promoted progress. You may also comment on any limitations you see in the reforms’ abilities to reach the intended goals.