What decides whether or not someone is great in history? Is it that that they accomplished many great things or is it that they are a person that is outstanding and morally good person? If look at an average individual it is able to be seen that they are great on some level but first the person judging them will have to decide to judge them based on their character or accomplishments. That decision can change one’s lookout look on that person’s life and whether or not they are considered great. Peter the Great was someone that I believed deserved his title of Great as leader and a King. I do not think that he was a great man. He was a good ruler because of his changes to the country and the modernization of it. He was not a great man because of his hatred for and neglect first wife and his oldest son. If I judge him on his actions as a king I would say that he does deserve the title of great but if I look at his personal life I would say that he is the complete opposite of great. The rulers are not looked at for their personal lives, but for their accomplishments during their reign when they are being given the title of Great. For his accomplishments I do think that he should be considered a great leader. Peter’s greatest achievement as the first western tsar was that he created the first Russian navy and sea port. He created the first real port for Russia and then built the navy. The port was gained by starting a …show more content…
I did this because his accomplishments are what make him great in the eyes of his country and the outside world. I did not always agree that he was a great man because of his actions taken against his family. As a leader he did improve his country and move them into the modern world of that time. So my conclusion of whether or not he was great was based on his accomplishment instead of his