Killing five men with one's bare hands is quite a feat, but is it great? Well, if those five men were political enemies, and in killing them one brings a simple peace to an area, that may be considered great. But many leaders have been considered great by historians, including Frederick II and Catherine II, but none, except Peter the Great, have been considered great during their reign. During the time of his reign as tsar, Peter was considered "Peter the Great" by his senate and many of his subjects. So was he considered great for what he did for Russia, what he was as a person, or because he was the size of a modern day power forward? He was no doubt a great ruler for Russia, gaining warm water ports and adding culture to a country previously barren of it. He was great as a person to his subjects, love for the ocean, completely secular, and a blue-collar worker. There is no doubt he was massive in stature, accounts have him ranging anywhere from six and a half feet to !
             almost seven feet tall. So which one of the se traits led to him being called "the Great"? Was he deserving of the title for the noted reasons or for other ones? Did he deserve the title at all? Surely for what he did for Russia, he was great. And what he was as a person was great as well. So does Tsar Peter I deserve to go down in history as Peter the Great? Yes.
             The beginning of his reign was marked by political turmoil. He took the throne along side his half-wit half-brother Ivan, who was doomed from the start. But since Peter had been in exile in the country since his youth, he had gained an appreciation for the common lifestyle. He was not a conceited leader and enjoyed the challenge of working with his hands. Any work that would present itself, Peter would take on. Since he had this appreciation, as well as a great appreciation for the sea, he was not a ruler who no one could relate to. Being a man of the people, he kn...