Military Review

Why Peter condemned his son to death

224
Why Peter condemned his son to death Like many reformers and perestroika after him, Peter I wanted to build a “sweet” Holland, an “enlightened” France or England from “wild” Russia. This led to a personal tragedy - the murder of the heir-son. And the general result of the Westernization of Russia was the 1917 disaster of the year.


As previously noted, the immoral life of the king became the basis for the future conflict between father and son. It is obvious that separation from the mother and the coldness of the father did not pass without a trace for Tsarevich Alexei. Peter is constantly among foreigners, in traveling and business, and the prince is cut off from his father. As a result, the confrontation between father and son was laid from childhood. From these years he was hated by the German settlement, and foreigners who, in his opinion, took away his mother and father from him. The father traded his son and legal wife to foreigners and his German mistress, Anna Mons. At the same time, the foundation was laid for the opposition party, which, fearing the excessive influence of foreigners in the king's entourage, began to place certain hopes on Tsarevich Alexei. Later Alexey was sympathized with such people as Prince Ya. F. Dolgoruky, B. P. Sheremetev, B. A. Golitsyn, S. Yavorsky, D. M. and M. M. Golitsyn.

The Russian historian N. Kostomarov noted: “After what happened between Tsar Peter and Tsarina Yevdokiyu, the heart of Tsarevich Alexei inevitably had to lean toward the mother; the son could not love his father, and as his father stubbornly kept the unhappy mother in oppression, dislike and aversion to the parent took root in his son's heart. So it had to happen, so it happened. Alexey could not love his father, after what his father had done to his mother. Naturally, there must have been a disgust in him because of the reason for the father’s deed to his mother, or that was close to the persecution that his mother endured. Peter rejected Evdokia because he liked another woman, and he liked this other one by foreign methods; in Evdokia, Peter seemed to be opposed to her Russian caresses, the Russian depot of this woman. Peter condemned an innocent spouse for monastic poverty at the very time when he declared persecution of the Russian dress and Russian beard, Russian customs and customs, and it was natural for his son to hate foreign land for his mother and, in contrast to foreign dear, everything Moscow-Russian became. ” Peter's conquest ruined the people. Alexey did not like war or military, was not captivated by conquests and acquisitions, his ideal was peace and tranquility.

Thus, in the family of Peter the tragedy occurred, which was repeated in the fate of Russia itself. Peter rejected the legitimate Russian wife for the sake of foreign beauty. He loved her and even wanted to make her a legitimate queen. She betrayed him. Then Peter found (or slipped her in time) another foreigner - the "cook" and the "marching wife" Martha. Made her empress. She eventually betrayed him too. And when Peter began to realize his mistake, to act in the national interest, he decided to reject the closest people - Martha-Ekaterina, Menshikov, he suddenly fell ill and died. There was no legal heir, he was killed. The era of palace coups began. The victory of the Western model of modernization in Russia - the building of a colonial order with the gentlemen, the nobles “Europeans” and enslaved people, ultimately led to the 1917 disaster of the year. Attempts by certain sovereigns, Pavel, Nicholas I and Alexander III, how to rectify the situation, save the state from a catastrophe, could only freeze Russia.

In 1699, Peter remembered his son and wanted to send him along with a Saxon diplomat who was in Russian service, General Karlovich, to study in Dresden. However, the general died. In 1701 - 1702, despite the reinforced requests of the Vienna Court to send the prince “for science” to Vienna, the Saxon Neugebauer from the University of Leipzig was invited as a mentor. He used to be in the retinue of Karlovich. The foreign specialist showed himself badly and lost his position in 1702. When Alexey accompanied his father to Arkhangelsk, there a German quarreled with Vyazemsky. In the heat of quarrel, the German burst into such abuse at the Russians and all Russian that he was immediately dismissed. In 1703, the city of Peter chose a new mentor to the prince, Baron Heinrich Güissen (Giesen). Baron was from an ancient family, had an excellent education, military and management experience. Guyssen spoke positively about Alexey’s ability and diligence, highlighting his love of mathematics and foreign languages.

The appearance in the life of Peter Marta Skavronskaya (with the skillful assistance of Menshikov), played the most negative role in the fate of Alexei. As the historian M.P. Pogodin noted, her attitude, if not actions, together with the intrigues of Menshikov, later decided the fate of the prince. 1704 year passed for Alexei safely. Father was pleased with him. But suddenly Baron Güissen (Gisele) is being removed from him, he is sent with a diplomatic mission. The prince is left without proper upbringing. The Parisian courtyard is asking to send Aleksey to be brought up to France. Peter rejects this offer. Many researchers see this intrigue Menshikov.

“What does this removal from a prince of the most necessary person mean at the most important time for him, from 15 to 20 for almost years? - Pogodin writes. - The instructions given to Gizel are very small and could easily be executed by any other. ... Where did the king's former care for his son go? ... Can't you see here Menshikov’s secret intention, as before in the removal of Neugebauer, of Menshikov’s secret intention to teach the prince to idleness and laziness, giving him space and freedom to spend time with his relatives, adherents of old, with priests and monks, to whom he received a certain disposition even during his mother's time - and thereby prepare a future break with his father. Menshikov could, under some plausible excuse, give malicious advice to Peter, send Gisin to foreign lands. ”

The circle of the prince in Preobrazhensky at that time included: the Naryshkins, N. Vyazemsky, the Kolychevs, the governor of Evralaks and a number of clerics. The closest people were his aunt - the daughter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. And in their inner circle dominated by the confessors, whom Alexei loved to listen. Representatives of the clergy, relatives of the mother talked about the discontent that is ripening among the people.

Alexey makes an unauthorized trip to Suzdal, to his mother. Tsarevna Natalia Alekseevna, the Tsar’s beloved sister, will inform her brother about this trip. Peter will summon the Tsarevich to himself in Zholkva (in Galicia), at the beginning of 1707. He was in a rage. But he went away and instructed his son to work - go to Smolensk, collect recruits and procure food. Alexey to the orders of his father was serious and tried. The sovereign was pleased with the service of his son, and after completing one case, he entrusted another. Having stayed in Smolensk for five months, the prince went to Moscow. In fact, Alexey became the Moscow Governor-General. He oversees the strengthening of the city, gathers soldiers and is present in the office of ministers. Peter's orders were transmitted through the prince, at this dangerous time (they were afraid of an attack by the Swedish army), he himself took measures to defend Moscow, reinforced Dorogobuzh, went to Vyazma to inspect stores (warehouses), watched the content of captured Swedes, etc. It was the first Peter's attempt to attract his son to state activities. Fifty-plus handwritten letters from the prince from Moscow show his vigorous activity. Meanwhile, Huyssen arranged the marriage of the Tsarevich with Princess Charlotte of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, the sister of the German Empress.

To explain the confrontation between his son and his father, as well as to prove Peter’s rightness, a myth was created about the inert, stupid prince, whom the representatives of the conservative party tried to use to stop reforming Russia and return the country to the past. However, this is a hoax. The prince was smart. I read a lot, eagerly learned new things. After all, not only the Old Believers, faithful to their foundations, opposed the radical reforms of Peter the Great, who carried the full burden of reforms and endless war, but also many educated people, representatives of the elite. They themselves studied and taught their children, knew foreign languages, read and collected libraries, were not averse to going abroad, looking at the wonders there, buying things for loved ones and at home. They were not averse to taking advantage of the achievements of the West. However, they opposed the violation of the dignity and calmness of the Russian people; against the flow of foreigners, among whom were many adventurers, possibly spies; against the endless fuss, controversial reforms; ruinous, long war, which brought a small profit, but finally destroyed the country.

Tsarevich Alexey Petrovich was close to such educated people. The prince was intelligent and educated, curious, well-read. In this, he looked no longer like his father, but like his grandfather - Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Like grandfather was heavy on the rise, did not like the hustle and bustle, the constant movement, what distinguished Peter. It was a person inclined to contemplation and observation. Alexey loved books. Being abroad studied history, visited memorials and temples. In addition to books on theology, I bought art books, maps and portraits in Frankfurt, Prague and other cities. He is curious, visits the monasteries of Krakow, is present at disputes at the university. He asks people, writes. Far from Russia, she is interested in her affairs, requires information from Moscow. As a person - pious, compassionate to the poor, ready to help friends with money and advice.

At the same time, the prince had his own opinion and opinion on things. He had a strong will and was able to defend his opinion. Envoy von Loos wrote 1 July 1718 of the senate meeting, at which serious charges were brought against Alexei: “The prince before the whole meeting with extraordinary composure (which, in my opinion, bordered by despair) confessed to his father in his crime, but did not express the slightest obedience to the king, did not ask him for forgiveness; he sharply announced to his eyes that, being quite sure that he was an unloving father, he thought that this consciousness relieved him of the duties of love, which should be mutual. He considered himself entitled to discover his hatred against him, standing up for the oppressed people, who are moaning under the yoke of too heavy rule and who is ready to give him, the prince, all the help he asks for carrying out his lofty intentions. ”

The prince did not like war. For a number of his marks, one can see a sharply negative attitude of Alexei Petrovich to various abuses of power, acquisitiveness, cruelty, and persecution of the freedom of speech. Alexey condemned those representatives of the clergy who, in favor of the king, indulged his evil inclinations. He hates his stepmother, she caused him disgust. Alexey felt hostility towards Menshikov until the end of his life. The prince was afraid of Russia's submission to the papal throne or Protestants, thinking about the expulsion of foreigners from Russia. Closed and cautious, in a close circle, accepting the cup (like his father, was weak to guilt), was dangerously outspoken: “When I become a sovereign, I will transfer all the old ones and choose new ones, I will live in Moscow, and I will leave simple city; I will not keep the ships, I will keep the army only for defense, but I don’t want to have war with anyone ... ”

It should be remembered that Alexey Petrovich was not an ardent hater of everything foreign. He gladly traveled abroad and at one time even wanted to settle in a European country. Never opposed the major reforms of Peter. But he strongly condemned the Petrine activities aimed at restricting the church. He really did not like Petersburg and wanted to return the capital to Moscow. But in this he was not alone. This view was held by many of his contemporaries. In addition, the prince did not approve of excessive enthusiasm for foreign policy activities (war), not without reason believing that the country needs peace.

Thus, Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich was across the road to several powerful forces at once. The reformer-king feared that with such an heir all his labors would go to pieces. He was cold with his son, which pushed him even more away from Peter. Foreigners feared for their fate. Alexey Petrovich could dramatically change the course of Russia's development, which was dangerous for the West. Alexey knew theology well, could restore the connection of the state, the church and the people. The coming to power of Alexei could become extremely dangerous for Menshikov and Martha-Catherine, they could lose their place at the top of the powerful Olympus. This predetermined the tragic fate of Alexei.
Author:
Articles from this series:
The myth of the "wretched" Tsarevich Alexei
"Soft power" of the West in the era of Peter the Great
The myth that Russia is part of European civilization
224 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amurets
    Amurets 26 March 2018 05: 47
    +4
    Thus, Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich was across the road to several powerful forces at once. The reformer-king feared that with such an heir all his labors would go to pieces. He was cold with his son, which pushed him even more away from Peter. Foreigners feared for their fate. Alexey Petrovich could dramatically change the course of Russia's development, which was dangerous for the West. Alexey knew theology well, could restore the connection of the state, the church and the people. The coming to power of Alexei could become extremely dangerous for Menshikov and Martha-Catherine, they could lose their place at the top of the powerful Olympus. This predetermined the tragic fate of Alexei.

    The eternal conflict of children and parents, on the one hand, and the struggle for power of Menshikov and Catherine, on the other, are millstones into which Tsarevich Alexei fell and who destroyed him.
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 08: 05
      +11
      Dear Amurets, I completely agree with you. Tsarevich Alexei became a victim of the intra-elite struggle in the young Russian Empire. And nothing more. And no “Western forces" have anything to do with it. And it would not be a sin for the author to recall that without the Peter the Great “conquests” and the transformation of Russia, the fate of India or China would have awaited us — the Battle of Narva showed perfectly that the old Moscow army was not able to protect Russia from foreign invasion and subjugation.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 26 March 2018 09: 13
        +4
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        without the Petrine “conquests” and the transformation of Russia, the fate of India or China would have awaited us — the battle of Narva showed perfectly that the old Moscow army was not able to protect Russia from foreign invasion and subjugation.

        The battle of Narva took place during the reign of Peter I and the reform of the army began after "the roasted king’s rooster in yellow ... pecked the culottes!" With what arguments did they decide that Alexei Petrovich, for example, would not have implemented the necessary reforms after the Navra embarrassment? Reforms were needed, but Peter's reforms were too "bestial" ... Who analyzed the reforms of Peter I, for example, to analyze: was it possible to carry out the necessary reforms, but without the "animal grin" inherent in Peter's "transformations"!?
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 10: 33
          +8
          Peter's reforms therefore began because the tsar understood the impossibility of maintaining the state in the same format precisely after Narva.
          And about Alexei, his own words are best said about his intentions:
          When I am sovereign, I will live in Moscow, and I will leave Petersburg a simple city; I will not keep the ships; I’ll keep the army only for defense, but I don’t want to have a war with anyone, I will be content with the old possession ”
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 26 March 2018 12: 36
            +3
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            Peter's reforms therefore began because the tsar understood the impossibility of maintaining the state in the same format precisely after Narva.

            I do not argue that reforms were needed, but reforms are different! The answer to the question: was it possible to carry out state reforms without the then "atrocities" on the part of the state (Tsar-sovereign ...) - I did not receive. Yes, Peter defended the "independence" of Russia, created combat-ready army and navy ... but what at the cost of? At the cost of tightening serfdom, tax oppression, forced displacement of the masses of people, reduction of the population in a number of regions, and, as a result, the collapse of traditional foundations. The assimilation of Western European education often took only the form of the appearance of Western traditions ... Acquaintance with Western Europe along with useful acquisitions it also brought the vices of Western European society. We still sometimes judge the significance of the reforms of Peter the Great and the personality of Peter I from the memoirs, conclusions of Petrovsky x nestlings. "The Petrine reforms laid the foundations for enlightenment in Russia, but in general there were few enlightened people. There was no historical science at that time; and people describing Peter's activities gave him exaggerated, distorted assessments ... It must be taken into account that the distorted assessments scientists and leaders of post-Petrovsky time could give ... (faced with difficulties, problems in the present, many people tend to idealize, embellish the past). During the Petrine period, Russia gained a lot of useful willow, but it lost a lot of its good. What more? -That is the question !
            1. Monarchist
              Monarchist 26 March 2018 13: 32
              +3
              Nikolaevich, you convinced me: Peter 1 byak, but in this case the same can be said about Stalin? Peter, called through the knee, broke the centuries-old stand of Russia, and collectivization is the same as that of Peter, through the knee to break Russia
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 26 March 2018 15: 58
                +2
                Quote: Monarchist
                Peter 1 byak, but in this case the same can be said about Stalin?

                Peter I is not a byak, but a man of his time and ... with a "foreign bias" .... Well .... he is not the last .. Repeatedly appears among the Racean sovereigns passion: "listen abroad"! (remember, at least, Gorbachev, Yeltsin ...) Both anathema, and praise or exaggeration of the merits or values ​​of an activist are extreme drifts. This applies to both Peter ... and Stalin. And Peter I. and Stalin had his "skeletons in the closet." "Do not make yourself an idol !"; “Look at the root!” - that’s what you shouldn’t forget, “considering” this or that figure and his era ... And then you won’t (it’s possible!) Curse, and you won’t “pull” to praise ...
                And so .... yes .... it is possible to draw parallels between the "Petrine era" and the "Stalin period" if you wish ... but since we are talking about Peter I, we won’t touch Stalin for now.
            2. ufpb
              ufpb 27 March 2018 14: 00
              +1
              Well, how do you explain that time was OTHER. There was no Internet, telly, mobile, but there were with executions in all countries. Get the country out of the “darkness of ignorance” by sacrificing a son. Was Peter right? So, didn’t history prove that Peter the Great was right - Russia even today even has a larger size that it left to descendants with ascetics.
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 27 March 2018 14: 25
                0
                Quote: ufpb
                So, didn’t history prove that Peter the Great was right - Russia even today even has a larger size that it left to descendants with ascetics.

                You now seriously say that before Peter Russia was a dark country where people like monkeys hung on branches, didn’t know what architecture, controls, laws, thought, army are? Did not know how to build ships, PRINT BOOKS, Pour IRON, etc.?
                Russia of Peter the Great died in 1917.
              2. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 27 March 2018 16: 17
                +1
                Yes, the time was different and it’s hard for us to understand ... but completely and not possible! So why are we arguing so categorically on this page: who is right Peter ...; who is wrong Peter ...?
                But did history unequivocally (!) Prove that Russia without Peter could not "exist"?
          2. Proxima
            Proxima 26 March 2018 13: 11
            +3
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            Peter's reforms therefore began because the tsar understood the impossibility of maintaining the state in the same format precisely after Narva.
            And about Alexei, his own words are best said about his intentions:
            When I am sovereign, I will live in Moscow, and I will leave Petersburg a simple city; I will not keep the ships; I’ll keep the army only for defense, but I don’t want to have a war with anyone, I will be content with the old possession ”

            I absolutely agree with you! This "smart" and "enlightened" prince is unaware why Russia has access to maritime communications. Who is interested, you can easily see that the volume of foreign trade for the reign of Peter increased by more than ORDER! Steel and pig iron smelting increased so much that we began to export steel to the countries of "developed" Europe (including England). The same can be said about the gigantic growth of manufacturing, shipbuilding from scratch, Peter's education, the Academy of Sciences, where the great Bernoulli and Euler taught, the strongest army in Europe with amazing social elevators, where 70% of the noble officers are former serf recruits and much much more, you will not list all!
            And yet, for me it is very important when the state is UNCONSCIOUS (Stalin, Peter the Great). Peter did not even disdain to darn his socks. He had a phenomenal capacity for work, owned at least 14 crafts, and how Stalin Peter put all of himself “not sparing his stomach” in the service of his Fatherland. This is evidenced by facts, statistics, and everything else is cheap speculation ... hi
            1. Weyland
              Weyland 26 March 2018 13: 34
              0
              Quote: Proxima
              Steel and pig iron smelting increased so much that we began to export steel to the countries of "developed" Europe (including England).

              Yeah, at dumping prices, below cost, at a loss!
              1. Gopnik
                Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 37
                +1
                Quote: Weyland
                Yeah, at dumping prices, below cost, at a loss!


                this is not true.
              2. Proxima
                Proxima 26 March 2018 13: 55
                +2
                Quote: Weyland
                Quote: Proxima
                Steel and pig iron smelting increased so much that we began to export steel to the countries of "developed" Europe (including England).

                Yeah, at dumping prices, below cost, at a loss!

                At dumping prices (at a loss), we just traded without access to real maritime communications, where the Hanseatic League held a monopoly, and somehow it was not accepted to trade at a loss. So we did not have foreign trade, but a real minuscule.
                True, we had Arkhangelsk, but there the crazy logistics, harsh conditions and short navigation simply consumed all the profits.
            2. Weyland
              Weyland 26 March 2018 13: 38
              +1
              Quote: Proxima
              when at the helm of the state is UNCREVERED (Stalin, Peter the Great)

              Why the hell is the use of such disinterestedness - if favorite am I managed to steal this unbroken man in 3 years one and a half annual budget empire! Menshikov therefore tried to remove Tsarevich Alexei - he knew that any other tsar would ask him for theft in full (by the way, he received his own - the son of the unfortunate Alexei paid for his death good )
              1. Proxima
                Proxima 26 March 2018 14: 24
                +1
                Quote: Weyland
                Quote: Proxima
                when at the helm of the state is UNCREVERED (Stalin, Peter the Great)

                Why the hell is the use of such disinterestedness - if favorite am I managed to steal this unbroken man in 3 years one and a half annual budget empire

                Do not consider Peter a fool. Why did Menshikov become a “semi-power sovereign,” because Peter absolutely trusted him. And I must say that he justifiably justified this trust. It is known that Peter I entrusted him with the most crucial tasks: he supervised the construction of the Peter and Paul Fortress and the new capital, St. Petersburg, and, if necessary, ensured the defense of the city. When the tsar had to leave Petersburg, he repeatedly left Menshikov at the head of the government. Peter I knew how to select people, and his trust in Menshikov testifies to the fact that he was a fairly smart and business man. And yet, Alexander Danilovich was a pretty decent warrior, so during the Northern War with the Swedes he repeatedly showed military prowess and was appointed commandant of the captured Peter the fortress of Noteburg.
                After one of the battles, which ended with the seizure of Swedish ships, the tsar awarded Menshikov the highest Russian order of St. Andrew the First-Called. So the myth of his innumerable and often undeserved rewards should be considered false.
                As for his theft, it is known that in the last five years of the reign of Peter Menshikov was in disgrace, the king removed him from himself.
                Well, with full payment for his sins, Alexander Danilovich, as we know, with his young grandson ...
          3. skeptic31
            skeptic31 26 March 2018 13: 28
            +1
            In fact, the author took advantage of historical officialdom, only slightly correcting it with other data about the prince. But this phrase falls out of what is told about the prince. She was clearly put into his mouth to justify what had been done to him. Yes, and much more is invented. In particular, a conspiracy, the usual technique that is still used to justify what is being done. And Peter I knew this, which means he was at least an accomplice in the reprisal. And further. The Romanovs before Peter I and after it are two completely different dynasties. Most of the story about Peter I is made up, in fact, everything is covered in fog, to justify the beginning of the reign of the future Romanovs. Those. everyone knows that the only time in the history of Russia, when its population has decreased significantly, but they really do not like to talk about the causes of this horror. Surprisingly, this approach to the history of the reign of Peter I suits both the Bolsheviks and today's liberals. The reign of which in its consequences is not much different from the reign of the reign of Peter I.
          4. Conserp
            Conserp 26 March 2018 16: 22
            +3
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            about Alexei, his own words are best said about his intentions:
            When I am sovereign, I will live in Moscow, and I will leave Petersburg a simple city; I will not keep the ships; I’ll keep the army only for defense, but I don’t want to have a war with anyone, I will be content with the old possession ”


            Purely Misha Gorbachev.
        2. Gopnik
          Gopnik 26 March 2018 11: 41
          +2
          And in what was expressed "animal grin"?
      2. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 26 March 2018 09: 14
        +2
        Yah? and all that you know: what fate would be and who, directly the prophet .... does the halo not interfere?
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 10: 37
          +6
          In order to know this one does not need to be a prophet. It is enough to study history. What did Poland end up with, where they upheld the "inviolability of traditional gentry liberties"? And what was the fate of the Indian principalities, where they also clung to "traditions"?
          As for Russia, a sample of the end of the 17th century ... then Narva showed that the old army and the old society cannot fight with European countries. The campaigns of Prince Golitsyn showed that the Crimean Khanate is also weaker than Turkey. The logic following from these events is inexorable — pre-reform Russia was very weak and vulnerable.
          1. Monster_Fat
            Monster_Fat 26 March 2018 12: 13
            +1
            Well, it would have been decided without Peter if he hadn’t been, there would have been a coma without millions of victims. By the way, about China .... he took the necessary path of development, chose a relatively convenient path for the development of the nation under the nationalist guise of the party ... unlike Russia, which rolled back to the dead end of oligarchic capitalism ... again, to the king and untouchable boyars ... "and Peter the Great did not help
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 26 March 2018 12: 20
              +5
              under Peter there were no "millions of victims." Very clearly and sensibly, he spent everything.
              250 years China was simply conquered by foreigners. Some kind of strange "desired development path"
              1. Monster_Fat
                Monster_Fat 26 March 2018 12: 42
                0
                Yeah, there wasn’t. Read Knyazkov S. “The Time of Peter the Great” (by the way, this is a “pre-revolutionary” publication, if that) everything is clearly and in detail written, what and where reforms he carried out, what he built, where he fought and what is it all cost the people .... There it is written how many souls lived in his state at the beginning of his reign and at the end ...
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 12: 46
                  +1
                  I read, and not only him but also later authors, the benefit of science for 100 years does not stand still. According to the "souls", it’s better to read the same Vodarsky. Under Peter, the population grew significantly.
                  1. Monster_Fat
                    Monster_Fat 26 March 2018 12: 54
                    0
                    Knyazkov, just the opposite writes, and the difference is millions. (at the beginning there were 18 million, at the end-13)
                    1. Gopnik
                      Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 03
                      +2
                      So Knyazkov when he lived ... So he wrote, along with Milyukov, nonsense. Then, already in the mid-t.pol. The 20th century, historians calmly, without anti-monarchical tension, counted and figured out how it really was.
                      1. Monster_Fat
                        Monster_Fat 26 March 2018 13: 07
                        +1
                        Was it "anti-monarchical heat" in "1909"? Oh well... winked
              2. Weyland
                Weyland 26 March 2018 13: 40
                +1
                Quote: Gopnik
                Very clearly and sensibly, he spent everything.

                Yeah ... And October 1917 am , and all the abominations that we now have are distant consequences Petrovsky reform! Thanks to his reforms, the nobles began to speak not in Russian, to look not in Russian, and to think not in Russian!

                "Where are you, King Richard? It’s awkward without you at home. Or did you forget that your people speak two languages? It’s a little crowded in two languages ​​on one island! Especially when one language is the language of the vanquished and the other is the language of the victors. Ordinary people speak the first rich and strong - on the second. By the Lord’s will, this world is divided into centuries large and small. But it’s bad when they speak among themselves in different languages"(E. Chudinova," Robin Hood ")

                And if we compare with China - where now China and where are we ?.
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 50
                  +3
                  Quote: Weyland
                  Yeah ... And October 1917, and all the abominations that we now have - the remote consequences of the Petrine reforms!


                  Oh, offending ... And why not the consequences, Troubles, guardsmen of Grozny, the Mongol yoke, the Baptism of Russia by Vladimir and the calling of Rurik?

                  Quote: Weyland
                  Thanks to his reforms, the nobles began to speak not in Russian, to look not in Russian, and to think not in Russian!


                  This is nonsense. The vast majority of Russian noblemen of the 18-19th centuries did not know any language other than Russian. And in the beginning. The 20th century was known at the level of teaching in grammar schools, as well as students from other classes.

                  Quote: Weyland
                  And if we compare with China - where is China now and where are we?


                  Where are we now - it is necessary to ask our crooked-handed communists, thanks to which Russia lost the 20th century.
          2. saigon
            saigon 26 March 2018 16: 11
            +2
            Narva showed only one thing, a surprise attack leads to victory, and if the Russian army had not changed at least three times as regular and like Europe, it would not have changed. A blizzard, loss of control and imported generalists dreaming of surrendering. That’s the defeat. And after a certain period of time, the Cossacks, and the Kalmyks, under the leadership of Dolgorukov, beautifully jammed the Swedes at the same time and robbed the Baltic countries a little.
          3. E_V_N
            E_V_N 26 March 2018 23: 51
            0
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            As for Russia, a sample of the end of the 17th century ... then Narva showed that the old army and the old society cannot fight with European countries.

            Your reasoning is interesting; in one battle, create historical delights. Yes, every second in such “battles” in history.
            Rome generally lost to the “barbarians”, and before that, to Hanibal, and even to the simple gladiator Spartacus.
            Napoleon after many victories lost in Russia, where the army and command were weaker than the French.
            And the beginning of the Second World War, the Germans in 4 months approached Moscow, defeating more than one front, but with what ended?
            So that no battle, not even war, determines the need for reform. And therefore, with incorrect assumptions, and the conclusions you make are incorrect.
            The industry under Peter did not rise as a result of reforms, but as a result of constant wars, war has always been the engine of industry and science because it eats up resources like a fire and constantly requires new "firewood" production is growing, new technologies are emerging.
      3. skeptic31
        skeptic31 26 March 2018 13: 35
        +1
        The battle of Narva showed a completely different thing. First of all, it is impossible to rely solely on mercenaries, and almost all the command of the Russian army near Narva is German and other mercenaries. Mercenaries were never distinguished by their courage and desire to fight to the death. The main thing for them is money. Peter melted before everything foreign, and so melted.
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 38
          +3
          Yes, something Sheremetev did not anneal under Narva, to put it mildly.

          Quote: skeptic31
          Peter melted before everything foreign, and so melted


          Yeah, melted to Poltava
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 26 March 2018 16: 47
            +1
            Quote: Gopnik
            Yeah, melted to Poltava

            Poltava and Narva are slightly different cities.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 26 March 2018 16: 51
              +2
              Who would have thought
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 44
                0
                Yes, and this is a difference of 9 years.
      4. BAI
        BAI 26 March 2018 17: 33
        0
        Tsarevich Alexei became a victim of the intra-elite struggle in the young Russian Empire. And nothing more.

        There is something to agree with. I did not see evidence that during Peter 1 England took any hostile covert actions against Russia. Obviously, the tilt towards the West was so great and unexpected that the Western “civilizers” took a time out to see how it all ended. And when the course of renewed Russia was determined, they took up the old.
    2. co-creator
      co-creator 26 March 2018 16: 45
      +1
      Quote: Amurets
      The eternal conflict of children and parents, on the one hand, and the struggle for power of Menshikov and Catherine, on the other, are millstones into which Tsarevich Alexei fell and who destroyed him.

      No, it’s just that Peter’s head was not all right.
  2. Olgovich
    Olgovich 26 March 2018 05: 49
    +4
    Why Peter condemned his son to death
    Because he became a traitor.
    The logical end ....
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 26 March 2018 07: 13
      +5
      Quote: Olgovich
      Why Peter condemned his son to death
      Because he became a traitor.
      The logical end ....

      Che wanted to say something sickly? Peter became a traitor?
      Read the article carefully and do not tell the crap from the telly.
      Whom did Aleksei betray: mother, homeland, ancestors, faith?
      In the future, such people as Prince Y. F. Dolgoruky, B. P. Sheremetev, B. A. Golitsyn, S. Yavorsky, D. M. and M. M. Golitsyns sympathized with Alexei.

      And when Peter began to realize his mistake, act in the national interests, he decided to reject earlier the closest people - Marta-Ekaterina, Menshikov, then he suddenly fell ill and died.

      So who is the traitor?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 26 March 2018 09: 06
        +2
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Che wanted to say that sickly? Peter became a traitor?

        Che, you do not understand RUSSIAN at all,
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        sickly
        ? request
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        read the article carefully and do not tell the crap from the telly.

        What "telly", what "crap"? Do you speak Russian at all?
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Whom did Aleksei betray: mother, homeland, ancestors, faith?

        Father and Homeland
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        So who is the traitor?

        See above
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        that suddenly got sick and died.

        He was ill for several years. And you don’t know? request
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 26 March 2018 09: 36
          +2
          1. To understand you in Russian, learn to write and express your thoughts in Russian.
          2. Father, and even more so, Alexei did not betray his homeland. This is nonsense, at best a lie.
          3. Ivan the Terrible with his son, Godunov, too, was poisoned for many years and what does it change? One result, the problem is solved.
          4. I repeat, read ATTENTIVELY! Quote:
          Mavrikiy
          then he suddenly fell ill and died.

          from the article, do not attribute it to me.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 26 March 2018 11: 38
            +2
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            . To understand you in Russian, learn to write and express your thoughts in Russian.

            1. you writing this:
            Quote: Mavrikiy =
            Che wanted to sayь then bgood-looking?
            or that:
            Mavrikiy = telly crap.
            teach me ..... speak russian? belay lol Count, for starters, the number of errors before sentence of ... three words. lol
            I-sort my "mistakes", by the way, "expert". yes You can? Or are you this one who is not ... ..lol?
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            2. Father, and even more so, Alexei did not betray his homeland. This is nonsense, at best a lie.

            It is true.
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            3. Ivan the Terrible with his son, Godunov, too, was poisoned for many years and what does it change? One result, the problem is solved.

            What do they have to do with it?
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            I repeat, read ATTENTIVELY! Quote:
            Mavrikiy
            then he suddenly fell ill and died.
            from the article, do not attribute it to me.

            Oh, you know how to "you"? belay
            I know that from the article, but I copied something from you.
            But there was no sudden death: Peter suffered some years from urolithiasis, seizures became more frequent and intensified, which, in the end, led to death. From the "poison", huh? lol
        2. Weyland
          Weyland 26 March 2018 13: 46
          0
          Quote: Olgovich
          Father and Homeland

          Contradiction in definition. Unwillingness to continue anti-people father’s policy is not a betrayal of the homeland!
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 26 March 2018 16: 25
            +2
            And what is the desire to merge the country's defense capability, to make it militarily backward - surrounded by evil and hungry imperialistic predators?

            How did this end for India, China, Arabs, Negroes and Indians - recall?
    2. skeptic31
      skeptic31 26 March 2018 13: 42
      +1
      Surprisingly, on the one hand, you do not believe any information that is supported by documents and facts. On the other hand, when it is profitable for you, believe in all the notions that are not supported by anything. Everything that has been written about Alexei has a very dubious origin, if not a complete forgery, in order to justify the actions of the Tsarevich’s killer.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 26 March 2018 14: 31
        +2
        Quote: skeptic31
        You do not believe any information that is backed up documents and facts.

        Only such and believe. Where are they?
        Quote: skeptic31
        when it’s beneficial to you, believe in everything notions unsupported by anything.

        What exactly are “notions”?
        Quote: skeptic31
        Everything written about Alexei has a very dubious origin, if not full forgery to justify the actions of the killer tsarevich.

        On the contrary, there are attempts to justify the traitor and the criminal, whose fault was proved by the COURT..
  3. DimanC
    DimanC 26 March 2018 05: 50
    +1
    Hmm, fun. By the way, Peter himself did not immediately introduce the three-color flag. Looks like I could not decide ...
    1. Andrey Sukharev
      Andrey Sukharev 26 March 2018 05: 52
      +5
      They say that the king is not real! (C)
      1. ICT
        ICT 26 March 2018 06: 37
        +2
        Quote: Andrey Sukharev
        They say that the king is not real! (C)

        they say the same thing about 2018
      2. moskowit
        moskowit 26 March 2018 06: 42
        +3
        Antichrist, sir, Antichrist !!!
      3. Basil50
        Basil50 26 March 2018 08: 56
        +4
        Andrei Sukharev
        If we accept the not-so-exotic theory of the substitution of the king, then a lot becomes clear and logical. The ancestors who noticed the substitution were no more stupid than us, only the ferocity of those entrenched at the throne surpassed both reason and common sense.
        Peter’s decree on the destruction of old-written books and on the killing of all children and household members of the owner of the books says a lot. Under this decree, not only were archives and books destroyed, but also letters and certificates of ownership and family archives were destroyed mercilessly.
        It was then that the Romanovs appeared and historians and many more who wrote about the divinity of power and about * anointing *, justifying the right to power.
        Some still believe, and some even talk about * the divinity of power from God *, sincerely forgetting that the Romanovs, even according to legend, were chosen, elected and approved by a majority vote.
        1. Weyland
          Weyland 26 March 2018 13: 53
          +1
          Quote: Vasily50
          some argue about the divinity of power from God *,

          Connoisseurs of languages, such as .. "There is power not even from God" is translated not "all power from God", but "Not to eat (legal) power is that which is not of God! ". Regarding the" divinity of power, "the Byzantine emperor Konstantin Bagryanorodny wrote: “If Vasilevs forgets the fear of God, he will inevitably fall into sins, turn into a despot, will not adhere to the customs established by the fathers - according to the machinations of the devil, commit unworthy and contrary to God's commandments, become hateful to the people, synclite and the Church, will not be worthy being called a Christian, stripped of his post, subjected to anathema, and ultimately killed as a common enemy by any Roma from commanding or subordinates. "(" On the management of the Empire ").
  4. moskowit
    moskowit 26 March 2018 06: 41
    +6
    Like many reformers and perestroika after him, Peter I wanted to build a “sweet” Holland from “wild” Russia,

    From Peter to Putin, little has changed in Russia. Peter ordered brooms in Europe, and now the Dutch are coming to us to save us from the garbage near Volokolamsk ...
    No reverence towards Europe will lead to good .... We have our own way! And we must live our own way ....
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 08: 16
      +7
      Quote: moskowit
      No reverence towards Europe will lead to good .... We have our own way! And we must live our own way ....


      I would like to note that it was Peter's "curtsies" against Europe that eventually led to the emergence of an empire in the place of the Moscow state, before which this Europe trembled, respecting the strength of its armies and the culture of which became an integral part of the culture of Europe — Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Chekhov, Musorgsky Aivazovsky, Tchaikovsky, Nemirovich-Danchenko are studied and appreciated even in modern Europe.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 26 March 2018 10: 10
        +3
        This is a statement that constantly pours on our heads, especially sadly. It is unlikely that one person can fight a monstrous, centuries-old conspiracy. However ... In general, look on the net for a story called "Rogervik Harbor" About this, by the way, and Pikul seems to have something. Rogervik harbor is the clearest expression, the very essence of Peter's reforms.
        Well, about the backlog of pre-Petrine Russia, the unpreparedness of our weapons and other horrors. Until the ingenious reformer took over, Russia exported hundreds of gun barrels to Europe every year. The terribly backward industry of Russia, its poor military thought and no engineers, steadily drove their guns to Europe. And then the reformer Peter came! Hooray! Export soon ceased, partly backward engineers died, partly left for Europe (you want to live), and Russia already bought guns later. In Europe. And that’s all you need to know about how, with a fast jack (on the back of his head. Vile. Petrovsky), the reformer “lifted” the country and “turned it into an advanced, industrialized state”
        1. Luga
          Luga 26 March 2018 12: 17
          +2
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Up to the accession of the genius reformer, Russia exported hundreds of gun barrels to European countries every year.

          Did not hear anything about it. It would be interesting to get acquainted with the source of such information, do not take it for work, share ... And then somehow ... I can not believe.
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 26 March 2018 13: 25
            +1
            If interested - rummage yourself. I am convinced that you will find many more interesting things about the tsar-reformer. I was too lazy to go far (I generally prefer not to give proofs. If it’s interesting, then a person will find everything. If not, his mind is still closed, there’s nothing to knock), here’s just a wiki https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ A gun
            1. Luga
              Luga 26 March 2018 14: 05
              +1
              Quote: Mikhail3
              If it is interesting - you will rummage around yourself.

              Thanks, started with Wikipedia, fumbled on. I did not find the source of this information, but I found quite a few criticisms. Once again, I am convinced that Wikipedia is an unreliable source, suitable only for determining the direction of searches, no more. A quote about shipments of guns to Holland came from no one knows where, the source can not be found, a story similar to the one we recently discussed in the article "Sport in the Middle Ages." Someone wrote, the rest was repeated, and now Wikipedia gives out.
              I myself am a small specialist in this epoch and I don’t raise the necessary sources from a sheet without a long search, but the fact that the guns in the troops were considered individually, they were always lacking and their total number was calculated in the 17th and 18th centuries by dozens, not hundreds, I remember it. And here 600 guns per year for export? Have mercy, you need to be realistic ...
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 26 March 2018 14: 37
                0
                sold, sold. the truth is not Russian masters and merchants, but Marcelis and Vinius. Founded the Dutch "CJSC" in Muscovy and delivered guns to the yard, well, they did not forget about their homeland
              2. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 26 March 2018 15: 48
                +1
                Yes need. The end of the 17 and the beginning of the 18 century - this is just the reign of Peter. Near the Arsenal are guns. Cast iron. Look, when they were cast, when they started casting iron in Europe, when they started to do it with us ... and suddenly they stopped abruptly.
                In the middle of the XVII century. in 100 cities and 4 monasteries administered by the Pushkar order, there were 2637 guns [11].
                Here from this topic https://topwar.ru/127937-ot-pushkarskoy-izby-k-pu
                shechnomu-prikazu.html A careful reading of it gives interesting results. As it is streamlined, “the value of the Pushkarsky Order has steadily declined, due to the development of other industries.” Yeah, yeah. Due to the development that led to the fact that exports stopped and imports expanded. There, by the way, there is a list of sources ...
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 16: 01
                  +1
                  Under Peter, cast-iron guns did not stop pouring.
            2. Hantengri
              Hantengri 26 March 2018 20: 25
              0
              Quote: Mikhail3
              Well, about the backlog of pre-Petrine Russia, the unpreparedness of our weapons and other horrors. Until the ingenious reformer took over, Russia exported hundreds of gun barrels to Europe every year. The terribly backward industry of Russia, its poor military thought and no engineers, steadily drove their guns to Europe.

              Quote: Mikhail3
              If it is interesting - you will rummage around yourself. I am convinced that you will find many more interesting things about the tsar-reformer. I was too lazy to climb far (I generally prefer not to give proofs. If interested, then a person will find everything. If not, his mind is still closed, there’s nothing to knock)

              Would you, my friend, with your hands, feel your head district, or what? Suddenly you have already begun to reap the halo, but didn’t you notice? About what proves, namely, the approver never heard of?
              I will explain on the fingers: For example, I am sure (and many authors have described it) that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is 7 km. And this in clear weather ... And in cloudy weather - 8-8,5 km.
              So, dear, now you have to (because "I generally prefer not to give proofs") get into the Internet and kill the Nth amount of time to prove to yourself that I am right! Funny, isn't it?
          2. Gopnik
            Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 45
            +2
            occasionally, the Dutch from their private factories in Russia drove cannons and other semi-finished products (skewer strips, gun barrels) of Russian iron into their Netherlands. The quality of the Dutch guns made in Russia was worse than the Swedish ones, but cheaper (cheap raw materials and raw materials). And we must keep in mind that we are talking about cheap cast-iron cannons, which are worse than bronze.
            Under Peter and after him, iron exports to Europe only increased, by the end of the 18th century being equal to Swedish exports.
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 26 March 2018 13: 06
          +3
          selling guns? and the fleet, didn’t sell by chance? observatories, academies are not based in backward Europe?
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 26 March 2018 13: 55
        0
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        it was Peter's “reverence” to Europe that ultimately led to the emergence of an empire on the site of the Moscow state, before which this Europe trembled

        And how did it all end? As Deng Xiaoping said, 200 years is too short a time for an adequate assessment. And now, after 300 years, it is already possible to evaluate much more adequately where Peter’s reforms led us!
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 59
          0
          Quote: Weyland
          And how did it all end?


          not over yet, still ongoing. Despite all the efforts of the Communists.
    2. captain
      captain 26 March 2018 08: 49
      +5
      Quote: moskowit
      Like many reformers and perestroika after him, Peter I wanted to build a “sweet” Holland from “wild” Russia,

      From Peter to Putin, little has changed in Russia. Peter ordered brooms in Europe, and now the Dutch are coming to us to save us from the garbage near Volokolamsk ...
      No reverence towards Europe will lead to good .... We have our own way! And we must live our own way ....

      So now we do not have to clean up the garbage or what? Let him lie and wait in the wings?
      1. moskowit
        moskowit 26 March 2018 17: 43
        0
        So now we do not have to clean up the garbage or what? Let him lie and wait in the wings?


        By ourselves, my friend, by ourselves .... It’s a shame not to clean up yourself ... It’s a shame .... In Europe, again they’ll call barbarians ....
    3. co-creator
      co-creator 26 March 2018 16: 56
      +1
      Quote: moskowit
      From Peter to Putin, little has changed in Russia. Peter ordered brooms in Europe, and now the Dutch are coming to us to save us from the garbage near Volokolamsk ...

      This is actually called technology and we sell our products to the same west in the same way. If Peter had limited himself only to the purchase of technology, but he also decided to make the West from Russia with force.

      Quote: moskowit
      No reverence towards Europe will lead to good .... We have our own way! And we must live our own way ....

      Under the West-Sentimental elite, this is impossible, but we have all of this since the time of Peter.
  5. Prometey
    Prometey 26 March 2018 07: 04
    +2
    The tragedy of father and son. Our story has always been considered one-sided - the king-transformer and son-retrograde. Yes, Petrush was afraid to lose power and did not regret his son.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 13
      +1
      Quote: Prometey
      The tragedy of father and son. Our story has always been considered one-sided - the king-transformer and son-retrograde. Yes, Petrush was afraid to lose power and did not regret his son.

      Well, the followers of Peter wrote the story what you wanted.
  6. Korsar4
    Korsar4 26 March 2018 07: 19
    +4
    There is one legend. Here is another. Intemperance to blame, and the loss of control over oneself for a state person is not a mitigating circumstance.
  7. Gardamir
    Gardamir 26 March 2018 07: 43
    +4
    I know in the history of Russia the same reformers as Petrusha, Nikita-kukuruznik, and after Misha Spotted. all the West loved more than their homeland.
    1. Luga
      Luga 26 March 2018 12: 51
      +1
      Quote: Gardamir
      I know in the history of Russia the same reformers as Petrusha, Nikita-kukuruznik, and after Misha Spotted. all the West loved more than their homeland.


      You would, my dear, learn to respect for the history of your country, before any nonsense that seems to you, probably amusing, lay out here ... The right to read is disgusting. I hope your grandchildren will tell you about Vova-bald, Yosku-hacha, Lyonchik-five-star, along with Nikita and Misha listed by you. And as they will write out their grandfather to their grandchildren, think for yourself with your characteristic wit.
      1. co-creator
        co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 14
        +1
        Quote: Luga
        learn respect for the history of their country

        You shouldn’t be bothered either.
  8. bober1982
    bober1982 26 March 2018 07: 43
    +4
    Alexey Petrovich was a rather small person, in my opinion, of course, and he was not able to manage the state. Even before torture, he very quickly slandered all his associates, both in the case and not in the case - all in a row.
    The times then were certainly not medieval, but the orders were more than severe, therefore such cruelty.
    1. Seamaster
      Seamaster 26 March 2018 13: 41
      0
      Clear business - could not.
      But the Empress Skavronskaya, Peter the 2nd, Anna Ioannovna, Anna Leopoldovna, Elizabeth - ent geniuses and dartans in one bottle.
      Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
      Although I do not protect Alexei.
      Here is the main drawback of the monarchy: if on the throne Nikolai the 1st, Alexander the 3rd, Dzhugashvili - the 1st, Vladimir the 1st - all the way.
      And if the above Peters are 2nd and 3rd? Paul 1st? Nicholas the 2nd? Tagged? Fighting with a bottle - then what?
      Retake cards?
      It does not work out.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 26 March 2018 13: 49
        +1
        Pavel I, Elizaveta Petrovna and Anna Ioannovna were good royal people, quite in their place.
        Quote: Seamaster
        Retake cards?

        Nothing accidental happens, what to say, so it was necessary.
      2. Korsar4
        Korsar4 26 March 2018 20: 33
        0
        There is no need to stamp, for example, on Paul I. Not everything is as simple as the "liberals" interpret.
    2. saigon
      saigon 26 March 2018 16: 21
      +1
      Yes, in fact, they did not consider Peter Alekseevich to be tsars, did not prepare, and did not teach them purposefully. The path to the throne was opened by the death of his brother, who was seen as the heir.
    3. co-creator
      co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 19
      +1
      Quote: bober1982
      Even before the torture, he very quickly slandered all his associates, both in the case and not in the case - all in a row.

      How is this known? From those who sentenced him to death and were directly interested in this? Although no, you probably have a video.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 26 March 2018 18: 29
        0
        Quotation: blooded man
        From those who sentenced him to death

        Nobody condemned him to death, how he died;
  9. Boris55
    Boris55 26 March 2018 07: 51
    +1
    Menshikov ... giving him space and freedom to spend time with his family, adherents of antiquity, with priests and monks, to which he received a certain arrangement even with his mother, - and thereby prepare future break with father.

    Alexey Petrovich was brought up in the spirit of the old Russian faith, which could lead to a revival before Romanov Russia. It was because of this that he was killed.
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 08: 09
      +8
      Quote: Boris55
      could lead to a revival before Romanov Rus.


      And its natural transformation, like India, into a Swedish or Turkish colony with “rajah” boyars. But "original", yes.
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 26 March 2018 08: 14
        0
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        ... colony with boyars, "rajas" ...

        Russia then became a colony under their kings. The West is still “offended” when we want to be independent. And much has been written about the smelly, uncultured Europe.
        1. Lieutenant Teterin
          Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 08: 56
          +5
          Quote: Boris55
          Russia then became a colony under their kings.

          Dear Boris, you live in some kind of alternative reality. How can a colony dictate the conditions of the metropolis and restore order there by suppressing the revolution (Hungary-1848) and overthrowing its rulers (partition of Poland and the Napoleonic Wars)?
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 26 March 2018 09: 00
            0
            Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
            How a colony can dictate the conditions of the metropolis and restore order there, suppressing revolution

            What you won’t do for relatives. To help his brother in the disposal of aborigines coming out of obedience - yes, like two fingers on the asphalt.
            It is a pity that Alexei Petrovich was not able to hammer a window into Europe. All sorts of climbed here ...
            About Napoleon. Napoleon did not go to the capital, he had another task - to help our people reassure the king. In particular, to defeat the merchant Moscow, which did not allow Western capital to reign supreme in Russia.
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 26 March 2018 09: 14
              0
              In addition. As you see, the people helped to calm not only our king there, but also them here.
            2. Lieutenant Teterin
              Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 09: 22
              +6
              The persistent impression does not leave me that you are most shamelessly mocking all the readers of VO. Well, how can one cynically ignore hundreds of historical sources, contemporaries, and just common sense ?!
              Quote: Boris55
              help our king reassure the people. In particular, to defeat the merchant Moscow, n

              Read about Old Believer capital after 1812. “Defeated”, how come. I ask you to read normal studies, monographs, dissertations on the history of Russia and the Old Believers instead of reading the delusional opuses of some pacific conspiracy theorists.
              1. Boris55
                Boris55 26 March 2018 09: 35
                0
                Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                Read about Old Believer capital after the 1812 year. “Defeated”, how come.

                I did not state this, although the attempt was made quite concrete. They traded merchants, not realizing that the merchants were just hired managers.
                Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                I ask you to read normal studies, monographs, dissertations on the history of Russia and the Old Believers instead of reading the delusional opuses of some pacific conspiracy theorists.

                Are normal investigators those who are on power in power? laughing
                These here quite suit me:
                Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Moscow State Pedagogical University Alexander Pyzhikov:

                Evgeny Spitsyn Old Believers and the Russian Orthodox Church split point:
                1. Lieutenant Teterin
                  Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 10: 25
                  +5
                  Quote: Boris55
                  are those who are in power feeding?

                  Still, you are mocking me. You do not believe in the "Annunaki reptiloid from the planet Nibiru"? wink
                  There are hundreds of studies. Like the historians themselves. No budget is enough to feed them.
                  Quote: Boris55
                  Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Moscow State Pedagogical University Alexander Pyzhikov:

                  Pyzhikov? Is this that sick extremist who is talking nonsense about the “Polish-Ukrainian” yoke?
                  http://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2017/11/18/ideologiche
                  skaya_diversiya_po_imeni_pyzhikov /
                  Good “historians” you have nothing to say .... this Pyzhikov defended himself on the topic of the Khrushchev era, and now he suddenly became an “expert” in the 17th century. "Specialist", however ...
                  1. Boris55
                    Boris55 26 March 2018 11: 14
                    0
                    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                    Pyzhikov? Is this that sick extremist who is talking nonsense about the “Polish-Ukrainian” yoke?

                    The same one, but if you read his book, you would know that the term "Ukraine" means a part of Russia that is understandable to the modern reader (for better orientation in space), and not as a separate entity.
                    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                    You do not believe in the "Annunaki reptiloid from the planet Nibiru"?

                    No, I don’t believe either Sidorov or Levashov. But for them - for some reason I believe. Probably by the fact that they do not interfere with the history of my fatherland with dirt and they, for reference, are Rybakov's students.
                    1. Lieutenant Teterin
                      Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 12: 10
                      +3
                      Quote: Boris55
                      Ukraine "it denotes part of Russia, p

                      Yeah, who “occupied” someone there, “committed genocide” and “changed DNA”. "Science" and through. He also calls not to call Kiyov the mother of Russian cities, calls tree planting an expression of religiosity, and also offers to “look for the people’s roots in paganism,” which essentially invites the Russians to renounce a thousand years of their history.
                      And you still dare to say that he belongs to those who
                      Quote: Boris55
                      the history of my fatherland does not interfere with dirt
                      ??
                      1. Boris55
                        Boris55 26 March 2018 14: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                        who “occupied” someone there, “committed genocide” and “changed DNA”. "Science" and through

                        Here Solovyov claims that this is an overwhelming work on the fertilization of Aborigines and the withdrawal of a new breed for four centuries belongs exclusively to them.

                        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                        He also calls not to call Kiev the mother of Russian cities,

                        And I completely agree with that. The significance of Kiev is greatly exaggerated and this exaltation went during the reign of Ukrainians.
                        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                        and also offers "to seek the roots of the people in paganism."

                        What is wrong with this if we know where we are from? Do you propose that we remember only Christian Russia and forget Russia - pre-Christian (pagan)?
                        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                        than essentially invites the Russians to renounce the thousand years of their history.

                        He does not urge to renounce anything, but to reconsider is a lot of what would be necessary.
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 26 March 2018 13: 59
        +1
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        And its natural transformation, like India, into a Swedish or Turkish colony with “rajah” boyars.

        Audible nonsense! Both Sweden and Turkey were at the peak glory in times first Romanovs - and for some reason neither one nor the other could conquer us - but if it weren’t for Peter, they would have suddenly won! stop
      3. co-creator
        co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 25
        +1
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        And its natural transformation, like India, into a Swedish or Turkish colony with “rajah” boyars. But "original", yes.

        But is Menshikov not a boyar? Oh yeah, he wore knickers and a wig, this changes things.
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 26 March 2018 17: 31
          0
          "Boyar", but not of the colony, but of the empire
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 40
            +1
            Quote: Gopnik
            "Boyar", but not of the colony, but of the empire

            Pre-Petrine Russian state is a colony? Whose permission to inquire?
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 26 March 2018 17: 43
              0
              Quotation: blooded man
              Pre-Petrine Russian state is a colony?


              where is this stated?
              Just an underdeveloped state
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 26 March 2018 18: 44
                0
                Quote: Gopnik
                where is this stated?

                Well, you wrote that tMenshmiv is also a boyar, but not only of a vassal state, but of an empire.
                Quote: Gopnik
                Just an underdeveloped state

                Underdeveloped by what criteria? By the quality of life of the common population?
    2. co-creator
      co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 23
      +1
      Quote: Boris55
      Alexey Petrovich was brought up in the spirit of the old Russian faith, which could lead to a revival before Romanov Russia. It was because of this that he was killed.

      No, he was killed because he removed all these Menshikovs from power.
  10. parusnik
    parusnik 26 March 2018 07: 53
    +3
    Fathers and children, in different centuries, decided in their own way ...
  11. Curious
    Curious 26 March 2018 08: 48
    +4
    Another historical ineptias from Samsonov.
  12. Palagecha
    Palagecha 26 March 2018 09: 11
    +3
    Lord, if only Vladimir Putin would not replace the damned oligarchs for a decade of victories ... And then, when we won’t win, they would say that he wanted to make a breakthrough, and he was replaced ....
    1. Opera
      Opera 26 March 2018 09: 42
      +2
      Who about what, and lousy about the bath!
  13. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 26 March 2018 09: 41
    +6
    The conquest of Peter ruined the people. Alex did not like war or militarism, was not captivated by conquests and acquisitions, his ideal was peace and quiet.
    These wars contributed to strengthening the well-being of Russia, the same Ivan the Terrible for Livonia did not start the war for fun! Peace and tranquility in those days was impossible by definition.
    The victory of the Western model of modernization in Russia — building a colonial order with gentlemen, noble “Europeans” and enslaved people, ultimately led to the disaster of 1917.
    Well, the eastern one, at that time, was not too happy either, after the Troubles and the recent peasant war of Stepan Razin, when the rebellious Cossacks and peasants almost demolished this very model.

    “When I am a sovereign, I will transfer all the old ones and choose new ones for myself, I will live in Moscow of my own free will, and I will leave Petersburg a simple city; I will not keep the ships, I will keep the army only for defense, but I don’t want to have a war with anyone ... ”
    and Crimea, oh sorry, Petersburg with Livonia, I will return to the Swedes, so that those new wars do not start wassat

    The author, as in the article, completely ignores historical facts, driving them under his vision
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 26 March 2018 14: 29
      +2
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      These wars contributed to the well-being of Russia

      You yourself understand what kind of blizzard you are carrying? How can war strengthen the welfare of the state? Read at least the published documents on the Petrine era and the testimonies of contemporaries - the same Menshikov. Interesting facts are revealed, for example, as peasants scattered through the woods at the sight of their own soldiers, who went to extort taxes on the same war from poor peasants. The indigenous population of Russia during the years of the Petrine reforms decreased by 2 million people - well, how it decreased - it died out. Here also 250 thousand - irreparable losses in the Northern War - for the most part - medical and sanitary from unbearable conditions of service and life of soldiers and sailors. Who could - deserted without looking back at Don. Forced displacement of peasant-type peasants from the central regions to the uninhabited Urals, where there were no conditions for agriculture at all (and even now no).
      What the hell is wealth?
      1. Gopnik
        Gopnik 26 March 2018 14: 37
        +3
        Quote: Prometey
        How can war strengthen the welfare of the state?


        Elementary. Subsequently, after the conclusion of peace. In particular, thanks to Peter, Russia got a wide access to the Baltic Sea and peace on the western borders - 100 years without invasion. Thanks to what the population has bred and ate fat. As a result, Russians became the largest nation in Europe, although before Peter there were fewer Russians than Germans and French

        Quote: Prometey
        The indigenous population of Russia during the years of the Petrine reforms decreased by 2 million people - well, how it decreased - it died out.


        Nothing like this. The number of Russians has grown.

        Quote: Prometey
        Here also 250 thousand - irretrievable losses in the Northern War


        These are small losses for 21 years of war.
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 26 March 2018 14: 50
          +1
          Quote: Gopnik
          In particular, thanks to Peter, Russia got a wide access to the Baltic Sea

          There were no non-freezing ports, until the annexation of Crimea.
          Quote: Gopnik
          As a result, the Russians became the largest nation in Europe

          Not this way. The population of Russia at the end of the 18th century was slightly larger than in France. And, of course, these were not 100% ethnic Russians.

          Quote: Gopnik
          Nothing like this. The number of Russians has grown.

          By the end of the century. Over the 20 years of the Northern War declined.
          Quote: Gopnik
          These are small losses for 21 years of war.

          For a country with 16 million people, it’s quite sensitive. 250 thousand peasants and workers.
          1. Gopnik
            Gopnik 26 March 2018 15: 15
            +3
            Quote: Prometey
            There were no non-freezing ports, until the annexation of Crimea.


            Iiiii? Since there are no frost-free ones, then you don’t need any, or what? Do we need St. Petersburg and Riga, and Arkhangelsk is enough? And Crimea towards the Baltic, which side?

            Quote: Prometey
            Not this way. The population of Russia at the end of the 18th century was slightly larger than in France. And, of course, these were not 100% ethnic Russians.


            And where does the end of the 18th century? And by 1917 and even now, Russians were the most numerous European people. And if you take the end of the 18th century, then yes, the French 29 million, Russian 20 million. But in the middle. 17th century, under Louis 14 and Pope Peter the French, there were 20 million, and 7 million Russians. Russians multiplied more efficiently than the French and other Europeans.

            Quote: Prometey
            By the end of the century. Over 20 years of the Northern War declined


            According to Vodarsky, in 1678 the number of Russia was 10,5 million, in 1719 - 15,5 million.

            Quote: Prometey
            For a country with 16 million people, it’s quite sensitive. 250 thousand peasants and workers.


            This is normal mortality for that time. In Z. Europe, at that time, it was even more abrupt. In the same France, Prussia, the Baltic states or Swedish Finland. There, if anything, was a terrible famine and plague.
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 26 March 2018 18: 05
              +1
              Quote: Gopnik
              According to Vodarsky, in 1678 the number of Russia was 10,5 million, in 1719 - 15,5 million.

              Well, if you count the Baltic states, the Caucasus and the Iranian provinces, then it’s quite possible to call such numbers. Honestly, this nonsense does not even make sense to discuss. This is from the opera of 50 million executed under Stalin.
              1. Gopnik
                Gopnik 26 March 2018 18: 24
                0
                What else in 1719 the Baltic States, the Caucasus and Iranian provinces ??? They were still not part of Russia at that time, and they did not conduct a census in 1718 there.
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator 26 March 2018 18: 46
                  +1
                  Quote: Gopnik
                  What else in 1719 the Baltic States, the Caucasus and Iranian provinces ??? They were still not part of Russia at that time, and they did not conduct a census in 1718 there.

                  Well then, all the more nonsense or didn’t you understand something. For 40 years, it is unrealistic to increase the population by one and a half times even today in different Arabia, and even more so then.
        2. co-creator
          co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 58
          +1
          Quote: Gopnik
          In particular, thanks to Peter, Russia got a wide access to the Baltic Sea and peace on the western borders - 100 years without invasion.

          Yes, and without it, Russia had an exit this window, then lost. Russia would Peter or not all the same, this window would have broken through, but not at that price. About a 100 year old world on the western borders this is probably from an alternative story.
          Quote: Gopnik
          Thanks to what the population has bred and ate fat. As a result, Russians became the largest nation in Europe, although before Peter there were fewer Russians than Germans and French

          Can I clarify the fat ate thanks to the "window" in Europe? How is this?
          Generally nonsense. The population began to grow before Peter when all the nomads were strangled, and not because Peter actively prevented this.
          Quote: Gopnik
          Nothing like this. The number of Russians has grown.

          Nothing of the kind, under Peter the number declined both in real terms (died, died) and in the state (people just ran in)
          Quote: Gopnik
          These are small losses for 21 years of war.

          Of course small. mdyayaya
          1. Gopnik
            Gopnik 26 March 2018 18: 19
            +1
            Quotation: blooded man
            Yes, and without it, Russia had an exit this window, then lost.


            That's it, she had 100 years ago, lost and could not return.

            Quotation: blooded man
            Russia would Peter or not all the same, this window would have broken through, but not at that price.


            How is it known that "still struck"? Or, on the contrary, Novgorod would once again lose, for example. And at what price?

            Quotation: blooded man
            About a 100 year old world on the western borders this is probably from an alternative story.


            This is from real. 100 years after Peter, Russia did not know intrusion into its own borders. What had not happened before.

            Quotation: blooded man
            Can I clarify the fat ate thanks to the "window" in Europe? How is this?


            Including yes. Thus, through trade and state security

            Quotation: blooded man
            The population began to grow before Peter when all the nomads were strangled, and not because Peter actively prevented this.


            Have they been strangled? Crimean Tatars, for example? And how could he prevent what came before him? And how much has grown? From Grozny to Peter, for example?

            Quotation: blooded man
            Nothing of the kind, under Peter the number declined both in real terms (died, died) and in the state (people just ran in)


            Modern scientists - Vodarsky, Kabuzan, do not agree with you. From 1678 to 1719 the population grew, all the more so.

            Quotation: blooded man
            Of course small. mdyayaya


            Exactly. Very small. Under Peter there was generally no particularly bloody (for Russian) operations. Even when compared with the wars of his father. 250 thousand (even if we take this figure on faith) for 21 years of war - nothing at all. The Swedes and the French are much worse. But they also lost their wars.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. co-creator
              co-creator 27 March 2018 06: 58
              0
              Quote: Gopnik
              That's it, she had 100 years ago, lost and could not return.

              Hmm, I wrote you an answer and it was torn. Not a single obscene word or disrespectful remarks. Just tin.
    2. saigon
      saigon 26 March 2018 16: 28
      0
      The war is not when it does not contribute to the well-being of the country participating in it, Sun Tzu read antiquity at your leisure, of course, but urgently, for the time being in China and Japan are included in the curricula of military schools)))))
    3. co-creator
      co-creator 26 March 2018 17: 46
      +1
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      These wars contributed to strengthening the well-being of Russia, the same Ivan the Terrible for Livonia did not start the war for fun! Peace and tranquility in those days was impossible by definition.

      Only after Ivan the Terrible did a rich country remain, and after Peter ruined by foreigners who ruled it.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 26 March 2018 18: 23
        0
        rich country ? then why was the Porukha nicknamed?
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 26 March 2018 19: 34
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          rich country ? then why was the Porukha nicknamed?

          Who called? Herbstein?
      2. Gopnik
        Gopnik 26 March 2018 18: 29
        +3
        About the "rich country" after Ivan the Terrible, this is ridiculous, of course. These are Moscow burnt by the Tatars, southern districts devastated by the Tatars (never recovered before the Time of Troubles), devastated by Grozny Novgorod himself, the western regions of the country that suffered from the hostilities of the Swedes and Poles.
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 26 March 2018 19: 41
          +1
          Quote: Gopnik
          About the "rich country" after Ivan the Terrible, this is ridiculous, of course.

          Well, you're funny. but for example Herbeishtein was not very.
          Quote: Gopnik
          This is Moscow burnt by the Tatars, the southern districts devastated by the Tatars (never recovered to the Time of Troubles),

          Moscow without the Tatars burned many, many times.
          The main population near the wild field did not live. Not recovered to the turmoil? Like before Grozny there was an earthly paradise and there were no Crimean raids?

          Quote: Gopnik
          devastated by Grozny Novgorod, the western regions of the country, affected by the hostilities of the Swedes and Poles.

          Why are you repeating different heresies about Novgorod?
          I don’t quite understand, do you speak about the victims of the war as if there were no wars and other things under Peter at that time? People under Grozny lived richer than under Peter.
      3. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 26 March 2018 22: 10
        0
        Quotation: blooded man
        Only after Ivan the Terrible did a rich country remain, and after Peter ruined by foreigners who ruled it.

        Having suffered a defeat in the long Livonian war, giving Livonia and Belarusian lands to the Poles, and Novgorod and the surrounding area, the Swedes ?!
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 26 March 2018 23: 22
          +1
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          Defeated in the long Livonian war,

          Well, they lost what. They fought on someone else's territory.
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          giving Livonia and Belarusian lands to the Poles,

          Ivan did not give a single inch of the land of his state, much less Livonia, which he never belonged to.
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          and Novgorod with the surroundings, the Swedes ?!

          What kind of heresy is this?)
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 27 March 2018 04: 45
            +1
            Koporye, Yam, Ivangorod did not give? Quote Odinokrovets: "well, and so what"
            People began to live better and richer? probably twice if you stopped processing half arable land?
            ps Herbenstein used the word "Porukha"?
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 27 March 2018 06: 53
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Koporye, Yam, Ivangorod did not give?

              Sori forgot how these lands were easily recaptured after 9 years, that is, only 5 years after the death of Grozny. Consider these were temporary concessions.
              Quote: Tlauicol
              People began to live better and richer? probably twice if you stopped processing half arable land?

              Well, of course, I did not get better because war is always extra taxes, but it depends on who you compare. If with the inheritance of Peter, then they lived much better. If the West of that time, then here the common people lived better. About this were written by foreigners who were in Russia and, in particular, Herbenshtein.
              Well, about how much they have stopped cultivating arable land, the issue is controversial, since after Grozny, Moscow, allegedly ruined, easily again started the war on all fronts and won victories. Only a few lean years undermined the economy, and if Godunov had destroyed the troublemakers and confiscated their reserves in favor of the treasury, there would have been no trouble. Having suppressed resistance by force, Ivan destroyed feudalism and created a unified Russian state, and Godunov, because of his weakness, profiled everything.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 27 March 2018 08: 51
                +1
                Herberstein wrote a book and died long before Ivan the Terrible, as you say, "left behind a rich country." request I would live longer, would write "Volume 2 Porukha"
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator 27 March 2018 12: 56
                  0
                  Well, he managed to denounce the bloodthirsty, right?
                  I have no doubt that I wrote for the first time. laughing
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 27 March 2018 13: 41
                    +1
                    Yes, he never saw the terrible at all. Neither the oprichnina, nor the Livonian war, nor the collapse.
                    You claim that Grozny left behind a rich country — what does the note of Herberstein have to do with it?
                    He could describe the Golden Age, and you talk about the results of the reign of Ivan the 4th.
                    Losses for you are nothing, the loss of territories, too, the standard of living after the Livonian war - right here at the beginning of the century you refer to this Herberstein
                    1. co-creator
                      co-creator 27 March 2018 15: 18
                      0
                      Я fool Confused with Staden.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Losses for you are nothing, loss of territories too,

                      Peter lost to the Turks and you didn’t even drop a word about it. The loss of Azov, the generosity of the Sultan who let Peter go is nothing.
                      Grozny finally conquered the Tatar khanates and ensured peace in the eastern direction, ensured practically safe trade with the East, but for you this is nonsense. But the defeat in the Livonian war that was fought on the land of the enemy and the temporary concession to the Finnish coast, which after 5 years was returned to you, is incredibly important.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      , standard of living after the Livonian war -

                      This standard of living was higher than after Peter.
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 27 March 2018 18: 59
                        0
                        in fairness - I didn’t write about Peter's results at all. But the results of the reign of Grozny are not as rosy as you presented
  14. Opera
    Opera 26 March 2018 09: 59
    +3
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    And its natural transformation, like India, into a Swedish or Turkish colony with “rajah” boyars. But "original", yes.

    Hello, Lieutenant. Here, let me disagree with you. We dealt with Turkey and Sweden even before Peter quite confidently and regularly! Like many more with whom ... Yes, and as Novgorod prince Oleg was not too lazy to personally shield on the gates of Constantinople (Constantinople) the capital of the Byzantine Empire, remember!) And the Greeks paid us a tribute!
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 26 March 2018 10: 28
      +3
      Quote: Oper
      We dealt with Turkey and Sweden even before Peter quite confidently and regularly! Like many more with whom ... Yes, and as Novgorod prince Oleg was not too lazy to personally shield on the gates of Constantinople (Constantinople) the capital of the Byzantine Empire, remember!) And the Greeks paid us a tribute!

      There were such glorious things in Russian history, I do not deny it. I probably didn’t quite accurately express myself — I had in mind the state of the Russian kingdom at the end of the 17th century, when the hardened old aristocracy was engaged only in political intrigues against each other and did not at all think about the development of their own state. The preservation of their power and the existing order threatened the complete degradation of the achievements of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich.
      1. Opera
        Opera 26 March 2018 10: 52
        +2
        For this period of Russian history, there are different views that have their own evidence base and naturally the right to exist! Someone talks about Peter like you do. Those. about the great reformer who gave impetus to the development of the country in many areas! Someone considers these achievements doubtful. I think that, as always, the truth is closer to the middle! It is difficult for us to judge this fully since many sources (primary sources) of pre-Petrine times were destroyed by Peter the same. I think you will not question it. Identity was really hit hard in terms of culture and lifestyle. At the same time, to put it mildly, a conflict occurred in the Orthodox Church! Well, the Radzivilovskaya chronicle (list) is still being heard from us ... So, of course, one can argue about the results of the reign of Peter 1.
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 26 March 2018 12: 05
          +1
          Quote: Oper
          because many sources (primary sources) of pre-Petrine times were destroyed by Peter the same.


          What are these, for example ???
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 26 March 2018 12: 25
            +1
            Quote: Gopnik
            What are these, for example ???

            I agree with you here, I can’t understand how anyone destroyed what.
            Pyotr Alekseevich’s piety was certainly peculiar — which he didn’t have, and sang on the choir, and the fervently drunken “cathedral” with the ever-drunk head of the “cathedral” Nikita Zotov prayed fervently.
            The Tsar did not trust the Moscow patriarchs, with their strict church discipline, Peter did not receive support from all of their transformations, so the Tsar laid the foundation for the supply of bishops from the Little Russians, began to expel the Greeks, introduced the cathedral administration of the Church, arranged for the looting of monasteries and oppression of priests.
            What did the king care about some manuscripts? No
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 26 March 2018 12: 34
              0
              Why "no"? On the contrary, Peter ordered the collection and rewriting of old manuscripts and books.
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 26 March 2018 12: 44
                0
                Greek education was replaced by Latin, the Kiev Academy was taken as a model, the real persecution of the Greeks began.
                Quote: Gopnik
                Peter ordered the collection and rewriting of old manuscripts and books.

                I agree.
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 12: 50
                  0
                  Quote: bober1982
                  Greek education was replaced by Latin ... the real persecution began against the Greeks.


                  Is it good or bad?

                  Quote: bober1982
                  the Kiev Academy was taken as a sample


                  For a sample for what?
                  1. bober1982
                    bober1982 26 March 2018 13: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    Is it good or bad?

                    It’s bad, very bad, dear A. Samsonov would call it the Westernization of the Church (I’ll take the liberty to say for him, if I don’t apologize) What can I say if, after the death of Patriarch Adrian, Stefan Yavorsky, from the Little Russians, was appointed locum tenens former Catholics, then repented and returned to the fold of the Orthodox Church, a respected man, but of course he was different from the Moscow clergy.
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    For a sample for what?

                    The Kiev Academy was taken as a model for the Moscow Academy.
                    1. Gopnik
                      Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 29
                      +1
                      Quote: bober1982
                      Bad, very bad, dear A. Samsonov, he would call the Westernization of the Church


                      So, because of this "Greek formation", did the schism happen here? And since when is "Greek" direct "our native"?

                      Quote: bober1982
                      but of course he was different from the Moscow clergy.


                      education?

                      Quote: bober1982
                      The Kiev Academy was taken as a model for the Moscow Academy.


                      So this is probably a question for Sofya and Golitsyn.
                      1. bober1982
                        bober1982 26 March 2018 13: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Gopnik
                        And since when is "Greek" direct "our native"?

                        Holy Apostolic Eastern Church
                        Quote: Gopnik
                        education?

                        Yes, it was education, including Catholic. But was this scholarship needed when elementary church discipline was needed.
                        Quote: Gopnik
                        So this is probably a question for Sofya and Golitsyn.

                        No, these are the affairs of Pyotr Alekseevich, he replaced Greek education with Latin.
              2. co-creator
                co-creator 26 March 2018 18: 20
                +1
                Quote: Gopnik
                collect and rewrite old manuscripts and books.

                That's right, collected and then rewrote.
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 18: 25
                  0
                  which ones specifically?
                  1. co-creator
                    co-creator 26 March 2018 19: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    which ones specifically?

                    Lists from chronicles whose originals are lost.
          2. Opera
            Opera 26 March 2018 12: 54
            +1
            Decrees of Peter 1 on sending ancient manuscripts and printed books from monasteries! There were two of them. The first decree of 1720. The second excuse me, I don’t remember the exact date. See for yourself. Find on the Internet. Separately, special messengers were sent to the monasteries to seize these documents, allegedly for making copies. No copies of documents were ever observed in our history. The calendar has also undergone reforms. By the way, subsequently Pushkin A.S. he refused to use the new chronology that shortened our history by more than 5000 years. The Russian language has also undergone significant changes. Well, this is if the topic interests you ...)
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 15
              0
              Not supposedly, namely, that for making copies. And which, specifically, books and manuscripts were destroyed? Any information on the destruction?
              And how is it that "documents were not observed", and what is stored in the archives, the same annals?
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 26 March 2018 18: 25
                +1
                Quote: Gopnik
                And how is it that "documents were not observed", and what is stored in the archives, the same annals?

                Well, how many 13-16 century originals are stored in storage?
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 18: 31
                  0
                  Yes, almost as many as there were at the time of Peter. We can’t say about a single document that it was destroyed under Peter.
                  1. co-creator
                    co-creator 26 March 2018 19: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    Yes, almost as many as there were at the time of Peter. We can’t say about a single document that it was destroyed under Peter.

                    This is how much? Number?
                    Who are we?
      2. co-creator
        co-creator 26 March 2018 18: 18
        +1
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        I probably didn’t quite accurately express myself — I had in mind the state of the Russian kingdom at the end of the 17th century, when the hardened old aristocracy was engaged only in political intrigues against each other and did not at all think about the development of their own state.

        Where did you get this? What sources do you rely on? Before Peter, the state was actively developing, expanding territories, developing trade, industry, invited foreign miners, etc. About the "ossified elite" it’s generally funny especially when you put Menshikov and the other scoundrels whom Peter had pushed around them.
        Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
        The preservation of their power and the existing order threatened the complete degradation of the achievements of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich.

        , so they they were that elite under Alexei Mikhailovich. How could degradation occur?
    2. Gopnik
      Gopnik 26 March 2018 12: 04
      +2
      Quote: Oper
      We dealt with Turkey and Sweden even before Peter quite confidently and regularly!


      This is when it before Peter dealt with Turkey and Sweden?
      1. Opera
        Opera 26 March 2018 12: 44
        0
        Well, do you at least look at Wikipedia ?!)))))
        1. Gopnik
          Gopnik 26 March 2018 12: 52
          0
          You know, I looked. And somehow it turns out, not only "confidently and regularly", but in general it did not work out with Turks and Swedes before Peter. The last relatively successful war with the Swedes - at the end of the 16th century, after the death of Grozny
          1. Opera
            Opera 26 March 2018 13: 58
            +1
            What are you ?! Seriously ?!))) Multiple victories of the Novgorod Republic is not a victory for you, or does the Novgorod Republic have nothing to do with our ancestors ?! By the way, these victories were won against the Swedish Crusades! Further, the Grand Duchy of Moscow and of course Russia has already taken the baton. And pre-Petrine! Are you too lazy to find all this yourself and read it ?! Or do you believe exclusively to me ?!))) / I'm flattered of course, but I'm sorry I can not devote much time to you! If the results of the reign of Peter the Great are seriously interested, take the trouble to find the information yourself. This is not at all difficult. You will find many positive, but no less negative! Including the destruction of sources and the introduction of a new reckoning and the reform of the Russian language, and much more including a church schism! Do not be lazy and try to make conclusions not biased! If you are interested in my personal opinion on this issue I will say - Russia is not Europe and not Asia! All attempts to instill in us some values ​​from the outside are doomed! Just because Russia is self-sufficient from the word absolutely!
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 26 March 2018 14: 07
              0
              Well, you remembered the times, 500 years before Peter !!!
              And even then, thanks to these victories, Russia lost Finland and fixed the unprofitable borders by the Orekhovsky world. Further worse - lost the Neva River and access to the Baltic.
              I just own the information. And I know that there was no destruction of books, the introduction of the reckoning from R.Kh. and the civil alphabet - good.
              1. Opera
                Opera 26 March 2018 14: 33
                +1
                You own the information and ask me a question - when is it before Peter and I, Turkey and Sweden sorted it out?!?! True, with Turkey, you apparently immediately realized that you got excited! Tell me in this case, where are the copies of documents taken by decree of Peter for something brought from all over Russia ?! Excuse me, that copiers were also brought from all over Russia ?! Thousands probably?!?! And how did the documents come back and when did they come back ?!) You do not deny these decrees of Peter and say you own the information, please explain in this case the technology of the process of such a large-scale copying ?! And I would also love to hear your opinion about the Radzivilov Chronicle! Its authenticity or its individual parts ... What do you think?
                And by the way, documents were brought in not only for copying but also for revision purposes. Can you tell me where you can see the results of this event?
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 14: 47
                  0
                  Quote: Oper
                  You own the information and ask me a question - when is it before Peter and I, Turkey and Sweden sorted it out?!?!


                  yes I ask, because interesting to listen to fantasies. For I know that in no way did we deal with Turkey and Sweden before Peter

                  Quote: Oper
                  True, with Turkey, you apparently immediately realized that you got excited!


                  Why got excited? Before Peter, Russia waged one unsuccessful war with Turkey, and unsuccessfully waged another, which Peter had already completed.

                  Quote: Oper
                  Tell me in this case, where are the copies of documents taken by decree of Peter for something brought from all over Russia ?! Excuse me, that copiers were also brought from all over Russia ?! Thousands probably?!?! And how did the documents come back and when did they come back ?!) You do not deny these decrees of Peter and say you own the information, please explain in this case the technology of the process of such a large-scale copying ?!


                  But they were not brought in bulk. Scored, actually approx. 40 books of religious content have been handed over. The rest was later searched for in monasteries throughout the 18-19th century. The manuscript books themselves are kept quietly in the archives.

                  Quote: Oper
                  And I would also love to hear your opinion about the Radzivilov Chronicle! Its authenticity or its individual parts ... What do you think?


                  And what doubts? Academic science recognizes authenticity, I see no reason not to trust
                  1. Opera
                    Opera 26 March 2018 15: 25
                    +1
                    )))))))))))) Corrections, redrawings, inserted sheets, double numbering - these are also my fantasies ?! Or is academic science simply not paying attention to it? Now about the Turks. Your free interpretation of pre-Petrine Russia and the results of military conflicts with its participation is certainly amazing, but nevertheless I will give you another example - would you like to comment on the defeat of the Crimean - Turkish army at Molody on July 26, 1572! Do you need to explain the meaning of this battle? Do you know that the battle of Molody is rightfully called the second Kulikov field ?! And let me tell you just in case, that the Crimean Khanate was under the protectorate of the Ottoman Empire, and in the army of Davlet Girey, in addition to 120 Crimeans, there were 000 Turks and 33 Turkish Janissaries! Say that this was too long before Peter ?!)))
                    1. Gopnik
                      Gopnik 26 March 2018 15: 57
                      0
                      Quote: Oper
                      to comment on the defeat of the Crimean - Turkish army at Molody on July 26, 1572


                      Episode of the war with the Crimean Khanate. And unsuccessful in general, for Russia, the war.

                      Quote: Oper
                      and in the army of Davlet Giray, in addition to 120 Crimeans, there were 000 Turks and 33 Turkish Janissaries!


                      it is a myth. Crimeans and later could not put up such an army. Turks, if there were (which is not a fact), then a small contingent as an aid to the vassal.
                      1. Opera
                        Opera 26 March 2018 16: 05
                        +1
                        At some point, it seemed to me that you and I were seriously discussing the topic. Wrong. Of course, I will not respond to these your comments.
                2. Monarchist
                  Monarchist 26 March 2018 16: 27
                  0
                  Opera, see Menshikov all the books on cigarettes launched? But what did Tatischev work with?
            2. Monarchist
              Monarchist 26 March 2018 16: 33
              0
              Oper, if you so deeply "dived" then also remember Vladimir Sainted the Prelate: how good it was in pagan times, and he introduced Christianity
          2. Prometey
            Prometey 26 March 2018 14: 36
            0
            Quote: Gopnik
            And somehow it turns out, not only "confidently and regularly", but in general it did not work out with Turks and Swedes before Peter.

            I agree with you. So under Peter the Turks could not figure it out. True, they are on the river. The rod behaved very loyally, but might not have let it go. They could have fought with the Swedes in the 17th century, but a war on 2 fronts is a risky enterprise. I had to choose between Little Russia and the Baltic states. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich chose the first and decided to squeeze the Poles. The Swedes did not have enough strength.
            1. Gopnik
              Gopnik 26 March 2018 14: 48
              0
              Yes, under Peter the Turks also did not figure it out (in the end), because also did not want to fight on 2 fronts
              1. Opera
                Opera 26 March 2018 15: 28
                +1
                Quote: Gopnik
                but in general it was impossible to deal with the Turks and Swedes before Peter.

                Quote: Gopnik
                Yes, under Peter, they also did not understand the Turks (in the end)

                ))))))))))))) What a funny conversation it turned out! Thanks you. Cheered up.
                1. Gopnik
                  Gopnik 26 March 2018 15: 58
                  0
                  Yes always please. Prada, it’s not clear that you were so amused.
                  1. co-creator
                    co-creator 27 March 2018 07: 22
                    0
                    Quote: Gopnik
                    Yes always please. Prada, it’s not clear that you were so amused.

                    So because they beat the Swedes and beat the Turks. It's funny when people don’t know such things.
  15. gorenina91
    gorenina91 26 March 2018 10: 05
    +4
    -With such "peace-loving and humble" abilities ... Tsarevich Aleksey could manage only some dwarf "vassal" state .. but not a giant empire that needed a strong-willed, decisive and charismatic ruler ... -And with such a king as Tsarevich Alexei ... and there is no need for enemies ... A worthless talker and searchlight Yavlinsky immediately comes to mind ...
  16. Yarik
    Yarik 26 March 2018 10: 47
    +1
    “When I am a sovereign, I will transfer all the old ones and choose new ones for myself, I will live in Moscow of my own free will, and I will leave Petersburg a simple city; I will not keep the ships, I will keep the army only for defense, but I don’t want to have a war with anyone ... ”

    That is, all daddy’s dog under the tail? That's right, dad did.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 27 March 2018 07: 18
      0
      Quote: Yarik
      That is, all daddy’s dog under the tail? That's right, dad did.

      STALIN KILLED 150 MILLION PEOPLE. Proof of? Fi, take my word for it.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 28 March 2018 06: 48
        0
        Peter killed 124 people.
  17. akunin
    akunin 26 March 2018 12: 03
    +1
    I’m not a Tsarevich, I’m a Russian, but I really wouldn’t want a Baltic prostitute to sit on the Russian throne (especially since my queen mother was pushed aside). The main enemy was the seller of Menshikov’s pies with hare,
  18. alstr
    alstr 26 March 2018 12: 23
    +3
    Let's remember that in Russian history a similar situation repeated a little less than a hundred years later (this is me about Pavel and Catherine 2).
    And now just compare the results of the confrontation between "fathers and children." One ended with the execution, and the other became emperor.

    As for the church, the limitation of its power, and to a greater extent its income (more precisely, the conversion of these revenues to the treasury) - this was the right decision on the part of Peter as ruler. It should be noted that he did not succeed completely. Only Catherine 2 did this (by the way, oddly enough, but it was under Catherine that more churches and monasteries were closed than under the Soviet regime).
  19. andrew42
    andrew42 26 March 2018 12: 57
    0
    It is difficult to give an unambiguous assessment of the potential progressiveness of Tsarevich Alexei. In personal terms, rather yes, the prince was well done. In terms of environment and circle of influence on the Tsarevich, it is extremely doubtful that his look in the mouth of church hierarchs would benefit Russia. Had Alexei become king, the clergy and "guardians of old" would crush all the "progressives" in his entourage. There is no need to go to the fortuneteller. It is worth recalling the glaring role of church hierarchs during the time of his grandfather, Alexei Mikhailovich, - a schism, "editing" of Russian Christianity according to the pseudo-Byzantine model a la "Paisius Ligarid", servility to the throne with a strong desire to subordinate secular authority, contempt to science, and most importantly, the main role in the final enslavement of the peasantry. Peter dragged a lot of nasty things into Russia, but he did one important thing - he short-circuited the church obscurantists for a long time. Without this, for sure, we would have gone the "Chinese" way.
  20. Gopnik
    Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 22
    0
    Monster_Fat,
    Well, yes, it was. What bothers you?
  21. Monarchist
    Monarchist 26 March 2018 13: 36
    0
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    In order to know this one does not need to be a prophet. It is enough to study history. What did Poland end up with, where they upheld the "inviolability of traditional gentry liberties"? And what was the fate of the Indian principalities, where they also clung to "traditions"?
    As for Russia, a sample of the end of the 17th century ... then Narva showed that the old army and the old society cannot fight with European countries. The campaigns of Prince Golitsyn showed that the Crimean Khanate is also weaker than Turkey. The logic following from these events is inexorable — pre-reform Russia was very weak and vulnerable.

    It’s hard for you to object, but there are people who want to prove that white is Black, or rather whiter than snow
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 27 March 2018 07: 17
      0
      Quote: Monarchist
      It’s hard for you to object, but there are people who want to prove that white is Black, or rather whiter than snow

      Well, that's what you do. Everything written by a sponsor is very easily refuted and people in this topic have already done this.
  22. Gopnik
    Gopnik 26 March 2018 13: 55
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    No, these are the affairs of Pyotr Alekseevich, he replaced Greek education with Latin.


    Slavic-Buckwheat-Latin Academy in Moscow, Sofia and Golitsyn founded.
    1. saigon
      saigon 26 March 2018 16: 33
      0
      Why are you such facts are not convenient when you bring.
      1. co-creator
        co-creator 27 March 2018 07: 15
        0
        Quote: saigon
        Why are you not comfortable with such facts?

        Then, so that people like you do not delve into the situation and eat what they write to you.
        1. saigon
          saigon 27 March 2018 17: 03
          0
          You know personally, I do not consider Russia to be a backward swamp before Peter, but many have an idea based on Tolstoy’s novel.
          And as for Golitsin and his campaigns in the Crimea, few have ever read anything, but to search on this topic that the termination of the template will happen in the Internet. So I care about keeping a great secret. as far as the Moscow Dragon was, I hope to understand who it is and whose words)))))))))
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 26 March 2018 16: 57
      0
      It is one thing to establish the Moscow Academy with Greek teachers, and it is another thing to reform into a "Latin" model with the expulsion of the Greeks, as Stefan Jaworski did.
  23. Monarchist
    Monarchist 26 March 2018 16: 02
    +2
    Thank the Lord, the author named the culprits of all the troubles of Russia: Menshikov and the “portoya” Marta Skavronskaya. They "invented to destroy Russia"
    The author all the time insists that Peter, by turning to the west, destroyed Russia and contradicts himself: 1) Peter imitates the Germans in everything (then all non-Russians were “Germans”). Baron Guys pulled away from Alexei and left him with the Russians, is that good? You are mistaken: you can’t deprive the Tsarevich of a foreign educator. 2 "The Paris Court asks to send Alexei to France for education. Peter rejects this offer (which is not good). Many researchers see Menshikov’s intrigue in this," and if he let go, the author would write: "thanks intrigues Menshikov, Alexei removed from Russia "?
    Let the author as a historian call me, :: which of the Dauphin was brought up in Russia? Or which of the heirs to the Moscow throne was brought up abroad? In fact, Russian tsars before Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov can be counted on the fingers. We won’t take the “Tushinsky thief” as the king (if there were any other stretches with Grischka Otrepiev, and then ...)? And how many were the Romanovs before Peter?
    Comrades, I recommend it to everyone: Neduzhkin "Fiscals of Peter the Great", there is about the "case of Tsarevich Alexei", ​​Filimon "Jacob Boyus" there is simple as Alexey carried out Peter's instructions, interesting books.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 27 March 2018 07: 14
      0
      Quote: Monarchist
      1) Peter imitates the Germans in everything (then all non-Russians were "Germans"). Baron Guys pulled away from Alexei and left him with the Russians, is that good? You are mistaken: you cannot deprive the Tsarevich of a foreign educator.

      Peter imitated the Germans in everything, and this is impossible to refute.
      What is wrong with removing a foreigner from studying?

      Quote: Monarchist
      "The Parisian court asks to send Alexei to be brought up in France. Peter rejects this offer (which is not good). Many researchers see Menshikov’s intrigue in this," and if he let go, what would the author write: "thanks to Menshikov’s intrigues, Alexey was removed from Russia"?

      It seems like there is simply a description of facts and estimates there is no one who is good and who is bad. There is another question, on what basis did the French ask to send the future tsar to the training of TSAREVICH. What kind of arrogance is this and how could such a thing have occurred to them, to call the prince to himself as if he were a petty nobleman. The mystery of history.
  24. Gopnik
    Gopnik 26 March 2018 16: 07
    0
    Opera,
    I understand. If there’s nothing to answer, because Feel that you are floating in the topic, it is better to stop. Good luck
  25. Monarchist
    Monarchist 26 March 2018 16: 16
    0
    Quote: akunin
    I’m not a Tsarevich, I’m a Russian, but I really wouldn’t want a Baltic prostitute to sit on the Russian throne (especially since my queen mother was pushed aside). The main enemy was the seller of Menshikov’s pies with hare,

    1) the “pie trader” somehow does not have reliable data that he traded pies. 2) it is very rare when children respond positively to their stepmother.
  26. Monarchist
    Monarchist 26 March 2018 16: 49
    0
    Quote: Weyland
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    And its natural transformation, like India, into a Swedish or Turkish colony with “rajah” boyars.

    Audible nonsense! Both Sweden and Turkey were at the peak glory in times first Romanovs - and for some reason neither one nor the other could conquer us - but if it weren’t for Peter, they would have suddenly won! stop

    Actually, the Swedes and I had constant “graters”: Alexander Nevsky with whom “waved”? And Ivan the Terrible, for some time we love on our site, then started the Livonian war boredom?
  27. a housewife
    a housewife 26 March 2018 16: 57
    +1
    Well, you can start with the fact that, according to Russian custom, they quickly married a young tsar. Rarely does anyone love an imposed wife. Especially since the girls at that age were able to? Well, if you read, write. It’s boring with this one, so they’re looking more cheerful where. Then it turns out mom is to blame? Nonsense is all. What happened cannot be redone. There are no ideal rulers, and nobody wants family tragedies, but they succeed. Intrigue, betrayal, the throne are divided, politics - but you will not wish anyone! It’s good to analyze in 300 years. And there would be - what would he do? Yes the same, with variations.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 27 March 2018 07: 05
      0
      Quote: housewife
      Especially since the girls at that age were able to? Well, if you read, write. It’s boring with this one, so they’re looking more cheerful where.

      It’s always more interesting not to thump who argues. Only the drunk king does not know how to properly assess the situation and distributes positions to those who thump with him.
      1. a housewife
        a housewife 27 March 2018 09: 10
        0
        "And who doesn’t drink ?! Call me!"
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 27 March 2018 12: 57
          0
          Well, before Peter no one thumped, somehow they kept themselves in their hands.
  28. BAI
    BAI 26 March 2018 17: 40
    +2
    Any reforms have their supporters and their opponents. Someone is losing, someone is gaining. And when the struggle for power is superimposed on this, and even in the enlightened 18th century, when the methods of political struggle were completely different than now ... The consequences and results could be most unexpected for the reformers themselves. It is unlikely that Menshikov planned his exile, starting support for Peter's reforms.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 27 March 2018 07: 03
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      It is unlikely that Menshikov planned his exile, starting support for Peter's reforms.

      Funny of course. Menshikov was a rootless groom and Peter made him the richest man in the Republic of Ingushetia. He did not support reforms, but personally served Peter, who allowed him to steal everything.
      1. a housewife
        a housewife 27 March 2018 09: 14
        0
        Such people are allowed to steal not for being a childhood friend, but for real help. No one will deny that Menshikov was a brave warrior, a business man and ready for anything for Peter! Well, of course, I didn’t forget myself.
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 27 March 2018 13: 01
          0
          Quote: housewife
          No one will deny that Menshikov was a brave warrior, a business man and ready for anything for Peter!

          Courage is not a profession, but a warrior he was never good because he was not trained and stolen.
          Well, the fact that he robbed the business treasury is undoubtedly.
          Here is the last point, for Peter’s sake he was ready for EVERYTHING. He was valuable for this, although there is a suspicion that he poisoned the breadwinner at the end of his life.
          1. a housewife
            a housewife 27 March 2018 14: 56
            0
            He needed it the least! Who needed him without Peter!
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 27 March 2018 17: 17
              0
              Quote: housewife
              He needed it the least! Who needed him without Peter!

              Peter wanted Katya to go to the monastery for treason, and different Menshikovs who, in addition to intrigue and theft in recent years, did not essentially do anything to send to the estate. The fact that after Peter's death the state actually ruled Menshikov says that he had a sense of poisoning
              1. a housewife
                a housewife 27 March 2018 17: 52
                0
                I wanted it, I wanted it! And why not? and who even knows what he wanted? And also who we didn’t poison, everywhere England, England ...
  29. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 26 March 2018 20: 55
    0
    Trying to win the crown, he lost his life.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 26 March 2018 23: 24
      +1
      She belonged to him by right of heritage, so there was no sense in fighting for her.
  30. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 March 2018 11: 38
    +1
    "Like many reformers and perestroika after him, Peter I wanted from the" wild "
    Russia to build a "sweet" Holland, "enlightened" France or England "////

    Like many reformers and remodelers, Peter I wanted to take technology from the West,
    but do not change anything in politics. And like the others, he did not succeed.
    To get cute Holland, it’s not enough to learn how to build ships.
    We need to take parliament, an independent court, free merchants and private financial
    organization.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 27 March 2018 13: 09
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Like many reformers and remodelers, Peter I wanted to take technology from the West,
      but don't change anything in politics

      Do you have an alternative story in Israel?
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And like the others, he did not succeed.

      The Chinese are laughing at you loudly.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      To get cute Holland, it’s not enough to learn how to build ships.

      And no cute Holland existed in nature, and ships were built without them.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      We need to take parliament, an independent court, free merchants and private financial
      organization.

      Parliament? Did you see the area of ​​Holland and Russia on the map?
      INDEPENDENT COURT At the end of the 17th century. Funny)
      Private financial institutions are certainly good, but this requires initial capital, a sea with access to world
      trade routes and territory as in Holland and Britain.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 27 March 2018 13: 54
        0
        "INDEPENDENT COURT At the end of the 17th century. Funny)" ////

        Not funny, but admirable. Holland and England -
        the first two countries where independent legal proceedings appeared
        back in the Middle Ages.

        "The Chinese are laughing at you above the voice" ////

        Not sure. Their Communist Party is trying to control
        capitalism and reformed under capitalism but it is eroded
        reality. I guess China is being transformed by
        South Korean pattern: first one ruling party
        and fictitious opposition, then - strong opposition.
        Then a change of power - the Communists will become the opposition.
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 27 March 2018 15: 30
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Not funny, but admirable. Holland and England -
          the first two countries where independent legal proceedings appeared
          back in the Middle Ages.

          Funny, very much so. You may have used the wrong word, think about it. Independent is when it does not matter who is facing the court, poor or rich, Catholic or Englishman, nobleman or commoner. Think again.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Not sure. Their Communist Party is trying to control
          capitalism and reformed under capitalism but it is eroded
          reality.

          Give an example? So, there quite recently the restrictions on the term of the chairman’s board were lifted, control over the media and society is constantly increasing.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I guess China is being transformed by
          South Korean pattern: first one ruling party
          and fictitious opposition, then - strong opposition.

          Call the deadlines, otherwise they have been talking about it since 91 and nothing.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Then a change of power - the Communists will become the opposition.

          And then the Martians will fly. First, name the name of the opposition party in China and how many seats it has in the local parliament.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 27 March 2018 17: 31
            0
            I accept your skepticism.
            But there is a certain pattern: private capitalism does not get along well with dictatorship.
            And oligarchic capitalism is economically inefficient.
            And either nationalization takes place, or the dictatorship leaves.
            1) Win state. capitalism + dictatorship.
            2) Private capitalism + democracy triumphs.
            In the Far East, in two large countries - Japan and South Korea -
            won the second option. China hesitates: I want to continue to build an effective
            private capitalism, but the party is afraid to "let others steer"
            Russia is still stuck in "Latin American" oligarchic capitalism.

            "Independent is when it doesn’t matter who the court is rich or poor, Catholic or English," ///

            Independent, this is when the ruler (king, duke, etc.) cannot tell the judge:
            "I want this to be condemned, but this was acquitted.
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 27 March 2018 19: 11
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              But there is a certain pattern: private capitalism does not get along well with dictatorship.

              There is such a thing, but there are plenty of examples to the contrary. Hitler, Pinochet, Franco and of course the communist regimes. I note I do not equate Nazism, fascism with communism. They have only one dictatorship in common and that's it.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              China hesitates: I want to continue to build an effective
              private capitalism, but the party is afraid to "let others steer"

              The party doesn’t even let anyone near the helm and nothing will change until the economy develops successfully.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              In the Far East, in two large countries - Japan and South Korea -
              won the second option

              All the same, we must not forget that these were occupied countries and they had no other option. Still, the United States always seeks to introduce democracy in its colonies, albeit with a national callorite.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Independent, this is when the ruler (king, duke, etc.) cannot tell the judge:
              "I want this to be condemned, but this was acquitted.

              Well, kings and dukes did just that. Karl needs to be chopped off, no problem. Who will defeat a commoner or nobleman in court? Of course a nobleman, this was not even discussed. A relatively independent court was when nobles of equal nobility were tried, and here really the king or queen could not particularly influence the court decision.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 28 March 2018 11: 12
                0
                "the reverse is complete. Hitler, Pinochet, Franco and of course the communist regimes." ////

                But pay attention to the historical extent of the regimes.
                In history, the unit of measure is generation (approximately 25 years)
                1) Hitler - only 12 years (half a generation. By historical standards, "second"). It is difficult to draw conclusions.
                2) And after Pinochet (Chile), and after Franco (Spain), and after Mussolini (Italy)
                all these countries have become democratic with private capitalism.
                That is, the tendency: from feudalism -> state capitalism (communist regimes) ->
                oligarchic capitalism -> private capitalism.
                Of course, there will be more relapses of communism, and Nazism, and various fascisms.
                But they are unlikely to overcome the general trend. Evolutionary, Private Capitalism -
                the most flexible economic system, and therefore more competitive. A add-on
                it requires democratic for itself, as the most "horizontal" (also flexible)
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator 28 March 2018 17: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Evolutionary, Private Capitalism -
                  the most flexible economic system, and therefore more competitive. A add-on
                  it requires democratic for itself, as the most "horizontal" (also flexible)

                  I agree . In fact, only China remains the last exception.
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 28 March 2018 11: 20
                +1
                "Well, the kings and dukes did so" ////

                The fact of the matter is that they did not always succeed in an independent court.
                In England of the 13th century (!) There was a case: the king decided to condemn
                petty baron (somewhere his possessions clashed
                with the royal. The king decided to overcome some of the possessions). Blamed
                in non-payment of taxes (the Khodorkovsky case smile )
                The court ruled: all taxes paid, the baron is innocent, the king
                must pay the costs to the court. Baron went home
                nobody touched him anymore. And the judge remained in office.
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator 28 March 2018 17: 06
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  The court ruled: all taxes paid, the baron is innocent, the king
                  must pay the costs to the court. Baron went home
                  nobody touched him anymore. And the judge remained in office.

                  Well, that's what I say for the nobles, the court was independent (not always), but not for the rest.
  31. Antares
    Antares 27 March 2018 11: 53
    +1
    Peter rejected the legitimate Russian wife for the sake of a foreign beauty

    because he could! In addition, Evdokia imposed by his mother at the right time, played her part. In Europe, they could have done differently with their wives (England Tudors)
    By the way, Anhen was born in Moscow. The family, though German. But she was born on Russian soil and died on it ... can she be considered a foreigner? Lutheran, yes ... but not a foreigner.
    So many controversial points have Samsonov and everywhere the conspiracy theory ... Tolstoy and his novel are much more documentary than these creations ...
    1. a housewife
      a housewife 27 March 2018 15: 01
      0
      A legitimate wife survived all of them. Well-fed, healthy, not in shackles. But Mons - where did it go? For not a wife! But what about Alexei - was he really executed? True, I don’t know. Documents, witnesses were there? And then, perhaps, they also sent somewhere under the castle? He is the son of a son!
      1. co-creator
        co-creator 27 March 2018 19: 15
        0
        Quote: housewife
        And then, perhaps, they also sent somewhere under the castle? He is the son of a son!

        Even if he didn’t execute him under Peter, then after death this was done 100%. Nobody needs extra risk.
        1. a housewife
          a housewife 28 March 2018 03: 29
          0
          That is, it is not known for certain.
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 28 March 2018 06: 59
            0
            Quote: housewife
            That is, it is not known for certain.

            No body, no business)
            I reason logically and compare with similar situations. Catherine was nobody, a rootless whore, a former Protestant, and here a direct heir to the throne. Of course, it must be eliminated to eliminate all risks.
            In the same way, Catherine II acted with Ivan by strangling him, which Elizabeth held in Shlisenburg. He did not threaten Elizabeth’s own daughter Peter I in any way since she had the right to the throne, but for Katya it was very dangerous since she was also essentially nothing.
            1. a housewife
              a housewife 28 March 2018 12: 17
              0
              if Ivan Elizabeth did not threaten, then why did she put him in a cell? The matter is no less murky. Was Catherine's order to execute? Did not have. There were measures to prevent release. Under such conditions, who concocted an attempt to release? Ekaterina? I don’t think so. He sat for so many years - he would have sat further. And what does it mean - no one? Catherine is the legal wife and then the mother of the heir to the throne. Note - the native princess. And the enemies of all the kings had enough without those who are already sitting.
              No one can know anything completely if there is no specific document. But the document displays only what its component wants to tell.
              Here right now, things are happening, who can know what. Berezovsky. What happened? Who benefits? A dramatization? Murder? Cause? Though all the witnesses are questioned, you won’t get anywhere. A lot of documents have been compiled. Can they be trusted?
              Gaddafi just died. And about the reasons - they say a lot of things. Some when they heard of death laughed. Some were silent, but they were attracted.
              A pair of three people always knows for sure. The rest - guess.
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 28 March 2018 17: 24
                0
                Quote: housewife
                if Ivan Elizabeth did not threaten, then why did she put him in a cell? The matter is no less murky.

                That there would be no reason for trouble. Ivan had the same rights to the throne as Elizabeth, and rivals could take advantage of this.
                Quote: housewife
                Catherine’s order was to execute? Did not have. There were measures to prevent release. Under such conditions, who concocted an attempt to release? Ekaterina? I don’t think so.

                Catherine the first lei 5 minimum was a purely nominal figure, and those who put her on the throne ruled. Naturally, she did not order anything, they themselves killed him so that other dissatisfied could not use Ivan and make a coup.
                Quote: housewife
                He sat for so many years - he would have sat further.

                In fact, killed. Here under Elizabeth, the tone sat.
                Quote: housewife
                And what does it mean - no one? Catherine is the legal wife and then the mother of the heir to the throne. Note - the native princess. And the enemies of all the kings had enough without those who are already sitting.

                For the Russian people, she is nobody in comparison with Ivan, just the wife of the late tsar. A blood relative should sit on the throne, and not an outsider. In fact, under the rule of Catherine, the rule of the Romanovs was interrupted, and only the guard allowed her to rule.
                Quote: housewife
                No one can know anything completely if there is no specific document. But the document displays only what its component wants to tell.

                Of course it cannot. Then it’s easier to follow the official version according to which the son of Peter was executed by him since no one else saw him alive.
  32. co-creator
    co-creator 29 March 2018 12: 54
    0
    tlauicol,
    tlauicol,
    Quote: Tlauicol
    in fairness - I didn’t write about Peter's results at all. But the results of the reign of Grozny are not as rosy as you presented

    Well, so we compare Peter and the Terrible.
    If we compare the reign of Grozny as the king of that time, then it is super successful and the legacy is very rosy. It's just that his surname is not that small and he did not like Western values.
  33. Separ
    Separ 29 March 2018 14: 47
    0
    Probably Monsikha was able to do EVERYTHING in bed, unlike the modest woman Evdokia - here Peter was led, as they say now - look for "shersha la fam" in all problems.
    1. Antares
      Antares 30 March 2018 11: 23
      0
      Quote: Separ
      Probably Monsikha was able to do EVERYTHING in bed, unlike the modest woman Evdokia - here Peter was led, as they say now - look for "shersha la fam" in all problems.

      Male test

      Parsuna with the image of Evdokia Fedorovna Lopukhina
      и

      Anna Mons. Reproduction
      There is an image of Anhen in a young comeback on the Internet (I don’t know how reliable, but there it’s charming even in a modern way)
      WHAT shall we choose?
      Ankhen wasn’t squeezed, uninhibited in communication, in general, can we condemn teenagers for a sudden flare up of attraction (Petra)? And here your mother tells you, there’s a wife for you, and you never saw and married by calculation. more personal communication - then she certainly didn’t jump right away;
      1. co-creator
        co-creator 30 March 2018 18: 28
        0
        Quote: Antares
        WHAT shall we choose?

        Are there any pictures? You don’t know that the attractiveness of a portrait depends on who painted it. Well, judging by purely outward appearance, they are both approximately the same, both full, both young and both have regular facial features. Just one is wrapped, and the other has an open neck and chest.
        Quote: Antares
        Anhen was not clamped, uninhibited in communication,

        Well, well ... they should be relaxed, they are being taught this. Now the same thing.
        Quote: Antares
        in general, can we blame adolescents for a sudden eruption of attraction (Petra)

        Yes, no one can blame. How to condemn an ​​alcoholic and a mentally ill person, no way.
        Quote: Antares
        And here your mother tells you, that’s your wife, but you’ve never seen and married by calculation. As for Anhen’s opportunities for more personal communication, she certainly didn’t jump right away, she “dynamized” a lot.

        Uhh. in those days, so all the kings, wari, nobles married, not out of love, so to speak.
        How do you know that she did not immediately surrender? Few people can refuse the tsar, and even more so if dad and family need it. When they told him to lie down, then she lay down. The whore does not have her own will.