Military Review

Tsarevich Alexey. Was the son of Peter I “unfit”?

82
Tsarevich Alexey is a very unpopular personality, not only among novelists, but also among professional historians. He is usually portrayed as weak-willed, painful, almost weak-minded young men, dreaming of returning the orders of old Muscovite Russia, in every possible way evading cooperation with his famous father and absolutely unsuitable for the management of a huge empire. Peter I, who condemned him to death, on the contrary, in the works of Russian historians and novelists, is portrayed as a hero from ancient times, sacrificing his son to the public interest and deeply suffering from his tragic decision.



Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei in Peterhof. Artist N.N. Gay


“Peter, in his grief of his father and the tragedy of a statesman, arouses sympathy and understanding ... In the whole unsurpassed gallery of Shakespearean images and situations, it is difficult to find anything similar in his tragedy,” writes N. Molchanov, for example. And indeed, what else did the unfortunate emperor do if his son intended to return the capital of Russia to Moscow (by the way, where is it now?), “Abandon the fleet” and remove its faithful comrades-in-arms from the country? The fact that the "chicks of Petrov’s nest" did well without Alexei and independently destroyed each other (even the incredibly cautious Osterman had to go into exile after the accession of the beloved daughter of a prudent emperor) does not bother anyone. For some reason, the Russian fleet, despite the death of Alexei, fell into decay - the admirals were full, and the ships existed mainly on paper. In 1765, Catherine II complained in a letter to Count Panin: “We have neither fleetnor the sailors. ” But who cares? The main thing is, according to the official historians of the Romanovs and Soviet historians in solidarity with them, that the death of Alexei allowed our country to avoid a return to the past.

And only a rare reader of near-historical novels comes up with a strange and seditious thought: what if it was such a ruler who did not inherit the temperament and militant temper of his father and needed a deadly tired and devastated Russia? The so-called charismatic leaders are good in small doses, two great reformers in a row are too much: the country can break. Here in Sweden, for example, after the death of Charles XII, there is an obvious shortage of people who are ready to sacrifice the lives of several tens of thousands of their fellow citizens for the sake of great goals and the public good. The Swedish empire did not take place, Finland, Norway and the Baltic states were lost, but no one in this country has complained about it.

Of course, the comparison of Russians and Swedes is not entirely correct, because Scandinavians got rid of excessive passionarity back in the Viking era. They scared Europe with terrible berserk warriors (the last of which can be considered Charles XII, who got lost in time) and, having provided the Icelandic skalds with the richest material for creating wonderful sagas, they could afford to take their place not on the stage, but on the stalls. The Russians, as representatives of a younger ethnic group, had yet to pour out their energy and declare themselves as a great people. But for the successful continuation of the work begun by Peter, at a minimum it was necessary that a new generation of soldiers grow up in a deserted country, future poets, scientists, generals and diplomats were born and educated. Until they come, nothing will change in Russia, but they will come, they will come very soon. V.K.Trediakovsky (1703), M.V. Lomonosov (1711) and A.P. Sumarokov (1717) were already born. In January 1725, two weeks before the death of Peter I, the future field marshal P.A. Rumyantsev was born, on February 8, 1728 - the founder of the Russian theater F.G. Volkov, on November 13, 1729 - A.V. Suvorov. Peter's successor should provide Russia with 10, and better - 20 years of peace. And Alexey’s plans are quite consistent historical situations: “I will keep the army only for defense, but I don’t want to have a war with anyone, I will be content with the old,” he says in confidential conversations to his supporters. Now think, is the poor prince really so bad that even the reign of the always drunk Catherine I, the creepy Anna Ioannovna and the amused Elizabeth should be recognized as a gift of fate? And is there really such a blessing to the dynastic crisis that shook the Russian empire in the first half of the XNUMXth century and the ensuing era of palace coups that brought to power extremely dubious applicants, whose rule Germaine de Stael described as "autocracy limited by a noose"?

Before answering these questions, it should be told to readers that Peter I, who, according to V.O. Klyuchevskogo, “he ravaged the country worse than any enemy,” was not at all popular among his subjects and was by no means perceived by them as a hero and savior of the fatherland. The era of Peter the Great for Russia has become a time of bloody and far from always successful wars, mass self-immolations of the Old Believers and the extreme impoverishment of all sections of the population of our country. Few people know that it was under Peter I that the classic “wild” version of Russian serfdom, known for many works of Russian literature, arose. And on the construction of St. Petersburg V. Klyuchevsky said: "There is no battle in the history that would have claimed so many lives." Not surprisingly, in the popular memory, Peter I remained the oppressor, and even more so - the Antichrist, who appeared in punishment for the sins of the Russian people. The cult of Peter the Great began to be introduced into the popular consciousness only during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. Elizabeth was the illegitimate daughter of Peter (she was born in 1710, the secret wedding of Peter I and Martha Skavronska took place in 1711, and their public wedding was only in 1712) and therefore was never seriously considered as a candidate for the throne by anyone . Having ascended the Russian throne thanks to a palace coup carried out by a handful of soldiers of the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment, Elizabeth had been afraid all her life of becoming a victim of a new conspiracy, and by exalting the actions of her father, she sought to emphasize the legality of her dynastic rights.

In the future, the cult of Peter I was extremely beneficial to another person with adventurous character traits - Catherine II, who, having overthrown the grandson of the first Russian emperor, declared herself the heir and successor of Peter the Great. To emphasize the innovative and progressive nature of the reign of Peter I, the official historians of the Romanovs had to go on forgery and attribute some innovations to him that became widespread under his father Alexey Mikhailovich and brother Fyodor Alekseevich. The Russian Empire in the second half of the 18th century was on the rise, the great heroes and the enlightened monarchs of the educated part of society needed much more than tyrants and despots. Therefore, it is not surprising that by the beginning of the 19th century, worship of the genius of Peter was considered a good form among the Russian nobility.

However, the attitude of ordinary people to this emperor remained generally negative, and it took the genius of A.S. Pushkin, to radically change it. The great Russian poet was a good historian and understood the contradictory nature of his beloved hero’s activities: “I have now taken a lot of materials about Peter and will never write his story, because there are many facts that I can’t agree with my personal respect for him” - he wrote in 1836. However, you cannot command a heart, and the poet easily defeated the historian. It was with the light hand of Pushkin that Peter I became the true idol of the broad masses of the people of Russia. With the strengthening of the authority of Peter I, the reputation of Tsarevich Alexei perished completely and irrevocably: if the great emperor tirelessly cares about the welfare of the state and his subjects, he suddenly begins to personally torture, and then signs the order to execute his own son and heir, then it was for that. The situation is like in the German saying: if a dog was killed, it means that it was scabby. But what really happened in the imperial family?

In January, 1689. 16-year-old Peter I, at the insistence of his mother, married Evdokia Fyodorovna Lopukhina, who was three years older than him. Such a wife, who grew up in a private chamber and very far from the vital interests of the young Peter, of course, did not suit the future emperor. Very soon, the miserable Evdokia became for him the personification of the hated orders of old Muscovite Russia, the boyars' laziness, arrogance and inertness. Despite the birth of children (Alexey was born on 8 on February 1690, then Alexander and Pavel were born, who died in infancy), the relations between the spouses were very strained. Peter’s hate and contempt for his wife could not help but reflect on his attitude towards his son. The end came 23 September 1698 g.: On the orders of Peter I, Queen Evdokia was taken to the Pokrovsky Suzdal girl monastery, where she was forcefully tonsured as a nun.

In the history of Russia, Evdokia became the only tsarina, who was not assigned any maintenance or service to the monastery when she was imprisoned. In the same year, the archery regiments were scaled, a year before these events a decree on shaving beards was published, and the following year a new calendar was introduced and a decree on clothing was signed: the king changed everything — his wife, the army, the appearance of his subjects, and even time. And only the son, in the absence of another heir, while remained the same. Alexey was 9 years old when sister of Peter I, Natalya, tore the boy out of her hands forcibly taken to her mother’s monastery. Since then, he began to live under the supervision of Natalia Alekseevna, who treated him with unconcealed hatred. The prince saw his father rarely and, apparently, did not suffer much from separation from him, since he was far from being in awe of the arrogant favorites of Peter and from the noisy feasts taken in his surroundings. Nevertheless, it was proved that Alexey never showed open discontent with his father. He also did not shy away from his studies: it is known that the prince knew the history and the sacred books quite well, mastered French and German perfectly, studied 4 the actions of arithmetic, which was quite a lot for Russia at the beginning of the 18th century, had an understanding of fortification. Peter I himself, at the age of 16, could only boast with the ability to read, write, and knowledge of two arithmetic operations. Yes, and a senior contemporary of Alexei, the famous French king Louis XIV on the background of our hero may seem to be ignorant.

In 11 for years, Alexey goes with Peter I to Arkhangelsk, and a year later, in the rank of a soldier of a bombarding company, he already participates in taking Nyenskans fortress (1 in May of 1703). Pay attention: “meek” Alexey takes part in the war for the first time in 12 years, his warlike father is only in 23 year! In 1704, 14-year-old Alexei is constantly in the army during the siege of Narva. The first serious quarrel between the emperor and his son occurred in 1706. The reason was a secret meeting with his mother: Alexey was called to Zholkva (now Nesterov near Lvov), where he received a severe reprimand. However, in the future, relations between Peter and Alexei returned to normal, and the emperor sent his son to Smolensk to procure food and collect recruits. Recruits that sent Alex, Peter I was unhappy, as announced in a letter to the prince. However, the matter here, apparently, was not a lack of diligence, but in a difficult demographic situation that developed in Russia not without the help of Peter himself: “I couldn’t find a better place at that time, but you deigned to send it soon,” Alexey, and his father is forced to admit that he is right. 25 April 1707. Peter I sends Alexey to manage the repair and construction of new fortifications in China Town and the Kremlin. The comparison is again not in favor of the famous emperor: 17-year-old Peter amuses himself by building small boats on Plescheyeva Lake, and his son at the same age is preparing Moscow for a possible siege by Charles XII. In addition, Aleksey is charged with leading the suppression of the Bulavinsky uprising. In 1711, Aleksey is located in Poland, where he manages the supply of supplies for the Russian army abroad. The country was ravaged by war, and therefore the activity of the prince was not crowned with special success.

A number of highly reputable historians emphasize in their writings that Alexei, in many cases, was a "nominal leader." Agreeing with this statement, it should be said that the same nominal generals and rulers were the majority of his famous peers. We calmly read reports that the twelve-year-old son of the famous Prince Igor Vladimir in 1185 commanded the retinue of the city of Putivl, and his peer from Norway (future King Olav Svyat) in 1007 ruined the coast of Jutland, Frisia and England. But only in the case of Alexei we gloatfully notice: but he couldn’t seriously manage because of his youth and inexperience.

So, until 1711, the emperor was quite tolerant of his son, and then his attitude toward Alexey suddenly changed for the worse. What happened in that ill-fated year? 6 March Peter I secretly got married with Martha Skavronskaya, and 14 October - Alexey married the crown princess Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel Charlotte Christine-Sofia. At this time, Peter I first thought: who now to be the heir to the throne? To the son from the unloved wife Alexey or the children of the beloved woman, “the friend of the kindly Katerushka”, who soon, on February 19 1712, will become the Russian empress Ekaterina Alekseevna? The relationship of an unloved father with an ungracious son to his heart was previously difficult to call cloudless, but now they are completely spoiled. Alexey, who had previously been afraid of Peter, now feels panicky when communicating with him and, in order to avoid the humiliating exam when returning from abroad in 1712, he even shoots his palm. Usually this case is presented as an illustration of a thesis about the pathological laziness of the heir and his inability to learn. However, let's imagine the composition of the "examination committee". Here, with a pipe in his mouth, lounging in a chair, sits not quite sober sovereign Peter Alekseevich. Alexander Danilych Menshikov, an illiterate member of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Great Britain, stands beside him, grinning brazenly. Nearby, there are other “nestlings of Petrov’s nest,” who are closely watching any reaction of their master: smile - rush to kiss, frown - will trample without pity. Would you like to be in Alexey's place?

As other proofs of the “worthlessness” of the heir to the throne, the handwritten letters of the prince to the father are often given in which he describes himself as a lazy, uneducated, physically and mentally weak person. It should be said here that right up to the time of Catherine II only one person had the right to be smart and strong in Russia - the ruling monarch. All the others in the official documents addressed to the tsar or the emperor, called themselves “scanty mind”, “poor”, “slow slaves”, “unworthy slaves” and so forth, and so on. Therefore, self-deprecating, Alexey, firstly, follows the generally accepted rules of good form, and secondly, demonstrates his loyalty to the father-emperor. And we will not even talk about testimony obtained under torture in this article.

After 1711, Peter I begins to suspect her son and daughter-in-law in treachery and sends Mrs. Bruce and Abbess Rzhevskaya in 1714 to follow the crown princesses to give birth: God forbid, they will replace the stillborn child and finally close the path to the children from Catherine. A girl is born and the situation temporarily loses its urgency. But on October 12 1715 was born in the family of Alexey a boy - the future Emperor Peter II, and on October 29 of the same year the son of Empress Catherine Alexeevna, also named Peter, is born. The wife of Alexei dies after giving birth, and at the commemoration of her, the emperor presents a letter to his son demanding "an unfeasible correction." Not brilliantly, but a well-served 25-year-old son, Peter reproaches his dislike of military affairs and warns: "Do not imagine that you are my only son." Alexey understands everything correctly: on October 31 he refuses to claim the throne and asks his father to let him go to the monastery. And Peter the Great was frightened: in the monastery Alexey, becoming inaccessible to the secular authorities, will still be dangerous for Catherine’s long-awaited and beloved son. Peter knows how his subjects treat him and understands that a pious son who was innocently affected by the arbitrariness of his “anti-christ” father will certainly be called to power after his death: the hood is not pinned to the head with nails. At the same time, the emperor cannot and clearly oppose Alexey’s pious desire. Peter orders his son to “think it over” and takes a “time-out” - he goes abroad. In Copenhagen, Peter I makes another move: he offers his son a choice: go to a monastery, or go (not alone, but with his beloved woman Euphrosyne!) To him abroad. This is very similar to a provocation: a prince, driven to despair, is given the opportunity to flee so that he can be later executed for treason against his motherland.

In the 30 of the twentieth century, Stalin tried to repeat this trick with Bukharin. In February, 1936, in the hope that the “party favorite”, severely criticized in Pravda, would flee and destroy his good name forever, sent him along with his beloved wife to Paris. Bukharin, to the great disappointment of the leader of the peoples, has returned.

And naive Alexey fell for bait. Peter calculated correctly: Aleksey did not intend to change his homeland and therefore did not seek asylum in Sweden (“Hertz, this evil genius of Charles XII ... terribly regretted that he could not use Alexei’s treachery against Russia,” writes N. Molchanov) or Turkey There was no doubt that from these countries, after the death of Peter the Great, Aleksei would return to Russia sooner or later as emperor, but the prince preferred neutral Austria. The Austrian emperor had no reason to quarrel with Russia, and therefore it was not difficult for Peter's emissaries to return the fugitive to his homeland: “Peter sent to Austria to return Alexey P. Tolstoy managed with surprising ease to accomplish his task ... The Emperor hurried to get rid of his guest ”(N. Molchanov).

In a letter from 17 in November 1717, Peter I solemnly promises forgiveness to his son, and on January 31, 1718, the prince returns to Moscow. And already February 3 begin arrests among friends of the heir. They are tortured and forced to give the necessary evidence. On March 20, an infamous Secret Office was created to investigate the prince’s case. 19 June 1718 was the day Alexey’s torture began. From these tortures, he died on June 26 (according to other sources, he was strangled so as not to carry out the death sentence). And the very next day, June 27, Peter I gave a luxurious ball on the occasion of the anniversary of the Poltava victory.

So there was no trace of the internal struggle and no hesitation of the emperor. It all ended very sadly: 25 on April 1719 was the son of Peter I and Catherine Alekseevna. The autopsy showed that the boy was incurably sick from the moment of birth, and Peter I ruined his first son in vain, clearing the second path to the throne.
Author:
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 18 May 2018 05: 12
    +10
    The topic is not new, but the article is not bad. At least stated without the "Slavophil fervor."
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 18 May 2018 07: 39
      +1
      The author simply listed the literary delights and analyzed what writers of varying degrees of talent wrote, and no more.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 18 May 2018 16: 33
        +2
        Ok, so be it. But he nevertheless enumerated and analyzed that labor itself is already!
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 18 May 2018 18: 20
      +2
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      The topic is not new, but the article is not bad. At least stated without the "Slavophil fervor."

      I do not agree. The article is biased, many messages are taken "from the ceiling" and are not provable. This is the "literary flight of fantasy" of the author. And therefore, does not "pull" on historical research.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 18 May 2018 20: 34
        +1
        Did I say somewhere about research?
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 18 May 2018 22: 20
          0
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          Did I say somewhere about research?

          Then what is it? Pamphlet? You yourself will decide.
          In my opinion, you can’t write anything on a historical topic, looking at the ceiling and picking your nose.
          Preaching false truths causes great misfortune. Don't you know that?
  2. Amateur
    Amateur 18 May 2018 05: 20
    +4
    "However, the attitude of the common people towards this emperor remained generally negative, and it took the genius of AS Pushkin to radically change him." ... "This is very similar to a provocation: a desperate prince is given the opportunity to escape, so that later he can be executed for treason. In the 30s of the twentieth century, Stalin tried to repeat this trick with Bukharin." In the morning such a masterpiece!
    "Oh, how many wonderful discoveries we have
    Prepare an enlightened spirit,
    And the experience of the son of errors difficult,
    And genius, paradoxes friend, "
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 18 May 2018 22: 22
      +1
      Quote: Amateur
      In the 30s of the twentieth century, Stalin tried to repeat this trick with Bukharin.

      Guys, well, when will you stop repeating liberal nonsense? When will you take care of the mind?
  3. Andrey Sukharev
    Andrey Sukharev 18 May 2018 05: 52
    +7
    / mass self-immolations of the Old Believers]
    The Old Believers themselves were not burned, they were burned by royal decree.
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 18 May 2018 06: 19
      +2
      And self-immolations were also, as I understand it. But the price of a split, and subsequent oppression, is enormous for the country.
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 18 May 2018 08: 06
        +5
        Quote: Korsar4
        And self-immolations were also, as I understand it. But the price of a split, and subsequent oppression, is enormous for the country.

        There were no self-immolations. This was considered a great sin. The faith of our ancestors split Nikon. The pro-Western Nikonian Church (ROC) still exists today.
        Peter cut a window into Europe through which nemchuru poured into us and other scum of the West, isolating our entire history, stolen 5508 years of our history, introduced serfdom (slavery) and the "elite" robbing us to this day. Petruha is also the goat imposed on us by the Genoese and as a symbol of his submission to them - three colored flags, almost all over the World, including ours. In general, Petrukh passed us to the West with giblets, we still cannot recover.
        And he killed his son, because the Old Believers raised him.
        1. Korsar4
          Korsar4 18 May 2018 08: 33
          +1
          The trouble of the Old Believers came due to the lack of bishops.
          The tragedy of Pavel Kolomensky is a separate issue. And then breaking up into various "sense". And there are already different "guides".

          But in the stories of burning or self-immolation, I would love to understand better.
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 18 May 2018 08: 52
            +1
            Quote: Korsar4
            But in the stories of burning or self-immolation, I would love to understand better.

            Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Moscow State Pedagogical University Alexander Pyzhikov questions the interpretation of the official historical science of events called "burning" or "self-immolation of the Old Believers."
        2. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 18 May 2018 11: 04
          +3
          Quote: Boris55
          stole 5508 years of our history

          Are you serious? wassat Oh, my mom, is it really to such an extent? I mean, human ignorance can be extended to such an extent, multiplied by the confidence that this is necessary ...
          Well, the truth is embarrassing to be so ignorant, and the pathos and breadth with which you have now demonstrated your ignorance, simply do not fit in your head.
          Please, just hammer in four digits on any Internet search engine - the very 5508, read what comes out at least in minimal amounts, spend just a quarter of an hour and stop writing nonsense already.
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 18 May 2018 11: 39
            0
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            Please, just hammer in four digits on any Internet search engine - the very 5508, read what comes out at least in minimal amounts, spend just a quarter of an hour and stop writing nonsense already.

            Could you be so kind as to take your own advice?
            Before Petruha there was a reckoning, with his arrival - a reckoning. Pay attention to the dates:

            And there are more than enough such artifacts to claim the theft of 5508 years of our history.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 18 May 2018 13: 02
              +7
              Apparently 5508 in the search engine to drive laziness. Or too lazy to read what comes out. Okay, for the tenth time on this site explain.
              People from ancient times were interested in the age of the world in which they live. Since for some time the Bible served as the only criterion of the truth of this or that knowledge, the age of the world was calculated based on the information contained in it. They considered it in different ways, got different results: 5969 years at the time of Christ’s birth, 5872, 5508, 5500, 5493, 5472, etc. In the Byzantine Empire it was decided (for what reasons it does not matter) that the most correct date is 5508, that is, Jesus, in their opinion, was born in 5508 from the creation of the world. It was this date that came to Russia together with Orthodox Christianity and all the chronicles that were written by Orthodox monks, and the events were dated in this way - from the creation of the world according to the Byzantine calendar. And so it was until Peter introduced dating directly from the birth of Christ. 5508 has no real historical background, it is simple, if you will, an invention of church scholastics, the fruit of their reasoning, accepted as canonical, but not the only one.
              Learn, be enlightened, it is useful at any age.
              PS I copy this text to the desktop and I will post it as necessary, so that I don’t write again. I'm tired.
              1. Boris55
                Boris55 18 May 2018 13: 27
                +1
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                The 5508 figure has no real historical background, it’s just, if you like, the invention of church scholastics, the fruit of their reasoning

                Blessed is he who believes. Have you heard a thread about Kostyonka?


                Prior to this discovery, the age of sculptural images was determined approximately at the level of 32 thousand years. It turns out that they are older than 10 thousand years. Also, according to the analysis in the 2002 year of the American laboratory, the age of Kostenok-12 (the oldest lower cultural layer) is up to 50 thousand years (instead of 40 thousand) for the Upper Paleolithic. The Kostenki (museum reserve) will be replenished for a long time with the most ancient historical facts of the life of people of that curious era. Most of the history of these places is still resting under water and waiting for its researchers. - Read more on FB.ru: http://fb.ru/article/187154/kostenki---muzey-zapo
                vednik-istoriya-vozniknoveniya

                And what about Arkaim?

                People lived, communicated, but history didn’t ... Erasing from the memory of people everything that was before the birth of Christ was beneficial only to the adherents of Christianity - the peoples of the world bearing slavery.
                ps
                Another nastiness of Petruha. He collected all the old church chronicles, supposedly for cataloging, and no one else saw them.
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 18 May 2018 14: 04
                  +4
                  I understand that we figured out the 5508 number. Thanks do not wait.
                  And about Kostenok and Arkaim - what do you want to prove with this? What did people live on the territory of modern Russia from time immemorial? We lived. And 30 thousand years ago and earlier. So they lived in Europe at the same time, and in Asia, Africa, and America. And left there archaeological sites. What from that? Neolithic sites similar to Kostenkam in Russia are not one hundred, you did not know about this? Recently, another one on the bank of Ladoga was found and what?
                  Arch, too, by the way, is only a small settlement from the Bronze Age, and it is relatively old and relatively small by the standards of the same Bronze Age. There are more scary and bigger ones. And who in this Arkaim lived plainly unknown. Well, Caucasians, and then what? Nothing left of them, no language, no writing, or nothing else. And in general, Arkaim doesn’t impress with either the size (170 meters in diameter, if I am not mistaken), or anything else. I don’t know what's going on with him. For example, Aladzha-Hyuk is really impressive. And by age and size and wealth. This is not Arkaim. Take an interest.
                  By the way, if you count the history of a people according to your methodology, counting its beginning from the date of the most ancient archaeological monument found on the territory occupied by this people, then it will be older than all of the indigenous people of Africa. Do not hurt?
                  1. Boris55
                    Boris55 18 May 2018 14: 23
                    +2
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    As I understand it, we figured out the number 5508.

                    Yes, sorted it out. But the Bible does not deny this. Plus or minus a couple of hundred years in our discussion is not critical. It matters that there is practically no history about those times.
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    if you consider the history of the people according to your method, counting its beginning from the date of the oldest archaeological site,

                    The calculus came from global icing and from global warming and from the conclusion of the world after the bloody war in the year of the Star Temple (the name of the year), and from the global flood. Now comes the year of the Nativity of Christ. Judging by the fact that the previous chronologies have come down to us, our ancestors did not want to hide anything from descendants, and only with the introduction of the chronology the entire previous history of mankind is hushed up, ignored and destroyed.
                    ps.
                    Another muck from Petruha - he collected all the old bells from churches with the guise of ancestral gods and melted them supposedly into guns.
                    1. Boris55
                      Boris55 18 May 2018 14: 43
                      0
                      The topic is not about that, but I would have “thrown” a lot of things to you by antiquities on the territory of modern Russia.
                      You don’t like Arkaim (170 meters), and Stonehenge (115 meters) - what kind of bullshit is it with which everything is scalded? hi
                      1. Trilobite Master
                        Trilobite Master 18 May 2018 15: 38
                        +2
                        I like Arkaim. I just do not see in it something outstanding, proving some exclusive antiquity, something that should change the concept of history. It fits perfectly into the traditional historical science, giving absolutely no reason to revise the basic historical concepts. Just perfectly preserved, which is rare, an archaeological monument of the Bronze Age. Why should he give any sacred meaning to me is not clear.
                        Stonehenge is also a well preserved archaeological site, probably of a cult purpose. Compare the settlement with a diameter of 170 meters and a temple with a diameter of 115 meters. That's the whole difference. Well, antiquity, Stonehenge is still much older ...
                        For me personally, Stonehenge is an interscript object, somewhat over-rigorous, but with no sacred meaning.
                    2. Trilobite Master
                      Trilobite Master 18 May 2018 15: 57
                      +2
                      Quote: Boris55
                      What matters is that there are practically no stories about those times.

                      Unfortunately. But maybe this is not because someone stole it from us, but because there was no history as such then? There were no states, there were no people (yes!), There were separate small tribes that practically did not communicate with each other, there were no wars and conflicts, there was no policy ... In Egypt and Mesopotamia there were, but we don’t have, just due to geographical and climatic reasons. And those tribes that lived in our present territory, went away, sunk into oblivion, leaving behind only such archaeological monuments, other tribes took their place, then peoples, nations ... But who were those who lived on a particular territory before, we do not know and clearly identify them with our ancestors, in my opinion, absolutely impossible.
                      And on the Hamburg score, and without any historical or archaeological research, it can be said with absolute certainty that the ancestors of the Russian people (like any other) existed 30 and 40 and 100 thousands of years ago, and your and my ancestors ran, got food, multiplied. The lineage in this sense is the same for all of us.
                    3. Monarchist
                      Monarchist 18 May 2018 19: 11
                      +1
                      Boris, do you happen to be a “sewing” politician? "I collected all the old bells from churches with the FACES of gods and ancestors." One of the myths that, on the orders of Peter, all the bells were removed from the churches, but in reality he could even dare to do so. Many survived to the bells of Peter. But actually an interesting question: what are the most ancient bells in Russia?
        3. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 18 May 2018 16: 40
          +1
          And so I see ... Peter cuts the window, accidentally touches the riser of the pressure sewage system (which, by now, is rare in the vastness of our Motherland), and from where the feces from Europe are whipping!
    2. avt
      avt 18 May 2018 16: 07
      0
      Quote: Andrey Sukharev
      The Old Believers themselves were not burned, they were burned by royal decree.

      But the classical gishtoria asserts that under the Petsi’s papel - Lesha “Tishayshem”, well, during the reformation of the church, which again, according to the official gishtoria, was never classical in Russia. Archpriest Avvakum, Tsar Lyosha asked: “How can you execute this friend?” Well, is it just like it was customary for the Europah? So Habakkuk to him - and sovereign burn the reliable, but in our opinion, according to the Old Believers ".... in the bathhouse. wassat
      Quote: Korsar4
      And self-immolations were also, as I understand it.

      wassat He doesn’t know, but you understand exactly? wassat
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 18 May 2018 17: 01
        0
        Immediately the question is the source of information.

        According to the chronicler -

        "What he saw,
        Or what I heard from reliable people "(c)

        The topic interests me, but do you know what can be believed unconditionally?
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 18 May 2018 18: 40
        +4
        Quote: avt
        But the classic storytelling claims

        Funny gishtoriya. I am defended.
        As if you are a good fellow, it hurts, right away, "Petsya", "Lesha", "papel", and why so and nada! There is no respect here to build. I am a simple man, or rather, a prastoy, so I will say - that Petsya, that Lyosha, that after them Katka is a sodder, that subsequent Sashki with Nikalashki, Vova Lysy, Yoshka Khachik, and all such other words are not words of praise.
        Correct, uncle avt, correct, I wrote?
        wassat laughing fool
        By the way, for general development. Nikon’s church reform is not only not denied by the “classic history”, but it has also been thoroughly studied, comprehended, and materials on this issue are freely available, including on the web. Although, of course, the fact that you did not know this certainly makes your message even more ridiculous. Right on, very.
    3. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 18 May 2018 22: 24
      0
      Quote: Andrey Sukharev
      / mass self-immolations of the Old Believers]
      The Old Believers themselves were not burned, they were burned by royal decree.

      One more.
      Yeah. Tsar Peter issued such a decree - to burn !!! Only to burn! And no other way!
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 18 May 2018 22: 41
        +1
        [quote = Krasnoyarsk] Yeah. Tsar Peter issued such a decree - to burn !!! Only to burn! And no other way! [/ Quote /] Sophia issued such a decree. 12 articles.
  4. Korsar4
    Korsar4 18 May 2018 06: 17
    +5
    One legend is against another legend. But in history you will not say - "If ...". And why on Catherine II so label?
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 18 May 2018 15: 17
      +2
      "And Rabinovich for what ???? !!!!!
      And for the company! "(The author is unknown to me)
      1. Cat
        Cat 18 May 2018 22: 07
        +2
        Which Rabinovich, I don’t know anyone Rabinovich, but apparently that kazlyuk?
        wassat
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 18 May 2018 23: 08
          0
          Do you not know Rabinovich? What Russian does not know Misha Rabinovich?
  5. moskowit
    moskowit 18 May 2018 06: 39
    +4
    "The winners write the story"
    After 50 years, Emperor Peter Fedorovich, through the efforts of Catherine and her entourage, also turned out to be an unwise fool .... Then, as it turned out, the Pugachev Holstein banner of Peter united tens of thousands of people around Emelyan Pugachev ??? ... Read his first decrees. ...
    Then, Paul, the murdered emperor, found himself in the same situation, with the connivance of his eldest son. But Paul stopped the hundred-year orgy around the Russian throne, issuing a decree on succession to the throne. It turns out also a stupid satrap ...? ...
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 18 May 2018 06: 51
      +2
      What is cute about Pavel Petrovich is understandable.

      But as for his father -

      "The emperor plays the violin.
      The state is getting out of hand "(c).
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 18 May 2018 18: 34
      +2
      Uv Moskvit, regarding the "Holstein banner": with equal success we can recall False Dmitriyev, they also gathered thousands.? I assure you: impostors have always existed, they will always find supporters
      1. Cat
        Cat 18 May 2018 22: 21
        +1
        Kamrad Monarchist shake your hand tightly!
        I’ll supplement you a little. Pugachevschina is one of the interesting pages of the influence of crowd desires on a person!
        Muscovite is naively mistaken in the fact that the people walked under the banners of Emelyan Pugachev because of the hope of gaining a natural king. Most had their own premises, causes, desires and aspirations. So Pugachev’s army both quickly gathered and quickly scattered. Well, the tradition of imposture here has its strong roots and that’s it. And so any step to the side and Pugachev in a cage on Bolotnaya Square.
        A striking example of the influence of the crowd is the drowning of the Persian princess Stepen Razin.
        So, with respect Kotische!
    3. Alex
      Alex 20 May 2018 21: 28
      +1
      Quote: moskowit
      Then, how did it happen that the Pugachev Holstein banner of Peter united around Yemelyan Pugachev tens of thousands of people ??? ... Read his first decrees ....

      And what is there to understand? The peasants did not go for the banner, but for the sweet promises, in these awards were generously handed out. Well, and the fact that the author of these decrees is declared the legitimate sovereign, then this is only on hand - then the landowners should not let blood take revenge, but lawful action.
  6. avaks111
    avaks111 18 May 2018 07: 07
    +1
    Dark water in the clouds!
  7. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 18 May 2018 09: 37
    0
    Quote: Boris55
    Quote: Korsar4
    And self-immolations were also, as I understand it. But the price of a split, and subsequent oppression, is enormous for the country.

    There were no self-immolations. This was considered a great sin. The faith of our ancestors split Nikon. The pro-Western Nikonian Church (ROC) still exists today.
    Peter cut a window into Europe through which nemchuru poured into us and other scum of the West, isolating our entire history, stolen 5508 years of our history, introduced serfdom (slavery) and the "elite" robbing us to this day. Petruha is also the goat imposed on us by the Genoese and as a symbol of his submission to them - three colored flags, almost all over the World, including ours. In general, Petrukh passed us to the West with giblets, we still cannot recover.
    And he killed his son, because the Old Believers raised him.


    "Nemchura" rushed to us under Alexei Mikhailovich! Kukuy not Peter built in Moscow. And under the Grand Dukes in Muscovy there were enough foreigners! The point is not in them, but in local rulers trying to use foreigners as additional strength and support in the confrontation with the opposition! So it was then, so it continues now! Only these rulers somehow somehow lose sight of the fact that you have to pay for any services! But this reckoning, as with sat *** th-soul, or the sovereignty of the Fatherland!
  8. Captain45
    Captain45 18 May 2018 09: 42
    +4
    They scared Europe with terrible berserk warriors (the last of which can be considered Charles XII, who got lost in time) and, having provided the Icelandic skalds with the richest material for creating wonderful sagas, they could afford to take their place not on the stage, but on the stalls. The Russians, as representatives of a younger ethnic group, still had to throw out his energy and declare himself as a great people.
    Yeah, it means following the above, during the time of the Berserker Vikings in Russia, the Slavs hid in the skins with oak in the forests and did not call the same Vikings Rus Gardarika the country of a thousand cities, when they themselves lived in dugouts, and there were no princes in Russia to whom the Vikings hired for service. It seems to me that somehow the author went wild with a young ethnic group.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 18 May 2018 10: 03
      +2
      Quote: Captain45
      during the Viking berserkers in Russia, the Slavs hid in the skins with oak in the woods

      The author simply forgot about the ice age and when the ice began to recede to the north, the Slavs began to develop those lands, and not the other way around ... In general, when the Slavs rummaged through the forests in the skins with oak, the Vikings rested under a thick layer of ice. laughing
    2. VLR
      18 May 2018 12: 27
      +2
      According to Lev Gumilev, Ancient Russia (which Russian historians called Kievskaya in the 19 century) and Moscow Russia - 2 are different civilizations. Kievan Rus died of old age, unable to resist the Mongols. And the “old” Russian princedoms (Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Polotsk, etc.) simply disappeared from the world map. And on the outskirts of the ancient Russian world, a new passionary push occurred, the consequence of which was the emergence of the civilization of Muscovite Rus.
      In 2006, after the death of Lev Gumilyov, this hypothesis was brilliantly confirmed: a necropolis with burials was discovered on the territory of the Church of the Annunciation on Myachin in Novgorod, the bottom bar of which refers to the period of pre-Mongol Russia. It turned out that at the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries, the anthropological type of Novgorodians changed dramatically. In the X-XIII centuries, the Novgorodians were tall, long-headed, with a high or medium-high face and sharply protruding nose. Later they became shorter, more round-headed, with a lower face, with a less prominent nose. This is a drive impulse mutation.
      That is, the Russian civilization is much younger than the Western European civilization, which is now in the phase of obscuration. With all the ensuing consequences, in the form of non-reproduction and the actual replacement of indigenous ethnic groups by migrants. And Russia before our eyes has experienced a phase of fracture (90-s) years, and now painfully taxiing to the inertial phase. That is, if we withstand and survive even 30 years - the Renaissance awaits us.
      1. VLR
        18 May 2018 12: 53
        +1
        According to Lev Gumilev, Ancient Russia (which Russian historians of 19 of the century called Kiev) and Russia of Moscow - 2 are different civilizations (like Ancient Rome and modern Italy). Kievan Rus died of old age, unable to withstand the last drop of Batu Khan’s strike. The "old" princedoms (Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Polotsk, etc.) simply disappeared from the world map, absorbed by their neighbors. And in the northeastern outskirts of the ancient Russian world, a new passionary impulse occurred as a result of which the civilization of Muscovite Rus arose. In 2006, after the death of Lev Gumilyov, this hypothesis was brilliantly confirmed: a necropolis with burials was discovered on the territory of the Church of the Annunciation on Myachin in Novgorod, the bottom bar of which refers to the period of pre-Mongol Russia. It turned out that at the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries, the anthropological type of Novgorodians changed dramatically. In the X-XIII centuries, the Novgorodians were tall, long-headed, with a high or medium-high face and sharply protruding nose. Later they became shorter, more round-headed, with a lower face, with a less prominent nose. This is a drive impulse mutation. That is, the modern Russian civilization is much younger than Western European. Western European entered the phase of obscuration: the betrayal of the old ideals for which they had fought and went to the fire, the abandonment of the religion of their ancestors (and even persecution for Old Testament quotes condemning homosexuality), the abandonment of reproduction and the actual replacement of the indigenous population by migrants resettlement of peoples, which at one time led to the death of Rome. And Russia before our eyes has experienced a phase of fracture (the era of Gorbachev and Yeltsin) and slowly and painfully creeps into the inertial phase. That is, if we do not break down and endure another 30 years, the Renaissance is ahead of Russia.
        1. Monarchist
          Monarchist 18 May 2018 18: 14
          +2
          VlR, yes you are just an anthropologist
      2. ver_
        ver_ 20 May 2018 12: 08
        0
        ..dear VlR .. Use the search .. Mongolia was founded in 1920. It was a * project * Ulyanov = Lenin Blanca .. Russia * bit off * a piece of China and called It Mongolia (MPR) .. Do not compile your brains neither yourself nor other people with information that is untrue .. The Mongols never invaded Russia- they simply weren’t ..- there wasn’t at all from the word - at all .... No one could write about them before 1920 ..
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 20 May 2018 15: 20
          +1
          Where ver_ appears, there immediately appears a critical amount of nonsense and outright lies per square centimeter of monitor prostration. About the “mungalsky steppes” in the notes of Russian travelers and not only from the XIV century, about the self-name of the tribes invading us - “moali” - he does not know anything and does not want to know. The same Plano Carpini either did not exist or was "all-vyvreti".
          And this person, who does not even know, apparently, the meaning of the word “compile” tries in a categorical form to assert here utter nonsense with such a view that it is a shame not to know these very nonsense. They are ashamed to know, ver_, stab yourself at the nose. The only thing that can justify a normal, educated person, if he is caught in this kind of “knowledge,” is the desire or the need to argue with people like you. No, not for you, you are, unfortunately, hopelessly sick and your mental abilities are unlikely to be restored, but for those still hopeless people taking their first steps in studying history who can read the utter nonsense that you deign here publish, and ... get infected, of a different, more precise word, I don’t find, with the new time reporting.
          1. ver_
            ver_ 20 May 2018 15: 36
            0
            ..that you are for the whole head .. For you an encyclopedia, it’s a pit, it’s not a decree .., For you, the ultimate truth is OBS - one woman said ..
        2. Alex
          Alex 20 May 2018 21: 32
          +1
          Vera, is everything okay with your brain, or is it that way?
  9. Curious
    Curious 18 May 2018 10: 15
    +2
    "Author: V. Ryzhov"
    This, who is the rising star of the historical sketch genre?
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 18 May 2018 15: 35
      +1
      You shouldn’t be so, Viktor Nikolaevich! The author did not present anything more seditious that came before him. Or is it you in line with the struggle with the "Simpsons" who decided to do the "Hitler Youth"?
      1. Curious
        Curious 18 May 2018 16: 11
        +1
        "The author did not present anything more seditious that came before him."
        The author did not present anything. Therefore, I put a question mark. Or do you propose to proceed from the promise that there are still people who do not know about the existence of Tsarevich Alexei and this article is for them?
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 18 May 2018 20: 54
          +1
          Goofy! And what does Shpakovsky with the Poisoned Feather present something new? Even before him, from Soviet inept agitators, I was sick. Or the difference in the replication of the author? So it's a matter of time, no one heard about Simpson two years ago either.
          1. Curious
            Curious 18 May 2018 21: 09
            +1
            My opinion about Poisoned Pere, as it seems to me, is quite clearly stated in my comments on these articles.
            This article was written not by Shpakovsky, the author is new, but he immediately took up the theme, let’s say, of a hollywood one. Moreover, more recently there have already been articles on this topic on the site. The author could not add anything to them, limiting himself to the mournful retelling of long-known facts. From here my question was born. Then I can only add the phrase Dobryny from the cartoon.
            1. 3x3zsave
              3x3zsave 18 May 2018 22: 13
              0
              Your attitude towards the Poisoned Feather cycle has fallen out of my attention. For the rest, I probably understood correctly - you are engaged in the prevention of the Hitler Youth.
  10. already a Muscovite
    already a Muscovite 18 May 2018 11: 12
    +1
    Peter the First really was "slightly" out of control ...
  11. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 18 May 2018 12: 16
    +8
    You can criticize the article a lot, it's easier to praise smile
    The little that I liked in the article was the author’s approach to describing the life of Tsarevich Alexei, namely, an attempt to understand how he lived, what he did, how his personality and worldview was shaped, through studying his biography. imagine his entourage, relationship with his father. It is unlikely that this attempt can be called quite successful, but the approach itself, I think, deserves a positive assessment.
    According to Alexey.
    It drew attention to the fact that no matter what his father would have entrusted to him, he was always dissatisfied with the results of his performance, and Alexey had to look for excuses for his failures. One time it didn’t work out - not lucky, the second ... Peter needed people for his business who give results, but don’t know how to justify themselves correctly, why there’s no result. The son either could not be his father's assistant, was not able to organize anything, find ways to solve the task, take the initiative, or did not want, deliberately sabotaging the execution of the order, and most likely both. Any manager will tell you that he doesn’t need such performers, and so Alexey was removed from active work.
    Peter repeatedly warned his son that he was dissatisfied with his behavior and deeds. Pay attention that at the time of Alexey’s death 28 was not a boy, he understood what was happening, where to say, where to remain silent, what life was spinning around, nevertheless, he allowed himself not only opposition statements, but a real sedition in the style of “you, Father, do it, make an effort, and when you, dear, give God your soul, I will destroy it all, I will not leave a stone unturned. " Personally, I perfectly imagine what the reaction to such ideas of Peter himself should have been. Know, reliably and immutably know that after your death, the whole matter of your life will go to junk because of ... whom? Alien, in fact, a person? Perdstavlyuyu, here I am building a house on your site, tearing out of strength, the last I put into the foundation, walls, decoration, sewage ... And then my son says: "Here you die, dad, I will demolish this house to hell, and I will build a hut in the place, like my grandmother was with a toilet in the yard. I like it when the breeze blows my ass in the process of defecation. " That's real, would kill. And here is not the house - the state.
    So you can understand Peter. And he killed Alexei not because he cleared the place for other heirs, but because he could not leave his brainchild to him - the Russian Empire. The appearance of another heir determined not the fate of Alexei, but simply the date of his death.
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 18 May 2018 16: 11
      +2
      Bravo, Michael! I’ll add from myself, probably, Peter was a “man of chance”, naturally, he gathered the same ones around him, “put him on a“ zero ”, and then we'll see,“ all these ”be-be-be-be, me-me-me, .. ... did not grow together ... ", he was not inspired (however, like Stalin).
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 18 May 2018 18: 11
      +1
      Mikhail, you’ve noticed everything correctly as a whole, but let me correct you a little: “the son doesn’t just say that he’ll take it to hell, but he clarifies that he’ll leave the yard altogether and return to his grandmother’s yard on another street.
    3. Romper Stomper
      Romper Stomper 20 May 2018 00: 01
      +1
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      So you can understand Peter. And he killed Alexei not because he was clearing a place for other heirs, but because he could not leave his brainchild to him - the Russian Empire.


      In vain you, dear "Peter" justify. He was no king, but an impostor on the Russian throne. Once in 1697g. the real Peter went abroad as part of the great embassy, ​​another man returned from there, only pretending to be the Russian tsar. Not without reason did the archers revolt, but they said that the king was replaced! And precisely because the Strelets army did not accept the impostor, it was completely destroyed!
      Therefore, Tsarevich Aleksey was killed because he was the son of a real Peter and the impostor’s entourage was afraid that becoming Tsar Aleksey Petrovich would be uncontrollable and might want to avenge his father.
      Even outwardly the real Tsar Peter 1 does not look like the impostor whom they give us for Peter!
      This is a young real Peter:

      And this is an impostor in his youth:

      And his face mask:

      As you can see, the original Peter 1 is different from the impostor, they are different people.
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 20 May 2018 15: 43
        +1
        Quote: Romper Stomper
        He was no king, but an impostor on the Russian throne.

        Swam - we know, although it is embarrassing to admit it, I heard about this version. Do you have a few questions?
        1. Picture "young real Peter" from where was taken, where is the original and why is the signature under it in Latin? Who is the author, finally, what other portraits did he write, how much do they resemble his originals?
        2. Any other evidence of the substitution of Peter during the "Great Embassy", except for suspicion and portrait exist?
        3. Do you consider the reforms of Peter I, conducted by him at the beginning of the century, harmful and unnecessary? The construction of the fleet, the reform of the army, industry, government, the struggle for access to the seas? If they are harmful, I do not know what is useful then. If they are useful, is it all the same who produced them, if he acted to the benefit of the state?
        1. Romper Stomper
          Romper Stomper 20 May 2018 22: 57
          0
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          The picture "real Peter" from where is taken, where is the original and why is the signature under it in Latin? Who is the author, finally, what other portraits did he paint, how much do they look like their originals?

          Portrait of the young Peter I. Engraving by R. White, 1698. State Historical Museum, Moscow. Unfortunately, this artist does not have accounts in social networks, it is impossible to ask, but what other works does he have and why you can find out the Latin inscription from the museum staff.
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Any other evidence of the substitution of Peter during the "Great Embassy", except for suspicion and portrait exist?

          Well, the opinion of the archers, which is not proof for you, after all, people were sure that they replaced Peter and went for their beliefs to die!
          But there is still evidence of the king’s forgery. This is the main cathedral of Romanov’s Russia - St. Isaac’s!

          It is known that the cathedral is dedicated to St. Isaac of Dalmatia. However, what does the saint who lived in ancient Rome have to do with the royal house of the Romanovs? The whole reason is, as we are told, that the day of memory of Isaac Dalmatsky coincided with the birthday of PETER I - on May 30.
          But during the time of Peter, before the impostor appeared, the names of the Russian tsars were given to the clergy with a slight possible deviation +/- several days, so if Peter I was born, as we are told, on the day of St. Isaac, then his name should be Isaac and not Peter! Well, if the king was still called Peter, then he was born not on May 30, but on another day. And on May 30, an impostor whose name was Isaac was born.
          Since the Romanovs are building a cathedral supposedly in honor of Peter I, then they should have been called something like "St. Peter's Cathedral" or "Peter's Cathedral"! And the Romanovs did not name the main cathedral in the country in honor of Peter, but in honor of the impostor Isaac!
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Do you think the reforms of Peter I at the beginning of the century are harmful and unnecessary?

          Well, if the Baltic states, Lesnaya and Poltava can still be viewed positively, then as a result of the so-called reforms of Peter the Great, the population decline reached 20%, and even 40% in the north of Russia, which carried the main financial burden. Well, plus the export of money abroad and participation in incomprehensible wars in Europe, in particular, what did the Russian troops do in Pomerania and Mecklenburg in 1712? After all, there was no war with the German principalities then. By the way, it is very similar to our time. Also, impostors are doubles instead of Putin, it is not clear why the war in Syria, the export of capital abroad, depopulation and impoverishment of the population!
          Infa about Peter from the book of Nosovsky and Fomenko, Ivan the Terrible and Peter I, the fictional king and the forged king.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 21 May 2018 10: 21
            +1
            As for the picture - thanks for the info, check it out. I, as you understand, I do not read Fomenko and his followers, because they have already written so many nonsense and absurdities that they have to check their every word for lice and as a result, they do not pass the test unconditionally - they lied here, then they missed it ... Just sorry losing time on this nonsense. Thank you, there are kind people like you, so they can enlighten. I speak with a minimum of irony now.
            About the arguments.
            Streletsky revolt occurred six months before the return of Peter. Imagine that you are a faithful servant of the throne, an archer, guarding the Kremlin. Someone you trust told you that the king was replaced and the king was replaced not by the king. Is that enough for a riot? Or will you wait until the king returns to see for yourself? I think if the true cause of the rebellion would be the imposture of a certain subject, and not the reasons given in the story, the rebellion would begin immediately after the return of the Grand Embassy, ​​and not before.
            And about St. Isaac's Cathedral ... In your opinion, it turns out that the true Peter was born on another day, and then they forged the metrics backdating to justify the name of the cathedral built much later? I understood correctly? And the cathedral was named in honor of the true name of a certain impostor?
            Okay, look at the sequence of events.
            In 1697-98 true Peter was replaced. Next, the impostor rules. He rewrites Kremlin metrics and replaces the true Peter's birth date with his own. What for? We do not know, so wanted. Well, for example, to celebrate your true birthday to the day. And the fact that there are still living witnesses of the birth of the true Peter, who know the exact date of this event ... Oh! Yes, Stirlitz was never so close to failure, moreover, because of such a whim, like a birthday. As it passed - the mind is not understandable, but it carried it. And the impostor begins to work hard and uninterruptedly for the benefit of Russia, reforming the country, defeating enemies, rivals, building an empire, founding cities, and much more ... In 1708, this impostor has a daughter, Anna, the future mother of Peter III and the mother of all the following Russian kings. In 1818, her great-grandson (the great-great-grandson of the impostor) Alexander I began building a cathedral. Of course, he, like his brother Nicholas, and later his nephew Alexander, the future Liberator, knows perfectly well that he is not descended from Peter Aleksevich, but some Isaac and wants to dedicate the temple to him. Let de, the uninitiated idolize a certain Peter, and in the center of the capital there will be a huge temple named after a real hero and only the elect will know about it - members of the reigning house ... Thus, St. Isaac's Cathedral appeared.
            And what, notable trolling. For a conspiracy historical detective is quite suitable. But no more. If you are ready to really believe in it, we will never understand each other.
            By the way, Peter Peter was called on the day of baptism, and not on his birthday. 29 of June, on the day when he was baptized, is celebrated ... tadam! .. the day of the apostles Peter and Paul.
            1. Romper Stomper
              Romper Stomper 21 May 2018 12: 38
              0
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              By the way, Peter Peter was called on the day of baptism, and not on his birthday. 29 of June, on the day when he was baptized, is celebrated ... tadam! .. the day of the apostles Peter and Paul.

              The fact that they tell us that they baptized Peter on June 29 is another proof of the king’s forgery.
              During the baptism of Russian tsars of the pre-Petrine era, names were given strictly according to the holy calendar. Possible deviations were no more than a week in one direction or another from the birthday. Deviations were allowed both forward and backward, to earlier calendar numbers. So, for example, the day of the angel of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was 2 days earlier than his birthday.

              THE ONLY EXCLUSION is Tsar Peter I. His birthday DOES NOT MEET HIS Godmother. The retreat is about two weeks! If Peter were born on May 30, then at that time, according to the then rules, he simply could not be called Peter! Well, if they called Peter, then he was born on another day, and even maybe in another year!
              The fact is that at that time marriage was not practiced before 17 years. Peter married on January 27, 1689, i.e. it turns out that he was not yet 17 years old. that could not be in reality, in particular, his brother John was married only when he was 17 years old.

              Quote: Trilobite Master
              Streletsky revolt occurred six months before the return of Peter. Imagine that you are a faithful servant of the throne, an archer, guarding the Kremlin. Someone you trust told you that the king was replaced and the king was replaced not by the king. Is that enough for a riot? Or will you wait until the king returns to see for yourself? I think if the true cause of the rebellion would be the imposture of a certain subject, and not the reasons given in the story, the rebellion would begin immediately after the return of the Grand Embassy, ​​and not before.

              There were several uprisings of the archers. The archers who served in the Kremlin spoke directly about the substitution of Peter. This was the reason for the next uprising of the archers, after Peter's return from a trip abroad.
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 21 May 2018 13: 34
                +1
                Okay, put the question differently.
                Who, when and how did you falsify documents on the date of birth of Peter Alekseevich? Why was it to be done, if in this way a perfectly implemented implementation is put at risk?
                Why did the worship of Peter the impostor Isaac of Dalmatia, publicly motivated by his birthday, not surprise contemporaries who knew the true birthday of Peter?
                In the absence of portrait resemblance between the true Peter and Peter the impostor, how can the silence of the relatives of the true Peter, including those who are positively disposed towards him, be explained, but also negatively? Why would such a touching unanimity?
                Why did the last of the Streltsy riots happen BEFORE Peter's return from the Great Embassy?
                Is there information that Richard White personally met with the true Peter?
                Why on engraving Peter is depicted in a Russian dress, which he had not worn since childhood, and, in any case, he did not wear it during the Great Embassy?
                Who does this boy look like?
                1. Romper Stomper
                  Romper Stomper 21 May 2018 18: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  Who, when and how did you falsify documents on the date of birth of Peter Alekseevich? Why was it to be done, if in this way a perfectly implemented implementation is put at risk?

                  Too many questions, why don't you yourself look for answers to them ?! Who forged the documents on the date of birth is not yet known. You will tell about the perfectly implemented implementation to the archers and half of the population of then-Russia, who directly (archers) and deafly (all the others) said that the tsar was substituted.

                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  Why did the worship of Peter the impostor Isaac of Dalmatia, publicly motivated by his birthday, not surprise contemporaries who knew the true birthday of Peter?

                  Why do you think that it did not surprise anyone who was surprised in public, that repeated the fate of the archers. Therefore, everyone else was silent.
                  Western rulers were also silent, because this is such a convenient opportunity for blackmail, because it is not for nothing that the Russian troops shed their blood in Germany, it is not known for what, maybe it was a payment for silence. Some, such as King Augustus, received direct multimillion-dollar irrevocable subsidies from Russia. However, everything is as it is now, now also the West and most contemporaries are silent about the fact that instead of Putin, clowns make up performances! Therefore, the silence of contemporaries of Peter I should not surprise!

                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  In the absence of portrait resemblance between the true Peter and Peter the impostor, how can the silence of the relatives of the true Peter, including those who are positively disposed towards him, be explained, but also negatively? Why would such a touching unanimity?

                  And all the relatives of Peter were isolated. All the closest relatives of the king immediately, after the return of the latter, were sent to captivity, from where they would never leave.

                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  Why did the last of the Streltsy riots happen BEFORE Peter's return from the Great Embassy?

                  The last Streltsy revolt took place AFTER the return of Peter, in 1705-06. in Astrakhan.

                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  Is there information that Richard White personally met with the true Peter?

                  With this question to the museum!


                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  Why on engraving Peter is depicted in a Russian dress, which he had not worn since childhood, and, in any case, he did not wear it during the Great Embassy?

                  Peter wore a Russian dress during the Great Embassy.

                  Peter I in a traveling suit in the retinue of the great embassy. Engraved portrait of Otens.
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  Who does this boy look like?

                  The boy does not channel. He has not yet formed a skull, skeleton and facial tissue. According to the rules of portrait identification can not be compared with portraits of adults.
          2. icant007
            icant007 30 July 2018 20: 09
            0
            Quote: Romper Stomper
            Well, the opinion of the archers, which is not proof for you, after all, people were sure that they replaced Peter and went for their beliefs to die!

            Well, archers have been buzzing before. In 1682 and 1689 So the rebellion of 1698 does not prove the fact of the substitution of Peter.
      2. Alex
        Alex 20 May 2018 21: 41
        +1
        Quote: Romper Stomper
        In vain you, dear "Peter" justify. He was no king, but an impostor on the Russian throne. Once in 1697g. the real Peter went abroad as part of the great embassy, ​​another man returned from there, only pretending to be the Russian tsar. Not without reason did the archers revolt, but they said that the king was replaced! And precisely because the Strelets army did not accept the impostor, it was completely destroyed!


      3. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 1 July 2018 22: 01
        0
        Quote: Romper Stomper
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        So you can understand Peter. And he killed Alexei not because he was clearing a place for other heirs, but because he could not leave his brainchild to him - the Russian Empire.


        In vain you, dear "Peter" justify. He was no king, but an impostor on the Russian throne. Once in 1697g. the real Peter went abroad as part of the great embassy, ​​another man returned from there, only pretending to be the Russian tsar. Not without reason did the archers revolt, but they said that the king was replaced! And precisely because the Strelets army did not accept the impostor, it was completely destroyed!
        Therefore, Tsarevich Aleksey was killed because he was the son of a real Peter and the impostor’s entourage was afraid that becoming Tsar Aleksey Petrovich would be uncontrollable and might want to avenge his father.
        Even outwardly the real Tsar Peter 1 does not look like the impostor whom they give us for Peter!
        This is a young real Peter:

        And this is an impostor in his youth:

        And his face mask:

        As you can see, the original Peter 1 is different from the impostor, they are different people.

        By the way, this is more than a likely version. Moreover, the tsar of Moscow. who went abroad - and the person who returned from there WAS DIFFERENT GROWTH (it was difficult to find a high Russian). The growth of true Peter I is approx. 190 cm, the growth of an impostor is more than 2 m.

        This version is supported by the fact that a man who behaved like a pirate returned from abroad (he loved drinking bouts, accessible women in taverns, smoking not only tobacco, but also opium, chopping with sabers and boarding on boats). Nothing SIMILAR among the interests of the true young Peter I was not. Most likely, the found impostor returned, who was a fugitive serf and for a while became either a sailor or a pirate in Holland, to whom the court elite offered the throne after the death (intentional or not, unknown) of the real king ...
  12. Monarchist
    Monarchist 18 May 2018 17: 53
    +2
    Quote: Korsar4
    And self-immolations were also, as I understand it. But the price of a split, and subsequent oppression, is enormous for the country.

    Quite right: self-awareness was widely practiced among the so-called "schismatics", this is well written by Alexei Tolstoy: "Peter1"
  13. Monarchist
    Monarchist 18 May 2018 18: 00
    +1
    Quote: already a Muscovite
    Peter the First really was "slightly" out of control ...

    And who do you think was 100% "in yourself"? If desired, ALL managers have, to put it mildly, flaws
  14. Monarchist
    Monarchist 18 May 2018 18: 42
    +1
    Quote: Korsar4
    What is cute about Pavel Petrovich is understandable.

    But as for his father -

    "The emperor plays the violin.
    The state is getting out of hand "(c).

    Corsair, regarding Platon Fyodorovich read Platonov, a Russian historian at the beginning of the 20th century, he parses Peter Ulrich in detail, and I must say his ideas were sensible.
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 18 May 2018 19: 13
      0
      I read something of Platonov. But sympathy for Peter Fedorovich does not work in any way.
  15. Monarchist
    Monarchist 18 May 2018 18: 55
    0
    Quote: 3x3zsave
    And so I see ... Peter cuts the window, accidentally touches the riser of the pressure sewage system (which, by now, is rare in the vastness of our Motherland), and from where the feces from Europe are whipping!

    Urgently ban all foreign and stop clogging the Russian language. : As in the Pushkin era, they plagued Sumarokov: "the graveyard in the wet spits is mowing a grave from the lists in disgrace"
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 18 May 2018 22: 43
      0
      Already banned. At work, I constantly encounter products of "import substitution", God forgive me. The price tag is the same, but the quality ......., it would be better if the Chinese were left to the mercy.
      1. cedar
        cedar 22 May 2018 06: 48
        0
        Then immediately all of Russia with giblets, i.e. with us "fools" and with you, so "smart" ...
  16. Monarchist
    Monarchist 18 May 2018 19: 30
    +2
    The author laughed: "Peter 1 at the age of 16 could boast of the ability to read, write, and knowledge of the two actions of Arphmean." My father graduated from 5 classes, and I’m an institute, and my grandmothers are not literate at all, what can I write down as a genius? I. Will I do more than my grandfather is a war veteran?
    Back in the Bible, it seems the apostle Peter accused the scribes. In my opinion do not miss the comparison. Rather, + Peter, that he taught his son
    1. ver_
      ver_ 20 May 2018 11: 49
      0
      ..by the way - Peter 1 destroyed the library of John 3 of Grozny (given by Sophia Paleologus) ..
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. ver_
    ver_ 20 May 2018 11: 40
    0
    Trilobite Master,
    ..about stonehenge - I had to read that this * event * was made in England at the beginning of the 19th century, and also who did it ...
    In order to remove doubts - who does not allow a genetic examination of Peter 1, his mother and sister ..
  19. Alex
    Alex 20 May 2018 21: 45
    +1
    Another resource transfer. To compare the age of Peter and his talents with those of his son is just silly and demagogic. If Aleksei, with his mother, had known at least one mathematical operation, if Peter had not assigned the best teachers to him. Everything else is from the same series.
  20. cedar
    cedar 22 May 2018 06: 58
    0
    Who would first clarify the question. Was Tsarevich Alexei the son of Per the Great, i.e. Peter the Great and Peter the Great is the same historical person or not? Too much data says that they are different people on the Russian throne. It's one thing to kill your son and another to kill a stranger ...
  21. ver_
    ver_ 22 May 2018 11: 58
    0
    Quote: Alex
    Vera, is everything okay with your brain, or is it that way?

    .. more specifically low? ..