Peter III. Too good for his age?

94
In Russian stories many secrets and mysteries. But the circumstances of the tragic death of two emperors of our country have been thoroughly studied. The more surprising is the survivability of the versions of their murderers who slandered the victims of their crimes, and this lie, still repeated by even very serious historians, penetrated both the popular consciousness and the pages of school textbooks. This, of course, is about Peter III and his son Paul I. On the life and fate of Emperor Paul I in 2003 I wrote an article published in the journal "Story".





I had no intention of writing about Peter III, but life decreed otherwise. During a recent vacation, I came across an old book written by V. Pikul back in 1963 (published in 1972, first read by me in 80's). I read this novel again in between swimming.

"Pen and sword"


I must say right away that I treat Valentin Savvich with great respect and acknowledge his enormous achievements in popularizing Russian history. And the frank "spreading cranberries" in his novels are much less than in the books of A. Dumas (father). Although he sometimes has "cranberry trees", alas. So, offhand: in the novel I mentioned, among other things, you can find, for example, that in the West Indies (these are the islands of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico) there are cobras and tigers: "He can develop his vices to the limit in the colonies of the West Indies, where I will put him to eat cobras and tigers "(Gershey - about de Jonah).

Peter III. Too good for his age?


Baron Munchausen, who honestly served our country for 10 years, but by then had already left Russia, according to V. Pikul, was in the Russian army during the Seven Years War, and he spied in favor of Frederick II.

(About the real Munchausen can be found in the article: Ryzhov V.A. Two barons of the city of Bodenwerder.)

In addition, the concepts of "vassal" and "overlord" are confused.

However, we will not go deeper and catch the author on the word, because the main events of the Seven Years War in this novel are correctly conveyed.

The characteristic that V. Pikul gives to the monarchs of the warring countries can also be recognized as true. He has Frederick II as an intelligent and cynical "workaholic", a pragmatist for whom the nationality of a person, his origin or religion is absolutely not important.


Frederick II plays the flute. Fragment of the painting by Adolf von Menzel


Louis XV is a miserable aging debauchery and degenerate.


Cesare Auguste Detty, Louis XV in the throne room


Maria Theresa is a cunning and two-faced schemer, for which she, as the ruler of a large and multinational country, is, of course, difficult to reproach.


Maria Theresa of Austria. Artist Martin van Meitens


As for our Elizabeth, if we discard the patriotic and loyal flair, then on the pages of Pikul’s novel we see a bad and absurd woman who does not understand why and why she dragged Russia into an unnecessary war on the side of the insidious and constantly deceiving her “allies”.


Georg Gaspard Joseph von Prenner. Portrait of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. 1754


The merry “Petrova’s daughters” do not have enough time to deal with state affairs; senior officials are practically not controlled by anyone and are kept by ambassadors of foreign states.

I’ll add from myself that the influential doctor and courtier Lestok received a “pension” from France in 15 000 livres.


Johann Hermann Lestock


About the Chancellor of the Russian Empire A.P. Bestuzhev King of Prussia Frederick II wrote:
"The Russian minister, whose bribery reached the point that he would have auctioned off his lady if he could have found a sufficiently rich buyer for her."


The chancellor received seven thousand rubles from his government, and twelve thousand from the British. But he also took it from the Austrians (A. Kirpichnikov, Bribe and Corruption in Russia. M., 1997, p. 38).


Kazatov A. Portrait of the Chancellor Count A.P. Bestuzhev, 1764


Pikul rebukes Elizabeth also of motivation and mismanagement: “If it were not for this unownedness, we would now have ten such Hermitage museums” (quote from the novel).

On the whole, the situation in the Russian state under Elizabeth in this patriotic novel by Pikul is portrayed much deeper and more honestly than in the cinema "Midshipmen" (which is not surprising, "Midshipmen" is more of a near-historical fantasy, like Dumas novels).

Generally:
"The merry queen
Elizabeth was:
Sings and has fun -
There is no order. "

(A.K. Tolstoy.)

V. Pikul does not hide from us that it was the British envoy Williams who sent his secretary, Stanislav Augustus Poniatowski, to bed with the wife of the heir to the throne, Sofia Augusta Frederick of Angalst-Cerbsk (who received the name Ekaterina Alekseevna after her baptism - the future Catherine II): no love, boss’s order. But “Fike” - yes, “fell in love like a cat”, and completely lost her head:
“The emptied (after Poniatowski’s departure) Catherine’s bed has long ceased to be Catherine’s own affair. The shame was now not only on the square, it was discussed at the courts of Europe.

(V. Pikul.)

At the same time, young Ekaterina is intriguing against her husband and aunt, taking money from everyone who gives, promising to "thank him later." Moreover, Pikul directly accuses this princess and Grand Duchess of betraying the national interests of the country that sheltered her. And he does it repeatedly. Next are quotes from the novel:

"England ... now held onto Russia with two anchors at once: money - through the great chancellor Bestuzhev and love - through the Grand Duchess Catherine."


"The ring of betrayal on the neck of Russia has already closed, linking four strong links: Friedrich, Bestuzhev, Ekaterina, Williams."


“Lev Naryshkin handed him a note from the Grand Duchess. Or rather, a coup d'etat plan, as soon as Elizabeth suffered another attack of illness. Williams realized that Catherine was all set. She counted: how many soldiers were needed, what signaling, who to arrest immediately, when and where to take the oath. "As a friend," concluded Catherine, "correct and prescribe to me what is lacking in my thoughts."

Williams did not even know what could be corrected or supplemented here. This is a conspiracy, a real conspiracy ... "


"The British again gave Catherine money."


"The comet terrified Elizabeth, but pleased Catherine, and the Grand Duchess held her head high, as if preparing for the role of the Russian Empress."


"Catherine only found out about her aunt's seizure the next day - from a note by Count Poniatowski. Thus, the moment for the coup was missed."


"Vorontsov in fear rushed to the palace and immediately made it clear to Elizabeth that Chancellor Bestuzhev had directly and irrevocably decided to enthrone Catherine, bypassing her husband and son."


“Yes, they arrested the chancellor (Bestuzhev),” Buturlin answered impudently. “And now we are looking for a reason, for which we were arrested!”

“What if they find? - worried Catherine. - Especially the last project, where I read, aunt, already put in a coffin, and she sat on her throne? "


“Important papers were kept behind seven castles that only two readers knew before our century. These readers were two Russian emperors: Alexander II and Alexander III — only they (two autocrats) knew the secret of Catherine’s direct treason ... And only at the beginning of the 20th century was Catherine’s correspondence with Williams was published, giving history material for shameful revelations.The documents completely restored the picture of treason, which Elizaveta could only guess about in the 1758 year. in 1916, he wrote a brilliant article about how Grand Duchess Catherine and Bestuzhev, together with Williams, sold the interests of Russia for money. "


But Sophia Augusta Frederic of Angalst-Cerbska, despite the cited “compromising evidence”, is still a positive character in Pikul’s novel:

“Well, you think,” as if Valentin Savvich tells us, “she slept with the secretary and confidant of the ambassador of the state traditionally hostile to Russia, she wanted to overthrow the legal empress of the Russian empire and her no less legal heir, her own husband, and she took money for the state a coup from everyone in a row ... A trifle! With whom does not happen. And he suggests that this be considered “normal” on the grounds that Catherine will later be called the “Great”. And, therefore, she is a "special" person - not a "trembling creature," and therefore "has a right."

The novel also says that during the Seven Years War Russia suffered heavy losses and was on the verge of a financial collapse. It is reported that "officials haven’t been paid a salary for years," and the Russian sailors "were paid the very minuscule, and you won’t pay the treasury for years."

And, on the one hand, to emphasize the severity of the financial situation of the country, and, on the other, to demonstrate the empress’s patriotism, these words are attributed to Elizabeth V. Pikul:
“I’ll sell wardrobes, I’ll pledge diamonds. I’ll start walking naked, but Russia will continue the war until it is completely won.”


As we know, in reality, Elizabeth did not mortgage or sell, she did not go naked. In her notorious "wardrobes" after death, there were about 15 000 dresses left (another 4 000 burned during a fire in Moscow in 1753), 2 a chest of silk stockings and more 2500 pairs of shoes. (Anisimov E.V. Russia in the middle of the 17th century. M., 1988, p. 199.)

Y. Shtelin writes that on April 2 1762, Peter III examined in the Summer Palace "32 rooms, all filled with the dresses of the late Empress Elizabeth Petrovna."

What orders the new emperor gave about this "wardrobe" Shtelin does not report.

Only Imelda Marquez, the wife of the Filipino dictator, in whose collection there were 2700 pairs of shoes, can compete on embezzlement of the state budget for personal “shopping” of “Petrova’s daughter”. 1220 of them were eaten by termites, the remaining can be seen in the museum.


Part of the Imelda Marquez shoe collection


So, it would seem, everything has already been said, there was not even a step left to the right conclusion, but a half-step: come on, Valentin Savvich, feel free to do not be shy - just a little more, after all, you lifted your leg! No, the force of inertia is such that V. Pikul does not dare to lower his raised leg, retreats, takes not even a step, but two or three steps back, spontaneously voices all the stupidities of the official historians of the House of Romanov (repeated by Soviet historians). The nearby and eccentric "Merry" and "Krotkiya heart" Elizabeth, according to his version, of course, is not the ideal of a wise ruler, but a patriot of Russia. And even her lovers are “right” - all Russians, with the exception of the young Russian Alexei Razumovsky (which, of course, is also very good).


Unknown artist. Portrait A.G. Razumovsky


And even that is why Elizabeth is good - unlike Anna Ioannovna and her favorite, the “German” Biron (this is from another novel - “Word and Deed”). True, during the reign of the "unpatriotic" Empress Anna, the finances of Russia were in perfect order - the treasury's income exceeded the expenses. And the "patriot" Elizabeth practically ruined the country. But who knows about this and who cares, in fact? But Frederick II was beaten - and killed tens of thousands of young and healthy Russian men in meaningless and unnecessary bloody battles for the interests of Austria and France. Russia is invited to be proud of the role of a cat from a fable, which brutally burns its paws in order to pull chestnuts from a fire for two "civilized" European monkeys despising it.

Moreover, the novel reports (several times) that Prussia has no complaints against Russia and that there is no reason to fight with it. And also that Frederick respected our country with great respect (after reading the memoirs of the former adjutant Minich - Christopher Manstein, the king personally deleted from them all the places that could harm the Russian honor) and made desperate attempts to avoid a war with her. And, when the war nevertheless began, he ordered Field Marshal Hans von Levald to be not only a commander, but also a diplomat - to enter into negotiations with Russia on the most honorable world after the very first victory. It is also alleged that, upon learning of Louis XV's refusal to baptize Paul I (another insult to both Russia and Elizabeth), Frederick says:
"I would agree to baptize piglets in Russia, just not to fight with her."


But this quote is not from the novel, but from the notes of Frederick II:
"Of all the neighbors of Prussia, the Russian Empire deserves primary attention ... The future rulers of Prussia also have to seek the friendship of these barbarians."


That is, Frederick II does not have any aggressive intentions towards the "eastern empire of barbarians". Moreover, he, like Bismarck, calls on the future kings of Prussia to build allied relations with Russia.

And there was only one person surrounded by Elizabeth who correctly assessed the situation and understood that there was nothing to be shared between Russia and Prussia. Academician J. Shtelin recalled that during the Seven Years' War
"the heir spoke freely that the empress was being deceived in relation to the Prussian king, that the Austrians were bribing us, and the French were tricking us ... we will repent over time that we entered into an alliance with Austria and France."


Yes, the heir to the Russian throne, Grand Duke Petr Fedorovich was absolutely right, but V. Pikul in his novel repeatedly calls him a "fool" and a "freak."


Groot Georg Christoph “Portrait of the Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich” 1743, State Tretyakov Gallery. Not so "freak" in the portrait of Groot, is not it? Probably, according to a long tradition, his court painter somewhat embellished, but having the face of Narcissus and the physique of Heracles or Apollo to the ruling monarch is completely optional. This is not required of him. And it would be better if there were no beauties like Plato Zubov or the Duke of Buckingham near the empresses and kings.


By the way, Louis XVI said later:
"Strengthening the Prussian possessions, Austria got the opportunity to measure power with Russia."


He:
"This feeling (Peter to Frederick II) was based on such important state reasons that his wife, who was more penetrating than Elizabeth, in her foreign policy followed her husband’s example."


This is not entirely true, the policy of Catherine II regarding Prussia and Frederick II turned out to be much weaker, but we will talk about this later in another article.

Let us return to the novel by V. Pikul, where it is alleged that the Austrian field marshal Down deliberately missed the troops of Frederick II to Zorndorf, where, in a difficult bloody battle, the Russian and Prussian armies were crushed against each other. As for the king of France, Louis XV, then in the novel by Pikul he says these words:
"An alliance with Russia is necessary in order to more conveniently act against Russia ... From within Russia itself, and to the detriment of Russia. I do not like this country, about which we have not known anything for a long time, and when we learned, it suddenly became clear that this the country is capable of upsetting the balance of all of Europe. "


I will add that since 1759 both Austria and France, secretly from Russia, have been negotiating a separate peace with Prussia.

In general, those are still "allies." But the "European choice" of Elizabeth Pikulem is still unconditionally recognized as correct, welcomed and fully approved.

What can I say (carefully choosing printed expressions)? Unless to use the old Russian proverb: "spit in the eyes, all God's dew." Or recall the more modern one - about how "the mice cried, pricked, but continued to eat the cactus."

But we will not now conduct a historical and literary analysis of the novel by V. Pikul. We will try to figure out what, in fact, was the first of the killed, Russian emperors. Valentin Pikul could not or did not dare to take the last step, but we will do it now.

I understand that I will not be the first or the last, but everyone has the right to try to take their own step.

So, get acquainted - Karl Peter Ulrich Holstein-Gottorpsky, who received the Russian Orthodox name Peter Fedorovich:

Crown Duke of Holstein, Schleswig, Stormarn and Dietmarschen.

The grandson of Peter I and the nephew of "Merry" and "Krotkiya heart" of Empress Elizabeth.

The unfortunate husband of an arrogant German adventurer and impostor who did not have the slightest rights to the Russian throne, but usurped him under the name of Catherine II.

Absolutely legal and legitimate emperor Peter III.

He did not have the makings of a great commander or an outstanding politician. And therefore, we will not compare it with Peter I, Charles XII, Frederick II, or even Louis XIV. Talking about him, we will always glance at his wife - Catherine II, who won not because she was smarter, more talented, and more educated - rather, on the contrary. She had other qualities, which turned out to be much more important and necessary at that turbulent time, which went down in Russian history under the name "The era of palace coups." And these qualities were courage, decisiveness, ambition and unprincipledness. And yet - an invaluable gift to correctly evaluate people and charm those who were suitable to fulfill its goals. Sparing no money or promises for them, not embarrassed by either flattery or humiliation. And there was passionarity, which allowed to fully realize all these talents. And luck accompanied this adventurer.

However, luck is always on the side of the brave, and, as the well-known Cardinal Richelieu said, "the one who refuses the game never wins."


Groot Georg Christoph “Portrait of the Grand Duchess Catherine Alekseevna” 1745, Hermitage. It’s also not god knows what kind of beauty we see in this obviously embellished portrait, is not it?


The winners, as you know, write history. And therefore, the murdered Peter III was ordered to be considered a drunkard, a moral freak despising Russia and everything Russian, a soldier and a moron who worshiped Frederick II. From whom does such monstrous information come? You probably already guessed: from the persons involved in the conspiracy and the murder of this emperor, and only from them.

Slanderers of the slain emperor


The memories denigrating the murdered Peter III, in addition to Catherine, who hated him, left four more participants in those events, exalted after the overthrow of the lawful Sovereign. Let's call them. Firstly, Princess Dashkova is an extremely ambitious person who, according to rumors, could not forgive Peter for being close to him of her own older sister, Elizaveta Vorontsova, and therefore became a trusted friend of his wife. Loved when she was called "Catherine Mala."


English miniature painter Ozayas Humphrey, portrait of E. Dashkova


Secondly, Count Nikita Panin, the educator of Paul I, the main ideologist of the conspiracy, after the coup, for almost 20 years, he managed the foreign affairs of the Empire.


Veil of Jean-Louis. Portrait of N. Panin


Thirdly, Pyotr Panin, Nikita’s brother, whom Catherine was promoting in every way along the military line. She later entrusted him with the suppression of the uprising of Emelyan Pugachev, who terribly scared the usurper by lifting the formidable ghost of her husband from the grave.


G. Serdyukov. Portrait of Count P.I. Panin. Not later than 1767


And finally, A.T. Bolotov is a close friend of the favorite of Catherine II Grigory Orlov.


Portrait of Andrei Timofeevich Bolotov. Unknown artist. The end of the XVIII century. Canvas, oil


It was these five people who basically formed the myth of the eternally drunken moron-emperor, from whom the "great" Catherine "delivered" Russia. Even Karamzin was forced to admit that
"the deceived Europe all this time judged this sovereign from the words of his mortal enemies or their vile supporters."


People who dare to express the opposite point of view were severely persecuted under Catherine II, their memories were not published, but the people of the unfortunate Peter III had their own opinion. And when Emelyan Pugachev adopted the terrible name for Catherine’s murdered husband, it suddenly became clear that the people did not want either the “prodigal wife of Katerinka” or her many “lovers of love”. But it is very eager to become under the banner of the "natural sovereign emperor Peter Fedorovich." By the way, in addition to Pugachev, almost 40 people in different years took the name of Peter III.

Another Peter III: the opinion of people sympathizing with him


Nevertheless, objective memories of people not involved in the conspiracy of Catherine and the murder of the legitimate emperor of Russia have been preserved. They talk about Peter Fedorovich in a completely different way. Here, for example, writes the French diplomat Jean-Louis Favier, who spoke with the heir:
"He imitates both (his grandfathers - Peter I and Charles XII) in the simplicity of his tastes and clothing ... Immersed in luxury and inaction, the courtiers fear the time when they will be ruled by a sovereign who is equally harsh towards himself and others."


The secretary of the French Embassy in St. Petersburg, C. Rumiere, says in his Notes:
"Peter III leaned toward his fall by deeds, at the bottom of his good."


In 1762, after the assassination of the emperor, in Germany a certain Justi published a treatise on Russia, in which there were such lines:
"Elizabeth was beautiful,
First Peter is great
But the Third was the best.
With him, Russia was great,
Europe's envy pacified
And Frederick remained the greatest. "


The words that under Peter III Russia was “great” and Europe “pacified” may surprise. But wait a little, soon you will see that there were reasons for such an assessment. In the meantime, we continue to read the memoirs of contemporaries of the murdered emperor.

J. Shtelin reports:
"He was prone to" abuse of mercy, "not violence."


Returned by Peter from exile, the Duke of Courland Biron claimed that
"indulgence was the main feature and most important mistake of this sovereign."


And further:
"If Peter III hung, chopped heads and wheeled, he would have remained emperor."


Later V.P. Naumov will say about this emperor:
"The strange autocrat was too good for his century and the role that was destined for him by fate."


Birth and early years of Karl Peter Ulrich


Peter the Great, as you know, had two daughters - smart and "funny." They tried to "Merry," Elizabeth, to marry the future Louis XV, but the marriage did not take place. And smart, Anna, married the Duke of Karl Friedrich of Holstein-Gottorp.


Louis Caravacus. Portrait of Anna Petrovna and Elizabeth Petrovna, 1717



Louis Caravacus. Portrait of Anna Petrovna. 1725


The dukes of Holstein also owned the rights to Schleswig, Stormarn (Stormarn) and Ditmarsen (Ditmarshen). Schleswig and the Ditmarschen were by then captured by Denmark.


Holstein (a small area with a center in Kiel), Schleswig, Stormarn and Ditmarschen


The title of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp sounded loud and impressive, but the duchy itself, after the loss of Schleswig and Dietmarschen, was a small territory around Kiel, and part of the land was interspersed with the possessions of the Danes - the map shows that Rendsburg-Eckenford is separated from Stormarn. Therefore, Anna Petrovna and her husband, counting on the help of Russia, lived for a long time after the wedding in St. Petersburg. Under Catherine I, Karl Friedrich was a member of the Supreme Privy Council; under Peter II, Anna also became a member of this Council. But after the representatives of another branch of the Romanov dynasty, Anna Ioannovna, came to power, the spouses were “advised” to go to Kiel as soon as possible. The beautiful and intelligent Anna made the most favorable impression in Holstein and was liked by everyone - both the nobility and the people. In Kiel, the hero of our article was born - 10 (21 - in a new style) February 1728. After giving birth, Anna apparently died of pneumonia - she caught a cold by opening a window to watch the fireworks in honor of the heir’s birth.

Anna was loved by her husband and people, in her honor a new order was established in the duchy - St. Anna.

Few in Europe could compete with the son of the Duke of Holstein for nobility of origin. Being a relative of two great monarchs, he, at birth, received three names - Karl Peter Ulrich. The first is because on the paternal side he was the great-nephew of King of Sweden Charles XII, the second in honor of his maternal grandfather, the Russian emperor Peter I. Accordingly, he had rights to two crowns - the Swedish and the Russian. And in addition, he was the Duke of Holstein, Schleswig, Stormarn and Ditmarschen. Schleswig and the Ditmarschen, as we recall, were occupied by Denmark, but the rights to them remained so indisputable that in 1732 the Danes, with the mediation of Russia and Austria, tried to redeem them from the Duke Karl Friedrich, the father of our hero, for a million efimks ( the amount is just huge at the time). Karl Friedrich refused, saying that he was not entitled to take away anything from his minor son. The duke had high hopes for his son: "This fellow will avenge us," he often said to the courtiers. Not surprisingly, Peter until the end of his life could not forget his duty to return the hereditary lands.

It was assumed that in time he would occupy the Swedish throne, since in Russia, it seemed, the line of descendants of the brother of Peter I — John — had become established. Therefore, the prince was raised as a zealous Protestant (according to the marriage contract, the sons of Anna Petrovna were to become Lutherans, the daughters - Orthodox). It should also be taken into account that Sweden was a state hostile to Russia, and this circumstance was probably also reflected in his upbringing.

French diplomat Claude Carloman Rumiere wrote that the training of the Holstein prince
"two mentors of rare dignity were entrusted; but their mistake was that they guided him according to great models, having in mind his breed rather than his talents."


However, the boy did not grow up a stupid idiot. They taught him writing, reading, history, geography, languages ​​(he preferred French to everything else) and mathematics (his favorite subject). Since it was assumed that the heir would have to restore justice by returning Schleswig and Ditmarshen to his homeland, special attention was paid to military education. In 1737 (at the age of 9 years) the prince even won the rank of rifleman of the Oldenburg Guild of St. Johann. The competition went like this: a two-headed bird rose to a height of about 15 meters, made so that when a bullet hit a wing or head, only this part of its body fell. The winner is the one who, from the first attempt, knocked down the last remaining fragment. The young duke apparently lost the right to the first shot - but you also had to get there. Interestingly, 5 years before, in 1732, his father was the winner in this contest.

In the 10 years, Karl Peter Ulrich was awarded the rank of second lieutenant, which he was very proud of.

Amazing modesty, isn't it? Heir 10 years - and he is only the second lieutenant, and he is glad to death. But the son of Nicholas II with hemophilia, Alexei, immediately, by birth, was appointed ataman of all Cossack troops of Russia, chief of the 4-x guards and 4-x army regiments, 2-x batteries, Alekseevsky military school and the Tashkent cadet corps.

In the memoirs of Catherine II and Dashkova, Peter’s story is given about how, as a boy, at the head of a squadron of hussars, he expelled “Bohemians” from his duchy. Both ladies used this tale to denigrate the murdered emperor - here, they say, what stupid fantasies were in the head of the infantile "Parsley". Many historians serve it in the same vein. However, documents from the archives of the ducal house of Holstein-Gottorp indicate that Karl Peter Ulrich did fulfill his father’s assignment to expel the gypsy camp, whose members were accused by the people of fraud, theft and "witchcraft." As for the "Bohemians" - it was the universally recognized name for gypsies in Europe of those years. And the word "bohemia" then meant "gypsy", back in the 19th century it had a sharply negative meaning (if you look for comparisons that are clear to us, the first thing that comes to mind is hippies).

Karl Peter Ulrich had a sister - his father's illegitimate daughter, with whom he had a good relationship. After Peter's accession to the throne, her husband became the adjutant of the emperor.

In 1739, the father of our hero died, and Karl Peter was under the care of his uncle, Adolf Friedrich, who later became king of Sweden. The regent was indifferent to his nephew, practically not taking part in his upbringing. Appointed then as mentor to the heir, the Swede Brumer was very cruel to him, humiliating and punishing him for any reason. In fairness, it should be said that such methods of upbringing were common in those days, and princes in all countries were flogged no less and no less than children from ordinary families.

Sweden or Russia? The fatal choice of the young duke


In November 1741, the childless Russian Empress Elizaveta Petrovna confirmed by his decree his rights to the Russian throne (as the only legitimate descendant of Peter I).

The British Ambassador E. Finch in his report from December 5 of 1741 flashed with a talent of foresight:
"Adopted ... an instrument for future coups, when the Janissaries, weighed down by the present, plan to try out a new government."


As you can see, not only our hero called the Janissaries of the Russian Guards: after two palace coups in a row, so many called them. However, in one Finch did not guess: Peter was not a weapon, but a victim of the Janissaries.

At the beginning of 1742, Elizabeth demanded that her nephew arrive in Russia. She held captive the rightful emperor from the clan of Tsar John, and she needed the grandson of Peter I in order to prevent other representatives of this dynasty, which she hated, to secure power from her father’s line. Fearing that the Swedes, who wanted to make this young duke their future king, would intercept the heir, she ordered him to be carried under a false name. In St. Petersburg, the prince converted to Orthodoxy, receiving the name Peter Fedorovich at baptism, and was officially declared heir to the throne of the Russian Empire.

Elizabeth literally a couple of weeks ahead of the Swedish Riksdag, who also chose Karl Peter Ulrich as crown prince - heir to the childless king Frederick I of Hesse. The Swedish ambassadors who arrived in St. Petersburg found there not the Lutheran Duke Karl Peter Ulrich, but the Orthodox Grand Duke Peter Fedorovich. However, you can be sure that Elizabeth would not have given Peter to the Swedes of Peter. Nevertheless, Peter was considered the heir to the Swedish throne until August 1743, when he wrote an official waiver of the rights to the crown of this country. And that says a lot. If Peter was the only legal heir to the throne of Russia for Elizabeth, then the Swedes did not have a shortage of applicants - they could choose from a dozen candidates. And they chose the young Duke of Holstein, who, according to the Notes of Catherine II, was not only a limited and infantile moron, but already at the age of 11 he was a complete alcoholic. And patiently waited for his decision for the whole 9 months. And in his native Kiel, the popularity of the 14-year-old Karl Peter Ulrich who went to Russia literally went wild. Something is wrong here, isn't it?

About the long years of the prince’s stay in our country as heir to the throne, about his accession to the throne, about the conspiracy organized by his wife against him, and the subsequent death in Ropsha will be described in the following articles.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    27 September 2019 06: 14
    There is a very simple method for determining how good and useful a Russian ruler was for Russia. If he is praised by "official" historians, he is a traitor or not a distant person. (Ptr1, A1, A2). If they hate or ridicule, then this is a patriot who did a lot for Russia (Alexey Tishaishy, ​​E2, A3, Stalin)
    1. +3
      27 September 2019 10: 22
      Yeah, Peter 1 was bad and you logic on evil mom frostbitten ears
      1. +1
        28 September 2019 11: 39
        Well, now Peter the Third has been recorded as unrecognized genius! request The fact that he is a complete parish .. the lesson says at least one fact. Once he publicly declared that he could be a Prussian colonel, and he is only the Russian emperor! fool A society in which anti-Prussian sentiments were strong (Seven Years War), this statement shocked! Or was everyone heard? Or did Catherine slander him? Or Catherine gave all the land to Frederick, abundantly watered with Russian blood? Let me remind you that East Prussia with Koenigsberg swore (including Kant) allegiance to the Russian crown! And finally, the third, what is it that you have to go .. then, having such super legitimacy (the grandson of Peter the Great) to pass the imperial crown! It is necessary to try very hard!
        1. 0
          30 September 2019 18: 41
          "The fact that he is a complete come..the lesson says at least one fact."
          You can scrape together such facts with a carriage, and a small cart: both the fact that he played soldiers and the way he bowed down to F2, and even he died not, as befits a decent Emperor, with an apocalyptic blow, but from liver colic, ...
          Try to guess with 3 times who wrote his official story after his murder ...
          1. 0
            30 September 2019 21: 21
            Quote: Ehanatone
            Try to guess with 3 times who wrote his official story after his murder ...

            Of course, he was a great statesman, and the whore Katka slandered him. And no one except Catherine "had the honor" to communicate with this clown? Answer the question I gave above:
            Quote: Proxima
            Or did Catherine slander him? Or Catherine gave all the land to Frederick, abundantly watered with Russian blood? Let me remind you that East Prussia with Koenigsberg swore allegiance (including Kant) to the Russian crown!

            Why did this ... idiot give up lands that were already Russian? (Only Stalin almost 200 years later partially corrected this stupidity) This only says one thing that Peter the Third was completely inadequate! fool And the "official history" has nothing to do with it.
        2. 0
          2 December 2019 01: 38
          By the way, Peter 3 could be both the king of Sweden and the Swedes (stupid dodges didn’t see that Peter was degenerating, right?) For about nine months they hoped that he would agree, but Elizabeth baptized him into Orthodoxy and the question was no longer asked. A husband-killer and a woman of reduced social responsibility, Catherine 2 (who declared herself great in 1767) - it was she who gave Prussia to Frederick in 1764 without any conditions (she merged Russia’s plans quietly through England, so that Frederick was compromising on her) - and Peter 3 did not intend to withdraw his troops until Glatz was surrendered and Frederick recaptured Schleswig from Denmark for Russia (Denmark had already begun to take out its belongings from there, no one had hoped to defend the region captured in 1720). So your scolding of Proxima betrays something that is funny, that is crazy on its side.
          By the way, regarding East Prussia - it was necessary to finish Frederick, thereby exorbitantly strengthening Austria (which always subsequently spoiled Russia) and then achieve recognition of these lands as ours, at the congress after the victory.
          Speaking in your manner, answer, how much profit have we received at any congresses of winners? Usually, our allies tried to deceive us, rob us and even fight against us immediately after the victory. So it’s not a fact that you would have gained something if you had Austria and France as allies, despite the oath you valued so much - it didn’t prevent you from easily returning under Frederick, the alliance with Germany has been our support for more than a hundred years. V. Prussia is a poor region, Glatz and Schleswig are rich and strategically important, and then they forced her son to exchange Holstein for Oldenburg and gave her uncle, they left the land from Russia.
          Man didn’t like everything Russian - there is so little real than one could be proud of then, Peter 1 also didn’t like everything Russian, he forcibly changed it to German.
          Peter 3 was a product of Western civilization and did not imagine that his wife could so easily change her country and use Western money to persuade officers-guardsmen to change the oath and kill the emperor. He believed in absolutism, was a kind and weak man, judging by the reviews of his contemporaries. Therefore, he did not dare to hang his wife - Shmaru. It's a pity.
      2. 0
        28 September 2019 11: 45
        Quote: Kronos
        Yeah, Peter 1 was bad and you logic on evil mom frostbitten ears

        Well, if Peter 1 is good for you, then what is it for you that Stalin is bad. Under Petka, the country's population decreased by a third. Do you want to live in his time, not just as a guard officer, but now, as a layman?
        1. +1
          28 September 2019 11: 48
          But Stalin and Lenin did not guess the outstanding leader. I didn’t want to live in the times of the Empire.
      3. 0
        5 November 2019 04: 49
        "Yeah, Peter 1 was bad, and your logic, I will frostbite my mother's ears."
        Yeah, yeah, a man who froze slavery for two centuries, and postponed industrial development, it’s noah which direction ...
        All its territories are worthless because for two centuries it destroyed development.! ...
        And this if you forget about the cost in human lives of the construction of a rotten city in the swamps - SP ...
        And these are only the most grandiose failures of the demoniac p1
  2. -1
    27 September 2019 06: 28
    The fact that they wanted to choose the Duke of Holstein as the Swedish king, for the sake of Holstein and its position in the rear of Denmark, it certainly does not occur to the author
    Britain's traditional hostility, what was it interesting about?
    And as it is not mentioned that Russia, Frederick only respected meeting Russian troops on the battlefield, and before that he believed that these barbarians were not worth his attention
    1. VLR
      +19
      27 September 2019 06: 52
      Dear, the author, who has studied a lot of literature on this issue, comes up with a lot of things :) What exactly - you will learn in the sequel, if you find the strength to read.
      As for Great Britain, the politicians of this country have always considered Russia either as an enemy or as an inferior ally, at the expense of which it was supposed to solve British problems. Russia agreed to provide its resources to English merchants and industrialists for a pittance and to fight for Britain - they smiled sweetly in London and even paid a percentage of the benefits to corrupt Russian politicians (gentlemen!). She did not agree - they killed emperors, financed conspiracies and staged revolutions (February, for example). As for the respect for Frederick II: in the Seven Years War, he solved his own problems, and he had no reason to fight with Russia (with which Prussia did not even have a common border). Russia entered this war because of the betrayal, bribed by the British, Bestuzhev and the excessive "gaiety" of Elizabeth. Other explanations have not been found by any of the serious historians - neither here nor abroad.
      1. -3
        27 September 2019 07: 17
        Bestuzhev, bribed by the British, launched a Russian attack on allied England, Prussia
        1. VLR
          +11
          27 September 2019 07: 27
          Not so simple. Bestuzhev also took money from Austria and got confused in financial matters and obligations. That is, the betrayal of Bestuzhev in general, who betrayed in favor of the one who is currently paying him. And then Bestuzhev tried to correct the "mistake" by betting on Catherine, whom he brought in with the British ambassador Williams and did not betray during the investigation. Catherine, by the way, at the decisive moment, received from one of the English merchants 100 thousand, which were used to finance the revolt of the guards in St. Petersburg (you understand that the modest merchant did not pay out of his own pocket). But I wrote at the end: let's try to figure out the continuation. You can't write everything in the comments.
        2. VLR
          0
          27 September 2019 10: 05
          By the way, more about this:
          "Bribed by the British, Bestuzhev arranged an attack by Russia on the allied England, Prussia"

          Britain at the beginning of the Seven Years' War was inclined towards an alliance with Austria and Russia - because Austria was at war with France. And Britain and France clashed at this time in North America, the West Indies, the Philippines and India. But then France entered the war with Prussia - and in order to distract the French from the colonies, the British quickly "changed their shoes" - took the side of Frederick II. And it really helped them to win in the New World.
    2. 0
      27 September 2019 14: 10
      Britain's traditional hostility, what was it interesting about?
      How in what? The fact that its main enemy throughout the 18th century was France, which, in turn, supported Porto, Rzecz Pospolita and Sweden, such, you know, friends of Russia.
      And of course, in the fact that it traditionally bought grain, wood, hemp, canvas and other goods for the fleet in Russia.
  3. +10
    27 September 2019 07: 21
    "The emperor plays the violin.
    The state is getting out of hand "(c).

    The selection of paintings is good - it conveys the tone of time.

    How many arguments - both pros and cons come out.

    There are points of view. And the question of Pilate so often remains unanswered.

    Thanks for the article and the topic.
    1. VLR
      +6
      27 September 2019 07: 39
      Yes, Gorodnitsky’s poem is very good and conveys the atmosphere of that fateful day. About the favorite violins of Peter III (of which there were a lot) - in the next article.
  4. +6
    27 September 2019 07: 38
    Thanks for the article, Valery! We look forward to continuing the apology.
  5. +11
    27 September 2019 08: 58
    An interesting article, I look forward to continuing. Maybe you shouldn’t have washed the bones of Valentin Savvich’s creativity. What do his assessments of personalities, deeds and events in the works mean - the author’s sincere errors or advances for the sake of printing (I am for this) - we will never know - and this doesn’t matter, because the main task - the patriotic perception of his native history - he fulfilled.
    On this topic . Would Peter 3 be a good ruler? For me not. For the ruler, it is important not only a good education, love for people and outlook on the world. What is important is his ability to defend himself, to count opponents, to draw his own line and, as a result, to make the entrusted state stronger. That is why Catherine, with all her sins and sins, remained in the history of the Great, and her, albeit three times beautiful husband, a controversial historical episode. In other words, it was necessary to fight for power in advance, think about how to hold this power and secure it after the aunt’s death, and he played the violin, amused himself with Vorontsova and indulged in dreams of projections.
    PS. About "cobras and tigers in the West Indies" at Pikul you are completely in vain ... I think it was just a literary allegory, and not delusions about the fauna of the islands of the Caribbean archipelago.
    Best regards hi
    PS2 If you have already touched on the novel "Pen and Sword", then maybe write an article about De Yeon? Maybe even to the question of the century about the sex of this cavalry girl, answer winked ?
    1. VLR
      +7
      27 September 2019 09: 23
      De Yeon - the person is already too muddy and unsympathetic. It is simply amazing why Pikul made him a good hero? I personally would be disgusted to write about him.
      1. +4
        27 September 2019 09: 31
        Quote: VlR
        I personally would be disgusted to write about him.

        Sorry . The nasty characters in the story are just as interesting as the positive ones. Yes, and then say - dig up any positive little more, then through one unflattering person, and even the wormholes are completely enough for everyone in biographies. what what
    2. +4
      27 September 2019 14: 15
      So about cobra and tigers says one of the heroes of the novel, and not the main one - he is excusable.
  6. 0
    27 September 2019 09: 01
    To the author.
    Do not tell me why on the ladies from the decollete there is no cross? What faith were they?
    1. VLR
      +2
      27 September 2019 09: 27
      Probably, it was not fashionable then to wear crosses (at least for show) - after all, the "Age of Enlightenment".
    2. +5
      27 September 2019 10: 16
      Quote: Boris55
      Do not tell me why on the ladies from the decollete there is no cross?

      The elite of the Court could not accept the simplicity of the cross and began to decorate it with silver, enamel, and then it came to gold.
      Secular ladies quickly figured out how to make sure that they don’t wear a cross and did not pass for a sinner.
      If the cross was not rich and beautiful enough, then the ladies took it off and hid it under a corset, fastened it to the dressing gown, sewn pockets for crosses on the belt, or even removed it at the balls and put it on in the carriage, going home.
      ...
      If there was no cross on the woman’s chest, this did not say that she did not wear it. She so skillfully hid him in secret pockets of underwear, in belts, under a corset, tied to his hip that all III Office could not find him together with Benckendorf.
      Gradually, the cross turned into a beautiful toy, and later it was replaced by a necklace, crystal pendants, gold chains, faceted stones. The proverb again appeared in Russian: “There is no cross on you!”
      When necessary, secular ladies hid the cross, when not needed - they pulled it out of the hiding place and hung it on the chest.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  7. +9
    27 September 2019 09: 04
    Valentine Savich wrote fiction books. Artistic, Carl. Can we expect a derogatory assessment by the superhistoric of “War and Peace”, “Les Miserables”, “Notre Dame de Paris”, “Peter the First” and “Camo Griadeshi”?
    1. VLR
      +13
      27 September 2019 09: 20
      You see, Valentin Savich wrote very good and reliable historical books. Novels by A. Dumas are not nearby. Therefore, it is precisely the reservations and mistakes of Pikul that are especially annoying - because readers want to believe him.
      1. +1
        27 September 2019 17: 12
        you are primitive and one-sided in quoting Pikul’s work with a phrase about non-existent cobras and tigers in the West Indies. The author SPECIALLY described this character as absolutely ignorant of the subject about which he speaks Russian-titled balabol.
        1. -1
          28 September 2019 09: 34
          That's right. About tigers in the Caribbean - this is a characteristic of a specific literary hero, not the author of a work.
  8. -1
    27 September 2019 09: 30
    A long time ago I did not read Pikul. And probably I won’t.
    1. 0
      27 September 2019 17: 15
      And I re-read Pikul many times. And it does not bother. was a true patriot of his nation.
      1. +1
        27 September 2019 19: 00
        Pikul was a graphomaniac. Who wrote his novels without leaving the apartment according to the principle: pull information from different sources and knead another propatriotic cooking. Hence all the mistakes. His novels can be compared with the yellow press both in fullness with high meaning and ideas, and in historical authenticity.
        A. Buryak correctly wrote about him:
        "... People who have mastered a patriotic upbringing and perceived patriotism as a value dominant and universal indulgence, become too vulnerable from the state, from political adventurers: patriots can easily be knocked into aggressive groups and sent to fight to the death with patriots of other states. A badly organized state requires a lot patriots as "cannon fodder" for protection from other badly organized states, while a well-organized state needs smart people who are also not alien to the patriotic feeling, but who are not blinded by it.
        Pikul - a cultivator of cheap patriotism to the detriment of tolerance, thinking, the desire to correct society. The Soviet communist ideology, which did not "fit" into the Pikulev mentality, was - for all its shortcomings - a worldview of a higher intellectual level than Pikulev's patriotism. Communist ideology and communist practice is the second (after Christianity) big and unsuccessful attempt to understand the causes of eternal social problems (enmity, injustice) and to establish an alternative form of human relations. Let's say the writer Ivan Efremov (1908-1972) tried to develop a communist attempt, while Pikul was engaged in undermining it, using its weaknesses. Efremov "raised" society in an organizational sense (more precisely, he tried to "raise"), and Pikul - on the contrary, "lowered" (and, probably, successfully): to the barbaric simplicity of manners, when the main thing was to unite in time, get excited and break with shouts towards the rallied and excited (or better, those who did not manage to do it) enemies. If Efremov was a chance for a breakthrough, then Pikul was an ideological and organizational retreat to old positions ... "
        Link: http://bouriac.narod.ru/Pikul.htm
    2. 0
      2 October 2019 16: 29
      Minus one. Good luck watching raramarines 3,4,5 13
  9. +3
    27 September 2019 10: 07
    The "good" Peter III gave up what the "bad" Elizabeth I conquered for Russia - East Prussia.

    The mere presence in the Russian state of this region (which was an order of magnitude larger than the current Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation) would make Napoleon (and, in fact, a united Europe, including Prussia) war impossible against Russia, the Crimean War (when the Kingdom of Prussia took over a significant part of the Russian army ), The First and Second World Wars.

    Even if the WWII did take place, then Russia, bordering central Germany almost in the Berlin area, would join it at the last stage (like the USA) and would reap all the fruits of the war without significant losses, would be among the winners and strangle any German revanchism, including Hitler's Nazism, would be in the bud.
    1. VLR
      +6
      27 September 2019 10: 12
      Oh no!!! No and no! East Prussia was given to Frederick by Catherine II. Read the sequel. Peter III concluded a peace treaty that was fantastically beneficial for Russia with Frederick. Catherine II did not dare to insist on its terms - fulfilling obligations to Frederick (besides, letters that were very terrible for her were in his desk drawer) and in exchange for recognizing herself as empress. Russian troops were stationed in Pomerania. By order of Peter, a Russian squadron came to Konigsberg from Revel (Kronstadt was ready to march). Stationary warehouses for food and ammunition were equipped. Frederick received Prussia only after Schleswig and Dietmarschen brought Russia on a silver platter. And, "the icing on the cake" - even after receiving Schleswig and Dietmarschen, Russia had the right to give Prussia to Frederick, but leave its troops in it for an indefinite time - such a "western group of forces" controlling a new ally. Catherine withdrew the Russian troops without any conditions - like Gorbachev and Yeltsin from the former GDR.
      1. +1
        27 September 2019 11: 16
        You contradict yourself - the contract was concluded by Peter III, and Catherine II just fulfilled it.

        The inclusion of East Prussia in Russia would also save our country from the total civil war and post-war devastation that were the result of the defeat in the WWII.

        A characteristic historical fact - the German population of East Prussia welcomed the transfer to the citizenship of the Russian Empire due to the removal of the huge tax burden on the maintenance of the Prussian army and the cessation of mass mobilization of recruits for Frederick II.

        The German Peter III was just an infantile young man with a non-Russian mentality, who could not recognize himself as the head of another country - the Russian Empire (which the German Catherine II was able to do).
        1. VLR
          +2
          27 September 2019 11: 26
          Catherine II refused the contract concluded by Peter III. She concluded her contract with Frederick through 2 of the year - there were concessions from Russia on him, there were no requirements for Frederick.
          However, why do not you want to wait a bit and read the sequel? There are answers to all your questions, believe me.
          1. -2
            27 September 2019 11: 51
            “On April 24, 1762, the Russian Empire ceased its participation in the Seven Years War. By the will of Peter III, who ascended the throne, who wished to conclude a peace treaty with the Prussian king Frederick the Great, all Russia's achievements in this war were canceled out.

            Already on the day of the death of Elizabeth I, who fell on 1761 on Christmas Day, the new Russian monarch Peter III sent his close friend IV Gudovich to Frederick II with the news of his accession to the throne and with a statement of intention to restore “peace and friendship” with Prussia . Emperor Peter III concluded a separate peace, according to which Russia withdrew from the Seven Years War, pledged to promote the conclusion of peace between its individual participants and voluntarily returned to Prussia all the territories occupied by Russian troops, including East Prussia.

            Prior to this, no one, including Frederick himself, doubted that East Prussia would forever remain part of the Russian Empire. “If they (Russians) want to leave behind (East) Prussia forever, then let them reward me from the other side,” Friedrich declared, discussing the possible conditions of the world. The readiness to cede East Prussia to Russia was also mentioned in the instructions given by the Prussian king to his envoy Baron Goltz, who had gone on negotiations to Petersburg. Peter III completely unexpectedly told Goltz that he would be glad to accept the draft peace treaty developed by Frederick II. The Prussian king, of course, was not slow to take advantage of the proposal and sent a draft peace treaty, in which no concessions were discussed. This project was unconditionally accepted by the Russian Emperor.

            The apologists of Peter III point out that during the short reign of this monarch, Russian troops continued to occupy the territory of East Prussia, but they did this for the very definite purpose of protecting German Prussia from Russia's recent allies in the Seven Years War of the Austro-Hungarians. Catherine II broke the alliance treaty with Prussia, but upheld the St. Petersburg peace treaty because of her unwillingness to continue the war amid confrontation not only with the French and Austro-Hungarians, but also with the Germans.

            As a result of the high treason of Peter III, the Seven Years' War ended in 1763 with the victory of the Anglo-Prussian coalition, which influenced the geopolitical picture of the world. The French were forced to cede Canada, East Louisiana, the Caribbean islands and the main part of their colonies in India to the British, Prussia received back East Prussia (a bridgehead for aggression to the East) and secured Polish Silesia for itself ", - Doctor of History A. Ivanov
            1. 0
              30 September 2019 19: 25
              "As a result of high treason of Peter III, the Seven Years War ended in 1763 with the victory of the Anglo-Prussian coalition"
              And the question never arises, but what kind of scumbag Russia in general has trampled into Prussia
            2. 0
              2 December 2019 02: 09
              A. Ivanov, I also found a specialist in the history of Russia of the 18th century. Here are his victories:

              In March 1982 he was admitted to the Department of the History of the CPSU at the ISU Faculty of Natural Sciences on an hourly basis. In November 1986 he entered the correspondence postgraduate course at the Department of the History of the CPSU, and from October 1, 1987 he became an assistant teacher in this department. Since 1991 - teacher, since 1994 - senior teacher, and since 1995 - associate professor of the Department of Russian History. In 1988 he was transferred to full-time postgraduate study, after which in December 1990, in a specialized council at ISU, he defended his Ph.D. thesis "The influence of exiled social democrats on the labor movement in Eastern Siberia (1910 - February 1917)" - scientific adviser Doctor of History, Professor N.N. Shcherbakov.

              1998 to 2001 studied in doctoral studies at the Department of Russian History and Political Science, and in April 2002 at the Scientific Council at the Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddhism and Tibetology of the SB RAS he defended his doctoral dissertation "Historiography of political exile to Siberia in the second half of the XIX - early XX centuries." in the specialty 07.00.09. Scientific consultant Professor N.N. Shcherbakov.
              Read better A. Melnikov, he’s been engaged in Peter 30 for 3 years, also incidentally a doctor of historical sciences.
        2. 0
          27 September 2019 21: 56
          those Germans who went to the Russian Empire in the Baltic were enough for the higher
          the reward was "make me German!"). and if a much more developed East Prussia with an active and literate population were annexed, soon the entire administrative apparatus
          and the officer corps would be 100% German. would result in Big Prussia.
      2. +1
        19 October 2019 17: 39
        Absolutely right. The arguing defenders of Catherine are not aware of what was happening then. An agreement with Frederick was needed to save Prussia (or rather Brandenburg, because Elizabeth occupied Prussia as such) from absorption by Austria and Poland - this would be the most fatal for Russia, which would radically prevent the transformation of Russia into a great power. Peter 3 understood the need to preserve Prussia as a counterweight to Austria. And East Prussia returned to Brandenburg only after the military campaign against Denmark and the annexation of Schleswig to Holstein, and these latter to Russia. In addition, Peter 3 had a plan at the same time to be elected as the Danish king (that is, all of Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Greenland would go to Russia in this case - / which is 2 times more than Alaska). And when the Russian troops marched through Prussia to the Danish borders - a coup took place in St. Petersburg - and all the geopolitical results of the Seven-Day War, which Peter 3 perfectly optimized and tuned, went to pieces.
  10. -4
    27 September 2019 10: 44
    Not so ugly "" in Groot's portrait, is it?

    Unconditioned genus, imbecile, infantile. alcoholic, traitor, German in spirit and blood, sincerely hating. misunderstood and despised Russia. Orthodoxy and the Russian people.

    For the author, the Panins and Vorontsovs, who know "parsley" up close, are not authorities. And who are the authorities?
    We read: in
    Germany a certain Justi issued a treatise on Russia, in which there were such lines:

    Ooh, wow, "authority! good lol

    And what did the real authorities write?

    We read V.O. Klyuchevsky:
    He was born and raised a frail child, poorly endowed with abilities. What did not guess refuse unfavorable nature, then managed to rob him of the absurd Holstein pedagogy. Early becoming an orphan, Peter, in Holstein, received worthless education under the guidance of an ignorant courtier, who was rude to him, subjected to humiliating and unhealthy punishments, even for the prince. Humbled and shy in everything, he learned bad tastes and habits, became irritable, foolish, stubborn and false, acquired a sad tendency to lie, with a simple-minded enthusiasm, believing in his own fabrications, and in Russia Accustomed to getting drunk. He was taught so badly in Holstein that he came to Russia with a 14-year-old round ignoramus and even Empress Elizabeth was struck by his ignorance.

    The rapid change of circumstances and parenting programs has completely baffled weak his head. Forced to learn this or that without communication and order, Peter ended up not learning anything, and the dissimilarity of the Holstein and Russian situations, the senselessness of Kiel and St. Petersburg impressions completely weaned him from understanding the environment. His development stopped before his growth.; in the summer of courage, he remained the same as he was in childhood, grew up without ripening. His way of thinking and acting gave the impression of something surprisingly unfinished and unfinished. He looked at serious things with a childish look, and treated his childish undertakings with the seriousness of a mature husband. He was like a child imagining himself an adult; in fact it was an adult, forever a child. Already being married, in Russia, he could not part with his favorite dolls, after which he was repeatedly forced by court visitors.
    this man inside out, from whom the concepts of good and evil were confused, ascended the Russian throne. Here he retained all the narrowness and pettiness of thoughts and interests in which he was brought up and raised. His mind, Holstein's cramped, could not expand into the geographical measure of the unlimited empire that he accidentally inherited. On the contrary, on Russian throne Peter became even more Holsteinthan was at home. It was with particular force that the quality spoke with which the stingy nature for him endowed him with merciless generosity: this there was cowardice, coupled with frivolous carelessness.

    He was afraid of everything in Russia, called her a damned country.

    Prussian messenger before accession, sending information about the Russian army to Frederick II in the Seven Years WarPeter on Russian throne became loyal Prussian Minister.

    That, in fact, is all that you need to know about it ...
    1. VLR
      +7
      27 September 2019 10: 54
      Olgovich, you, unfortunately, simply do not want to know the uncomfortable truth for you. If, nevertheless, you want to learn something new for yourself on this topic, read the sequel. Is it more convenient for you to know "jokes"? Then don't read it.
      1. -8
        27 September 2019 11: 52
        Quote: VlR
        Olgovich, you, unfortunately, simply do not want to know what is inconvenient for you the truth.

        Does anyone have a monopoly on the truth? belay

        IN. Klyuchevsky for me is more authority than - " a certain Justi "from ... Germany and others like him
        Quote: VlR
        If, nevertheless, you want to learn something new for this topic, read the continuation.

        Read with interest.
        Quote: VlR
        Is it more convenient for you to know "jokes"?

        Klyuchevsky, in your opinion, wrote ... "jokes"?

        I still see jokes from a certain Justi and Rumier
        1. VLR
          +3
          27 September 2019 12: 18
          Well, you will read and draw conclusions as information becomes available (without looking ahead). To agree or not is up to you.
      2. -1
        27 September 2019 14: 23
        Quote: VlR
        Olgovich, you, unfortunately, simply do not want to know the truth that is inconvenient for you.

        True for you too. What should the ruler provide first thing? The economy? Expanding borders? Figwam. Continuity of power. This is what comes first. Without this, the country could fall into a second turmoil. And no conquered Prussia will save. And now we look at the year of the wedding of Petya with Katya, the date of birth of Pasha, and realize that Emperor Petya was simply an outstanding ruler. For which bloks were an order of magnitude more important than empire. By the way, he died in consequence of these. Be a decent husband, you could live longer.
        1. 0
          29 September 2019 09: 24
          Lanan, and you are close to the truth
    2. 0
      21 October 2019 02: 50
      Klyuchevsky has some value (and even small) as the author of a dissertation on the boyar’s Duma and some statues about the economy of the 16th century. In all other respects, this is a limited, terribly stupid and lightweight deacon, a non-fellow, yapping stealthily at the monarchy and ideological foundations of the Republic of Ingushetia
    3. 0
      2 December 2019 01: 57
      Klyuchevsky wrote the libel on Peter 3 because his customer Alexander needed to justify his grandmother-whore and husband-killer, otherwise in Europe they looked at him-father-killer quite askew. Read not the clerk, but real scientists, Karamzin, for example. About Peter 3 respectfully responded as Tatishchev, Lomonosov.
      In terms of practice - how did an alcoholic get up at 7 in the morning? and how did imbecile personally participate in the preparation of more than 200 normative acts (including oral) for half a year, which Catherine really canceled in order to subsequently publish many in her own name, which made her fame?
  11. +5
    27 September 2019 10: 46
    Paying tribute to Pikul, as a popularizer of history, one should always remember that, first of all, he is a writer, that is, a dreamer, an inventor, whose main goal is to entertain the reader, and not enlighten.
    Valery, with all due respect to your work, I believe that you need to determine the goals that you pursue as an author. Either you are trying to conduct an objective study and bring its results to us, or you are trying to provoke a sharp controversy, showing us obviously controversial concepts under the guise of the final truth, or simply, like the same Pikul, you are trying to entertain the esteemed public with funny and not very stories on a historical topic. I periodically note in your work the elements of all of the above and, accordingly, sometimes I get lost how to react - try to argue, prove something, just watch the fan running process from afar or give up on the article with the words "the artist sees this, has the right" and never come back to her.
    In this article, in my opinion, the desire to provoke controversy to the detriment of objectivity prevails. Keep in mind that the result of your exercises is, among other things, the following comments:
    Quote: Siberia 75
    There is a very simple method for determining how good and useful a Russian ruler was for Russia. If he is praised by "official" historians, he is a traitor or not a distant person. (Ptr1, A1, A2). If they hate or ridicule, then this is a patriot who did a lot for Russia (Alexey Tishaishy, ​​E2, A3, Stalin)

    I understand that you cannot be responsible for every reader, stupidity is stupidity, but there is also your merit in the appearance of such "highly intelligent" comments, and you must be aware of this.
    Once again, I want to note that your attitude towards England and the British seems completely tendentious to me, and the hostility to them that you expose in your article hinders the objective assessment of the deep and long-standing relations between Russia and Britain, mainly allied or neutral. In this, you are pouring water intensively into the mill of today's brainless cheers-patriots, repeating the mantra about the Anglo-Saxons hostile to the Russian world, the Masters of the West and other Jewish masons and reptilians, because of which we cannot eat three throats for free, as they do in todays USA.
    Sincerely. hi
    1. +3
      27 September 2019 12: 03
      Bravo Michael, good comment
    2. +1
      27 September 2019 12: 26
      I believe one of the criteria for a successful sovereign is the ability to maintain power.

      An alternative view of human qualities may be. But here it’s different.
    3. +2
      27 September 2019 13: 08
      Either you try to conduct an objective study and bring its results to us, or you try to provoke a sharp controversy, showing us obviously disputed concepts under the guise of final truth
      Michael, a sharp controversy (srach on Internet slang) will be in any case. Here the author is completely not to blame. Unfortunately, the prolonged use of history as a propaganda tool has paid off, so under any article on a historical topic there will always be some kind of apologist for historical dementialism from the Romanian branch of the Rurikovich and who wants to indulge in a futile discussion with him.
      As for the objectivity of the study, it is more complicated. I immediately recall Anatole France: "If the so-called historical fact is caused, perhaps and probably, by one or more non-historical facts and thus unknown, how can a historian establish the relationship and continuity between them? .. But in fact he is being deceived, and he gives faith to one or another witness, guided only by feeling. "
      On the one hand, the author seems to be trying to fight non-historical facts like the bias of his contemporaries in the characteristics of Peter III, but immediately, "guided only by feeling," falls into classical anglophobia, which in Russia has already acquired a practically mystical character and does not contribute to objectivity.
      In this regard, the biography of Peter III in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, a German biographical encyclopedia, 56 volumes of which were published from 1875 to 1912, is indicative. It was written by the famous Danish biographer Ferdinand von Krogh. He sets out the facts in sufficient detail, but completely avoids their assessment, limiting himself after indicating the date of accession to the throne with one phrase: "His further actions and fate completely belong to Russian history."
      Perhaps in the sequel, the author will still try to escape from the embrace of "feelings" and focus on "facts."
      1. -1
        27 September 2019 19: 51
        Quote: Undecim
        Perhaps in the sequel, the author will still try to escape from the embrace of "feelings" and focus on "facts."

        Ah, Viktor Nikolayevich, your words, yes to God’s ears. smile
        Valery is a stubborn, consistent and convinced person, so I would not particularly count on objectivity in the future, especially with regard to Britain. smile
        A "sharp controversy" smile not always evil. Almost always, but still not always, especially if in it as a result goodness and common sense prevail. smile In addition, it helps to let off steam, stimulates the replenishment of vocabulary, knowledge and, in general, allows you to keep yourself in good shape. smile
        1. +2
          27 September 2019 20: 14
          And "sharp polemics" are not always evil ... especially if good and common sense wins in it. В
          In contrast to the discussion, the purpose of which is precisely the unification of different points of view, that is, just the victory of good and common sense, polemics implies exclusively the victory of one of the parties. At the same time, in the course of polemics, the main thing is often not using facts, but arrogance and a loud voice. This can be clearly seen on the website. when an aggressive flock of hamsters trolls the opponent, who in the end will spit on such a "controversy" accompanied by a joyful squeak "merged again." So I am in favor of a discussion with a worthy opponent, "it helps to release steam, stimulates the replenishment of vocabulary, knowledge and, in general, allows you to keep yourself in good shape."
          1. +2
            27 September 2019 20: 46
            A discussion with a worthy opponent like a glass with very good cognac is pleasant, useful, but rare. She pacifies and calms. smile
            "Sharp polemics" - a fight without rules, often against a numerically superior enemy - excites, forces one to mobilize and use all available techniques to win. Sometimes such gymnastics is necessary, at least for me. smile
      2. 0
        27 September 2019 19: 57
        Victor, bravo. All laid out on shelves
    4. +1
      30 September 2019 19: 19
      "about the Anglo-Saxons hostile to the Russian world, the Masters of the West and other Jewish-Masons"
      Well, it’s not such a phobia, it’s enough to recall the not-so-old history of WWII, or read the latest news.
  12. +2
    27 September 2019 10: 54
    The correct article.
    Catherine seized the throne and killed her husband. Therefore, they watered Peter 3 with mud - look, from what reptile the Queen Mother saved us.
    Peter ruled for 186 days and signed a decree on religious tolerance (amnesty for schismatics, equalized all religions). For the first time in Russian legislation, the murder of serfs by Peter was qualified as "tyrannical torment." He issued a "Decree on the Liberty of the Noble."
    He wasn’t a fool.
  13. VLR
    +6
    27 September 2019 11: 01
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    In this article, in my opinion, the desire to provoke controversy to the detriment of objectivity prevails.

    You see, in this case, it is objectivity that will provoke controversy. Because the facts cited contradict everything that was taught in school, that people read in novels and saw on television screens. But these are facts. Nothing to do about. I could write a slick article, collecting "jokes" in it - and everyone would like it very much. But I do not want. I want to write exactly the truth.
    1. +1
      27 September 2019 19: 36
      Quote: VlR
      I want to write the truth.

      I don't know, Valery, where the truth is. Not so long ago, Yegor Yakovlev began a series of lectures by Boris Kipnis about Catherine II on the "Digital History" YouTube channel. Kipnis is far from the clichés imposed on us by Soviet historiography about Peter III, but he also does not lean towards total clarification of his image. In general, in my opinion, his position is sufficiently substantiated and, most importantly, is devoid of ideological blinders and clichés, unlike your article. A lecture on the Seven Years War, just the period that you describe in your article, at least in part, can be listened to here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzMt0J7eohg or on request "Catherine II: Seven Years War / Boris Kipnis ".
      I could retell the content of this video (an hour and a quarter) here, but it seems to me that it is better to watch, listen to it in the original. If you get used to Kipnis's way of writing the material (it is somewhat peculiar, but fortunately not academic), then you can spend time with much greater benefit than reading my comments. smile
      By the way, I recommend watching a series of Kipnis-Yakovlev videos to anyone interested in this period in the history of Russia and Catherine the Great in particular.
  14. -1
    27 September 2019 11: 35
    portraits of all rulers are not always respectable.
    They are the usual primates of the dominant. The fact that they have a lot of food / clothing and sexual partners is simply evidence of dominance. I see nothing wrong with that.
    The presence of many favorites is a sign of greatness of rulers.
    Mores in Russia have changed a lot with the advent of Peter. Amantas became for everyone.
    Moreover, the Germans did not particularly bother with some kind of morality. The main thing is to hide that.
    Whose son is Pavel (Saltykov or husband)
    A young girl, why wouldn’t she love all kinds of handsome men ... if her husband isn’t Apollo.
    if Peter 3 lost the throne, it means the ruler of Russia and it wouldn’t work out of him.
    Yes, and he managed to give free nobles.
    And the small Danish showdowns would not have been Russia’s face after brilliant victories in Prussia - mediocrely given to Frederick.
    In general, the main witness is Aleksey (something his brother and favorite and lover of the princess knew) Orlov.
    You can still interview was the favorite of Peter.
    Yes, a lot of people knew and saw the last Russian emperor .. (by blood)
    1. -1
      27 September 2019 19: 53
      Antares, in my opinion: "the last Russian emperor (by blood) is Ioan Antonovich. And about Peter 1, there are doubts that the orn is legitimate: Natalya Kirillovna was of a" cheerful disposition "and could .... as they say" gulnut ". this read Buganov: Peter the Great and his time
      1. -1
        28 September 2019 21: 37
        Quote: Astra wild
        Antares, in my opinion: "the last Russian emperor (by blood) - Ioan Antonovich

        perhaps, but it’s not clear there, so much is mixed. On a thin one.
        All the same, it is always difficult to understand who the father is. Natalya, of course, loved men, but mores did not allow her to start amanthus directly.
        She had Kravchians, but they quickly got rid of them.
        By the way, they were very tall and strong men. So the theory about "walking around Peter" is quite realistic.
        The answer can only be given by research.
        All women and men of the world love to "go out" or are capable of it.
        This is nature. This is how it diversifies the gene pool.
    2. +1
      30 September 2019 19: 10
      "after brilliant victories in Prussia - to the mediocre surrender to Friedrich"
      And the question never arises, but what kind of scumbag Russia in general has trampled into Prussia
  15. +2
    27 September 2019 12: 18
    Peter III, second cousin of Sophia Augusta Frederica of Angalst-Zerbska, was also the great-granddaughter of Charles XII. According to the “Complete Collection of Laws ...”, thanks to Peter III, heir to three royal houses at once: Russian, Swedish, and Holstein, one hundred and ninety-two documents were passed in their short term of office, which amounted to only one hundred and eighty-six days. After his death, impostors began to appear in the country, posing as Peter III. At the time of Pushkin there were rumors of five; according to the latest data, in Russia alone there were about forty false Petrov III.
  16. +3
    27 September 2019 12: 25
    The article is interesting and it goes without saying that the sins of Peter III were enlarged during the reign of Catherine. But one cannot fail to note the fact that Peter surrendered without a struggle for the throne, although he had opportunities and good advisers (the same Minih). This indicates a lack of character, and in the future could adversely affect the country as a whole.
  17. VLR
    +3
    27 September 2019 12: 37
    Quote: Alexander Morozov
    Peter surrendered without a fight for the throne, although he had opportunities and good advisers (the same Minih).

    Everything ahead - a very interesting article, in my opinion, turned out to be devoted specifically to the Conspiracy. Almost a detective.
  18. +4
    27 September 2019 12: 40
    Valery, largely agree with you.
    1) about Elizabeth. She went to her mother Martha Skavronskaya, and this lady was not a model of mind and morality. True, Elizabeth’s father was also not the most moral person, but SMART
    2) I agree about Paul.
    3) it will be unnatural if the conspirators praise their victim. In their memoirs, I can pursue different goals: to justify ourselves, to please the authorities (Benigsen example) to express their opinion.
    Eidelman has a good analysis of this why the people “willingly stood under the banner of Emperor Peter Fedorovich”. That Petrov Fedorovich was 40 pieces is not an indicator that he is good.
    Valery, what I disagree with you: Klyuchevsky is one of the most serious historians and cannot be suspected of superficial analysis.
    I am waiting for the continuation
    1. +2
      27 September 2019 15: 25
      Quote: vladcub
      Valery, largely agree with you.
      1) about Elizabeth. She went to her mother Martha Skavronskaya, and this lady was not a model of intelligence and morality.
      The period of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna was marked by the beginning of the humanization of the criminal legislation of the Russian Empire. First of all, this concerned the introduction of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, the relaxation of sentences for minors, the increase in the age of majority to determine the measure of responsibility for the crimes committed and the severity of the punishment for them. Over the 20 years of the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, from 1741 to 1761, not a single death penalty was committed.
      Quote: vladcub
      Eidelman has a good analysis of this why the people “willingly stood under the banner of Emperor Peter Fedorovich”. That Petrov Fedorovich was 40 pieces is not an indicator that he is good.
      But not bad either. Peasants shed their blood only for the sovereign Emperor Peter Fedorovich.
      1. -2
        27 September 2019 23: 09
        And with whom then recruited the army after him?
      2. 0
        29 September 2019 09: 16
        To Ivan Petrov. You are right: under Elizabeth there were no executions
  19. +4
    27 September 2019 13: 09
    At one time he was interested in a bit of history, and Pikul read of course. Omitting all the details - that with Peter the Third, that with Paul everything is very difficult, very. And do not smear them with black paint alone. According to the article - the article is interesting (the story is generally an interesting thing), thanks to the author, I will definitely read the continuation.
  20. +2
    27 September 2019 15: 01
    It’s funny to see this article on topvar after yesterday, all evening and night with a friend just on the subject of this character, many copies of the polamali smile What interesting coincidences sometimes happen ...

    In almost everything I agree with my respected colleague Mikhail (Trilobite Master). Although in official history there is a maximum blackening of the figure of Peter III, but to do the exact opposite, i.e. idealize it, IMHO, is still not worth it - but it is precisely such trends that are now observed among lovers of Russian history. This character could be arbitrarily good (of which there is practically no doubt), educated (with which doubts arise, although he was no longer completely ignorant by the 1762 year), honest and humane, but this is disastrously small in order to be an effective ruler , especially in the mid-18th century Russia. But why is there such a ruler in Russia is always difficult. There, Nicholas II, despite some dubious character traits, is also called a good, educated, honest and good family man, but almost all agree that as emperor he was not in his place, and at the wrong time. So with Peter III - how many diametrically opposed reads about him, but anyway the impression is made of him as an adult child. Not a bad one, not an alcoholic, not mentally underdeveloped, but still a child, with his own characteristics of character, including naivety, kindness and humanity. He had progressive views, but he did not have the opportunity to put them into practice - and without Catherine and others, the guards would sooner or later be replaced by him, for one simple reason: he was a German on the Russian throne, who did not want or could not even Russian public. His supporters were either Germans or those who still vote in the elections for the ruling party just because it is the ruling party. But on this it was no longer possible to leave and hold onto power at the time when conspiracies were drawn up with the participation of foreign ambassadors and guard officers. At the same time, his son was also burnt. Peter III would rule his Holstein, or be the specific prince of some other German principality - and there, perhaps, he would become a good, successful ruler. But for Russia, he is a man in the wrong place and at the wrong time. And to make him some kind of super-king, to exaggerate the positive features, declaring the negative slander - IMHO, it’s wrong, though in Russian. Our people love extremes ...

    Well, about the prejudice against the British - I also agree with my distinguished colleague Mikhail. You can declare the British as hereditary Russian enemies as much as you like, but this will be nothing more than another domestic exaggeration. The British had a much greater degree of confrontation with the French and Spaniards - but there was no question of any "hereditary enmity" either, from time to time they fought, then reconciled and even allied. This is the whole European policy, which we, apparently, cannot understand. And what the British actively acted with "dishonest" methods is the pragmatism, which we, alas, learn and learn. England had considerable savings, but did not have the opportunity to deploy large armies for a long time and wage successful military operations on land with strong European powers one-on-one, for they outnumbered her in population at times. In such a situation, when you cannot ensure your survival in the war by force, for you are weak in itself, you will have to look for allies who will fight for you, for your own money, or try to turn an unpredictable or hostile government into neutral or friendly with money. And the fact that Russia has more than once proved to be malleable to such a policy is a claim to our Russians, not the British, because demand creates supply ...
    1. +3
      27 September 2019 19: 54
      Quote: arturpraetor
      In almost everything I agree with my respected colleague Mikhail (Trilobite Master).

      Thank you Artem.
      For my part, I also agree with the theses you set out. And not on the principle of "cock and cuckoo" in the "allaverdi" style, but precisely because I share your opinion. hi
    2. -4
      28 September 2019 06: 43
      Quote: arturpraetor
      Peter III would rule his Holstein, or be the specific prince of some other German princedom - and there, perhaps, he would become a good, successful ruler.

      Hardly: the same passions are raging in the small principalities, and in empires, and even in small collectives of several people ...
    3. 0
      30 September 2019 19: 00
      "But for Russia, he is a person in the wrong place and at the wrong time."
      I fully join, but it’s surprising, that’s what
      well P3 was not from this world, but you can’t say about Paul 1, and that the experience of his ancestors did not teach him that this swamp of the guard needs to be drained somehow, drained, in general elimination, in the best way, through the guillotine like P1 with archers ....
      Although the latter can not stand ...
  21. 0
    27 September 2019 15: 24
    Quote: VlR
    You see, Valentin Savich wrote very good and reliable historical books. Novels by A. Dumas are not nearby. Therefore, it is precisely the reservations and mistakes of Pikul that are especially annoying - because readers want to believe him.

    Yes, not without reason V.S. Pikul was nicknamed "Spikul from history". His novels are as good as the first book in patriotic education, but nothing more.
  22. +2
    27 September 2019 16: 23
    Quote: Siberia 75
    There is a very simple method for determining how good a Russian ruler was and useful to Russia.

    Not one, but several.

    For example, you can compare the pace of population growth under a particular ruler.

    An increase, or (as with the cannibal V.I. Lenin) a decrease in the territory of the state.

    By the degree of inequality (ratio of 10% of the poorest 10% of the richest, in relation to the current situation, 98% of ordinary citizens of Russia to 2% of celestials).

    smaug78 wrote:
    "Quote: VLR
    You see, Valentin Savich wrote very good and reliable historical books. Novels by A. Dumas are not nearby. Therefore, it is precisely the reservations and mistakes of Pikul that are especially annoying - because readers want to believe him.

    Yes, not without reason V.S. Pikul was nicknamed "Spikul from history". His novels are as good as the first book in patriotic education, but nothing more. "


    An interesting fact is that most of the criticism of Pikul was published by frankly Zionist, Russophobic authors.
  23. +3
    27 September 2019 16: 23
    The article is true, for the most part, Russian nobles were landowners, barter flourished in the country, and to turn the grain over for gold or silver to the British or Europeans was a thief, this led to the fact that a huge part of the nobility was actually supported by other states, including the great princes
  24. 0
    27 September 2019 17: 00
    I advise this "revisionist" to read "Favorite" of the same Pikul .. About this Peter III my opinion is one-geek and.
  25. 0
    27 September 2019 17: 18
    Quote: VlR
    besides, very scary letters for her were in the drawer of his desk)

    Yes, you are the foremost rapper. Have you seen these letters? Or have they been seen by the ones you quote?
    1. VLR
      +2
      27 September 2019 18: 13
      In the archives of the letter, don't worry. Even an ardent admirer of Catherine II V. Pikul did not try to deny their presence. But it was Pikul with the famous novel "Favorite" that provoked today's "cult" of Catherine in Russia. Before the release of this novel in our country, this empress was known to the general public only from scabrous anecdotes.
      1. 0
        27 September 2019 20: 38
        So he was called the spicule of history. so it is desirable to have more reliable evidence - what kind of scary letters
  26. +2
    27 September 2019 19: 33
    Valery, I read your story in one breath. I am not yet ready to agree or disagree with your assessments, but purely out of harm: "the face of Narcissus and the physique of Hercules or Appalon" is traditionally considered to be that a man should be a little more beautiful than a monkey. There is a legend that once Socrates was asked what or who is the measure of beauty
    -A monkey
    -But a girl is prettier than a monkey? -
    - And if you compare the goddess and the girl. Who will be the girl next to the goddess?
    -Monkey. "This is about male beauty. (But we prefer that our chosen one was Apollo)
    And one more thing: “according to rumors, I could not forgive Peter for the closeness of her own older sister Elizaveta Vorontsova,” and women are often ambitious and jealously vindictive. Do you think Catherine would have refused the request of her favorite Dashkova to excommunicate Vorontsov from the Court? The empress did not follow Vorontsov, and if Dashkova wanted it, Vorontsova would have been sour. So not every rumor can be trusted.
    Dashkova had a lot of ill-wishers and they could very well slander Dashkova.
    Who knows, maybe Dashkova was immediately jealous of her older sister, but not to the extent that she hated Peter 3. Agree that it was more logical to strive to push the older sister, but this did not happen. I think that Dashkova, without any falsity or calculation, became close to Catherine. Why do I think so: she wrote her memoirs after the death of Empress Catherine in spite of the fact that she fell into disgrace, she did not feel anger towards the Empress, and for ambitious people it fell off. Is it logical?
  27. +2
    27 September 2019 19: 40
    And these qualities were courage, decisiveness, ambition and unprincipledness. And yet - an invaluable gift to correctly evaluate people and charm those who were suitable to fulfill its goals.

    + mind. A universal brief description of a non-talented statesman turned out. If you "screw" it not to Sophia Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbst, but, for example, to Guy Julius Caesar, Guy Octavius ​​Furin, Kal the Great, Vladimir Svyatoslavich Rurikovich, Timudzhin Yasugeyevich Borjiginov, Timur ibn Taras, then we respect the people will be perfect!
    1. +1
      27 September 2019 20: 29
      Bravo, Igor!
      1. 0
        27 September 2019 20: 56
        Igor the Great has a small incident with Igor.
        1. +1
          27 September 2019 21: 12
          It happens, Viktor Nikolaevich ... I really appreciate his mind erudition and sense of humor.
        2. +1
          27 September 2019 21: 29
          I apologize, Victor Nikolaevich. Tough day. Brains - in porridge ... When I noticed it was too late. But nothing ... Let the damned fascist know! laughing
          1. +2
            27 September 2019 21: 31
            So I’m solely for raising the mood! It happens, especially from a tablet or smartphone.
            1. +2
              27 September 2019 22: 00
              That's the trouble with claudia.
  28. 0
    30 September 2019 18: 44
    Why it was necessary to pay so much attention to Pikul's artistic fiction, because the latter has never been positioned as a historian, namely, as a writer.!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"