Military Review

Russia on the way to the era of palace coups. Unloved grandson of Peter I

76
Russia on the way to the era of palace coups. Unloved grandson of Peter I

A.P. Antropov. Portrait of Emperor Peter II in a wig


Article “Russia on the way to the era of palace coups. The first autocratic empress " was told about the famous decree of Peter I of February 5, 1722, according to which the ruling monarchs of the Russian Empire themselves could appoint their own successors. We also talked a little about Catherine I, the circumstances of whose accession give reason to consider him the first palace coup in the Russian Empire. This article will tell about the teenage emperor Peter II, who turned out to be the last descendant of the Romanov family in the male line. The fact is that, according to European tradition, children received a surname and title from their father, and the descendants of Peter III, the grandson of Peter I from his daughter Anna, although they called themselves Romanovs, formally belonged to the Holstein-Gottorp family.

Childhood years of the future emperor


There are many legends about the early childhood of Peter II. One of them claims that the nannies of the nursing grandson of Peter the Great gave him wine so that the child would not bother them too much. It's even interesting who and from whom would have learned about such an ugly attitude of educators to a member of the royal family - at that time a sacred person, in fact, a demigod. And it is difficult for a modern person to imagine what the very inventive royal executioners would have done with these nannies. One can only assume that these nannies would die very painfully and for a very long time.

Here and there you can read such a fairy tale: as if Peter I once discovered that his grandson almost does not know Russian, but he swears perfectly in Tatar. This bike also does not stand up to criticism. The tsarevich, of course, spoke Russian no worse than others. Moreover, Vice-Chancellor Andrei Ivanovich Osterman, appointed mentor and educator of Pyotr Alekseevich, testifies that at the time of their acquaintance, the 11-year-old boy knew Latin and spoke fluent French and German. And in the future, according to the assurances of the same Osterman, his pupil demonstrated good learning ability.

Contemporaries traditionally describe Peter II as a tall and physically developed boy beyond his years, and then as a young man, especially noting his good health and "angelic beauty": just a prince from a fairy tale.

To top it off, the future emperor was an excellent shooter with real guns and cannons.

It would seem that such an heir could only dream of. And therefore, immediately after the death of the beloved son of Peter I (Peter Petrovich), born to Catherine, some courtiers unsuccessfully tried to draw the tsar's attention to his grandson, who was the emperor's full namesake.

Little Pyotr Alekseevich was three and a half years old at that time. His mother died immediately after giving birth (on the tenth day), his father was tortured when he was two and a half years old. At least just in case, the boy should have appointed intelligent teachers who could educate him in the direction Peter I needed, put the necessary ideas and knowledge into his head. But the emperor did not even want to think about his grandson and did not pay any attention to him, perhaps because the boy reminded him of his unloved son Alexei tortured by his order.

It is generally accepted that the educators assigned to little Peter, the clerk Mavrin and the Hungarian (according to other sources, a Rusyn from Hungary) Zeykind, did not bother themselves or the student with lessons. However, we do remember that 11-year-old Peter knew three foreign languages, so, probably, things with his training were not so bad.

Later, on the initiative of Alexander Menshikov, a more than worthy teacher and mentor was appointed Peter Alekseevich's mentor - the already mentioned Heinrich Johann Friedrich Ostermann, an outstanding statesman of Russia of those years, who in Russia was called Andrei Ivanovich.


Unknown engraver of the first half of the XNUMXth century, portrait of Count A. I. Osterman in armor

He managed to gain some influence on the student and achieve some success. But time was lost, because the boy had already come under the influence of the Dolgoruky clan, especially the young prince Ivan Alekseevich. And the rather ambiguous relationship with the young and cheerful Elizabeth, the prince's aunt, did not contribute to the study of the young emperor. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

In the first years of his life, the only close person for the orphan boy was his older sister Natalya, whom Peter loved very much. The Duke de Liria, who was then the Spanish ambassador to Russia, recalled that this princess spoke German and French perfectly, and argued that, although she was not pretty, "virtue replaced beauty in her." The death of Natalia on November 22, 1728 was a very big blow for Peter II. It was about his sister that he remembered at the last minute of his life.

Let's go back to 1718 and see that even before the beginning of the torture and death of this boy's father, Peter I signed a decree depriving his grandson of the rights of the heir to the throne (February 14, 1718). The investigation into Alexei's case was still ongoing, the verdict was not passed, but Peter had made a decision long ago and was now clearing the way for his beloved son from Catherine. And after the death of Alexei, Peter and his sister Natalya were completely removed from the yard.

However, as we remember, Pyotr Petrovich was terminally ill and died in April 1719. And before Peter I, the question of a successor to the throne arose again. In 1721, little Peter Alekseevich and his sister Natalia were returned to the Winter House of Peter I (sometimes it is called the Winter Palace, which confuses readers who immediately imagine another palace built by B. Rastrelli in the middle of the XNUMXth century).


A. Zubov. Winter Palace of Peter I, engraving

However, the status of the emperor's grandson was not clear - he was still not considered the heir to the throne.

On February 5, 1722, Peter I issued a decree on succession to the throne, according to which he could now appoint an heir to the throne himself. But the emperor delayed the adoption of this extremely important decision until the last minute and died before he could express his will. As a result, the formally autocratic power over Russia was in the hands of Catherine I, but the Supreme Privy Council ruled for her, headed by Alexander Menshikov.

Catherine's reign turned out to be short-lived: ascending the throne on January 28, 1725, she died on May 6, 1727, while she was only 43 years old. And only now it was the turn of the grandson of the first emperor, the son of Tsarevich Alexei, who ascended the throne under the name of Peter II.


Portrait of Peter II by an unknown artist, 1727

Emperor Peter II Alekseevich


After the accession to the throne of the new emperor, little has changed. The Saxon ambassador Lefort then compared Russia of the times of Catherine I and Peter II with a ship that rushes through the sea with a drunken crew and a captain. After the death of Peter I, Russian policy gained meaningfulness only under the not too beloved by our historians Anna Ioannovna, in order to be deprived of her again under Elizaveta Petrovna, who dragged Russia into the unnecessary Seven Years' War.

Under Peter II, the state was still ruled by the Supreme Privy Council, in which, as before, Alexander Menshikov played the main role. But the Serene One was already not satisfied with the previous power. To bind the new emperor to himself and his family, Menshikov achieved his betrothal to his daughter Maria, who at that time was 15 years old.


Ludden Johann Paul. Portrait of Emperor Peter II, Hermitage


I. G. Tannauer. Maria Alexandrovna Menshikova

The Tsar's bride was awarded the title "Her Imperial Highness" and was assigned an annual allowance of 34 thousand rubles. For himself, A. Menshikov chose the rank of generalissimo and the post of commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Russian Empire. Menshikov now thought that the future of his family was already fully secured, and he overlooked the rapprochement of the young emperor with the representative of the Dolgoruky family - the young prince Ivan Alekseevich, the son of one of the "supreme leaders". The clever prince quickly gained confidence in an inexperienced and unspoiled teenager, giving him the opportunity to enjoy all the delights and vices of a carefree high society life - from a hound hunt (which lasted for several days, regardless of the weather) and drunken feasts to card games and sexual experiments with available girls. Peter's mentor A.I. Osterman found it difficult to resist this influence, and, according to the testimony of the Saxon ambassador Lefort, the young emperor was then

similar to his grandfather in the sense that he stands his ground, does not tolerate objections and does what he wants.

The Spanish envoy, the Duke de Liria, wrote to Madrid:

Although it is difficult to say anything decisive about the character of the 14-year-old sovereign, one can guess that he will be hot-tempered, decisive and cruel.

But the Austrian ambassador Count Vratislav writes differently:

One cannot but be surprised at the sovereign's ability to hide his thoughts; his art of pretending is wonderful ... Before Osterman, he hides his thoughts: he tells him the opposite of what the Dolgoruky assures. The art of pretending is the predominant character trait of the emperor.

So intolerant, determined and hot-tempered was the young emperor? Or was he smarter than he seems, and played a subtle court game, alternately using both Dolgoruky and Osterman for his own purposes? We will no longer know this.

Peter also became close to his young aunt, the daughter of Catherine I, Elizabeth, contriving seriously to fall in love with her. "Merry Elizabeth" without any embarrassment flirted and flirted with her nephew, who already had a fairly rich sexual experience, and one can only guess how far their relationship went then.


V. Serov. Peter II and Princess Elizabeth on the hunt

The first crack in the relationship between Peter II and Menshikov was due to the elementary greed of a super-rich temporary worker. At one of the receptions, the merchant delegation presented the emperor with several thousand gold pieces, which he ordered to give to his beloved sister Natalya, but Menshikov, who met on the way, turned the envoys back, saying: "The Emperor is too young and does not know how to use money."

The young emperor made a scandal, and Menshikov hastened to return this money, but, as they say, the residue remained. In addition, Peter II was burdened by the bride imposed on him, the daughter of Menshikov, who could not please him: in his letters the emperor called her "marble statue" and "porcelain doll".

The decisive moment was Menshikov's illness, which the Dolgoruky deftly took advantage of. The emperor was shown the protocols of his father's interrogations, signed by Menshikov, Tolstoy and Yaguzhinsky. While reading them, Peter II experienced a real shock, and the fate of Alexander Danilych was decided. When Menshikov left his palace to take part in the consecration of the church in Oranienbaum, Peter II, accompanied by the guards, arrived at Peterhof.


Charlemagne A. Peter II in Peterhof

Here he signed a decree in which the Most Serene Highness was forbidden to return to St. Petersburg and ordered to remain in Oranienbaum. And then followed by arrest, deprivation of all titles and awards and an order to go to the Ryazan estate. Menshikov still hoped to preserve his property and former way of life: his family went into exile in four carriages, which were accompanied by 150 carriages, 11 vans and 147 servants. However, halfway through the road, another order came: all Menshikov's estates, 99 thousand "souls" of serfs, 13 million rubles and a huge amount of jewelry were confiscated, and he and his family were sent to the West Siberian city of Berezov, where the former tsar's bride Maria died first. and then the "semi-sovereign ruler" himself.

And the Dolgoruky decided to forge the iron while it was hot, and followed Menshikov's path, appointing a girl of a kind - Ekaterina Alekseevna as the bride to the emperor.


Portrait of E. A. Dolgorukova by an unknown artist, 1729, from the collection of the Russian Museum

But the young emperor fell ill with smallpox and died exactly on the day of the appointed wedding - January 19 (30), 1730. It is said that his last words were: “Lay the horses. I will go to Natalia's sister. "

Let us recall that the sister of Peter II died on November 22, 1728.

Now it is difficult to say for sure how good (or bad) Peter II would have become if he had not died of smallpox, but lived to a mature age. Perhaps Russia would have received only a more brutal, “masculine” version of the “merry Elizabeth”. But it is quite possible that the schoolchildren would now study the campaigns to the Crimea and Azov not by Minikh and Lassi, but by the warlike Russian Emperor Peter II, under whom these generals would have been in the role of Sheremetyev and Repnin or Bruce. The example of Charles XII proves that even frivolous and windy fools sometimes grow into excellent warriors. There is no doubt that these campaigns would have taken place: the logic of historical development is inexorable. Even during the life of our hero, P.A.Rumyantsev and A.V.Suvorov were born in Russia: they, too, would have fulfilled the genetic programs laid down in them - under any circumstances. VK Trediakovsky and AP Sumarokov, MV Lomonosov and FG Volkov were already born: the university would be established, the theater would be founded, solemn odes celebrating new victories would be written. But, perhaps, Russia could have avoided inconsistency and "vacillation" in its historical movement and development, when each new emperor or empress considered it their duty to break and arrange in a new way everything that their predecessors had built over the years. Perhaps our country would have been spared the systematic "raids" on the state treasury of temporary workers who had seized power - "bands of godless impudent men ... endowing themselves with different insignia and honorary positions" (as A. V. Stepanov wrote about the first government of Catherine II). And from the exsanguination of the state on more and more nonentities - the favorites of the "crazy empresses", against the background of which the abuses of the same Dolgoruky, who managed to "get their hands on" the young and inexperienced Emperor Peter II, pale and look unconvincing.

After the death of Peter II, the Russian imperial throne for a short time passed to the representatives of another branch of the Romanovs - the descendants of Tsar Ivan V. It was his daughter Anna who became the last purebred Russian representative of the Romanov dynasty on the Russian throne. The failed Empress Catherine Dolgorukaya was exiled to Berezov (where, as we remember, the first bride of Peter II, Maria Menshikova, died). According to some reports, there, a few months later, she gave birth to a dead girl. In 1740 she was transferred to the Rozhdestvensky monastery in Tomsk.

The Ivanovichs, as you know, did not keep the imperial power, having conceded it to the daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, who ascended the throne after the next palace coup. Under her, Ekaterina Dolgorukaya returned to St. Petersburg and even managed to marry Lieutenant-General A.R. Bruce, but caught a cold and died in 1745.


Ekaterina Dolgorukaya, a portrait by an unknown artist, kept in the Pskov Art Museum

Elizaveta Petrovna all her life was afraid of a new palace coup and even tried never to sleep twice in a row in the same room. This empress managed to die in her bed, but the wife of her nephew, the German princess Sofia Federica Augusta, who later took the name of Catherine II, entered history as the organizer of the murders of the legitimate emperors of both lines of the Romanovs: Alekseevich (Peter III) and Ioannovich (Ivan VI).


Assassination of Emperor Peter III by order of Catherine. II, engraving of the early XNUMXth century


Tvorozhnikov I. Mirovich in front of the body of Ivan VI

And her grandson Alexander was involved in the murder of his own father - Paul I.


The assassination of Paul I. Engraving by Utwait after a drawing by Filippoto

Only after the death of this emperor ended the ominous, cruel and brilliant era of palace coups. The last attempt of the guards to change the history of Russia at their own discretion ended in complete failure in December 1825 - mainly due to the complete degeneration of the leaders of these praetorians, who did not dare to raise the power, which literally lay under their feet for a whole day.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Ryzhov V.A.Tsarevich Alexey. Was the son of Peter I "unfit"?
Ryzhov V.A.Russia on the way to the era of palace coups
Ryzhov V. A. Russia on the way to the era of palace coups. First autocratic empress
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Korsar4
    Korsar4 5 October 2020 05: 52
    +8
    Harmful life at court - you will be sent, then you will die. However, far from the yard its troubles.

    We have to live and rule for a long time in our country. Then there will be historians, and they will remember with a kind word.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 5 October 2020 12: 03
      0
      Quote: Korsar4
      Harmful life at court - you will be sent, then you will die. However, far from the yard its troubles.

      We have to live and rule for a long time in our country. Then there will be historians, and they will remember with a kind word.

      Hello, Sergey!
      If you are lucky you will fly up, and not on a rack or a hemp rope.
      A different matter on the ship, there is nowhere to exile. If you die, then regardless of the type of death, your remains will rest on the seabed! All the same somehow bleak!
      Maybe damn it, sit at home on the stove? Duc and Vanka, from a fairy tale, took a pike in the hole. So, there is a good saying, it's good where we are not.
      Now seriously!
      The story is played by "his majesty" incident, So, it is easy to guess, hard to anticipate events! Elizaveta Petrovna did it. The rest is dust. Catherine II achieved the throne, the whole country was silent (do not take E. Pugachev into the alignment).
      For the rest, what to take from someone who can only lose. As my boss says “you have to be able to show your teeth”!
      Everything else is from the evil one.
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 5 October 2020 12: 34
        +3
        Who would argue.

        "Who will substitute his leg, who will shoulder" (c).

        The second time comes the conversation here - how high the probability of "accident". Read the question very much. Difficult to prove.

        And on the stove is not our method.

        "Terribly interesting, everything that is unknown" (c).
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 5 October 2020 16: 26
        +4
        Many criticize the author for indirectly or directly “rehabilitating” the reign of Anna Ioanovna. I will make my modest contribution to the author's piggy bank. I will give only dry numbers. During the reign of Anna Ioanovna, iron smelting only at state-owned factories in the Urals increased by 64%. According to this indicator, Russia took the second place in the world, overtaking even England. Further, during the same period of government, the export of iron increased 5 (!!) times. I would like to remind you that Anna ruled for only 10 years, by historical standards this is nothing. So much for Anna "Bloody".
        1. RoTTor
          RoTTor 5 October 2020 20: 48
          +6
          Anna Ioannovna - the last RUSSIAN and absolutely legitimate empress was deliberately slandered and vilified - by court "historians" - fabulous writers, starting with the usurper Ekatarina II, and later - by writings with custom-ordered slanderous novels, albeit cleverly crafted novels like "Ice House".
          The same tradition was continued by official Soviet historians and, especially zealously, by filmmakers.
          LIES and slander!
          Believe me at my word, WHILE at my word, there is no time to prepare a long article - in graduate school I studied the legislative acts of the 17-18 centuries and was amazed at the rationality and rationality of the laws of the Republic of Ingushetia adopted under Anna Ioannovna.
          who had enough natural intelligence and common sense to pick up intelligent assistants, and not to go into all the little things that are definitely not a "royal affair" and what the sovereign has a rather vague idea of, but to which no one could object, what Peter the First was often distinguished for and what often was not good for Russia.
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 6 October 2020 01: 24
            +2
            This is how the retinue always makes a king! Anna Ioanovna's assistants were not ordinary personalities - the same Biron, the Levenvold brothers, Rumyantsev ... Everything is natural. Even as you say, the usurper Catherine the Great knew how to pick up her retinue
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 5 October 2020 16: 39
      0
      However, far from the yard its troubles.

      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 5 October 2020 18: 53
        +2
        The squares were decorated in different ways.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 5 October 2020 18: 59
          -2
          This is a matter of taste, and people love shows when there is enough bread in their belly.
          1. Korsar4
            Korsar4 5 October 2020 20: 30
            +2
            To our discussion yesterday. And the picture of I. Glazunov "Black White House".
          2. RoTTor
            RoTTor 5 October 2020 20: 54
            +1
            Were you in Moscow then?
            Do not blaspheme.
            It was a sneaky fucking coup
            Those who even paid money for a good place on the balcony, not far from this house, then the Lord punished: one of the tankers, seeing these cynical spies, shook them with a tank gun, and the best TV footage of this horror and disgrace was filmed by American magazines from the roof of the US embassy
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 5 October 2020 21: 34
              +2
              Of course, I was in Moscow, this is my city. But he did not "admire" the spectacle. I am not a fan of spectacles, and I do not like the mindless herd of the crowd.
              The tanks did not shoot at the crowd, the crews were paid only for the White House, although, it is a pity, of course, it would be necessary to hit this herd.
              It was broadcast live by CINN, and not from the embassy, ​​but from the neighboring "Stalinist" skyscraper.
              Yes, and I do not see any blasphemy in my post, to me that those that are others are the same with vol about.
  2. Far B
    Far B 5 October 2020 07: 07
    +4
    Seikind
    And also Galkin, Palkin and Malkin (c) laughing
    Now it is difficult to say for sure how good (or bad) Peter II would have become if he had not died of smallpox, but lived to a mature age.
    In general, it is impossible to say something for sure about this. You can just as well guess what kind of ruler Ivan VI would have been. "The logic of historical development" in this case is an extremely ephemeral thing.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 5 October 2020 07: 24
      +2
      In general, this author has trouble with logic, and with the vision of history, too, trouble. Worthless queens like Peter III turn out to be almost angels in the flesh, but Elizabeth, or even worse Catherine, is a fiend of Hell in skirts. But history shows the exact opposite of the "philosophizing" of this author ... request
  3. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 07: 27
    +3
    Only after the death of this emperor ended the ominous, cruel and brilliant era of palace coups
    And with it the century of greatness and valor of Russian weapons. The Russian Empire will no longer have such a continuous military greatness, a defining role in European affairs, such a brilliant series of military victories and brilliant commanders. There will be unparalleled heroism and military successes, but there will be no irresistible constancy in this, when the guns in Europe did not fire without the desire of St. Petersburg. So it turns out that the depraved woman's age on the obverse turns out to be a glorious century on the reverse of the same medal. on the throne , Unlike who ruled "cheerful" Elizabeth and "illegal German" Catherine the Great ..
    1. VLR
      5 October 2020 18: 03
      0
      The success of the "Indian Age" nevertheless happened not so much thanks to the efforts of the empresses, but in spite of it. Thousands of factors in the historical development of Russia and its neighbors developed in such a way that Russia was strengthening, and its geopolitical opponents (for example, Turkey and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) tended to decline. And then some of these factors ceased to act and new ones appeared, the most noticeable of which was the activity of Bonaparte. And the Russian monarchs could not influence these factors in any way - neither in a positive nor in a negative direction. The same Catherine II tried to preserve at least a piece of the independent Rzecz Pospolita, headed by her former lover S. Ponyatovsky - it was useless, the Poles decided to merge, and merged, led by Kosciuszko (I wrote about this in articles about the Warsaw Matins and the Prague Massacre).)
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 18: 07
        +1
        In general, on the issue of the role of personality in history, we disagree, so that our argument is useless
      2. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 5 October 2020 18: 17
        0
        Quote: VlR
        The success of the "Indian Age" nevertheless happened not so much thanks to the efforts of the empresses, but in spite of it.

        I don’t very often agree with you, but here I agree 100%. Our Eastern European tradition, both for everything good and for everything bad, to blame one and only person ruling the state, here climbs sideways - if Russia is successful, then only because its head is a successful ruler. And the fact that that ruler can only interfere in the affairs of state administration, and even then not too often, and dozens and hundreds of other people do everything for him is a trifle. If we take, for example, the same Peter I, and compare it with the "woman's kingdom", then any of the female rulers of Russia held the state less firmly and interfered less in governance issues than Peter. Including Catherine II, for whom many issues were resolved by the favorites and senior government officials. That is, the reigning women in the Russian Empire are precisely ruled less than Peter, and many other men, like Paul or Nicholas, who really tried to take on as much as possible. Therefore, it is not worthwhile to elevate queens to the absolute, arguing that if it were not for them, nothing good would have happened. A lot of good and bad things in the country happened with them without their participation, or really in spite of them. This must be remembered, but what is there - this must be known, otherwise sometimes one gets the impression that many nowadays believe that Catherine II single-handedly sawed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and she personally burned ships to the Turks at Chesma, and so on ...
  4. Deniska999
    Deniska999 5 October 2020 07: 59
    +3
    I wonder what would have happened if he had lived a long life. Potentially, Peter II could rule until the last quarter of the XNUMXth century.
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 08: 21
      +5
      Quote: Deniska999
      I wonder what would have happened if he had lived a long life. Potentially, Peter II could rule until the last quarter of the XNUMXth century.

      One hundred percent - the century was not called a woman's and the era of palace coups. The rest is fifty-fifty - either overall good or overall bad. Maybe there would be no Pugachevshchina, but Novorossia would not have appeared without the frenzied energy of the temporary worker Potemkin in such a fantastically short time. They would have fought with the Turks at least as often and would have settled with the Crimea, but in Seven Years you would not have intermeddle ... In general freedom for alternatives.
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 5 October 2020 12: 13
        +2
        Minich was. And Lassi and Rumyantsev the father were. And Leslie. New Russia could have appeared 30 years earlier. With the Caucasus, most likely, it would have been different.
      2. VLR
        5 October 2020 18: 35
        +2
        Well, Potemkin's periods of frantic activity were replaced by periods of terrible depression during which he was completely incapacitated, but at the same time remained the boss - and therefore almost everything stood up and did not move. In the film "Admiral Ushakov" it was shown surprisingly accurately and reliably (Soviet directors had good consultants, who did not consider it shameful to listen to the opinion of specialists, and did not shout "I see it that way"). Therefore, it is difficult to say what more he brought in the development of Novorossiya - benefit or harm. Maybe another administrator, not as bright and talented as Potemkin, but not suffering from manic-depressive syndrome, just a "workhorse" without any special pretensions, would be even more useful.
        1. KVU-NSVD
          KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 18: 51
          +3
          Valery, but you must agree Potemkin is the brightest personality, ascended to the heights of power by a woman's desire for another bright personality and was able to stay in the orbit of power thanks to the abilities of the mind, and not to joys for the night ... And what are the historically conditioned processes? And Novorossia was born, the Black Sea region and Crimea were turned from the Wild Field into habitable places .. This is also the question of the role of personalities in history ..
        2. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 6 October 2020 11: 55
          +1
          Minich, for example. "Pedant and Engineer"
          1. VLR
            7 October 2020 07: 19
            +1
            Yes, Minich, or a man of his level and scale, would probably be an almost ideal candidate.
  5. Sentinel-vs
    Sentinel-vs 5 October 2020 08: 05
    +1
    Interestingly, thanks to the author.
  6. Olgovich
    Olgovich 5 October 2020 08: 33
    -12 qualifying.
    We also talked a little about Catherine I, the circumstances of whose accession give reasons consider it the first palace coup in the Russian Empire.


    No "grounds" for such statements are presented by the author or even said, but who, in fact, .... OVERLINED - "overturned"? Ah ... no one ...
    the descendants of Peter III, the grandson of Peter I from his daughter Anna, although they called themselves Romanovs, formally belonged to the Holstein-Gottorp family.

    They called it correctly, because they were, because the children of any mother are also HER descendants ..
    Catherine II, entered history as an organizer of murders legitimate emperors of both lines of the Romanovs: Alekseevich (Peter III) and Ioannovich (Ivan VI).

    What nonsense: Catherine II went down in history, like a GREAT: the great and wise ruler of Russia, under whom Russia also became great,

    And the cause of death of the alcoholic Peter 3 was an attack of hemorrhoidal colic, aggravated by prolonged use of alcohol and diarrhea. An autopsy revealed that Peter III had severe heart dysfunction, intestinal inflammation and signs of apoplexy..

    A number of modern medical examinations, based on the surviving documents and evidence, revealed that Peter III suffered from bipolar disorder with a mild depressive phase, suffered from hemorrhoids, which is why he could not sit in one place for a long time. Microcardia detected during autopsy usually suggests a complex of congenital developmental disorders (c)

    A FALSE letter, allegedly, "Orlova" - no one has taken seriously for a long time
    1. ANB
      ANB 5 October 2020 09: 48
      +4
      Catherine II, the Great, did a lot for Russia.
      However, it was she who finally turned the serfs into slaves and issued a decree on the freedom of the nobility (which, however, was already prepared by Peter III), which turned the nobles into parasites. Which led then to 2017.
      1. Astra wild
        Astra wild 5 October 2020 11: 53
        +2
        ANB colleague, what happened in 2017? The Romanovs ruled Russia for 300, not 400 years
        1. ANB
          ANB 5 October 2020 12: 43
          +2
          Phone. 1917 was meant.
      2. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 5 October 2020 12: 17
        +1
        "In 2017 Zyugan-baatur-Lenin-Ilic overthrew the tyrant Nikola-Alesandyr-Golshtein-Aga and arranged the Great Kurultay" ((c) "Notes on the History of the World", Maskav-Rabad, 575 after Karantyn-Rivalyutsya-Keldyk (2795 AD) .e.))
      3. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 13: 55
        +1
        Quote: ANB
        However, it was she who finally turned the serfs into slaves.

        But what about the saying "These are grandmother and St. George's day?" ? if you understand what I mean .. About 2017 is an interesting version, but not clear.
        1. ANB
          ANB 5 October 2020 20: 54
          0
          And in what year was St. George's Day canceled (reserved summers)?
          1. KVU-NSVD
            KVU-NSVD 5 October 2020 21: 14
            -1
            At the end of the 16th century, Fedor Ioanovich (1597 seems), but with a limitation period of 5 years to escape. In 1650 (approximately) in his Cathedral Code, this was confirmed by Alexei Mikhailovich with the abolition of the statute of limitations for fugitives. So this should be considered a complete enslavement of the peasants.
            1. ANB
              ANB 5 October 2020 22: 46
              0
              No, this is not yet complete enslavement.
              Until the classroom, the peasant was just a tenant. After the cancellation of St. George's Day, he could no longer leave, but it was impossible to sell him. It was only possible to sell land with peasants on it. And only under Catherine the serfs became a commodity in themselves.
              1. Niel-le-Calais
                Niel-le-Calais 9 October 2020 22: 37
                +1
                Quote: ANB
                And only under Catherine the serfs became a commodity in themselves.

                Property that could even be paid for a doctor's appointment or exchanged for dogs.
                Something like currency.
                However, the process went on even before Catherine II.
                There is no one to file a complaint about the sale of a serf without land. The serf has no rights.
                By the way, petitions under Catherine 2 were handed over to her much more than to anyone else before her.
      4. Olgovich
        Olgovich 5 October 2020 20: 21
        -2
        Quote: ANB
        However, it was she who finally turned the serfs into slaves and

        Learn who is a "slave" and who is a "serf"
        Quote: ANB
        issued a decree on the freedom of the nobility (which, however, was already prepared by Peter III), which turned the nobles into parasites. Which led then to 2017.

        By 1917, the nobles were already almost no one - they did not have capital, they did not have production and land
        1. ANB
          ANB 5 October 2020 20: 57
          +1
          ... Learn who is a "slave" and who is a "serf"

          If a person can be sold / lost at cards, then he is a property, that is, a slave.
          Although yes, the serf is legally not quite a slave. But, in fact, horseradish radish is not sweeter.
          You can make it out with examples, but this is beyond the scope of the comment.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 5 October 2020 21: 09
            -3
            Quote: ANB
            If a person can be sold / lost at cards, then he is a property, that is, a slave.
            Although yes, the serf is legally not quite a slave. But actually, horseradish radish is not sweeter.

            Horseradish also looks like a carrot, but it is NOT a carrot!
            1. ANB
              ANB 5 October 2020 22: 49
              +1
              ... Horseradish also looks like a carrot, but it is NOT a carrot

              And indicate the difference between a slave and a serf under Catherine. What could the master do with the slave and not with the serf?
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 6 October 2020 08: 51
                -2
                Quote: ANB
                And indicate the difference between a slave and a serf under Catherine. What could the master do with the slave and not with the serf?

                Is there an educational program?
        2. ANB
          ANB 5 October 2020 21: 01
          +2
          ... By 1917, the nobles were already almost no one - they did not have capital, they did not have production and land

          But this did not make the peasants much easier. And everyone who remembered serfdom was still alive.
          It was not for nothing that in 1905 and 1917, the first thing they did was set fire to estates, and not factories and offices.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 6 October 2020 09: 30
            -2
            Quote: ANB
            But this did not make the peasants much easier

            Free people in a free country, in one form or another, they owned almost all the land.

            The thief added them as much ... 9% of the land, i.e. chickens laughing
            Quote: ANB
            And everyone who remembered serfdom was still alive.

            belay lol
      5. RoTTor
        RoTTor 5 October 2020 20: 57
        +1
        Completely illegal usurper, you must start with this
    2. Astra wild
      Astra wild 5 October 2020 12: 24
      +6
      Ol'govich, about the "Orlov letter" is possibly a fake. It would be great if Valery or Vyacheslav Olegovich prepares material for all Doubtful documents. Here I agree with you and put +.
      But: "during the autopsy, it was found that Peter 3 had" severe dysfunction of the heart, "and you admit the idea that the doctor has corrected his epicrisis?
      I do not assert ANYTHING, but purely logically it can be assumed that the doctor remembered: "the sovereign is no longer there, but I still have to live here"
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 6 October 2020 09: 53
        -1
        Quote: Astra wild
        But: "during the autopsy, it was found that Peter 3 had" severe dysfunction of the heart, "and you admit the idea that the doctor has corrected his epicrisis?

        this is allowed in ALL cases, except for guillotine cases: only there is no doubt.

        Therefore, I rely on official statements, and not on gossip collections.

        And the fact that Peter 3 drank heavily from childhood is also known.
        1. VLR
          6 October 2020 13: 20
          0
          Drunkenness of Peter III is a lie launched personally by Catherine II and her accomplices. Purely according to the German proverb: "If a dog needs to be killed, it should be said that it is scabby." In her early, later edited, memoirs, Catherine speaks of the young Peter III as a "miracle boy" who surprises everyone with his abilities. The educational level of Peter and Catherine is heaven and earth, the boy was brought up as the heir to two thrones, the girl as the wife of some Prussian general. In Russia, Peter also learned to play the violin - so well that he performed with professional musicians. He had no time to drink.
        2. Niel-le-Calais
          Niel-le-Calais 9 October 2020 22: 44
          0
          Quote: Olgovich
          Therefore, I rely on official statements, and not on gossip collections.

          “It is quite certain that not the slightest trace of poisoning was found,” wrote Ekaterina. “He had a perfectly healthy stomach, but he died of intestinal inflammation and stroke. His heart was unusually small and wrinkled. " A description of the autopsy of Pyotr Fedorovich's body has not survived, and there is no medical report on his illness. Death from hemorrhoidal colic became the official version.
          court surgeon Paulsen
          Dr. Lüders is Catherine's personal physician 2.
          By the way, on July 1, he wrote a prescription for drugs. Then the patient started having stomach pains. More precisely, they intensified.
    3. VLR
      5 October 2020 18: 11
      -1
      The doctor who signed the conclusion on the death of Peter III was sent to him by Catherine II. Moreover, he did not take any medicine, except for such poison, which the emperor brazenly refused to drink - he had to strangle him. And it was not possible to hide the traces of strangulation - many who saw the body of the murdered emperor remember the strangulation groove on the neck.
      As for the posthumous studies of modern doctors - in addition to their general doubtfulness (none of the authoritative people takes them seriously), they rely only on the testimony of the emperor's assassins who slandered their victim.
      About Orlov's letter: if you consider it a fake, be consistent and declare the "Lay of Igor's Campaign" fake - because the situation according to these two sources is absolutely (100%) the same - the originals were not preserved for the same reason - they burned out.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 5 October 2020 18: 49
        +1
        Of course, I am not a forensic scientist, but a strangulation groove occurs when they strangle with a cord, and if they strangle it with my hands, then the laryngeal cartilage breaks, but there is no groove. Does the evidence you mention mean that Peter was strangled with a cord?
        1. VLR
          5 October 2020 19: 47
          0
          There is a version that an officer's scarf
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 5 October 2020 22: 29
            +1
            Then of course the streak will be
      2. Astra wild
        Astra wild 5 October 2020 20: 12
        +1
        Valery, you are an excellent historian and I appreciate you very much. But about the poison and so on was already on the site.
        My point is different: I am not 100% claiming that "Orlov's letter" is a fake, this has already been discussed.
        I disagree with your analogy.
        "The Word about Igor's Regiment" is known from 2 copies, and the author saw "Orlov's letter" for 1-2 minutes and remembered it. There is no other confirmation, which means that your comparison is strained.
    4. Deniska999
      Deniska999 5 October 2020 21: 46
      +1
      And Paul I, as announced, also died of an apoplectic stroke, apparently hereditary)
  7. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 11: 44
    +5
    Moderators, you have a bad habit of putting Valery and Vyacheslav Olegovich together.
    I hope you are interested in the development of the site, which means you will take care of such authors. There was a great author Denis Brigov, now he is gone, but what if these leave?
    1. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 5 October 2020 13: 41
      -2
      author Denis Brigov now he is gone,

      Brig, if I'm not mistaken.
      I remembered Potemkin's phrase about Fonvizin (legend says): "Die now, Denis, or at least don't write anything else." Vera, maybe the author listened to the words of the Most Serene One? hi laughing
      1. Astra wild
        Astra wild 5 October 2020 14: 33
        +1
        "will listen to the words of the Most Serene One" Do you want Valery to stop writing? But then on. 50% increase in all sorts of nonsense!
        1. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 6 October 2020 07: 36
          -2
          I'm talking about Denis, Fonvizin's namesake, to whom Potemkin spoke.
  8. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 12: 29
    +4
    Quote: Korsar4
    Harmful life at court - you will be sent, then you will die. However, far from the yard its troubles.

    We have to live and rule for a long time in our country. Then there will be historians, and they will remember with a kind word.

    This is about the same as on the forehead, that on the forehead. And so and so is harmful to health
    1. Daniil Konovalenko
      Daniil Konovalenko 5 October 2020 12: 45
      +2
      Near the king, near death ... folk wisdom ...
    2. Korsar4
      Korsar4 5 October 2020 16: 40
      +2
      "Pass us, more than all sorrows
      And lordly anger, and lordly love "(c).
  9. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 5 October 2020 12: 36
    +2
    The result of the "senseless" Seven Years War was summed up by Peter III, not by "merry Elizabeth" ..
  10. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 12: 58
    0
    "went down in history as the organizer of the assassinations of the legitimate emperors of both lines of the Romanovs: Alekseevich (Peter 3) and Ioanovich (Ioan 6).
    Valery, for the sake of justice: Peter 3 had not yet had time to be crowned, which means that he was a TS of the emperor, and John 6 was not even an acting emperor. This is from a formal point of view.
    John 6. In fact, Catherine 6 is indirectly to blame for the death of John 2. Even under Elizabeth, the guard had an order, if something happened, to kill the prisoner. Catherine only confirmed this order
    Last year, one of my colleagues told me that the guards ALWAYS have instructions: to destroy the arrested at the last moment. So it was in the Second World War, but you do not accuse Stalin of the premeditated murder of those arrested?
    So your statement that Ekaterina is the "organizer of the murders" is at least not correct.
  11. Fitter65
    Fitter65 5 October 2020 13: 15
    0
    The fact is that, according to European tradition, children received a surname and title from their father, and the descendants of Peter III, the grandson of Peter I from his daughter Anna, although they called themselves Romanovs, formally belonged to the Holstein-Gottorp family.

    Then they contacted the British, in 1914 they went with the British and French to fight against their German relatives, but the result is known. Conclusion: do not go with strangers from relatives to steal firewood from the barn laughing
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 5 October 2020 16: 15
      +3
      By the way, George V and Nicholas II are cousins, their mothers are sisters. Yes, and Alexandra Fedorovna - the wife of Nikolai - the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, respectively, is also a cousin of George. So what about "strangers" you are in vain. There were all their own ... smile
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 6 October 2020 00: 01
        0
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        So what about "strangers" you are in vain. There were all their own.

        Well, those of their own will be worse than strangers ...
  12. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 14: 41
    +1
    "one can only guess how far their relationship went", and if that's the case, it's better to keep silent, otherwise it's not far from here to an alternative history
  13. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 14: 46
    0
    Quote: Bersaglieri
    Minich was. And Lassi and Rumyantsev the father were. And Leslie. New Russia could have appeared 30 years earlier. With the Caucasus, most likely, it would have been different.

    Or not at all
  14. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 18: 44
    0
    "achieved his betrothal with his daughter Maria" I do not like alternatives, but sometimes I want to fantasize.
    If Menshikov did not want to become the Tsar's father-in-law, perhaps he would have resisted? Although unlikely
  15. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 18: 46
    0
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    By the way, George V and Nicholas II are cousins, their mothers are sisters. Yes, and Alexandra Fedorovna - the wife of Nikolai - the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, respectively, is also a cousin of George. So what about "strangers" you are in vain. There were all their own ... smile

    And stealing from your own is the last thing
  16. Astra wild
    Astra wild 5 October 2020 20: 18
    -1
    Quote: VlR
    There is a version that an officer's scarf

    You already add a snuffbox, so that 1 in 1 was with the death of Paul
  17. Odessa Greek
    Odessa Greek 6 October 2020 00: 31
    -2
    It is clear that the article does not carry any new interesting historical information about the life of Peter II, and is the author's reasoning about the history of Russia in the subjunctive mood. But, in my opinion, many of the author's conclusions are controversial.
    For example, to expose the Dolgoruky clan as a sort of innocent "naughty" with "unconvincing" abuse))). Is the forgery of the will of Peter II with the aim of actually seizing power in Russia - is it not a convincing abuse? Or the actual seizure of power by the Verkhovniki (by signing the conditions) where the Dolgorukovs, together with Golitsyn, actually took the supreme power in the country?)). Yes, not a single favorite in the future could do this))). That is why Anna Ioanovna did not consider the Dolgoruky's policy to be childish pranks and sent their men under the ax and on the rack. Yes, and Mirovich's case, by and large, was started, as you know, not on Catherine II, and the tragic denouement in the fate of Ivan VI, in many a confluence of tragic circumstances, and not only the bloody intent of the German woman Sofia Augusta Frederica.
    IMHO, of course)
  18. Olgovich
    Olgovich 7 October 2020 14: 48
    -1
    Quote: VlR
    Drunkenness of Peter III is a lie launched personally by Catherine II and her accomplices. Purely according to the German proverb: "If a dog needs to be killed, it should be said that it is scabby." In her early, later edited, memoirs, Catherine speaks of the young Peter III as a "miracle boy" who surprises everyone with his abilities. The educational level of Peter and Catherine is heaven and earth, the boy was brought up as the heir to two thrones, the girl as the wife of some Prussian general. In Russia, Peter also learned to play the violin - so well that he performed with professional musicians. He had no time to drink.

    Klyuchevskry V.O. :
    Having become an orphan at an early age, Peter, in Holstein, received a worthless upbringing under the guidance of an ignorant courtier, who treated him rudely, subjected him to humiliating and unhealthy punishments, even beating the prince. Humiliated and shy in everything, he adopted bad tastes and habits, became irritable, quarrelsome, stubborn and false, acquired a sad tendency to lie, believing in his own inventions with ingenuous enthusiasm, and in Russia he learned to get drunk. In Holstein, he was so poorly taught that he came to Russia as a 14-year-old complete ignoramus, and even Empress Elizabeth was struck by his ignorance.

    The rapid change in circumstances and upbringing programs completely baffled his already weak head. Forced to learn now one thing or another without connection and order, Peter ended up learning nothing, and the dissimilarity of the Holstein and Russian environment, the absurdity of the Kiel and Petersburg impressions completely weaned him from understanding his surroundings. Its development stopped before its growth; in the years of courage he remained the same as he was in childhood, grew up without maturing. His way of thinking and acting gave the impression of something surprisingly unfinished and unfinished. He looked at serious things with a childish gaze, and treated childish ventures with the seriousness of a mature husband.

    CM. Soloviev:
    people who at first wanted and could support the government of Peter ΙΙΙ, make it popular, very soon saw that they were unable to do anything, and looked with despair at the future of the fatherland, which was in the hands of incompetent foreigners and ministers of a foreign sovereign, on the eve of the former sworn enemy of Russia


    All these dashkovs and mylnikovs are not worth a penny against their background.
    1. VLR
      7 October 2020 20: 56
      -1
      Perhaps this will be news to you, but many of the works of the historians you quoted have for a very long time only had historical significance. They are classics, they have great merits, but since then many documents and sources unknown to them have been discovered. Alas, everything flows, changes, moves forward. Not only physics or chemistry, but also historical science.
      Just take this into account: not all quotes from Soloviev and Klyuchevsky are now the ultimate truth. And, when working with documents, these quotes now need to be very carefully selected. Something else will go, some will not.
      1. VLR
        7 October 2020 21: 16
        0
        There are many examples. Here, the same Soloviev, for example, invented something that never happened - "Kievan Rus", which in Kiev itself of that time had not even been heard. And now we cannot get rid of this term in any way.
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 8 October 2020 11: 06
        -1
        Quote: VlR
        They are classics, they have great merits, but since then many documents unknown to them have been opened.

        no idle chatter, provide the fundamental "new" "documents" unfamiliar to Klyuchevsky
        Quote: VlR
        Here, the same Soloviev, for example, invented something that never happened - "Kievan Rus", which in Kiev itself of that time had not even been heard. And now we cannot get rid of this term in any way.

        1.No connection with the one mentioned in the article.

        2. He designated the historical period as such, but nowhere did he claim that this was a self-name.