Paul I. The Unhappy Grand Duke and the “Wrong” Emperor

102
Paul I. The Unhappy Grand Duke and the “Wrong” Emperor
Paul I on a colored lithograph by P. Borel


In the two previous articles, we talked a little about the last favorite of Catherine II, Platon Zubov, his brothers Nikolai, Dmitry, Valerian and sister Olga. In the future, we will talk about the murder of Paul I and the role that members of the Zubov clan played in this conspiracy. But first, apparently, it is necessary to say a few words about the personality of this emperor.



Unhappy Grand Duke


Being the undisputed heir to the throne and formally being the second person in the state, Pavel Petrovich for many years felt like a stranger at his mother’s court and was actually in political isolation. Catherine II not only did not love her son, but was afraid of him, because she perfectly understood that she was an impostor who did not have even the slightest right to the Russian throne. All participants in the coup d'etat of 1762 were sure that they were committing it in favor of the young Paul, and Catherine would only be a regent until her son came of age. At the same time, the conspirators deceived everyone by spreading rumors about the death of the emperor. Here is the testimony of the secretary of the French Embassy in Russia, Claude Carloman Ruliere:

“Suddenly there was a rumor that the emperor had been brought. Forced without noise, the crowd moved apart, crowded together, and in deep silence made way for the procession, which slowly made its way through the middle of it. It was a magnificent funeral carried through the main streets, and no one knew: whose burial? Soldiers dressed in Cossack style carried torches in mourning; and while the attention of the people was all on this place, this ceremony disappeared from view... hardly twenty people, even in the palace, understood this incident as it happened. The people, the soldiers, not knowing whether the emperor was alive or not, and constantly exclaiming “Hurray!”... thought that they were proclaiming the young Grand Duke emperor and giving the mother a regency.”

And this is a description of the same episode made by Gavriil Derzhavin, who served in the Preobrazhensky Regiment:

“Suddenly, a strange procession moved into the jubilant crowd, which had previously walked along the main streets of the capital. Soldiers dressed in mourning clothes carried lighted torches; between them, it seemed, a coffin covered with black cloth swayed. The procession walked slowly, in complete silence, disappearing as suddenly as it had appeared. No one could understand anything - but rumors spread like a train: they say, the emperor died.”

Just 6 days later, when the situation became clearer, according to the same Ruliere:

“The soldiers were surprised at their action and did not understand what charm led them to dethrone the grandson of Peter the Great and placed the crown on a German woman... The sailors, who were not flattered in any way during the riot, publicly reproached the guardsmen in the taverns for what they beer sold their emperor.”

The French envoy Laurent Bérenger reported to Paris that the Preobrazhenskyites were going to “rescue Peter III from prison and restore him to the throne.”

In this situation, Peter III was doomed and simply had to “die from hemorrhoidal colic.” But even after his murder, the situation in the capital remained extremely tense, and on August 10, 1762, the Prussian envoy B. Goltz reported to his king:

“The unrest that I reported... is far from calmed, but on the contrary, is intensifying... Since the Izmailovsky Guards Regiment and the Horse Guards... on the day of the coup completely surrendered to the Empress, both of these regiments are now treated with contempt and the rest of the guard, and the field garrison regiments stationed here, and the cuirassiers, and the naval ones. Not a day goes by without a clash between these two parties. The latter reproach the former for selling their sovereign for a few pennies and for vodka. The Artillery Corps has still not taken sides. The court, going to the extreme, distributed cartridges to the Izmailovsky regiment, which alarmed the rest of the guard and garrison.”

That is, more than a month after the assassination of Peter III, Catherine and her supporters were unconditionally confident in the loyalty of only one single regiment - Izmailovsky, only its soldiers were issued live ammunition. Catherine then developed eczema due to nervousness - “the body was covered with red spots” (Ruliere).

It must be said that the organizers of the conspiracy considered Catherine II as a puppet; completely different people were going to rule Russia. And she herself wrote to her former lover Stanislav Poniatowski:

“As long as I obey, I will be adored; If I stop obeying, who knows what might happen.”

However, the conspirators underestimated the German adventuress and the Orlov brothers, about whom Catherine herself, a year after the coup, told the French ambassador Louis Auguste de Breteuil:

“I owe it to Orlov for what I am.”

Having seized power, Catherine did not intend to transfer it to her son. Realizing that she was usurping the throne for the second time, she constantly hinted at Pavel’s illegal origin (from Count Saltykov) and the desire to transfer the throne not to him, but to her grandson Alexander. Already after the accession of Paul I, at court they talked for a long time about Catherine’s will allegedly existing, but destroyed by Bezborodko, in favor of Alexander. Let us say right away that reliable evidence of the existence of this document has not yet been found.

No measures were taken against the spread of rumors that Catherine gave birth to a stillborn child, instead of which, by order of Empress Elizabeth, an infant “Chukhon” boy was delivered to the palace.

It is also known that Catherine publicly called her son either “heavy baggage” or “a cruel creature.”

At the time of the coup d'etat, Pavel Petrovich was 8 years old.


F. S. Rokotov. Portrait of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich as a child

The violent removal from power and then the murder of his father had a huge impact on his psyche. The mother's obvious dislike and the coldness of the courtiers who wanted to please her developed suspicion. Things got to the point where Pavel was quite seriously afraid of being killed or imprisoned. L. Bennigsen, a participant in the conspiracy against this emperor, wrote in 1801:

“When the Empress lived in Tsarskoe Selo during the summer season, Paul usually lived in Gatchina, where he had a large detachment of troops. He surrounded himself with guards and pickets; patrols constantly guarded the road to Tsarskoe Selo, especially at night, in order to prevent any unexpected enterprise. He even determined in advance the route along which he would retire with his troops if necessary...
This route led to the land of the Ural Cossacks, from where the famous rebel Pugachev emerged, who in 1772 and 1773. managed to form a significant party for himself, first among the Cossacks themselves, assuring them that he was Peter III, who had escaped from the prison where he was kept, falsely announcing his death. Pavel really counted on the kind reception and loyalty of these Cossacks.”


Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich in a portrait by an unknown artist

But among the common people and in the army, contrary to popular belief, the heir was very popular; the Austrian ambassador Lobkowitz wrote to Vienna in 1775:

"Paul is the idol of his people."

The heir despised his mother's insignificant favorites, who paid him in the same coin. He saw that in the last years of her reign the empress was surrounded by flatterers and careerists who pushed aside truly deserved people. That the officers of the guards regiments have completely decayed, and many of them do not even know the regulations and do not know how to properly handle weapons. But Catherine is afraid of them, remembering the fate of her predecessors and knowing from her own experience that autocracy in Russia is “limited by a noose.” Mark Aldanov wrote about this well:

“Catherine understood well that she could stay on the throne only by pleasing the nobility and officers in every possible way - in order to prevent or at least reduce the danger of a new palace coup. That's what she did. Her entire internal policy boiled down to ensuring that the life of the officers at her court and in the guard units was as profitable and pleasant as possible... Catherine knew perfectly well that according to any laws she did not have the slightest right to the imperial throne of Russia... The Russian throne she, a Zerbst German, occupied only thanks to the seizure carried out ... by a bunch of crazy guards officers. Sometimes in a dream Catherine saw with horror how she was suddenly deprived of the throne and strangled, or imprisoned in a monastery, or sent to her homeland, there to Zerbst.”

Almost without appearing at the imperial court, Pavel Petrovich for many years pondered the reforms that he was going to carry out.


S. Torelli. Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich at the maneuvers of the Life Guards Cuirassier Regiment

The "wrong" emperor



Paul I in the portrait of S. Shchukin

Paul I ascended the throne much later than he was supposed to by law - at the age of 42 (in 1796). He immediately canceled the notorious decree of Peter I, according to which the ruling monarch himself appointed an heir and successor. Now power was transferred strictly through the male line.

Contrary to expectations, the new emperor did not take revenge on anyone for previous humiliations - including Platon Zubov. Later, as we remember, having become convinced of the numerous abuses of the last favorite in the posts he held, or his neglect of his duties, he nevertheless temporarily removed both Plato and his brothers from the court - but that’s all.

Paul began to put things in order, which was perceived by the corrupt nobles of Catherine’s Golden Age as absolute “lawlessness” and fierce tyranny. Decembrist M. Fonvizin (nephew of the playwright), for example, directly wrote that, by getting rid of Paul I, “the nobility sought to guarantee itself the willful and immoral life of the times of Catherine.”

In the notorious “Charter of Letters to the Nobility”, which gave rise to a caste of “wild landowners” in Russia - the same ones who lived endlessly on estates, started harems of courtyard girls and hired experienced torture masters from abroad who came to them with “tools of labor” “, only one was left, according to which only the king could deprive a person of nobility.

Paul I's assumption of the title of Grand Master of the Catholic Order of the Ioannites (Knights of Malta) was not at all a reason for ridicule. On the contrary, the Malta Project was very popular in society, and young nobles literally stood in line to “sign up for knighthood.” And Pushkin later called Paul I “our romantic emperor.”


Paul I in Maltese attire in a portrait by Salvator Tonchi

At first, Paul I allowed himself to be drawn into an unnecessary war with France (a state that did not even have common borders with Russia). The great commanders MacDonald and Moreau suffered defeats in battles against Suvorov. General Joubert was killed, whom the “director” Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès was going to make consul of France - instead of Bonaparte, who was stuck in Egypt. The future marshals Grouchy, Serurrier and Perignon were captured. Pies, hats, boots and even women's hairstyles began to be named after Suvorov in England.


General Suvorov leads members of the French Directory to Russia, English cartoon

And then the allies showed their true colors. The Austrians literally “expelled” Suvorov from Italy, essentially sending his army into the Alpine trap, having previously withdrawn the troops of Archduke Charles from Switzerland. By the way, later, having learned about this order of Franz II, A. Suvorov will say that the emperor “went crazy, or he didn’t have it at all.” The plan for the new campaign was drawn up by Franz Wereuther, who would later become famous for his disposition of the Battle of Austerlitz. And the roads along which Suvorov’s army was supposed to join the corps of A.M. Rimsky-Korsakov existed only on maps. And in Switzerland there was the “predatory” Andre Massena, and with him three more future marshals - Oudinot, Mortier and Soult.

In a two-day battle, Rimsky-Korsakov’s troops were defeated, and now, having occupied all the passes, Massena was simply eager to “teach the impudent Russian old man a lesson.” But Suvorov left Switzerland with great difficulty, great losses and great glory, managing to bring with him about one and a half thousand French prisoners.

The British refused to hand over the island they had captured to the Maltese grandmaster Pavel.

And Bonaparte, who carried out a coup on the 18th Brumaire of the VIII year of the Republic (that is, November 9, 1799), without waiting for the signing of a peace treaty with Russia (it would be signed only in the fall of 1801), freed from captivity more than 6 thousand Russian soldiers and officers of the Rimsky-Korsakov corps, defeated by Massena in Switzerland. Among them, by the way, were three Russian generals - Osten-Sacken, Lykoshin and Markov. Moreover, Napoleon ordered new uniforms to be sewn for everyone and money to be given for the journey. All this taken together led Paul to the idea of ​​an alliance with France.

You probably remember the fantastic conquering projects of the last favorite of Catherine II, Platon Zubov, to which his aged mistress favorably listened. Much better known is the campaign to India planned by Paul I, but not the one that did not take place. When talking about him, again, they focus on the madness of this emperor. However, this very project was very real and greatly frightened the British, who, according to a surviving message from a secret Prussian agent in London, at that time hoped that they would be able to retain at least Ceylon.

Bonaparte took this idea very seriously, and allocated a 35-strong corps led by Andre Massena for joint action. This marshal in France had the official title of “Savior of the Fatherland” and the unofficial nickname “l'Enfant chéri de la Victoire” (literally, “precious child of Victory”). The French were supposed to reach the Black Sea along the Danube and reach Taganrog, from where they would move to Tsaritsyn and Astrakhan, where the Russian army would be waiting for them at the mouth of the Volga.

Together they would go to Astrabad, and then through Herat and Kandahar to India. It was along this path that the troops of Alexander the Great once walked. And quite recently, in the 40s of the 12th century, the cavalry of Nadir Shah broke into India. On January 1801, XNUMX, the Cossacks of the Don Ataman Vasily Orlov received an order to go to the borders of India through Orenburg, Bukhara and Khiva. Three Russian ships located in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky were armed for operations in the Indian Ocean - they were supposed to disrupt the trade communications of the Indian colonies with the mother country.

The upcoming military campaign aroused great enthusiasm in society, and the future Decembrist V. Shtengel later recalled with what delight and elation the young officers anticipated the “battle with the Jacks.” But Paul I was killed, and his son Alexander drew the right conclusions: having abandoned a promising alliance with France, for many years he sent Russian men to fight in Europe for the interests of the bankers of the City of London.

By the way, upon closer examination, many stories about Paul’s “inappropriate cruelty” are not confirmed and turn out to be anecdotes. Among them is the famous order to the Horse Guards Regiment: “March to Siberia.” And the Horse Guards allegedly went to Siberia before receiving news of the emperor’s death. In fact, for “their reckless actions during the maneuvers,” the regiment commander and 6 colonels were arrested, and the regiment from St. Petersburg went to Tsarskoe Selo. The fact is that Paul I “during this massacre, Paul... uttered the word “Siberia” several times, which probably served as the basis for the creation of the joke.”

But the message that, having received a report on absolutely outstanding abuses in Vyatka, on April 12, 1800, Pavel “removed from office all officials of the Vyatka province” is pure truth. And there are unlikely to be many who want to reproach him for this.

As for the army, 7 field marshals, 300 generals and a huge number of senior officers were sent into retirement - almost all of them did not serve, but were only listed in their units, receiving a salary. In the Horse Guards alone, 1 fictitious officers were removed from the lists. Further - more: in 541, there was an order to report to the regiments from the cradle of the “minors” enrolled in them.

Lists of “non-employee nobles” were requested, and in the Voronezh province alone in August 1800, 57 completely illiterate (!) nobles were discovered - these were very real prototypes of Fonvizin’s Mitrofanushka. Those of them who had not reached 40 years of age (43 people) were assigned to military service. Moreover, Paul I again allowed corporal punishment for nobles - for criminal offenses and official abuses.

Russian nobles were firmly convinced of their own right to beat serfs, or soldiers and sailors to death, but categorically did not want to expose their backs to sticks. The guardsmen of St. Petersburg were now forced to serve according to the regulations, which, again, was perceived by everyone as an incomprehensible whim of the “crazy” emperor.

The aristocrats were also dissatisfied with the fact that Pavel equated the Cossack military ranks with officers: they did not even consider the rich representatives of the Cossack “foremen” as equals. However, it was somehow inconvenient to speak directly about the true reasons for the discontent of the guards, so later historians bashfully explained it by the introduction of Prussian-style uniforms and drills.

By the way, regarding drill: how could they manage without it, if many of the guardsmen of St. Petersburg did not even have a clue about the march? And they didn’t know how to handle their service weapons. But the fact that it was under Paul I that engineering, cartographic and courier units appeared in Russia is usually kept silent.

Let's continue the story about establishing order and discipline. Among the persons taken into the Secret Chancellery under Paul I, there were 44% officers, but soldiers (of whom there were incomparably more) - only 9%. During the reign of this emperor, 495 convictions were handed down against officers and only 287 against soldiers. And the result was obvious. A. Bolotov writes:

“The officers stopped luxuriating, but began to better remember their rank and respect their dignity.”

All this made Paul very popular among ordinary soldiers and sailors. General L. Bennigsen, a participant in the conspiracy against the emperor, admits:

"The emperor never did injustice to the soldier and tied him to himself."

French emigrant in Russian service A. Langeron reports:

“The soldiers loved Pavel... Starting from Pavel, allowances were always given accurately and even before the deadline. The colonels could no longer appropriate what belonged to the soldiers.”

“Everyone was in awe of the emperor. Only the soldiers loved him."

- This is the testimony of Christopher Lieven.

The sailors treated Pavel very well, because during the voyage on the brig Emmanuel he slept on the quarterdeck, covered with a piece of sail. In addition, he abolished pitching (a barbaric form of punishment in which the offender was dragged on a rope under water from side to side), and increased the wine portion for the lower ranks.

The nobles also did not like Paul's other initiatives. For example, he limited corvée to three days a week, forgave peasants for arrears in the per capita tax in the amount of more than 7 million rubles, prohibited the sale of peasants without land, and also the fragmentation of peasant families when they passed to other owners.


Manifesto on a three-day corvee

Church hierarchs were outraged by the permission of the Old Believers to have special churches of the same faith, in which Orthodox priests were supposed to serve, but according to the old books of schismatics.

As a result, according to the Prussian envoy Bruhl, “everyone except the urban mob and peasants” was dissatisfied with the emperor (message to Berlin in 1797).

Kotzebue wrote about the same thing:

"Out of 36 million Russians, at least 33 million had a reason to bless the emperor."

And here is the testimony of the already mentioned Decembrist M. Fonvizin:

“In this disastrous time for the Russian nobility, the disenfranchised majority of the people throughout the empire remained indifferent to what was happening in St. Petersburg - before it did not touch the cruel measures that threatened the nobility. The common people even loved Paul. "

And therefore, the palace coup of March 11, 1801 was the only one in which ordinary soldiers did not participate. And Lieven later wrote:

"Had Paul had time to escape and if he had appeared to the troops, the soldiers would have saved him and saved him."

Of course, one cannot help but admit that Pavel was quick-tempered, impulsive, and made a number of decisions that were incomprehensible to the general public, such as the ban on round hats and turn-down collars. But some of his innovations caught on - for example, the then much criticized command “March” instead of “Go”.

Rumors about Paul's madness were strongly supported by the British; in this cartoon from 1801, for example, Paul I walks from St. Petersburg to Bedlam (Bethlem Royal Mental Hospital):


However, it must be said that tyranny was a generic feature of all the Romanovs; the French historian Thiers quite rightly noted that “the name of Pavlov’s disease is autocracy.” Tyranny was especially evident in the character of Peter I, in comparison with whom his great-grandson Pavel was simply an angel in the flesh. An entire article could easily be written about the “eccentricities” of the first Russian emperor. Peter I, as you know, personally cut off the beards of the boyars, and the duty he introduced on wearing a beard for certain categories of the population was canceled only in 1772.

As a result, Emelyan Pugachev promised to reward everyone who joins him not only with “a river, land, bread, lead, gunpowder and eternal will,” but also with a “beard.” And Peter’s father, “The Quietest” Alexei Mikhailovich, ordered those who had shaved their beards to be beaten with batogs. He also banned playing musical instruments (which were confiscated and burned) and chess. And he categorically ordered the German gardener Indrik to plant “all the fruits that God has” on the apple tree.

You can recall the famous “wedding in the Ice House” organized by Anna Ioannovna.

One cannot blame “Petrov’s daughter” Elizaveta for having a good character, who once ordered all the ladies around her to shave off their hair just because she dyed hers unsuccessfully. And Mademoiselle Tardieu, who sold foreign goods, was sent to prison because she sold some new items without waiting for the empress's visit.

How, other than tyranny, can one explain the crazy spending of Catherine II, who literally showered her insignificant favorites with gold for “bed” services?
Paul I once said:

“You see that... people should be treated like dogs.”

And his son, “blessed Alexander,” was very fond of saying:

“I only believe that all people are scoundrels.”

Alexander I once said to Derzhavin:

“You want to learn everything, but I am an autocratic king and I want it to be this way and not otherwise.”

He says to Arakcheev:

"Military settlements will be founded by all means, even if I have to cover the road from St. Petersburg to Chudovo with corpses."

And here is the story of the Decembrist Ivan Yakushkin:

“From France in 1814 we returned by sea to Russia... During the prayer service, the police mercilessly beat the people who tried to approach the lined up army. This made the first unfavorable impression on us upon returning to our fatherland... Finally the emperor appeared... on a glorious red horse with a drawn sword... We admired him; but at that very moment a man ran across the street almost in front of his horse. The emperor gave spurs to his horse and rushed at the runner with his sword drawn. The police took the man to task. We couldn’t believe our eyes and turned away, ashamed of the king we loved. This was the first disappointment about him."

The same episode is described by Matvey Muravyov-Apostol.

Paul I forbade sideburns, Nicholas I - beards. And once he wrote on a report about two people sentenced to death:

“Drive the culprits through 1 people 000 times (!). Thank God, we never had the death penalty, and it’s not for me to introduce it.”

It was impossible to survive after such an execution, and, in essence, “merciful” Nicholas signed the order for a long and painful execution.

It was not in vain that his son Alexander II was called a “fierce lamb” by his teacher V. Zhukovsky.

What do you think of the famous phrase of Alexander III - “Europe can wait while the Russian Tsar fishes”? It invariably touches the hearts of many “patriots,” but in this case we see not just tyranny, but also criminal negligence and outright neglect of official duties.

By the way, while still a Tsarevich, Alexander Alexandrovich in 1869 unfairly insulted Karl Ivanovich Gunnius, an artillery captain, clerk of the Armory Commission under the Main Artillery Directorate, who the year before, together with General Gorlov, had so well improved the 4,2-line rifle of the American Berdan that in the USA they began to call it the “Russian rifle” (and in Russia it is still “Berdan No. 1”).


K. I. Gunius and A. P. Gorlov and the Berdan rifle No. 2 fixed (for testing) in the machine

Gunnius wrote a letter to the Tsarevich demanding an apology, promising to commit suicide if he refused. Without waiting for an answer, he shot himself, and the heir to the throne, by order of his father-emperor, followed the coffin to the cemetery.

In 1910, six-year-old Tsarevich Alexei considered himself entitled to reprimand Prime Minister P. Stolypin:

“When I come in, you have to stand up.”

In general, when they talk about the bad character of Paul I, they somehow forget to remember the no less unpleasant traits of his relatives. However, it is not at all necessary for any boss (and in some situations it is even unacceptable) to be a good, spiritual person - first of all, he must be an effective leader.

And it should be recognized that Paul’s activities generally corresponded to the interests of the state and 90% of its subjects. As for the Russian aristocrats, they would willingly forgive him for banning applause in the theater, but they could not forgive the “betrayal of the interests” of their class.

But the British could not forgive the alliance with Bonaparte and an independent foreign policy. Thus, common interests and goals appeared among English bankers, lords and senior representatives of the Russian nobility. Emperor Paul I was doomed.

The following articles will talk about the conspiracy against Paul I, which ended with the murder of this emperor, and the role that representatives of the Zubov family played then.
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    24 November 2023 05: 32
    And yet, the main reason for the murder of Emperor Pav I was that he, too, in French interests, organized the infringement of British interests by the Cossacks’ campaign against India, the main component of the income and well-being of the British Empire throughout their history. By the way, the future Emperor Alexander I was also seen in this event, everyone who was possibly involved in this action!
    1. +14
      24 November 2023 05: 54
      Any historical events can be interpreted in different ways, but the fact remains that this German woman managed to kill two legitimate Russian emperors - Peter the Third (also her husband) and John the Sixth, who was slaughtered like a hog in the Shlisselburg fortress. I would not be at all surprised if she killed her own son. It is not surprising that Paul took special precautions in Gatchina; historians also attribute this to Paul’s “strangeness”...
      Thanks to the author for an interesting article, written in a living language, and not by rewriting Wikipedia, as some people sin..
      1. +2
        25 November 2023 15: 20
        It’s true, we like to rewrite history to suit the situation. However, it made me smile about “live cartridges” in the eighteenth century..
        1. +5
          25 November 2023 18: 50
          Quote from: dmi.pris1
          However, about “live cartridges” in the century

          Paper cartridges with lead bullets. Bullets are not needed to make fireworks.
    2. +4
      24 November 2023 06: 03
      I think you are exaggerating, as one of the reasons is possible, but I would not consider the campaign against India as the main reason.
    3. +1
      24 November 2023 10: 55
      And yet the main reason for the murder of Emperor Pav I was that he, too, in French interests, organized the infringement of British interests by the Cossacks’ campaign against India

      The British never took this utopian plan seriously.
      1. +11
        24 November 2023 11: 04
        If even half of the Russian-French army (including losses from disease) had reached India, the British would have lost India. They had few troops there and were scattered over a vast territory. But quickly delivering a large army by sea is not realistic. Napoleon was not at all a simpleton to send 35 thousand soldiers and one of the best commanders of France, Massena, to certain death and without a chance of success.
        1. +3
          24 November 2023 12: 59
          If only half (including losses from disease) of the Russian-French army had reached India


          So first it was necessary to conquer the Bukhara and Khiva Khanates. Go through the Pamir mountains.
          Which was already unrealistic.
          No one would pass through Afghanistan.
          But what can we say, if there were simply no maps of Afghanistan at all, no one even knew whether there were mountains or plains, if there were roads at all, what rivers would need to be crossed, etc.!

          Napoleon was not a simpleton at all


          So not a single French soldier budged, and Paul had already sent the Cossacks to India.
          Most likely, Napoleon’s task was to entice Paul into a previously disastrous adventure.
          1. +4
            24 November 2023 13: 05
            As I understand from the article, the Khiva campaign is almost a diversionary maneuver. And the main blow:
            The French were supposed to reach the Black Sea along the Danube and reach Taganrog, from where they would move to Tsaritsyn and Astrakhan, where the Russian army would be waiting for them at the mouth of the Volga.
            Together they would go to Astrabad, and then through Herat and Kandahar to India. It was along this path that the troops of Alexander the Great once walked. And quite recently, in the 40s of the XNUMXth century, the cavalry of Nadir Shah broke into India.

            The Afghans are irreconcilable enemies of the British, and would also act as allies.
            1. +5
              24 November 2023 13: 33
              Quote: vet
              Afghans are irreconcilable enemies of the British

              The Afghans in those days, about the British, at best, knew that they existed))
              First contacts - 1808.
            2. +2
              24 November 2023 13: 38
              And the main blow...Together they would go to Astrabad


              Astrabad is an Iranian city near the Caspian Sea. This is an even more crazy route, to go along the shores of the Caspian Sea to Persia, and then through it to Afghanistan.
              Yeah, the Shah of Persia would have let someone else’s army pass through his country.

              The Afghans are irreconcilable enemies of the British, and would also act as allies.


              It was only at the end of the 18th century that Afghans had not even heard of the British.
              The British first appeared in Afghanistan only in 1839, 40 years later.
        2. +3
          24 November 2023 13: 52
          If only half (including losses from disease) of the Russian-French army had reached India

          First, analyze Russia’s losses in the Crimean War. And logistics problems. Maybe then you will understand that all these plans for the conquest of India, which were regularly created in Russia until the mid-XNUMXth century (the plan of Duhamel, Chikhachev, Khrulev) were stillborn. The British were confident that there was no chance of invading India through the north-west frontier.
          The real danger for Britain in India was internal contradictions, which periodically resulted in anti-British uprisings of various scales. Napoleon was just betting on them. But Russia has never supported a single uprising, even in 1857.
          But turbo-patriots stubbornly cling to the mirage of the legend that Britain was afraid of a Russian invasion of India.
      2. BAI
        +2
        24 November 2023 16: 04
        In January 1801, the Cossack ataman Orlov received an imperial decree, which explained the purpose of the military action:

        “The British are preparing to attack me and my allies the Danes and Swedes. I am ready to accept them, but we need to attack them themselves, both where the blow may be more sensitive and where they are less expected. The establishment in India is the best for this. Go with artillery through Bukhara and Khiva to the Indus River. Send your scouts to prepare and inspect the roads. All the riches of India will be your reward for the expedition. I am enclosing the maps."
  2. +7
    24 November 2023 05: 37
    Hi all! Thank you to the author for the above “portrait” of personal opinion about personality!!!
    I agree with Valery on one thing - Pavel Petrovich is the most underrated emperor of Russia! The rest is not so simple. All the same, what we cannot confirm with documents or through artifacts is filled in with the subjective flight of fancy of the researcher!!!
    All the good days!
    1. +4
      24 November 2023 21: 04
      I returned to this article several times throughout the day. I was waiting for comments from Pane Kokhanka (Nikolai Mikhailov), who devoted more than one year of his research to Emperor Pavel Petrovich and the era of his reign. But for some reason Kolya ignored this article. It's a pity. It would be very interesting to read his opinion as a specialist.
      1. +9
        25 November 2023 00: 41
        I was waiting for comments from Pane Kokhanka (Nikolai Mikhailov), who devoted more than one year of his research to Emperor Pavel Petrovich and the era of his reign. But for some reason Kolya ignored this article. It's a pity. It would be very interesting to read his opinion as a specialist.

        Dmitry, hello! Unfortunately, I only just now got to the article. Thanks to Sergei-Archiphile for reporting it, I haven’t visited the site for a long time. drinks
        What can I say... I agree with much of the respected author Valery, some are somewhat contradictory for me. what
        About mother, in principle, this is largely true. She bought her throne with generous handouts to the nobles. Her favorites, for the most part, were deprived of great talent.
        As an example, I’ll give Grigory Orlov. What can be credited to him? 1. Participation in the 1762 conspiracy. 2. A proposal to send a squadron to the Mediterranean Sea (it is still unclear who was the first to propose, he or his brother Alexei, who commanded the squadron). 3. The pacification of the Plague Riot in Moscow - yes, this is undoubtedly his merit. soldier Otherwise he did not show himself. Yes, he was a handsome, strong man, yes, he shone on the “carousel”, but... He was not a Feldtsehmeister (artillery commander), because he didn’t understand artillery itself. request When he was sent to negotiate with the Turks, he almost broke the face of the Sultan's ambassador in the middle of the meeting. angry Maybe this should have been done fairly, because the Turks were fiddling around, delaying the negotiations in every possible way, but still, it would have been somewhat undiplomatic. laughing
        Potemkin was a good administrator, but how much did he cost the treasury? belay I think it's too expensive. fellow Yes, he introduced boots and a helmet into the infantry. Pavel canceled this back, leaving boots only for the rangers in the infantry. The lamentations of Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov that boots (large leggings that covered the ankle) are pus on the feet look strange, as if before the Potemkin reform boots and boots prevented the same Alexander Vasilyevich from beating the Turks, Poles and the French General Dumouriez who joined them personally! wassat
        Well, the Zubovs are simply the apotheosis of Catherine’s reign, dignified nonentities. Moreover, Platon Alexandrovich knocked out all the titles for himself and his relatives, including his own dad with criminal inclinations, through the wide bed of the luscious empress. lol
        And, in general, Radishchev wrote his work for a reason. Catherine, of course, said that good the landowner, the peasants do not know the needs... And how many were bad landowners? Samodurov? Voluptuous people, even pedophiles?.. Absolutely unpunished! negative
        And Pavel, in defiance of his late mother, immediately released Radishchev. And he ordered the Horse Guards Regiment to be stationed in the Tauride Palace of the late Potemkin.
        Regarding the Pavlovian uniform. I read an article by a senior employee of the Artillery Museum, Evgeniy Yurkevich (he is probably the leading “Pavlovian” in this museum). The Pavlovian uniform could easily be tailored to suit you. But they didn’t like this uniform (nobles, of course!), because at that time it was already unfashionable! Well, probably, this was also influenced by the attitude towards the emperor, who forced me to serve, and not to play around and wander around balls in a private dress. request Again, speaking about the uniform, all contemporaries for some reason forgot about the overcoat, which Pavel first introduced. But before him, all the “brilliant administrators” for some reason didn’t give a damn about this issue!
        Something like that. drinks
  3. +8
    24 November 2023 05: 59
    Another historical example that history is written by the winners.
  4. +3
    24 November 2023 06: 23
    As always, absolutely biased, it would be possible to mention such a curious fact that during the 6 years of Paul’s reign, more serfs were distributed than during the 34 years of Catherine’s reign, everything was in order with theft and nepotism under Pavel, the ranks asked through the mistress of Count Kutaisov, This great statesman was a captured Turkish barber; you can tell a lot about Paul if you look for him.
    And his foreign policy is simply meaningless, we are for peace, we are for monarchs, we are for France, in another half a year he would have quarreled with Bonaparte, with him the policy of the empire moved away from the interests of the empire, towards all sorts of chimeras.
    1. VLR
      +14
      24 November 2023 07: 08
      Firstly, Paul I distributed no more peasants than Catherine II, but the same amount - 600 thousand. Secondly, it was under Catherine II that serfdom became classical slavery. Having looked into the abyss while investigating the Saltychikha case, Catherine was so afraid (of the anger of the aristocrats) that she forbade the peasants to complain about the landowners. And almost all the stories about the horrors of serfdom are from the era of her reign. Catherine’s “golden” age was for representatives of the highest aristocracy; for everyone else, it was a terrible time of incredible oppression. By the way, then it was necessary to reduce the physical requirements for recruits - the average height of male peasants under Catherine decreased due to chronic malnutrition, and their physical characteristics worsened. Catherine brought Russia to a real civil (not purely peasant) war, in which Pugachev was supported even by local officials and priests - as Pushkin, who studied the documents of that era, wrote with surprise.
      Paul I significantly eased the situation of the peasants and was so confident in the love and devotion of the people that he was going to seek protection from his mother from the very Cossacks who rebelled against her. As for your assertion that Paul would have quarreled with Bonaparte in six months - this is already in bad form, an area of ​​unfounded assumptions,
      alternative history.
      1. +7
        24 November 2023 07: 44
        So what is better than Paul, if in 6 years he gave away the same number of people as Catherine, but it took her 34 years to do this. The idea of ​​an Indian campaign was completely crazy. He would simply have killed 20 thousand Cossacks. But I would give Pavel a plus that he finally began to think about the fate of the peasants and began to take the first steps towards liberating them from serfdom. And he began to limit the rights of idle nobles.
      2. +5
        24 November 2023 07: 59
        Nicholas II was also confident in the love and devotion of the people.
        Catherine did exactly what needed to be done in her place, but Pavel did something stupid and paid for it.
        If in a short period of time the foreign policy of the empire made three turns, then it is logical to expect that the fourth turn will soon follow.
        And bad form is partiality when writing articles on history.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. +7
    24 November 2023 06: 43
    No, Pavlusha, don’t compete,
    You are with Frederick the Second,
    Manage as you wish,
    Don Quixote is just in front of him!

    Good morning everyone!
    I completely disagree with the author and commentators. Neither Paul nor the underrated emperor.
    Some important steps in management taken by him were leveled by the unhinged character of the “demon of the parade ground” and the stupid martinet.
    It was not for nothing that Barclay was irritated by the same tyrant and his son, V.K., who spoke out of place with aplomb. Konstantin, with his “snub nose” reminiscent of his father.
    Comparisons with other emperors look completely inappropriate; some, like Anna Ioannovna, lived in a different era, where rude jokes, such as flogging someone with a whip or keeping someone in an ice house, were considered the height of the sense of humor. It was a different matter at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. apply such “jokes” to noble nobles.
    Even another one possessed by the “demon of the parade ground,” his son Nikolai Pavlovich, was an order of magnitude more correct and restrained. The Decembrists taught - it’s a joke.
    The main thing is that the nobility assessed that his actions were directed against their interests, including a crazy trip to India: the main business partner of the nobles was the British in both the 18th and 19th centuries.
    And the introduction of military discipline and some concessions to the serfs were even considered a crime against the ruling class.
    Why is there a mentally unstable tyrant in power when there are normal candidates for the throne? The nobles were clearly aware of their class interests.
    So they blackballed him with a snuff box.
    1. +3
      24 November 2023 07: 29
      Good morning!hi
      some reliefs for serfs were even considered a crime against the ruling class.
      The ruling class felt the smell of "Pugachevism"
    2. +5
      24 November 2023 07: 39
      That’s what the article is about, that 33 million people out of 36 million had reason to love Paul, and 3 million had a negative attitude. And were 3 million the best representatives of the people?
    3. +3
      24 November 2023 07: 41
      Edward, do you understand that you are now speaking from the position of those people who raped your great-great-great... grandmothers and tortured your great-great-great... grandfathers to death? In your opinion, they did not deserve to be treated differently?
      1. +6
        24 November 2023 08: 26
        In your opinion, they did not deserve to be treated differently?

        Alexey, I remember very well about my peasant great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers. But what do these emotions have to do with it? Pavel, did you abolish serfdom? This was another tyrant, the likes of which are a dime a dozen in history, who rose to power. Today all our offices are filled with such things. And what?
        But, as a person very deeply immersed in the topic, I am also familiar with the scientific historiography of this period.
        But Pavel, if that’s what you mean, did nothing for his great-great-grandparents. His clumsy attempts and those of his two sons came to nothing. Only the defeat in the Crimean War forced the tsar, as the head of the feudal class, to partially liberate the peasantry, if there had not been a defeat from more socially developed states (I’m not talking about Turkey laughing ) - no one would abolish serfdom. The nobles had no reason for this, as in the 40,30,20,10s, XNUMXs, XNUMXs, and XNUMXs of the XNUMXth century.
        Another question is whether this was possible during the reign of Paul, Alexander and Nicholas - I’m sure not.
        I will post articles about this soon.
        Do I condemn serfdom?
        Undoubtedly. But there is historical reality - and there are emotions.
        hi
        1. +3
          24 November 2023 09: 06
          Only defeat in the Crimean War forced the tsar, as the head of the feudal class, to partially liberate the peasantry
          Moreover, under Nicholas, a commission was created to develop a reform of the abolition of serfdom, and this topic was discussed throughout the entire period of Nicholas’s reign. laughing
          1. +5
            24 November 2023 11: 01
            Moreover, under Nicholas, a commission was created to develop the reform of the abolition of serfdom

            Alex,
            good day,
            Eight secret committees on the “peasant question”.
            hi
            1. +4
              24 November 2023 11: 35
              Eight secret committees on the “peasant question”
              Moreover, all 8 started chatting. hi
        2. +2
          24 November 2023 12: 32
          Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
          Another question is whether this was possible during the reign of Paul, Alexander and Nicholas - I’m sure not.

          If I’m not mistaken, Walishevsky wrote that in 1861 they were too hasty with the abolition, since the Communist Party had not reached its logical development (or something like that, I don’t remember the exact quote.)
          1. 0
            27 November 2023 14: 08
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Waliszewski wrote that in 1861 the abolition was too hasty, since the Communist Party had not reached its logical development

            Apparently he wrote correctly (although I didn’t read it). The command post reached its logical conclusion on the night of July 16-17, 1918.
        3. -2
          1 December 2023 12: 26
          Why was it possible in France, England, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, but not in Russia? Why are we worse?
    4. +1
      24 November 2023 11: 18
      So much has been written about Paul the First that everyone who reads the article will have their own addition and comment. So I'll add my own.
      It is not healthy to use individual phrases of historical figures without taking into account the historical context and specific conditions of “application”. We evaluate many things differently now than people did then. The conclusions that can be drawn are too different - it all depends on the author’s point of view. For example:
      In 1910, six-year-old Tsarevich Alexei considered himself entitled to reprimand Prime Minister P. Stolypin: “When I enter, you have to get up.” This is not just a child, but an heir, a symbol of the empire. The rules apparently dictated that you get up when he appeared. Were these rules violated or, conversely, the heir made a mistake in not understanding the situation. Why Stolypin acted this way and not otherwise is a question. In an official setting, we stand up during the playing of the anthem. This is music and words in simple terms, but in meaning - a symbol of the state. "Signs and symbols rule the world."
      You can also look into other examples and find many more stories...
  7. +5
    24 November 2023 07: 19
    Nevertheless, Pavel removed Field Marshal A.V. Suvorov from service and exiled him to Konchanskoye. Yes, yes, Suvorov, the best commander of that time, and maybe of all times.
    1. +5
      24 November 2023 07: 45
      Please note: Suvorov was exiled not to Siberia, not to Kamchatka, not to Solovki, but to his own estate, where he was a king and a god. In fact, he was sent on vacation. And he was available at any moment - which is what happened. If he was needed, he was called and put in charge of the army.
      1. +4
        24 November 2023 12: 22
        Quote: vet
        Please note: Suvorov was exiled not to Siberia, not to Kamchatka, not to Solovki, but to his own estate

        But Alexander Vasilyevich himself wanted to go to a completely different estate, much richer. But they sent him to Kochanskoye, which gave the respected author a reason to lament, “how poorly the great Suvorov lived”)))
    2. +6
      24 November 2023 08: 20
      Nevertheless, Pavel removed Field Marshal A.V. Suvorov from service and exiled him to Konchanskoye. Yes, yes, Suvorov, the best commander of that time, and maybe of all times.
      And Radishchev was released. Everything is contrary to mother.
      1. VLR
        +3
        24 November 2023 08: 28
        And also the publisher Novikov and many others
      2. +5
        25 November 2023 00: 48
        And Radishchev was released. Everything is contrary to mother.

        But perhaps Kosciuszko shouldn’t have been released...
  8. +4
    24 November 2023 07: 26
    After his death, Paul was not canonized as the last emperor. The conclusion suggests itself that the murder was committed, for the good of the Fatherland, by true patriots of Russia. smile
    1. +2
      24 November 2023 14: 12
      Paul, not canonized


      Which is very strange, because he was very merciful to priests.
      By 1799 he twice increased the regular salaries of the clergy, thanks to which the amount of “treasury payments” in annual state estimates approached a million rubles, a huge amount of money at that time!
    2. +2
      24 November 2023 18: 27
      Quote: parusnik
      After his death, Paul was not canonized as the last emperor. The conclusion suggests itself that the murder was committed, for the good of the Fatherland, by true patriots of Russia. smile

      Good evening, Alexey!
      His father Peter III is also not counted among the saints.
      1. VLR
        +4
        24 November 2023 21: 23
        Peter III and Paul I are not counted among the saints, apparently because they died at the hands of those who “had the right” to kill kings. And Nicholas II was killed by those for whom regicide was “out of rank” - slaves, “cattle”. If Yusupov and company had killed Nicholas II after Rasputin, everything would have been fine, they could have done it.
        1. +1
          24 November 2023 22: 18
          Just in case, let me clarify that the official Orthodox Church canonized the entire family as “PASSION-BEARERS TSAR NICHOLAS II, QUEEN ALEXANDRA, TSAREVICH ALEXI, GRAND DUCHESSES OLGA, TATIANA, MARIA AND ANASTASIA.”
          Previously, the church published a list of miracles that justified canonization.
          The Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church came to the conclusion to glorify the royal family in the guise of passion-bearers: “In the suffering endured by the royal family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ’s faith, conquering evil, was revealed, just as it shone in life and death millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the XNUMXth century. ..."
          Later, Evgeny Botkin, the Romanovs’ doctor, was also glorified as a passion-bearer.
          Apparently, in the case of Peter III and Paul I, from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, there was no suffering for the faith and no miracles were found. And besides, officially at the time of their death they died a natural death, which was confirmed by the church. You can look at the documents of the synod at that time.
          1. 0
            24 November 2023 22: 38
            Well, yes, passion-bearers. All their lives they ate well, slept sweetly, and died quickly without much suffering. And how many millions of people died in agony because of them - starting from Khodynka and ending with the Civil War... These saints are now burning in hell. Like many hypocritical hierarchs of both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.
            1. 0
              25 November 2023 10: 09
              Quote: vet
              Well, yes, passion-bearers. All their lives they ate well, slept sweetly, and died quickly without much suffering.

              quote: Primarily, this name refers to persons who suffered martyrdom not for the Christian faith, unlike the martyrs and great martyrs, perhaps even from their loved ones and co-religionists - due to their malice, greed, deceit, conspiracy. Accordingly, in this case the special nature of their feat is emphasized - goodness, which is one of the commandments of Jesus Christ.
              The first Russian passion-bearers Boris and Gleb also did not live poorly and did not suffer much.
              Quote: vet
              These saints are burning in hell now.

              But fortunately, we cannot know this for sure.
              1. VLR
                0
                25 November 2023 10: 39
                There is no exact information about the death of Gleb, but Boris, it seems, opposed Yaroslav the Wise in the role of the “damned Svyatopolk” (who, after the death of Vladimir, fled from Kiev and at that moment was absolutely in Poland with his father-in-law Boleslav the Brave). Boris lost the battle. Yaroslav's Varangian-Novgorod army and was killed by Yaroslav's mercenary Eymund, who organized a special operation for a night raid on an enemy camp. Yaroslav hypocritically reproached him for arbitrariness and occupied Kyiv, where the Novgorodians, avenging the baptism of their city with “fire and sword,” burned all the churches. And then in Rus',
                together with Boleslav, and the “cursed” Svyatopolk appeared - and Kyiv Christians greeted him with icons in their hands. It has long been proven that “The Life of Boris and Gleb” is an almost word-for-word retelling of the Czech legend.
                1. +1
                  25 November 2023 18: 49
                  It’s entirely possible that this was all true... but does this somehow affect the situation with the “passion-bearers”?
          2. +1
            24 November 2023 23: 11
            These are the amazing incognito people who put downvotes. The above are facts and terms derived from formal documents. Even 20 minuses won't change them. What is the point of such an assessment? In order to cancel such a decision, it is not necessary to put downsides here - to write letters to the patriarch wink
          3. +2
            25 November 2023 00: 49
            Apparently, in the case of Peter III and Paul I, from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, there was no suffering for the faith and no miracles were found.

            But the Old Believers, after the murder of Paul, prayed deeply for him. Because he allowed Old Believer churches to open.
          4. 0
            25 November 2023 10: 04
            Quote: balabol
            in the case of Peter III and Paul I, from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, there was no suffering for the faith

            Well, as it were, Peter Fedorovich did not exactly patronize schismatics, but he abolished many oppressions. Pavel Petrovich, in addition, allowed the Jesuits into Russia. In general, we can say that the claims of the Orthodox Russian Orthodox Church against these two kings are quite solid.
          5. -1
            1 December 2023 13: 25
            And in the case of Dmitry, for example? ) I am sure that if Nikolai Romanov had been shot or strangled by the nobles, there would have been no trace of a saint, because the synod was one of the first to welcome abdication and arrest. Unfortunately, the institution of the church has long ceased to be a consolation and protection for the poor, but has turned into a political instrument
  9. -1
    24 November 2023 07: 43
    Regarding victories in wars with Turkey. What does Catherine have to do with it if there were Rumyantsev, Suvorov, Ushakov? And hundreds of other military generals and officers, many of whom had never even seen Catherine. I don’t doubt for a second that they would have coped well with the Turks even without this German woman.
    1. +7
      24 November 2023 08: 22
      I don’t doubt for a second that they would have coped well with the Turks even without this German woman.
      I've already heard this somewhere about recent events. “We won not thanks to, but in spite of” (N.S. Khrushchev)
      1. 0
        24 November 2023 09: 00
        I think that in this case - yes, contrary to it. Because it was quite possible to win without having an orgy with lovers and without giving them peasants and money from the treasury. And without creating hell on earth for serfs and peasant women. You will agree that Pugachev’s uprising did not happen because the common people went crazy under Catherine?
    2. 0
      1 December 2023 14: 55
      And who appointed them to positions, parliament?)))))
  10. +3
    24 November 2023 07: 47
    "celebrating" the bicentenary of the phrase "Englishwoman shits" one thing is clear, that this word is only a "complement" towards Britain. In fact, from there the threat to Russia has always been at the level of being Russia or not being, although Russia has never actually fought a serious war directly with England. And as for Emperor Paul and, for example, the campaign of his Cossacks to India, then, as Vladimir Volfovich said, a Russian soldier would still have to wash his boots in the Indian Ocean, so after Paul’s reign, the Russians took Bukhara and Khiva shows that Paul’s train of thought in this direction is already was right then...
    1. +5
      24 November 2023 08: 05
      Quote: north 2
      although Russia never actually fought a serious war directly with England

      Those. The Crimean War - was it not serious?
    2. +5
      24 November 2023 08: 24
      after the reign of Paul, the Russians took Bukhara and Khiva shows
      Well, yes, after 2 Russian emperors changed and 67 years passed.
    3. +5
      24 November 2023 13: 17
      after the reign of Paul, the Russians took Bukhara and Khiva


      Bukhara was taken only in 1868, already under Alexander 2, the grandson of Paul 1!
      At a completely different technical level and with different forces.
      And the first attempts began in 1850, that is, it took a total of 18 years.

      Pavel’s train of thought in this direction was correct even then


      The whole question is in the resources allocated for this.
      Even Peter 1 sent 4 thousand soldiers and 2 thousand Cossacks to Khiva under the command of Bekovich.
      The Khivans deceived them, and then partly killed them, and partly sold them into slavery.
      And they skinned Bekovich, hanging him as an effigy over the gates of Khiva.
  11. -1
    24 November 2023 09: 27
    It was not in vain that his son Alexander II was called a “fierce lamb” by his teacher V. Zhukovsky.

    After the “wonderful” articles about exposing the monarchy, we are waiting for scientific works about revolutionaries like a breath of air - after all, there was something good in the history of our country??? wink
    P.S. And please, more about the poets of the revolution, only honestly!
    1. +2
      24 November 2023 09: 30
      This author also had articles about revolutionaries - and quite a lot. For example, a negative one about the terrorist and atamansha Nikiforova and a positive one about the terrorist Klimova. And also about the heroes of the Civil War - Kotovsky, Kochubey, Shchors, and others.
  12. +3
    24 November 2023 11: 11
    He was a knight - killed from around the corner.
    He loved justice - we are unfair to him.
    Vladislav Khodasevich, about Paul I
  13. +1
    24 November 2023 12: 06
    Unlimited power will make anyone a tyrant. But suddenly it turns out that this power can be limited - with a dagger, poison, guillotine, ax...

    Then historians will long name various reasons why this power was interrupted in this way - foreign intrigues, grievances of an entire class, moral life, violation of some abstract principles, etc., but we should not forget that in most cases the tyrant was removed from power his inner circle, very few in number, was guided by their own interests and only hid behind some slogans.

    IMHO, most likely the cause of sudden apoplexy is tyranny in itself, aimed at the immediate environment.
  14. +6
    24 November 2023 12: 28
    I remembered an epigram from those years.
    - Don’t all praise the deeds of kings!
    - For mercy, but what stupid thing did the great Catherine do?
    - Son!
    --------------------------
    One thing is absolutely certain. He didn’t understand people at all, he couldn’t create a team of like-minded people, and therefore he wasn’t the best ruler.
    But his mother, whatever one may say, was a much more competent head of the personnel department request
    1. 0
      24 November 2023 12: 47
      his mother, whatever one may say, was a much more competent head of the personnel department

      Well, Platon Zubov is a truly magnificent example of how “well” the aged Catherine 2 understood people. And all sorts of Zavadovskys, Lanskys, Zorichis too.
      It’s just that Catherine did her best to please the aristocrats and was afraid to say a word against them. And Pavel imagined that he really was the Sovereign and could “twist the tails of the aristocrats.” Well, they “pointed out to him the mistakes he had made.”
      1. +1
        24 November 2023 12: 53
        Regarding this (the reality of “autocratic power”), “The Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors” says well:
        “To become queen, your great-grandmother executed her sister, but your grandfather took the crown from her and imprisoned the deposed queen in a fortress!” - Nushrok shouted, gasping. - Your father executed your grandfather in order to sit on the throne for just two years. Only two years!.. You must remember: he was found dead in bed one morning. Then your elder brother became king. He had too little regard for the wishes of his ministers, and you, of course, remember well what happened to him. He went to the mountains and fell into the abyss! Then you received the crown... By placing the crown on you, we hoped, Your Majesty, that you would never forget the sad end of your predecessors! Do not forget, Your Majesty, that you have a younger brother who may be waiting to...
        “W-wait,” the king interrupted Nushrok, stuttering. - What... what should I do?
        - First of all, say less often: “This was my will,” so as not to somehow fall into the abyss, Your Majesty! Remember, you have no will of your own! We gave you the crown! We are Nushrok, Abaj and other ministers. And you must carry out not your will, but our will!
      2. +4
        24 November 2023 13: 42
        Quote: vet
        Well, Platon Zubov is a truly magnificent example of how “well” the aged Catherine 2 understood people.

        Did he betray her? wink
        But everyone betrayed Paul. Including those to whom he distributed as many serfs in six years as his mother did in thirty-four.
        so, yes. The example may not be “great”, but it is correct.
        And note that even you used the word “aged,” which eloquently shows that she was better at it in her youth. Pavel never succeeded...
        Quote: vet
        It’s just that Catherine did her best to please the aristocrats and was afraid to say a word against them.

        In your fantasies, maybe so.
        In fact, she removed the former elite from power and put her proteges in their place, after which she was able to retain the throne without having any rights to do so.
        But her son... request
        1. VLR
          +6
          24 November 2023 15: 06
          I still would not agree with you. The secret of Catherine II's political longevity is not in her intelligence, or even in resourcefulness and cunning, but precisely in the fact that she indulged and pleased the aristocrats in everything and did not interfere with their lives. Do you want to “serve” in the Semenovsky or Preobrazhensky regiment without even appearing in it? Please? At least from birth. Do you want to rape girls, force their mothers to breastfeed puppies from your kennel, torture their fathers and brothers in the stables? The peasants are forbidden to even complain about you. Do you want to take bribes from petitioners? Here is a “purse for bribes” for these purposes, tied personally by the empress. Do you want to rob your soldiers? You have every right. When Catherine was asked to help one poor officer, she replied: “His need is his fault: he commanded a regiment for a long time.” It was then, under Catherine II, that the son of Field Marshal Minich said that Russia is controlled directly by God because there is simply no other explanation for its existence.
          When Pavel tried to restore some order, he was declared crazy and killed. Not because he did not know how to select personnel, but because he opposed the already corrupted class of nobles. And he had no one to choose from: he nominated and elevated, but not just like Catherine, but demanded in return diligent and honest service. All the nobles, even those favored by Paul, wanted a return to the old Catherine’s order. And what did Alexander say first when he became emperor? “With me everything will be like with my grandmother.”
          1. VLR
            +4
            24 November 2023 15: 36
            In general, the nobles had no reason to overthrow Catherine II. But the common people were for it. And the people tried to overthrow her during the Pugachev uprising. And, curiously, the rebels wanted to transfer power not to the people’s representatives, not to some Zemsky Sobor, which would decide what to do next, but to the true emperor - Peter III, whose name was adopted by Emelyan Pugachev.
          2. +3
            24 November 2023 15: 47
            Quote: VlR
            And what was the first thing Alexander said when he became emperor? “With me everything will be like with my grandmother.”

            This is a really good example!
            Because having said this, Alexander did everything so that it would not be “like with his grandmother.” And what is typical, I could.
            I, sinfully, do not favor the Blessed One, and there is a reason for this, but here there is nothing to reproach him for!
            1. VLR
              +2
              24 November 2023 16: 56
              Alexander was forced to say exactly what the conspirators wanted to hear from him. Then, when the situation became calmer, I began to slowly tighten the screws. However, he never decided to actually punish his father’s killers, despite his mother’s constant demands. But he was terribly offended by Bonaparte, who slightly “trolled” him about this.
              1. +3
                24 November 2023 17: 52
                Quote: VlR
                when the situation became calmer, I began to slowly “tighten the screws”

                That is, what his father was incapable of.
                Quote: VlR
                However, it is realistic to punish the father's killers

                The murderers of Peter III made a good career and became rich; the murderers of Paul, for the most part, retired and ended their days in obscurity. As they say, feel the difference... between how it was “with grandma” and her grandson)
                1. +1
                  24 November 2023 20: 37
                  Paul's killers mostly retired and ended their days in obscurity


                  But not all.
                  Bennigsen (one of the direct killers), for example, made a simply wonderful career under Alexander.
                  1. +2
                    25 November 2023 09: 54
                    Quote from: dump22
                    But not all.

                    Not all.
                    Quote from: dump22
                    Bennigsen (one of the direct killers)

                    As far as I remember, Leonty Leontievich was not the direct killer and was in another room at the time of the sovereign’s death.
                    Well, despite some shortcomings, he was still not the worst general.
                    1. VLR
                      +1
                      25 November 2023 10: 48
                      It was he who said that at the time of the murder he was in another room. And others claimed that he was standing nearby. But it is absolutely certain that if it were not for Bennigsen, Pavel’s murder would not have happened. The rest of the killers became afraid at the decisive moment and, not yet reaching the emperor’s bedroom, were ready to flee. We'll talk about this later.
                      1. +1
                        25 November 2023 18: 54
                        Quote: VlR
                        The rest of the killers became afraid at the decisive moment and, not yet reaching the emperor’s bedroom, were ready to flee. We'll talk about this later.

                        All right.
                        By the way, it was not Bennigsen who became the Minister of War, but Arakcheev.
                        By the way, the only person who did not betray the king and could prevent the conspiracy.
                        So, yes, Paul did find one outstanding and devoted person... but he himself quarreled with him!
                      2. 0
                        26 November 2023 01: 36
                        So, yes, Paul did find one outstanding and devoted person... but he himself quarreled with him!


                        Arakcheev was dismissed in 1799 by Kutaisov (reporting on the case to Vilde).
                        As usual in the royal court, all “close associates” behave like spiders in a jar, happily devouring each other.

                        The question is, why didn’t Arakcheev make any attempts to return, which he did very well after his first resignation?

                        I think that Arakcheev figured out already in 1799 which way the wind was blowing. Therefore, after his resignation, he temporarily lay low (without reminding of himself), especially since he already had a very good relationship with the heir.
              2. +3
                25 November 2023 00: 52
                But he was terribly offended by Bonaparte, who slightly “trolled” him about this.

                And he carried this hatred within himself until the victory over Napoleon. Bonaparte, however, never understood “how deeply” Alexander remembered those words...
                Then, when the situation became calmer, I began to slowly tighten the screws.

                In just a couple of months. However, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, I’m looking forward to the continuation, Valery. drinks
    2. 0
      24 November 2023 13: 28
      He didn't understand people at all


      That's right.
  15. +4
    24 November 2023 12: 38
    Banal to the point of predictability:

    1. The history textbook is lying
    2. The Tsar is good, these are the boyars who are bad
    3. Englishwoman shits
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  16. 0
    24 November 2023 17: 14
    Unfortunately, at the turn of the century, Russia's technological lag began, due to the strengthening of autocracy and the too long transition to capitalism.
  17. -1
    25 November 2023 14: 55
    Russian Emperors must be judged by the results of their reign. For example, Peter III (the father of the hero of the article) managed to return Köniksberg to Prussia during 4 months of his reign, thereby annulling the results of the 7-year war. And it’s not known what else he would have “thrown away” if he had been “wrong...”
    Why Catherine II was called “The Great” I don’t think it’s necessary to tell and prove.
    What did Pavel Petrovich do during his reign for Russia? BUT NOTHING.
    1. VLR
      +1
      25 November 2023 15: 27
      Königsberg and Prussia were given to Frederick without any conditions by Catherine II! Under Peter III, in Prussia there was an army loyal to him, Peter Rumyantsev, the future hero of the war with Turkey, who resigned after confirmation of the news of the emperor’s death. Peter returned Prussia to Frederick only after he helped him recapture the Danish-occupied areas of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein. And Catherine withdrew her troops without any conditions.
      1. +1
        25 November 2023 15: 53
        Königsberg and Prussia were given to Frederick without any conditions by Catherine II!

        What alternate history did you read this in?
        1. VLR
          +1
          25 November 2023 16: 18
          In a real story, and not in the one invented by Pikul. If you don’t believe me, just open Wikipedia. Read where Rumyantsev was and what he was doing at the time of the coup. And where smart people advised Peter III to go when they were convinced that Kronstadt had been captured.
          1. +1
            25 November 2023 16: 58
            5 May 1762 years At the direction of Peter III, the Peace of St. Petersburg (or the “miracle of the House of Brandenburg”) was signed, which officially ended the war between Russia and Prussia and proclaimed “eternal sincere friendship” between both states. Von der Goltz and Russian Chancellor Mikhail Vorontsov put their signatures on it. The document assumed that both sides would provide mutual assistance and renounce any allied obligations directed against each other.
            Peter III declared himself a supporter of peace in Europe. The treaty recognized Frederick’s “most sacred and hereditary” rights to the territories occupied by Russian troops during the war. East Prussia, including Königsberg, was to return to the control of the Prussian king within two months.

            July 9, 1762 As a result of a palace coup, Catherine II ascended to the Russian throne

            I hope you will agree that May 5, 1762 came earlier than July 9 of the same year. I'm not sure about the rest.
            1. VLR
              0
              25 November 2023 17: 13
              I will write about this in a series of articles about Rumyantsev. For now I will say that I was concluded
              an extremely beneficial treaty, according to which East Prussia returned only after the establishment of Russian authority over Schleswig and Dithmarschen, which legally belonged to Peter III as Duke of Holstein and Stormarn, but were occupied by Denmark. Frederick II pledged to provide 15 thousand infantry and 5 cavalry to help Russia. The Russian army was to be led by Rumyantsev. Rumyantsev's corps was still located in the area of ​​​​Kolberg and Stettin and its numbers increased significantly: it now included 000 cuirassiers, 12 hussars, 4 infantry and 23 Cossack regiments - a total of 11 people. Negotiations with Denmark were scheduled for July 59. If they were unsuccessful, Russia and Prussia began joint military operations, and the Danes did not have the slightest chance of success. And even after this, Peter III retained the right to stop the withdrawal of Russian troops from Prussia “in view of the ongoing unrest in Europe.” That is, the “Western Group of Forces” could remain in East Prussia for a long time, guaranteeing the “obedience” of Frederick the Great.
              Nobody in Europe would have recognized Russia’s right to East Prussia, if a war like the Crimean one would have started. And the right of Peter 3 to Holstein-Schleswie was indisputable, look at the map - it is impossible to imagine a more advantageous geographical location, the Russian naval base there made Russia the mistress of Northern Europe
              1. 0
                25 November 2023 19: 51
                I will write about this in a series of articles about Rumyantsev

                V. Pikul is actually not a historian, but a very good writer on historical topics with a very rich imagination.
                But you, apparently, decided to refute V.O. Klyuchevsky’s statements...
                1. VLR
                  +1
                  25 November 2023 21: 08
                  Do not forget that the same Klyuchevsky is a pre-revolutionary historian, and many documents on the history of the House of Romanov were then classified as “secret”. And until the revolution of 1905, the official cause of death of the same Paul I was considered “apoplexy” (stroke). This is what was written in all the textbooks. And about Peter III, many documents were also closed, and therefore classic works on a number of episodes in the history of our country were written on the basis of “recommended” documents that set out the official version. Then the documents were opened, but the templates had already been created, and to this day, contrary to the facts, textbooks and popular literature repeat previous versions of many events, created under the dictation of the murderers of both Peter 3 and Paul 1, who, by denigrating the murdered, whitewashed themselves, Although In modern monographs, many authors already write something completely different, but who reads them? What can we say about Paul 1, if they still seriously talk about the anecdotal brothers of Rurik - Sineus and Truvor, although it has long been proven that these are not names, but the Swedish phrases “one’s kind” and “loyal squad” misunderstood by later interpreters.
                  1. VLR
                    +1
                    25 November 2023 21: 34
                    The funny thing is that modern Swedes clearly hear Sineus as sine hus (kind of), and “Truvor” as thru varing (“faithful squad”).
                    However, some suggest reading:
                    “Ryrik sīnna husa tru wɔra” - “Rurik, his faithful defender of his houses.”
                  2. 0
                    26 November 2023 05: 38
                    many documents on the history of the House of Romanov were then classified as “secret”. And until the revolution of 1905, the official cause of death of the same Paul I was considered “apoplexy” (stroke).

                    Are you saying that there is a declassified document about the death of Peter III, for example, a “medical certificate of death”, in which it is written that “the cause of death is apolexic stroke with a snuff box”?
                    ps By the way, you avoided a direct answer to who gave Könik to Prussia.
                    1. VLR
                      +1
                      26 November 2023 07: 09
                      Peter III expressed his intention to return East Prussia to Frederick - subject to his fulfilling a number of conditions, and even increased the number of Russian troops in this province.
                      The order to withdraw troops from Prussia was signed by Catherine II - without any conditions, an absolutely reliable fact.
                      At the same time, Russia’s exit from this extremely unpopular and incomprehensible war was welcomed by all layers of Russian society and no one then had even a hint of dissatisfaction with the abandonment of Prussia.
      2. +2
        25 November 2023 19: 03
        Quote: VlR
        Peter returned Russia to Frederick only after he helped him recapture the Danish-occupied areas of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein.

        Which are even further from Russia than East Prussia and of very dubious value.
        Quote: VlR
        For now I will say that I was concluded
        extremely profitable contract,

        I wish I knew what this “benefit” was...
    2. -1
      27 November 2023 09: 48
      Great Catherine was called because she gave the nobles unlimited freedoms, including the non-compulsory state service, plus she further enslaved the peasants.
  18. +1
    26 November 2023 20: 00
    "[quote]Paul I was killed, and his son Alexander drew the right conclusions: having abandoned a promising alliance with France, for many years he sent Russian men to fight in Europe for the interests of the bankers of the City of London."

    A fashionable feature now on historical sites:
    - the British are subterranean snakes, eternal enemies of Russia, and Napoleon is handsome!
    So it was necessary to send the arrogant Saxons to reprisal Boanapartia, and the Russians themselves should be friends with him and not bother, make good money... Somewhere like that...

    Apparently, judging by the timing of this joke’s actualization, it is an attempt at a conjunctural extrapolation of the modern political situation and the NWO (like, “An Englishwoman shits”) to the situation in Europe during the Napoleonic wars.

    Let's say Britain is defeated, India is ours (we would have to share it with the French who already had colonies there). Russia is left alone, without allies, with the “little corporal” dreaming of world domination. Having defeated England and captured its fleet, he would hardly have tolerated Russia as the last obstacle on the way to his cherished goal.

    Even with an undefeated England as a military ally of Russia behind French lines, they had to retreat all the way to Moscow and surrender it to plunder and humiliation. If it weren't for winter, God knows how all this would have ended. In any case, the Borodino field in the general battle remained with the French (and their allies); they failed to defeat them and had to retreat themselves.
    And Napoleon had to keep a significant part of the army in Spain, where again there were English troops, English money + the famous guerrillas, armed with the ubiquitous Englishmen.

    What the French did in Spain, outrages and war crimes, were also committed in Russia. The massive, demonic desecration of temples alone is worth it. The gallant French surpassed the Tatar-Mongols in this. This is not forgotten... And why do we need such friends and comrades?

    PS
    Recent history has shown that in the West, by the way, and in the East, Russia has no real friends and allies. Everyone is only interested in Russian gas and oil. I am your friend and sell me cheaper...

  19. +1
    27 November 2023 13: 19
    Quote: Nagan
    Quote: north 2
    although Russia never actually fought a serious war directly with England

    Those. The Crimean War - was it not serious?

    Against the backdrop of the Russian-Turkish/Swedish/Lithuanian (especially Lithuanian and Polish) or the endless series of Anglo-French wars from 1690 to 1815 (this is longer than the medieval Hundred Years' War), as a result of which France correctly assessed the situation and firmly began to act as Britain's second number ( and in Greece and later in Crimea in 1853-56 and in China in 1860 and further in both world wars, in the invasion of Suez in 1956 and most recently in Libya) - somehow, yes, not very seriously.

    However, Crimea was not the only one; there was also a war at sea from 1807 to 1812 (it was quite active for 3 years), the so-called Great Game in Asia from 1813 to 1907 and the occupation of several regions after the revolution with active hostilities. Not much, to be honest.
  20. -2
    28 November 2023 08: 58
    Lost somewhere was a small gift from a fan to his beloved idol - the transfer of Prussia, which was conquered with great blood, back to Frederick. The army, which was basely and cynically betrayed, “didn’t like this.” How sensitive! They couldn't wipe themselves off!
    In general, the article shows a person who is completely unsuitable for the royal crown (unlike Catherine). Catherine's "corrupt" nobles developed the country and added vast territories to it. Pavel was busy destroying and distributing. Bullshit....
    1. VLR
      +1
      28 November 2023 14: 16
      It is necessary to write directly for each individual that under Peter 3, Rumyantsev’s army was in Prussia, which had no intention of leaving there, and it was Catherine 2 who signed the order for the withdrawal of troops without any conditions. And that the army was very pleased with the end of this incomprehensible and extremely unpopular war with a state that did not have common borders with Russia.
  21. +2
    1 December 2023 15: 49
    Quote: Timofey Charuta
    Let's say Britain is defeated, India is ours (we would have to share it with the French who already had colonies there). Russia is left alone, without allies, with the “little corporal” dreaming of world domination. Having defeated England and captured its fleet, he would hardly have tolerated Russia as the last obstacle on the way to his cherished goal.

    England dreamed more of world domination. And so, having defeated Napoleon, we were left alone, not just with the dreaming, but striving for world domination, John Bull.
    Austria does not count; it sat inside Europe and was a counterweight, perhaps, to France “liberated” from the yoke of Napoleon.
  22. 0
    1 December 2023 18: 12
    What can we say here? Paul I is the son of his father, similar fates.
  23. 0
    27 February 2024 00: 57
    Mark Aldanov wrote about this well:

    I would not quote Mark Aldanov in the article, who has nothing to do with Russian history.
    Of course, among the insignificant Russian tsars there was not a single decent one, but the author had poor digestion. For example, Comrade Sverdlov and Trotsky showed us examples of infinite intelligence and the same decency. And Trotsky, who organized the trial against Admiral Shchastny, who saved several hundred ships that he was going to sell, is simply an example of honesty and kindness. Lev Davidovich shot him.
    Well, the writer Mark Aleksandrovich Aldanov (born Mordhai-Markus Izrailevich Landau) is simply an example of scientific infallibility. This kind of article can safely be called quasi-scientific or, more simply put, “sort of scientific.”
    Oh, what a bad history the Russians have! Wherever you spit, you'll end up a fool. Ahah...
    Europe has a completely different story... wonderful.