"The Marked" Duke Henry de Guise. Origin and Youth of the Antihero of Dumas' Novels

18 427 84
"The Marked" Duke Henry de Guise. Origin and Youth of the Antihero of Dumas' Novels

The era of the Religious Wars in France is known to the absolute majority of the inhabitants of our country only from the novels of the Huguenot trilogy by A. Dumas ("Queen Margot", "Countess de Monsoreau", "Forty-five"). However, Dumas is a more than dubious historian, it is not for nothing that even at the time when the novels of this lively writer were in great deficit, an ironic saying was circulated among educated people:

You can't get any wisdom from Dumas.

The excitement has long since died down, Dumas's novels can be found in any bookstore or simply downloaded for free in electronic form - and they have almost ceased to be read now, since they are no good as sources of information, and their literary merits are small. In fact, only two novels are currently on everyone's lips - "The Three Musketeers" and "The Count of Monte Cristo". But in different countries, films and TV series are being made, including those based on Dumas's "Huguenot trilogy". Today we will seriously talk about one of the leaders of the Catholic Party of France of those years and one of the main antiheroes of the above-mentioned novels by Dumas - Duke Henry de Guise.



Grandfather and father of the hero of the article


The founder of the aristocratic de Guise family was Henry's grandfather, Claude of Lorraine.


Claude of Lorraine in a portrait by Jean Clouet, circa 1528-1530.

It should be noted that the Dukes of Lorraine, who owned border lands, were simultaneously vassals of both the French king and the Holy Roman Emperor. It was Claude who received the rights of French citizenship from Louis XII, and therefore the enemies of the Guises always tried to point out their "foreign origin".

Claude was the second son of the Duke of Lorraine René I and therefore could not claim the title. After the death of his father, he became only the lord of Joinville, Mayenne, Elbeuf and Harcourt. Claude fought a lot in the French army, was a participant in the unfortunate battle of Pavia (1525), after which King Francis I was captured by Spain. From Francis, who returned to his homeland, Claude received the ducal title in 1528. Thus, he became the first Duke of Guise. This title was inherited by his son François, who was born in 1519.


Portrait of François de Guise by F. Clouet

In 1548, François married Anne d'Este, the maternal granddaughter of King Louis XII, and his eldest son Henry could have laid claim to the French throne, if not for the law passed in November 1316, which stipulated that the crown would only pass through the male line. The initiators were Prince Regent Philippe and Archbishop Jean de Marigny of Sannes (it was this cleric who coined the famous phrase "lilies do not spin").

François de Guise and Gaspard de Coligny, the future leader of the French Huguenots, were brought up at the royal court and even became friends. Pierre de Bourdeille, better known as Brantôme (author of "Lives of the Famous Generals of France") reports that they:

They were known as good friends and buddies, often dressed alike, fought in tournaments side by side, shoulder to shoulder, competed in rings, participated in all entertainments, both enjoyed life, committing the same incredible follies as others.

However, the friends later quarreled, since Gaspard Coligny made a harsh statement regarding the possibility of his brother François marrying the daughter of Henry II's favorite, Diane de Poitiers:

It is better to have less power but retain honor.

The father of the article's hero took this as an insult to his family. Later, their paths diverged completely. Moreover, François de Guise would be killed by order of Gaspard Coligny, who himself would die on the night of August 24, 1572, at the hands of his "blood enemy" - Henry, the son of a former friend. And Henry himself would be killed by order of another comrade of those years - the beloved son of Catherine de Medici, a strange king who was raised as a girl and, having received the crown of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, fled from it to become the last French monarch of the Valois dynasty.

But let's not get ahead.

François de Guise became a successful French commander. In 1552, he successfully defended Metz. In 1544, fighting against the English in Boulogne, he was wounded in the face, after which he received the nickname "le Balafre" - thus, it was François who became the first "Marked" Duke of Guise. However, in his portraits there are no "marks" on his face (unlike his son Henry, who does have them). In 1554, François defeated the imperial troops at Renty, in 1557 he fought in Italy, in 1558 he won Calais from the English (which, by the way, is described in another novel by Dumas - "The Two Dianes").

François de Guise's niece was the famous Scottish Queen Mary Stuart, who was married to the weak and sickly French King Francis II.


Paired portraits of Mary Stuart and Francis II, 1550s.

It was François and his brother Charles, the Cardinal of Lorraine, who actually governed the state until the death of Francis II. In 1560, they prevented the Protestants from capturing the king in Amboise and transferring power to Louis I of Bourbon-Condé. And on March 1, 1562, an event took place in Wassy that became the prologue to the famous religious (Huguenot) wars.

Massacre at Vassy


First of all, it should be noted that the French Protestants were not at all "white and fluffy" innocent victims of bloodthirsty Catholics. They unceremoniously seized power in cities, expelled Catholics from churches and carried out repressions based on religious principles. For example, in 1531 in the city of Ulm (Normandy) the Huguenots smashed an organ, having first dragged it out onto the street from the local Catholic cathedral with the help of horses. In 1566 they plundered and desecrated all the Catholic churches in the city of Valenciennes.

The situation in the country was extremely tense, and the authorities made concessions: according to the Edict of Saint-Germain issued in January 1562, Protestants were allowed to hold their own services outside the city walls and not on Catholic holidays. The Huguenots, in turn, had to return the captured churches to the Catholics. Both sides were dissatisfied: the Catholics considered these concessions offensive, and the Protestants - insufficient. The Huguenots never returned the churches, and the Paris Parliament, in turn, did not ratify the Edict of Saint-Germain. The Catholic party was headed by the father of the hero of the article, François de Guise, Constable Anne Montmorency and Marshal Saint-André. Catherine de Medici, who represented the central government (her eldest son Charles IX was a minor), found herself between two fires.

On March 1, 1562, François de Guise, who arrived in the small Champagne town of Vassy, ​​which was one of his feudal possessions, discovered a clear violation of the Edict of Saint-Germain: about a thousand Huguenots were holding a service in the building next to the town church. The parties reported what happened next in different ways. Catholics said that the Protestants were asked to disperse, but in response they began to insult de Guise and throw stones, one of which hit the Duke in the cheek. The Huguenots, on the contrary, claimed that de Guise's men attacked them without warning. It is only clear that the Duke had the upper hand: more than 50 Huguenots were killed and about 100 were wounded in this clash.


Massacre at Vassy in an engraving by an unknown Swiss artist

It is significant that Guise was greeted as a hero in Paris. But the Protestants, led by Prince Condé, captured Orleans, after which they entered into an alliance with England and the Protestant states of Germany, which was actually treason. Then Lyon and Rouen were occupied. Catherine de Medici, in order to enlist the support of the Catholics and de Guise, revoked the Edict of Saint-Germain. Thus began the First Huguenot War, in which the hero of the article, Henry, the son of François de Guise, took part at the age of 13. The royal army managed to recapture the strategically important Rouen, which prevented a possible unification of the Huguenot and English troops. Here, Antoine of Navarre, the father of the future King Henry IV, who was among the Catholics, was seriously wounded. He declared that if he recovered, he would again convert to Calvinism, but the wound turned out to be fatal.

Having failed to receive help from the English, Louis de Condé received it from the German Protestants. Having joined their troops, he even besieged Paris, but was forced to retreat to Orleans. On December 19, 1562, in the Battle of Dreux, he was defeated and captured, but the Protestants also captured Constable Montmorency. In addition, the Catholics lost Marshal Saint-André, who died in battle. Gaspard de Coligny, who led the Huguenots, signed the Hampton Court Treaty with Queen Elizabeth Tudor, which outraged even many Protestants: in exchange for a ten-thousand-strong English army and one hundred thousand crowns, he agreed to hand over Calais and Le Havre to England (and also promised Rouen and Dieppe). Coligny managed to hand over Le Havre to the English, but the French managed to recapture it in 1564. The siege of Orleans was led by Duke François de Guise, who was killed on February 24, 1563, by the Huguenot Jean Poltrot de Méré.


The Assassination of Duke François de Guise, engraving by Tortorel and Perrissin, 1570.

The captured murderer claimed that he had acted on Coligny's orders. As a result, the Duke's eldest son, the hero of the article, began to consider himself a "blood enemy" of his father's former friend, and this determined the fate of the "land admiral". It was Henry de Guise's men who dealt with Coligny on the night of August 24, 1572.

But for now, in March 1653, Catholics and Huguenots signed a treaty in Amboise, according to which Protestants received the right to free religion in areas where the influence of Calvinists was especially strong.

Henry I of Guise


François de Guise's heir, Henry, was born on December 31, 1550, and was brought up at the court of King Henry II. At the age of 13, he was in the Catholic army during the siege of Orleans. At the age of 16, he went to Hungary, where he fought against the Turks. Returning to his homeland, in March 1569, he distinguished himself in the battles at Jarnac - these were already events of the Third Huguenot War, in which the allies of the French Protestants were the Dutch Calvinists led by William of Orange the Silent. And the French Catholic troops were then commanded by Henry of Anjou (the future King Henry III).


Henry of Anjou in a portrait attributed to Jean Decour

The Catholics won, the Prince of Condé was killed, the Huguenots lost their "prince of the blood", which was a great blow to them.


The Battle of Jarnac in a 16th-century French engraving

Coligny and Louis of Nassau, brother of William of Orange, were finally defeated on October 3, 1569, in the Battle of Moncontour. But Coligny still managed to lead the remnants of his army to the south, where he was joined by the troops of Count Montgomery (in a duel with whom Henry II had once received a mortal wound). The allies occupied Toulouse, but they no longer had the strength for war. On the other hand, the war was extremely ruinous for the central government. Therefore, the parties preferred to come to an agreement. In August 1570, another peace treaty was signed, which was also called the Peace of the Queen (Catherine de Medici). Protestants received not only relative freedom of religion throughout France, except Paris, but also the right to hold government positions, as well as control over four important fortresses - La Rochelle, Montauban, Cognac and La Charite. And Henry of Navarre was to marry the king's sister, Marguerite de Valois (the same Queen Margot). Many prominent French Huguenots, including Gaspard de Coligny, came to Catholic Paris for this wedding.


Francois Clouet. Admiral Gaspard de Coligny

Thus, Henry of Guise had the opportunity to avenge his father's death. At the same time, as we will see later, he was not at all inclined to kill all the Huguenots in a row, and even hid some of them from the pogromists who had gotten out of control. That is, he was not a religious fanatic, at least in 1572.

St. Bartholomew's Day and Revenge for Father



Saint Bartholomew and the massacre on the night of August 24, 1572, in an illustration of the manuscript Carmen de tristibus Galliae, 1577

Paris had always been a devoutly Catholic city and was absolutely not suitable as a place for a Protestant to marry a "true" princess. And inviting numerous Huguenots to it was not the best or smartest decision. A more peaceful city could have been chosen for the wedding of Henry of Navarre and Margaret of Valois. The capital's Catholics were already very unhappy with both the new peace treaty and the upcoming marriage of the king's sister to a Navarrese Huguenot. In addition, the behavior of the Protestants, who considered themselves the victors, was quite provocative. The Parisians were also unhappy with the unusually high honors that were given to Gaspard de Coligny, who had recently betrayed France.

On August 22, 1572, an attempt was made on the life of the Huguenot leader, and the unknown shooter was in the house that belonged to Anne d'Este, the widow of the murdered Duke François de Guise, the mother of the hero of the article. The assailant was not detained, but some claimed that he looked very much like a certain Morver, a man from Henry de Guise's entourage. But Charles IX and his mother Catherine de Medici were most likely not involved in this attempt. According to contemporaries, both the king and queen were literally horrified and tried their best to somehow defuse the situation. And whoever they were, who were preparing the massacre of the Huguenots, which began two days later, this premature attempt on Coligny was absolutely disadvantageous: the incident could only cause harm, forcing the Protestants to take increased security measures. So, most likely, the assassination attempt was carried out by a lone fanatic or people who knew nothing about the preparations for the pogroms.

The situation in Paris really did get tense after the assassination attempt on Coligny, and on the morning of August 23, a large group of armed and militant Huguenots (200 to 300 people) almost broke into the Louvre. That evening, Catherine de Medici, Henry of Anjou, Chancellor Birag, Marshal Tavannes and some other dignitaries quite seriously discussed the possibility of the Protestants seizing the Louvre. Many believe that it was then that the nerves of the king or his mother gave way, and they decided to launch a preemptive strike – to arrest or kill (in case of resistance) the most prominent and dangerous Huguenots. To ensure the safety of Henry of Navarre and Condé the Younger, they were summoned to the Louvre in advance. Representatives of the Parisian municipality were ordered to close all the city gates, take the boats to the other bank of the Seine and call in the "militia" (about 2 thousand people). The participation of the Parisian inhabitants was clearly not planned, but the situation got out of control, and ordinary citizens joined in the massacre of the Huguenots, who, in addition to religious, also had mercantile goals - to profit from the property of not only the "heretics", but also their overly wealthy neighbors. Thus, the famous swordsman Louis de Clermont, Seigneur d'Amboise, Count Bussy (a dishonest scoundrel, whom the eternal muddle-head Dumas made a positive hero of Dumas' novel "The Countess de Monsoreau") that night killed, according to various sources, from four to seven of his relatives - and not Protestants, but devout Catholics. Then he received the inheritance without hindrance. Another scientist, Jacques Charpentier, sent killers to the famous French philosopher, logician and mathematician Peter Ramus: the reason was the difference in views on the philosophy of Aristotle. Already on the afternoon of August 24, soldiers and officers of the regular detachment of Henry of Anjou took part in the looting of jewelry shops and moneylenders' houses (regardless of their religion). In Paris alone, according to the most modest estimates, the townspeople in those days enriched themselves by one and a half million gold ecus. But spontaneous pogroms then also began in Rouen, Meaux, Orleans, Troyes, Angers, Bourges, Lyon, Bordeaux, Toulouse and some other cities - and the royal family clearly had nothing to do with them.

On the other hand, there are known cases of Protestants being saved by Catholics. The newlywed Marguerite, for example, hid the Huguenot Leran in her bedroom (and Dumas in the novel "Queen Margot" forced her to hide La Mole, who was in London at the time and was trying to negotiate the marriage of the Duke of Alençon with Queen Elizabeth). And Duke Henry de Guise himself provided shelter in his palace to 20 Protestants. However, it was his people who attacked the house of Admiral Coligny - and his reason for the attack, as we remember, was revenge for the murder of his father.

The death of Coligny is described by the Huguenot Agrippa d'Aubigné (who, however, left Paris three days before the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre). According to him, Guise's men broke into the house where Coligny and a certain Bem, a German, were:

He found the admiral in his nightdress and asked him: "Are you an admiral?"... Bem pierced him with his sword, then drew it out and cut his face in two with his broadsword. The Duke of Guise (who was outside) asked if the deed was done, and, hearing an affirmative answer, ordered the body to be thrown out of the window.


Joseph Martin Kronheim. Assassination of Admiral de Coligny

We see a similar description in the memoirs of Margaret, the wife of Henry of Navarre:

Monsieur de Guise sent a German nobleman, Bem, to the admiral's house, who, having gone up to his room, pierced him with a dagger and threw him out of the window at the feet of his master, Monsieur de Guise.

Another version is presented by the Spanish envoy Diego de Zuniga:

The above-mentioned Guise, d'Aumale, and d'Angoulême attacked the house of the admiral and entered it, putting to death eight Swiss of the Prince of Béarn, who attempted to defend him. They went up to the master's chamber, and while he was lying on his bed, the Duke of Guise fired a pistol at his head; then they seized him and threw him naked out of the window into the courtyard of his hotel, where he received many more blows with swords and daggers. When they were about to throw him out of the window, he said: "Oh, sir, have pity on my old age!" But they did not give him time to say more.

The Parisians who had gathered near the house treated Coligny's body as if it were the corpse of a criminal executed for treason: they cut off his head and hung him by the feet. They say that the head of the Huguenot leader was then embalmed and sent as a gift to Pope Gregory XIII (the same one who reformed the calendar). This pontiff warmly approved of the events of the "St. Bartholomew's Day massacre", declaring that the massacre of the Huguenots "worth fifty victories over the Turks"And for the souls of the Huguenots themselves, this beating, in his opinion, was useful: suffering during life removed some of their sins.


Medal made by order of Pope Gregory XIII in honor of the events of Bartholomew's Night


The murder of Coligny in Vasari's fresco of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre was commissioned by Pope Gregory XIII

But the Protestant forces, despite the huge number of victims, were not broken. The Fourth Huguenot War began, during which the royal troops of Henry of Anjou unsuccessfully besieged La Rochelle and Sancerre. As a result, in 1573, a new edict was issued, according to which the Huguenots retained the right to perform their rites in La Rochelle, Montauban and Nîmes.

Very soon, after the death of Charles IX from tuberculosis, the Fifth Huguenot War began, which was waged against Henry III and the hero of the article who supported him by the younger brother of the new king François (Francis) of Alençon, the Prince of Condé and Henry of Navarre, as well as the Elector of the Palatinate, Johann Casimir. It was then, on October 10, 1575, in the minor battle of Dormans, that Henry de Guise was wounded in the face and received his famous nickname - Balafre ("Scarred").

In the next article we will continue the story of Duke Henry I of Guise.
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    28 June 2025 05: 21
    I noticed long ago: our Ivan the Terrible, or Malyuta Skuratov - are perceived as characters from ancient history. And Charles IX or Henry III with his jester Chicot, "Queen Margot" - this is already the Middle Ages, but somehow not too distant. But they lived at the same time. And the French with their religious wars in terms of cruelty can still give Ivan IV lessons. But he is the Terrible, and the French who cut each other are all so "cultured" and gallant!
    1. -5
      28 June 2025 06: 52
      I noticed long ago: when we say Lenin, we mean the party. When we say the party, we mean Lenin. St. Bartholomew's Night and Grozny are twin brothers. Remember one, and they'll definitely remind you of the other. Like Jesus and Pilate. This is already some kind of Internet conditioned reflex. And Grozny is criticized not so much for the cruelty itself, but for its irrationality. Cruelty in ideological-civil conflicts is commonplace. Alas. But what did Ivan the 4th want to prove? There is still no clear answer. And the incomprehensible is even more frightening. Because it is not clear how to defend against it. Pardon the tautology.
      1. +10
        28 June 2025 07: 04
        What do you mean - no answer? It always seemed to me - Ivan Vasilyevich explained everything quite clearly in his letters? There is absolutely nothing irrational in his actions - he was a very pragmatic person.
        1. -1
          28 June 2025 07: 45
          In general, he acted within the framework of his paradigm. Azm is the king. The viceroy of God. And therefore all disobedient people, or those whom he considered as such, are enemies of God. But even within the framework of this concept, he often went too far. Well, and the principle of "beat everyone in a row, and God will recognize his own" is, in my opinion, not very pragmatic. Vasilyevich was not flexible at all. "He knew only his thoughts and the whip." He did not know how to do it any other way. Well, it seems that he was slightly crazy about his idée fixe. Childhood psychological trauma affected it. It is not for nothing that he began to repent towards the end of his life. Whatever caused the death of Ivan the Younger. Ivan the Terrible, apparently, considered it as God's punishment for his sins. After all, he was also inclined to mysticism. But yes. People, with the exception of the completely crazy, always act logically. Unless they go crazy sometimes. It's just that everyone has their own logic.
          1. +9
            28 June 2025 07: 56
            Come on, stop telling fairy tales. Pay attention - people fought to the last for the Terrible Tsar. The attitude towards bloody tyrants is usually different, don't you think? And his idée fixe was quite understandable - in Rus', the efforts of ALL strata of the population should be aimed at ensuring the survival and development of the Russian state. Those who want to sacrifice them for their personal well-being and ambitions - to the chopping block. But - didn't Peter Alekseevich do the same, for example? For some reason, Russian historiography has no complaints about him? And why so?

            As for repenting - he was a sincere and deeply religious person. And in Orthodoxy - any murder is a sin, even if it is caused by urgent necessity.
            1. 0
              28 June 2025 08: 11
              Peter was indeed a statesman. Although with his quirks. Ivan the Terrible - hardly. It was not that era. He was an autocrat. First of all. Peter, with all his shortcomings, knew how to value in people not only slavish devotion. Ivan the Terrible, although he pressed the boyars to the nail, was himself still the bearer of feudal thinking. And he considered Rus' first of all as his lot. In which, of course, there should be order. Imagine Peter's words about the duty of service to the Russian state. Extending to himself. And from the lips of Ivan the Terrible. Nonsense. A completely different time and different concepts.
              1. +4
                28 June 2025 08: 31
                Sometime in your free time, read his letters. You'll see what will change in the assessment of one of our greatest rulers...

                As for the destiny - Ivan the Terrible considered his mission of governing the state as given from Above. And for the proper execution of which - he will have to answer before the Lord.

                I strive with zeal to guide people to the truth and to the light, so that they may know the one true God, glorified in the Trinity, and the Sovereign given to them by God, and so that they may abandon internecine strife and unruly living, by which kingdoms are destroyed.
                1. -2
                  28 June 2025 08: 49
                  Didn't I mention the anointed of God? Unfortunately, apparently this concept of his pushed him to excessive cruelty to the "Sovereign and God's apostates." It is not I who execute - God executes. And the fact that Ivan the Terrible was confident in his rightness, and was good at debating, no one argues. But this only makes him more terrible, because it was useless to appeal to him. And to appeal to mercy. He passes God's judgment. Often he even refused burial. Well, about the greatness of statesmen. It was not me who noted. That very often those who shed more blood are recorded as great. As for me, the greatest of the Rurikovichs was Ivan the Terrible's grandfather, Ivan III. But he is in the shadow of his grandson. "He committed little bloodshed." Although he was not God's dandelion. After all, Shchedrin was a smart man.
                  1. +6
                    28 June 2025 09: 48
                    Ivan the Terrible is, in fact, the creator of the Russian state. For it was he who destroyed the appanage and patrimonial land ownership, transferring all the land to the sovereign and turning all the service people into landowners, obliged to serve the sovereign. By the way, the broadest zemstvo self-government in Rus' is also his. That is why people stood for him to the death to the last.

                    Remember the famous episode of his abdication. When he addressed the people with the words that the boyars had had enough of their mess, but he had no complaints about the common people. What happened next? The Muscovite people gathered, as they said, in armor and weapons, and made a specific presentation to the boyars - either you go and fall at the tsar's feet, admitting your great guilt, or we will tear you apart now. And they went, where else could they have gone... By the way - the most respected person in Moscow - the city executioner - called the veche... Interesting..

                    Agree - even this episode somehow doesn't fit with the image of a bloody executioner and tyrant? If the people stood up for him? That means they knew something about him that is unknown to modern quasi-historians...
                    1. +2
                      28 June 2025 10: 27
                      And no one says that Ivan the Terrible was somehow fierce before the introduction of the oprichnina. And look at the period of the height of reformist activity. Some of the reforms were prepared even during the life of Elena Glinskaya. So let's separate the wheat from the chaff. Most of the positive aspects of Ivan's reign are not connected with the oprichnina. And they owed their origin to the pre-oprichnina period. When the boyars allegedly did all the harm. And the service class was created under Ivan III. Under Ivan the Terrible, only the final regulation was carried out "cavalry, people and weapons, from so many dessiatines." That is, the local army was organized, but not created from scratch. The appanage princes had long been under pressure on their positions. Why did localism arise? Because of disputes over who was more important. The natural princes of the Rurikovichs, or the Moscow boyars. Like, my great-grandfathers served our sovereign's great-grandfather, and who are you? But Ivan the Terrible never managed to cope with localism itself. Although he really did fight. The formation of the Russian state is a long process. Well, faith in a good monarch is a very common tendency.
                    2. +2
                      29 June 2025 07: 05
                      Well, probably, the actual creator was still his grandfather Ivan III. He laid the foundation for the program that Ivan the Terrible completed. And Russian historians called Ivan IV the Terrible. And in my opinion, at first it was the grandfather, Ivan III, who was called the Terrible, and only later did this nickname migrate to his grandson, and the grandfather began to be called the Great.
                      1. +1
                        29 June 2025 11: 10
                        I don't argue - my grandfather laid the foundation. But it was Grozny who fully realized it?
      2. +8
        28 June 2025 07: 25
        Ivan the Terrible acted very logically. Look around.
        1. +7
          28 June 2025 07: 58
          We are told: Ivan the Terrible is a bloody villain, because he executed innocent boyars. Have you ever seen innocent boyars? Well, if you look around ... (C)
        2. +1
          28 June 2025 08: 00
          This is if we accept on faith that the tsar was surrounded by traitors. And not just in his inflamed imagination. And it is already impossible to understand this. But if we apply the presumption of innocence. Ivan the Terrible did not even try to somehow substantiate his accusations. Legally. There were plenty of high-profile executions in his time. But high-profile trials. Well, and the scale is also hard to praise.
          1. +3
            28 June 2025 09: 32
            One can also apply the principle of presumption, etc., etc. to the heroes of this article. laughing
            1. +2
              28 June 2025 09: 44
              What made you so happy? Is this principle universal and applicable to everyone. Or do you prefer the principle of "prove that you are not a camel?"
              1. +2
                28 June 2025 10: 04
                Because people were different then, and so were the principles.
      3. +1
        28 June 2025 16: 11
        You are literally encroaching on the paternalistic concept of a "stern but fair sovereign surrounded by spies and oligarchs", sacred to every taxpayer.
        The crucian carp goes crazy with this bait (c)
        There is absolutely no point in explaining anything here.
        1. +1
          28 June 2025 16: 48
          It's just that the "anti-liberal" agenda is trending now. Once it's been said that liberals slandered the glorious son of Russia to please the West. So why think about where so many traitors suddenly came from? Why did other Grand Dukes and Tsars manage without such bloody theatrics, and yet Rus' didn't perish? Why are the Rurikovichs worse than others? Why can't they find a place for their own "madman" in their dynasty? Is it fair to shout about those executed "without trial or investigation," or simply killed, "they themselves, the traitors, are to blame." Aren't they spitting on the graves of their ancestors? For the first time, or what? Most of them will continue to waver with the party's policy. Well, yes. The concept is there. In general, the hyperbolization of the role of rulers is obvious. Some of us create the state. Others raise it to the skies. Still others destroy it with one face. And the fact is that without historical prerequisites no one will do anything. That the king is made by his retinue. What are you talking about?
          1. 0
            28 June 2025 17: 09
            I agree with much of this, but in the case of Grozny there is another factor. The parallels with Stalin are too obvious. And this is too much for the deep establishment.
            1. 0
              28 June 2025 17: 22
              Of course, yes. Although the parallels are rather strained. The main thing here is that both were not fans of liberalism.
              1. -1
                28 June 2025 17: 45
                By the way, they don't seem too forced to me.

                The flywheel of repressions is spinning up. The peak of the case - the "Novgorod" case is comparable to 1937-1938. Then in both cases there is a sharp reduction in repressions. An attempt by both to deal with the top in their declining years - reprisals against the military top led by Vorotynsky and the "Leningrad case"
                Then, of course, the fate of the first leaders of the oprichnina - Vyazemsky and Basmanov, who became victims of their brainchild.

                One can recall how Viskovaty was simultaneously accused of dealing with Lithuania and the Turks.
                A lot of things are too obvious
                1. +2
                  28 June 2025 18: 22
                  Well, here we can draw parallels with Mao. And with many others. With Cromwell, for example. With almost any leader who has unleashed a large-scale witch hunt in the name of a great idea. Or simply to maintain his power. There is always a climax. Then, of course, a decline. Often accompanied by the removal, not necessarily physical, of overly zealous people. Or simply convenient scapegoats. And the habit of solving problems in the usual ways usually remains. Although on a smaller scale. And of course, there are always more serious forces behind the persecuted. Satan himself, for example. But as personalities, it seems to me, Ivan the Terrible and Stalin are very different.
      4. +1
        28 June 2025 22: 47
        Quote: YAHU
        But what did Ivan the 4th want to prove? There is still no clear answer.
        It has been like that for a long time. Those people who were supposed to protect him and the country tried to tear this very country apart among their appanages. Because of them, the tsar even starved in childhood, they didn't want to educate him, they killed his mother, killed several wives, they were constantly plotting. But there was no one to protect the tsar: all this was done by his defenders (yes, not all, but the most noble ones, the rest could not go against them - they were not fit to stand. Who had what kind of a face and what it was worthy of was determined by special books - it's called localism. The system was crappy, but it prevented civil wars (but not conspiracies)). So he created the oprichnina. That is, an army not connected with the old clans. They began to crush the conspirators. They did not like it, they began to write nasty things. However, these nasty things were not always without basis.
    2. +5
      28 June 2025 06: 53
      I think it's because of the "Eurocentricity" of the history course at schools in Russia. The events in China during the same period, for example, are completely unknown to many! And this part of history is much more important for us to understand our roots.
    3. +1
      28 June 2025 06: 53
      Why did "enlightened, cultured" Gayrope invent wigs, perfumes, various other ears, masks and other perfumes???
      And so our children's joke comes... "Hedgehog, have you washed yourself!!!"
      About bloody eastern tyrants and their opposite, the enlightened western monarchs... compare, discuss?!
      This is already a question of FAITH!
      We have OUR OWN understanding, and they will keep repeating theirs.
    4. +1
      28 June 2025 07: 01
      They don't call him Grozny in the West! They call him Ivan the Terrible, not Ivan the Danger.
      All these Euro SB deliberately humiliate our history in their textbooks. But we still call the UK Great Britain - how long can we humiliate ourselves? Although this is more of a rhetorical question.
      1. +4
        28 June 2025 07: 40
        Terrible - does not have a negative connotation.
        For example, this is the traditional name of French ships of the line.
        1. -3
          29 June 2025 01: 52
          He does, because in their historical propaganda he is on a par with the cruelest rulers of the world. And he is for them the personification of Russia and Russians - cruel, bloodthirsty scumbags. In the same line are all those who got in their way - Peter, Lenin, Stalin, Putin. And they, as usual, are Saints and with their holiness show the way to the barbarians from the East.
          1. +2
            29 June 2025 02: 15
            You should read books.
            And not to invent your own story.
            1. -3
              29 June 2025 19: 46
              There is nothing valuable for me in your books by Rezun and your Mein Kampf.
              1. +3
                30 June 2025 13: 46
                Skrynnikova R.G. read, or haven't you even read this?
    5. +4
      28 June 2025 07: 06
      But he is Terrible

      Please note - in Russian the epithet "Grozny" does not generally carry a negative connotation. He is not "Bloody", "Ferocious", "Cruel", is he? He is "Grozny". For his enemies.
    6. +1
      28 June 2025 07: 38
      In the end, who had to learn from whom, the French from the Russians, or vice versa?
      Well, France of that time was one of the most developed countries, unlike Russia.
      1. +3
        28 June 2025 07: 50
        Learning from the most skilled is not a sin, but a normal reaction/action of anyone who is friends with their own brains.
        1. +1
          28 June 2025 10: 49
          Quote: rocket757
          Learning from the most skilled is not a sin, but a normal reaction/action of anyone who is friends with their own brains.

          Vladimir, welcome hi! Yes, if something positive and smart happens in Russia --- the West will never admit it --- whether it is the rightness of the Russian Empire, or the USSR, or the Russian Federation.
          1. +1
            28 June 2025 18: 42
            Hi Dmitry soldier
            Over the hill, in the West, there is only the ENEMY!
            It was so, it is so, it will continue so...
            1. 0
              28 June 2025 18: 57
              Quote: rocket757
              ..... Over the hill, in the West, there is only the ENEMY! It was so, it is so, it will continue to be so...

              When will the majority of our population understand this and stop listening to the instructions of their "partners"? recourse
              1. +1
                28 June 2025 19: 03
                If you look into it, there aren't that many people who don't want to get down from the Willow tree...
                1. +1
                  28 June 2025 19: 09
                  Quote: rocket757
                  If you look into it, there aren't that many people who don't want to get down from the Willow tree...
                  but these same ones loudly teach others and denigrate our history, lie and slander. That's what.
                  1. +1
                    28 June 2025 20: 29
                    Well, yes, a shrill, active, aggressive tribe... fortunately, everything is like with that butting goat or the little dog under the fence...
        2. +1
          28 June 2025 11: 14
          Instead of your name Victor! the tablet printed it differently! Sorry, I missed it. It's just awful.
    7. 0
      28 June 2025 10: 06
      Quote: vet
      ......... Ivan is 4 .......... But he is the Terrible..........

      Terrible --- from the word "thunderstorm", i.e. a symbol of God's wrath! But were there, say, French kings with such a nickname? I don't think so, and what nicknames --- Philip the Fair, his son Charles the Handsome, Pepin the Short, Charles the Bald, Charles the Evil, John the "Good", and some other one with the nickname Mad... But we, according to tradition, didn't have kings with the nickname Saint.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    8. +2
      28 June 2025 11: 08
      Rumors are almost always unfair, for example, Ivan IV killed fewer people than his grandfather Ivan III. However, his grandfather was Great, and he was Terrible and a murderer. And writers write based on their own considerations. For example, our analogue of Dumas, Pikul, also had his likes and dislikes. In "The Favorite" - it was Potemkin, in "Cruisers" - it was Captain Second Rank Klado.
  2. +3
    28 June 2025 07: 02
    French citizenship rights from Louis XII

    Come to your senses - what kind of citizenship was there in those days? A king could only have vassals and subjects.
    1. VLR
      +7
      28 June 2025 07: 38
      Well, "citizenship" is of course not understood literally, in the modern sense of the word. Gave the ducal title of his kingdom. The son of the Duke of Lorraine became a French duke. In general, yes, he did not express himself quite accurately.
    2. +5
      28 June 2025 09: 14
      Quote: paul3390
      Well, what kind of citizenship was there in those days?

      It also struck me as odd, but it's not so easy to find an adequate replacement in terms of meaning. Subjection? Well, not quite, because in his lands the Duke is the absolute ruler. Vassalage? Not quite either...
      1. +4
        28 June 2025 09: 40
        Dad, are you and I subjects? No, son, subjects are those who pay tribute. And we pay taxes, so we are concubines... wink
  3. +5
    28 June 2025 08: 03
    "It was François and his brother Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, who actually ruled the state until the death of Francis II." - this was the real reason for the discord that began in France. The removal of the princes of the blood from power and the sharply increased influence of the Guises became the cause of almost half a century of wars in France. Under the guise of a religious struggle, a civil war for power of the highest nobility was really going on. Moreover, at first the struggle was for influence on the king, but gradually it grew into a struggle for royal power, where the Valois, first maneuvering between the opposing parties, gradually became the third center of the struggle. Both Catholics and Protestants fought well in the armies of their religious opponents. The reasons for choosing a camp could be absolutely anything - from primarily mercantile to love (for example, the Duke of La Rochefoucauld was the lover of the sister of the Great Condé for many years).
  4. ANB
    +3
    28 June 2025 08: 33
    Dear author, The years are mixed up in many places in the article.
    For example, he was born in 1550, and took part in the battle in 1659. Something tells me that 6 and 5 should be swapped.
    1. VLR
      +5
      28 June 2025 08: 47
      Yes, sometimes such typos slip through, especially if you edit an article on your phone while on the road and there are numbers nearby. Let's try to fix it.
      1. +1
        28 June 2025 09: 27
        Yes, the thought crept in that something was wrong, I decided to reread it, since I was “on the road”. wink Also your other articles on the topic
  5. +2
    28 June 2025 09: 23
    Thank you for the article, dear Valery hi I often recall your words about Protestantism being the religion of capitalism, while Catholics, on the contrary, are feudalism. And the French Revolution didn't just happen suddenly, it turns out. recourse By the way, I've been watching French films about the French Revolution online lately. I wanted to know how they themselves understand and relate to what happened.
    1. +3
      28 June 2025 12: 14
      I wanted to know how they themselves understand and relate to what happened.

      Dmitry, watch the French film *The Three Musketeers* from 2023 and you will see how they see their past. This is by no means our fairy-tale vaudeville with Boyarsky! bully
      1. +4
        28 June 2025 16: 46
        The French also staged vaudevilles on this topic. laughing
        In the 80s, they made a brutal parody in which the main characters were the musketeers' servants. And the musketeers were just there to have a drink and a snack in the background.
        1. +3
          28 June 2025 16: 48
          In the 80s, a brutal parody was filmed in which the main characters were the musketeers' servants.

          *The Four Musketeers*? With *Charlot*? I watched it, I watched it. Well, it's pure comedy!
      2. +1
        28 June 2025 19: 02
        Regarding the Musketeers ---- I believe you, Sergey. I'll watch it after all the films about the Great French War. laughing
        1. +2
          28 June 2025 19: 04
          films about the Great French laughing

          What about the chronology of events? laughing Personally, I am absolutely delighted with the good old *Aliens* with Renault and Clavier.
          1. +1
            28 June 2025 19: 06
            "Aliens" ----- is another virtual event and time parallel line. By another author. lol They exist independently of each other. request
            1. +2
              28 June 2025 19: 09
              Newcomers

              In *Aliens. The Taking of the Bastille.* the plot is tied precisely to the French Revolution. But? The first two parts are much stronger.
              1. +1
                28 June 2025 19: 12
                Anyway ---- I'll leave the laughter and jokes for later. Now I want to know about the terrible horrors in France, wassat as they see them themselves
  6. +2
    28 June 2025 09: 23
    The era of the Religious Wars in France is known to the vast majority of residents of our country only from the novels of the Huguenot trilogy by A. Dumas

    I would say based on the series that came out in the mid-90s)))
    But there is a “miscast” that is traditional for our cinema, in general, when young characters are played by very old actors.
    For example, Boris Klyuev was almost 50 at that time, and the real Henry Guise was 22. But what about Rafael Katanjian, who played junior Marked One's brother is 8 years older than Klyuev!
    The real Queen Margot was not even 20. Evgenia Dobrovolskaya, pardon me, was over 30, and so on.
    1. 0
      28 June 2025 10: 29
      In general, in a fictitious, virtual reality, there are no normal ages and time cycles!!!!! Take at least the series about Prostokvashino... How much longer will Uncle Fyodor's childhood last? Anna Pavlovna's infancy? And she's in rompers... And how many more years will the little jackdaw take to the wing? Only secondary things change --- the number of cows, the presence of the Internet in this village. And they started putting on this series back in Brezhnev's time!
      But the well-known and beloved film THE MUMMY, the first episode, was released in 1938! I can't wait for the 4th episode to come out --- Aztec Revolt.
      1. +2
        28 June 2025 12: 09
        installed in 1938

        In the 1932th year.
        I can't wait for episode 4 to come out --- Aztec Rise.

        Vain expectations. This idea has long been abandoned. bully
        1. +1
          28 June 2025 18: 59
          Thanks for reassuring me, Sergey! crying ! But I will still hope wink
          1. +2
            28 June 2025 19: 01
            I'll hope

            Even if not a single actor from the first, second and third *Mummy* remains in this film? Well, then patience to you, Dmitry!
            1. +1
              28 June 2025 19: 04
              You see, the fulfillment of children's fantasies is a joy at any age. wink
    2. +2
      28 June 2025 12: 20
      Henry of Guise is 22.

      And yet, no one can compare with the seasoned 'D'Artagnan Boyarsky! Sarcasm!laughing In my opinion, Logan Lerman in *The Musketeers* is more organic.
  7. +5
    28 June 2025 09: 28
    A few more characters
  8. +3
    28 June 2025 10: 01
    and they have almost ceased to be read now, since they are no good as sources of information and their literary merits are small

    And those works that, according to the author, have literary merit, are read more now?

    As for the quality of Dumas's works, they were read with pleasure by everyone and everywhere, unlike the works of untalented envious people. Inaccuracies are forgivable - these are works of art, not chronicles.

    And yes, let those who criticize write better. But, so far, for more than a century, there have been no such...

    .
    And for the souls of the Huguenots themselves, this beating, in his opinion, was useful: suffering during life removed some of their sins.

    what a wonderful way to get rid of the sins of both the Pope and the Catholics...
    1. +1
      28 June 2025 13: 17
      You have idealized ideas about Dumas. He wrote countless novels that no one knows or remembers. And even the most famous ones are now "unreadable." Try to take at least "Queen Margot" or anything else - you'll give up after 2 chapters, because it's boring and tedious. Our Pikul, compared to Dumas, is simply a master and a giant. There's just one "but": the worse a person knows history, the more interesting Pikul's novels are to him. And vice versa. And at some point, Pikul also becomes impossible to read. I used to read Pikul in school, and now I start reading and give up. And Dumas - it's impossible to even start reading.
      1. +4
        28 June 2025 13: 43
        and now I start reading and then I give up

        My God, what have you done?!? I was thinking about taking a sip of Konondoil's Gerard the other day, fortunately the eight-volume *Ogonyokovsky* edition has been preserved. To remember my childhood and early youth, but now I'll probably hold off... for a while. laughing Books, of course, don’t age, unlike us sinners, alas, but the perception is different....Sad.
        1. VLR
          +4
          28 June 2025 14: 06
          Good day, You know, in my opinion, "Brigadier Gerard" is a happy exception to the rule. Because the books about him are written with good, kind irony. It saves. It is immediately clear that this is not "history", you don't need to take it seriously, but at the same time - good literature.
          1. +3
            28 June 2025 14: 40
            with good, kind irony.

            Good afternoon, Valery!
            I absolutely agree with you! In principle, all of Sir Arthur's work is permeated with irony, somewhere slightly discernible, and somewhere grotesque. Gerard? Oh, I just read his adventures as a child!
          2. +3
            28 June 2025 15: 36
            "a happy exception to the rule" - his "White Company" is also excellent. Walter Scott is also very good.
      2. +3
        28 June 2025 15: 24
        There is, in my opinion, a big difference between Pikul and Dumas. Dumas clearly wrote adventure, entertaining novels, imposing the plot on a historical era, nothing more. Moreover, he did not disdain plagiarism, of which the trilogy about the musketeers is a great example. And Pikul positioned his work as historical fiction.
        1. +1
          28 June 2025 20: 50
          When YouTube was still working freely, there was a great course on the history of the Huguenots, Giza in general of that period by Klim Zhukov, it was damn interesting.
          1. +2
            28 June 2025 21: 02
            I have recently become interested in this period. I have read the memoirs of La Rochefoucauld, Agrippa d'Aubigné, some historical literature. Now I am reading "History of the Civil Wars in France" by Enrico Caterino Davila.
      3. +2
        29 June 2025 08: 30
        Quote: vet
        . And even the most famous ones are now "unreadable". Try to take at least "Queen Margot",

        At school we read it with bated breath. But after all, everyone went to school?

        There is no time to reread - there is too much unread...

        Thanks to Pikul - he was the first to tell us that Kolchak was not a clawed beast, but a talented naval soldier, a polar scientist, a WWII veteran and a Russian patriot.
        And, therefore, he could not serve a bad cause, just like his comrades.
  9. +2
    28 June 2025 11: 34
    It would be possible to go into more detail about Henri's case and father (he was never Henry). Especially since they were both talented commanders, especially the second. And, by the way, most likely more talented than his son. It is often written that François's feud with Coligny began precisely with the victory at Renty. Both claimed the glory of the winner, and Coligny - without any basis.
    That Henri of Anjou won at Jarnac is a strong exaggeration; rather, he was a walking banner. And those who understood the matter commanded, first and foremost Marshal Tavannes.
    It is debatable whether Poltro de Mere was sent by the admiral. Under torture he could say anything.
  10. +3
    28 June 2025 23: 00
    The essence of the era is chaos.
    France emerged from the viscous swamp of the Hundred Years' War more whole than it entered, but the era of feudal fragmentation, aggravated by religious schism - here it is, in plain sight!
    England had gone through the Wars of the Roses, decimating the old nobility to such an extent that a new one had to be recreated.
    And France was almost torn apart by all these figures, Dumas' heroes, each for his own reason.
    There was still a decent amount of time before the time of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, the forerunners of Louis XIV, the Sun King.
    Our Ivan IV normalized the state under the auspices of absolutism 50-60 years earlier than the French, and if it weren’t for the problem with the heirs and the subsequent Time of Troubles, then who knows, maybe the Russian-French border would have been somewhere on the Rhine.
  11. +1
    30 June 2025 07: 02
    Compared to the West, our Ivan the Terrible is an innocent baby. But liberalism makes him a monster. And when you hint at the 160000 people hanged in England in the XNUMXth century for so-called "vagrancy" (and these were peasants driven from their lands by their landlords), the liberals start squealing that the English passed such a law, so they are allowed to execute people so en masse. In general, what is allowed to the "enlightened" West is not allowed to "barbaric" Russia.
  12. +3
    30 June 2025 14: 17
    Another scientist, Jacques Charpentier, sent assassins to the famous French philosopher, logician and mathematician Peter Ramus: the reason was a difference of views on the philosophy of Aristotle.

    Well, at least it's not a disagreement on one theological issue... smile
    -- Yes, one place from St. Augustine, about which we did not agree.