Fyodor Shaklovity: The Brilliant Career and Fall of Tsarevna Sophia's Loyal Supporter

5 982 32
Fyodor Shaklovity: The Brilliant Career and Fall of Tsarevna Sophia's Loyal Supporter
In this portrait, the subject of the article is depicted as Feodor Stratilat, 1680s.


The reign of Tsarevna Sophia Alexeyevna, the elder sister of the two nominal co-tsars (Ivan V and Peter I), is not well known to most of our fellow citizens. This daughter of Alexei Mikhailovich is often portrayed as a supporter of conservative forces opposed to the "progressive" Peter and his associates. This is completely untrue, as in fact, relatives of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich's two wives were vying for power in Russia at the time, and each family advocated reforms along European lines. The only question was who (and how) would implement them.



Sophia became the head of the Miloslavsky clan, whose representatives included two tsars – the childless Feodor and Ivan, the father of Empress Anna Ioannovna. The nominal head of the Naryshkin clan was the young Peter I, but in reality, even after Sophia's fall, the tsar amused himself for five years by building small ships and training his "toy" soldiers. Peter's mother, Natalya Kirillovna, a protégé of the "Russian European" Artamon Matveyev, her brother Lev Naryshkin, and the tsar's uncle Boris Golitsyn (brother of Sophia's favorite, Vasily), entered into opposition to Sophia on Peter's behalf.

This is how Lev Naryshkin was seen by viewers of the film "Youth of Peter" in 1980:


And this is how Boris Golitsyn is presented in the same film:


As for Sophia, she was undoubtedly an outstanding woman of her time, far surpassing all her brothers in education and talent. Praise for Sophia was written by such diverse people as Simeon Polotsky and his student, Sylvester Medvedev, a corrector at the Moscow Printing House, the Likhud brothers, Greek teachers at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, the French diplomat Foix de la Neuville, and even Prince B. I. Kurakin, the husband of Peter I's first wife's sister. Peter's brother-in-law wrote the following about Sophia's reign:

It began with all diligence and justice, and to the people's satisfaction, so that never before had the Russian state seen such wise governance. And during her reign, after seven years, the entire state reached the height of great wealth. Commerce and all manner of crafts also prospered. And sciences began to flourish. Courtesy was also established in a European manner—in carriages, in house construction, in attire, and in tables... And then, public contentment reigned supreme.


Sofia Alekseevna on the engraving by A. Bloteling

This princess was also highly valued by Peter I's great admirer Catherine II, who claimed that Sophia:

For several years, she managed the affairs of state with all the insight one could wish for. Looking at the affairs that passed through her hands, one cannot help but admit that she was quite capable of reigning.

Sophia's comrades are even less well known. While some might at least recall Vasily Golitsyn, the name of her most loyal man, Fyodor Leontyevich Shaklovitov, is a distant memory. It's him we'll be discussing today.

The youth of the article's hero


The year and place of Fyodor Shaklovity's birth are unknown, but it is believed he was born in the mid-40s and lived to be around 45 years old. His father is believed to have been a "town clerk," a type of worker who did not receive a "sovereign salary" and "lived" from their work, but was subordinate to the governors. The number of "town clerks" was constant in each city; in Kostroma, for example, there were 16 from 1686 to 1697. They certified deeds of sale and exchange and wrote petitions, thus being similar to the notaries who emerged later. They are sometimes referred to as "semi-service people." They could not boast of high birth. For example, in Pronsk in 1682, the "town clerks" were "streltsy, Cossack, and soldier children and brothers."

In 1673, still under Alexei Mikhailovich, Fyodor Shaklovity joined the Discharge Prikaz, whose activities involved matters of army personnel and supplies, fortress construction, the administration of "Ukrainian lands," and so on. From there, he transferred to the Prikaz of Secret Affairs, but it was soon disbanded, and Shaklovity returned to the Discharge Prikaz. He was evidently a capable man, and by the spring of 1676, Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich had promoted him to clerk of the Discharge Prikaz. During the Russo-Turkish War of 1676-1681, the subject of this article was responsible for army supplies and "oversaw" the Cannon Yard.

It is known that Fyodor Shaklovity was a principled opponent of the archaic local government system, which was abolished in 1682. It appears that Fyodor was a highly educated man, as he participated in the compilation of genealogical books that same year.

"Khovanshchina"


During the tragic events of 1682, which history Our country entered under the name "Khovanshchina," Shaklovity decisively supported the Miloslavskys. This clan was led by 25-year-old Sophia, who had effectively ruled the state for six years through her younger brother, Feodor, who had fallen completely under her influence. She managed to push away even his favorite, Ivan Yazykov, as well as his uncle, the boyar Ivan Miloslavsky, and Patriarch Joachim, from the sickly tsar. To be closer to her ailing brother, she personally spoon-fed him, gave him medicine, and talked about his health. the news and accompanied to the meetings of the Boyar Duma.

Tsar Feodor III, the eldest of Alexei Mikhailovich's remaining sons by his wife Maria Miloslavskaya, died on April 27 (May 7), 1682. Patriarch Joachim "lobbied" for the election of Natalia Naryshkina's ten-year-old son, Peter, to the Russian throne, rather than Maria's sixteen-year-old son, Ivan. Naturally, his mother and her relatives intended to govern the country in his stead. This provoked outrage within the Miloslavsky family, now openly headed by the young Princess Sophia, who declared:

Our brother, John the Elder, was not elected tsar! If we have offended you and the boyars in any way, then let them send us to foreign lands, to Christian kings!


Natalia Bondarchuk as Princess Sophia, still from the film "Peter's Youth", 1980

Sophia's main allies were the Gediminovich princes Vasily Golitsyn and Ivan Khovansky Tararui (Pustomelya). She was also supported by her mother's relatives, the Tolstoy brothers: Ivan (brother-in-law of the deceased Tsar Feodor) and Peter (famous for his successful "hunt" for Tsarevich Alexei, who had fled to the protection of the Austrian Emperor).

Sophia also had on her side very authoritative and experienced military leaders: Duma General Venedikt Zmeev and Lieutenant General Grigory Kosagov.

Finally, the Miloslavskys' allies were the Streltsy of 20 regiments stationed in Moscow.


A. Vasnetsov. Streletskaya Sloboda. Set design for M. Mussorgsky's opera "Khovanshchina." Incidentally, one of its characters bears the surname "Shaklovity," but he has nothing in common with the subject of the article.

The Naryshkins curried favor with the Streltsy and even dismissed colonels at their complaints, who were beaten with whips and rods and sent to prison. The Streltsy were not appeased; on the contrary, they felt like masters of the capital.

On May 15, 1682, the Miloslavskys spread a rumor that the Naryshkins had "exterminated" Tsarevich Ivan, and the Streltsy stormed the Kremlin. Ivan Miloslavsky and his nephew, Pyotr Tolstoy, played a major role in this, personally raising the Streltsy to storm the Kremlin, accusing the Naryshkins of strangling the disfavored Tsarevich.

This is how the Streltsy revolt is depicted in the 1986 Soviet-American film Peter the Great:


And so, Sophia, played by Vanessa Redgrave, greets her Streltsy allies:


The Naryshkins brought both Peter and Ivan out onto the porch, but this didn't improve the situation: many of the Naryshkins' supporters were killed before the tsareviches' eyes, including M. Dolgorukov, who headed the Streletsky Prikaz, Artamon Matveyev, Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna's tutor, and her brother Ivan. Regarding the latter, Sophia declared to her stepmother:

Your brother will not escape the archers; we should not all perish because of him.

This is how this episode is depicted in A. Korzukhin's painting: before the eyes of Natalya Kirillovna, Peter, and the triumphant Sophia, the Streltsy drag Ivan Naryshkin to execution:


According to the petitions of the Streltsy on May 23 and 29, Ivan Miloslavsky was also proclaimed tsar (and the eldest one), and their elder sister Sophia was appointed ruler, due to the young age of the brothers.


The coronation of Ivan and Peter Alekseevich. Sophia stands in the background. Engraving based on a drawing by K. Brozhe.

However, Sophia and the Miloslavskys' victory was not yet complete, as Ivan Khovansky, who had become the head of the Streltsy Prikaz, slipped out of control. The problem was resolved on September 17, 1682, when Khovansky was arrested in the village of Pushkin and subsequently beheaded. Left without a leader, the Streltsy confessed to Sophia and were forgiven.

Let's ask ourselves: was the victory of the Miloslavskys and Sophia beneficial to Russia? Let's give a simple example. During V. Golitsyn's second campaign against Crimea in 1689, his army numbered 112,000 men, of which 80,000 were in the "new order" regiments. But in 1695, out of Peter I's 120,000-man army, only 14,000 men were in the "new order" regiments. Only six years had passed, but the difference is simply astounding.

In 1700, during the siege of Narva, the Russian army consisted of 33 regular regiments, four of which were trained and organized according to European models: the Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky Guards, and the Lefortovo and Butyrsky regiments. And, apparently, the Russian army had not returned to its 1689 status in 1717, when, at a banquet, Prince Yakov Dolgoruky declared to Peter that his father, Alexei Mikhailovich, had "showed the way," but "the foolish had destroyed all his institutions." Those "foolish" were the Naryshkin favorites who overthrew Sophia in 1689. They never allowed Peter I to regain power. Only after the death of his mother in 1694 was the 22-year-old tsar finally able to free himself from his "guardians" and begin personally handling state affairs. And he discovered that in 5 years without Sophia, the number of soldiers of the “new order” decreased by 5,7 times.

Moreover, within five years, Sophia managed to sign two important treaties. The first, in April 1688, was the "Eternal Peace" with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, by which the Poles recognized the Russian occupancy of Smolensk, Kyiv, Left-Bank Ukraine, and the Seversk lands. And in 1689, the Treaty of Nerchinsk with China, which for the first time defined Russia's borders with that state. And what did the Naryshkins accomplish in those five years, from 1689 to 1694?

Fyodor Shaklovity during the reign of Sophia



V. Spiridonov as Fyodor Shaklovity, still from the film "Youth of Peter"

Let's return to the article's hero, who was elevated to the rank of Duma clerk on August 27, 1682, and to Duma nobleman on December 7. From that moment on, he could participate in meetings of the Boyar Duma, as well as be appointed head of a Prikaz (Order) or governor of a city. Shaklovity was given a very important order—the Streletsky Order.

In May 1684, he was tasked with meeting and escorting the ambassadors of Emperor Leopold I of Habsburg to Moscow. In late August and early September, he conducted land surveys and "registered scribes in the cities." In the autumn of that same year, he investigated the case of a certain widow, Brusilova, who, according to a denunciation, had uttered some "intricate and unruly words." And in 1688, he was sent to Hetman Mazepa to negotiate a new campaign against Turkey.

In early 1689, when Golitsyn set out on his second Crimean campaign, Shaklovity replaced him in the preparation of the Treaty of Nerchinsk with China. That same year, Sophia granted him the second-highest rank of okolnichy and appointed him governor of Vyazemsk. According to contemporaries, by this time it was he, not Vasily Golitsyn, who was the dignitary closest to Sophia. And the aforementioned memoirist Prince Kurakin (Peter I's brother-in-law) asserted that it was Fyodor Shaklovity, not Golitsyn, who "was the one who profited most from the Cupid under Princess Sophia." However, these were mere rumors, lacking any documentary evidence. Sophia was a woman of very strict morals, and, moreover, openly imitated Saint Pulcheria, the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Arcadius Flavius, who, upon becoming Augusta and regent for her younger brother Theodosius II, took a vow of celibacy and dedicated her virginity to God. And, according to Socrates Scholasticus, she established monastic-like rules in the imperial palace, so that her young brother, the emperor, "rose early in the morning and, together with his sisters, sang antiphons to the glory of God."


A silver Byzantine coin bearing a portrait of Pulcheria, minted in Constantinople around 420. The obverse bears the inscription: Aelia Pulcheria Augusta

After the death of her brother, 51-year-old Pulcheria, for reasons of state expediency, entered into marriage with the commander Marcian, setting him the following condition:

Since the emperor has died, I choose you from among the entire senate as the most worthy. Give me your word that you will respect my virginity, which I promised to God, and I will proclaim you king.

Under these circumstances, losing her virginity was unacceptable to Sophia, as it would immediately destroy her carefully cultivated "image." Keeping an "intimate" relationship secret in the royal chambers, filled with numerous servants, was simply impossible, and no one could rule out pregnancy.

Shaklovity became an implacable enemy of the Naryshkins, and his cherished dream was to assassinate not only Peter I but also his domineering mother. A story survives of a provocation he orchestrated to discredit one member of this hated family.

Having learned that the clerk of the Great Treasury, Matvey Shoshin, looked very much like Lev Kirillovich Naryshkin (Peter I’s uncle), he ordered him to wear a white satin caftan, gave him a “retinue” of officers loyal to him, and ordered him to attack the guardsmen at night, beat them with a whip, shouting:

You killed my brothers, and I will avenge the blood of my brothers!

The disguised Streltsy accompanying him at this time were beating their fellow soldiers with their butts, while simultaneously persuading the imaginary Naryshkin:

Lev Kirillovich! Why beat him to death? A Christian soul!

Shaklovity ordered an inventory of the beatings to be made, reported the incident to both tsars, and ordered that the injured archers be treated with medicines from the tsar's pharmacy.

The fall and death of the article's hero


On September 1, 1689, Sophia planned to be officially crowned. An unexpected incident occurred on the night of August 7–8, 1689, which prevented this. Nikolai Kostomarov gives the following account of the events:
A secret letter appeared in the royal chambers "at the top," warning the princess that on the night of August 7th-8th, the Tsar's "amusement soldiers" would arrive from Preobrazhenskoye to assassinate Tsar Ivan Alexeevich and all his sisters. On the evening of August 7th, Shaklovity summoned four hundred Streltsy with loaded rifles to the Kremlin and stationed three hundred at Lubyanka. His henchmen began to incite the Streltsy to kill the "she-bear," the old Tsarina, and that "if the son were to intercede for his mother, then he would have nothing to lose."

But:

Larion Elizariev, a 500-man Strelets Regimental Guardsman, and seven other Strelets devised a plan to warn Peter. Two of his comrades set out for Preobrazhenskoye at night to inform the Tsar that evil was being plotted against him.

The 17-year-old tsar, wearing only his shirt, mounted his horse and galloped to the heavily fortified Trinity Monastery of St. Sergius. The next day, Peter's abandoned mother, his pregnant wife, soldiers of the "amusement" army, and some of the Streltsy arrived at the Lavra unopposed. The tsar temporarily forgot his love of all things foreign, donned a Russian caftan, and diligently began to portray the "truly Orthodox sovereign."

It would seem like a joke and a source of ridicule for caustic Muscovites. However, this strange and even shameful flight of Peter led to Sophia's downfall.

The princess had no desire for a quarrel and did everything possible to reconcile with her brother. But the Naryshkin family members who had arrived at the Lavra viewed these attempts at reconciliation as weakness on the part of the empress and became increasingly arrogant with each passing day. Under their dictation, Peter wrote to the "senior tsar," his brother Ivan:

It is shameful, sir, at our mature age for that shameful person to rule the state without us.

The Naryshkin clan's members became especially defiant after the patriarch, sent by Sophia as a mediator in the negotiations, remained at the Lavra. On the other hand, Sophia's supporters also couldn't understand her delay. Shaklovitov was also ready to act immediately, but Sophia never gave the order, and time was running out.

On August 27, a letter from Peter arrived in Moscow, ordering all the Streltsy colonels, as well as the "elected" (10 men from each regiment), to report to the Lavra. Sophia's supporters dwindled with each passing day. The foreign mercenaries, led by the Scotsman Patrick Gordon, left.


This is how the Scotsman was seen by viewers of the film "Youth of Peter" in 1980.

Among them was the notorious Franz Lefort, who was then under the protection of Sophia's favorite, Vasily Golitsyn. Vasily Golitsyn himself lost his nerve – he retreated to his estate at Medvedkovo near Moscow, and then went to the Lavra, but was not received by Peter. In a last attempt to reach an agreement, Sophia herself went to her brother, but in the village of Vozdvizhenskoye, she was informed that he was refusing to meet, and she turned back. Then came the order for the arrest of Fyodor Shaklovity. Morally broken, Sophia, after much hesitation, finally betrayed her most loyal and devoted man. However, she understood that power was no longer on her side.


K. Lebedev. "Farewell of Princess Sophia to Shaklovity"

Shaklovity was tortured for five days and executed on September 12, 1689, in the square near the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. His body was buried only two weeks later. And Sophia's fate was now sealed. She spent the rest of her life virtually imprisoned in the Novodevichy Convent, where she died in July 1704 at the age of just 47.


I. Repin. Grand Duchess Sophia in the Novodevichy Convent

And this is how the princess who took the schema is presented in the film "Peter the Great" (played by Vanessa Redgrave):


Sophia's grave can still be seen in the Smolensk Cathedral of this monastery.


The grave of Sophia Alekseevna, photograph from 1908.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    April 19 2026 04: 48
    Stills from a feature film as historical evidence are awesome. And this quote is a true masterpiece!
    and even the husband of Peter I’s first wife, Prince B. I. Kurakin.

    As Bulgakov said: "Forgive me, who stood on whom."
    p.s. Actually, Kurakin was married to Evdokia’s sister Ksenia.
    1. +6
      April 19 2026 05: 38
      Thanks to the author for the article, although a number of arguments raise doubts.
      During V. Golitsyn's second campaign against Crimea in 1689, his army numbered 112,000 men, 80,000 of whom were in the "new order" regiments. But in 1695, out of Peter I's 120,000-strong army, the "new order" regiments numbered only 14,000. Just six years had passed, but the difference was astounding.

      So Golitsyn "lost" his army twice in a row during his Crimean campaigns. It's surprising that so many survived.
      However, the “regiments of the new order” were constantly formed by the tsars from the House of Romanov and, unfortunately, did not have any resounding successes until Peter.
      Peter, with his toy troops, placed his bets on the infantry (fuseliers). Together with the recruiting corps, this became the backbone of Russia, giving it two and a half centuries of victories.
      1. +8
        April 19 2026 05: 54
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

        Peter, with his toy troops, placed his bets on the infantry (fuseliers). Together with the recruiting corps, this became the backbone of Russia, giving it two and a half centuries of victories.

        Welcome hi Have a nice weekend everyone!
        In my opinion, one of Peter's main achievements was the creation of a system of military training and education, regulated by regulations. In 1716, the Military Regulations were issued, strictly defining the service, rights and responsibilities of military personnel.
        The modern military regulations are, to some extent, a legacy of Peter!
      2. VLR
        +4
        April 19 2026 08: 37
        Golitsyn "lost" his army twice in a row during his Crimean campaigns.

        Losses during campaigns from hunger, thirst, and disease at that time always exceeded combat losses by dozens of times. However, it should be noted that Golitsyn's campaigns, carried out not at the whim of Sophia or Golitsyn personally, but in accordance with the terms of the "Eternal Peace" with Poland, were not in vain. Crimea failed to provide assistance to Turkey, and one of the consequences of these campaigns was the Ottoman Empire's defeat in the war against Austria, the loss of Belgrade, Hungary, and Transylvania to the Turks, and the deposition of Sultan Mehmed IV. At the same time, Golitsyn's campaigns made a great impression in Europe, as the Wild Fields were officially considered impassable for regular troops. And despite heavy losses, the troops returned to Moscow in good order. They cannot compare with the terribly organized first Narva campaign of Peter the Great and its results. And even less so with the shameful and disastrous Prut Campaign of 1711.
        1. +3
          April 19 2026 11: 45
          Quote: VlR
          And despite heavy losses, the troops returned to Moscow in perfect order. The disastrous organization of Peter the Great's first Narva campaign and its results are incomparable.

          Do you really think that people who decide to fight and lose deserve less respect than those who don't? No.
          As for me, everything is exactly the opposite.
          1. +4
            April 19 2026 12: 15
            This, by the way, is quite universal in everyday affairs.

            The adventure failed.
            Thanks for trying.
        2. +2
          April 20 2026 10: 53
          Quote: VlR
          Golitsyn "lost" his army twice in a row during his Crimean campaigns.

          Losses during campaigns from hunger, thirst, and disease at that time always exceeded combat losses by dozens of times. However, it should be noted that Golitsyn's campaigns, carried out not at the whim of Sophia or Golitsyn personally, but in accordance with the terms of the "Eternal Peace" with Poland, were not in vain. Crimea failed to provide assistance to Turkey, and one of the consequences of these campaigns was the Ottoman Empire's defeat in the war against Austria, the loss of Belgrade, Hungary, and Transylvania to the Turks, and the deposition of Sultan Mehmed IV. At the same time, Golitsyn's campaigns made a great impression in Europe, as the Wild Fields were officially considered impassable for regular troops. And despite heavy losses, the troops returned to Moscow in good order. They cannot compare with the terribly organized first Narva campaign of Peter the Great and its results. And even less so with the shameful and disastrous Prut Campaign of 1711.

          Well, yes, we returned in perfect order.
          They just didn't get there.
          In addition, Peter fought against the Swedes, the best army in the world at that time, near Narva.
          And in the Prut campaign, everything was decided by the numerical superiority of the Turks and Tatars. Their horses are faster than men.
          1. 0
            April 20 2026 13: 51
            Peter didn't really fight hard at Narva. Loss of control is what it's all about. That's why he had to flee. He was a decent commander; at least he didn't suffer defeat in the place of the foreign scoundrels. There were very few Swedes.
            1. +2
              April 22 2026 09: 25
              Quote: MCmaximus
              Peter didn't really fight hard at Narva. Loss of control is what it's all about. That's why he had to flee. He was a decent commander; at least he didn't suffer defeat in the place of the foreign scoundrels. There were very few Swedes.

              They were well trained. It's no wonder Charles ravaged all of Europe. If half your army flees, the other half is left to either surrender or die. But decent commanders usually emerge in the third year of war. After all, the Swedes' undoing at Poltava was that they attacked a prepared position and lost many men.
    2. VLR
      +3
      April 19 2026 08: 26
      Somehow the word "sisters" was missed. Thanks for pointing that out, we'll fix it.
    3. 0
      April 22 2026 10: 36
      The article is well-illustrated, high-quality, and beautifully crafted, utilizing medieval engravings, drawings, paintings, and film stills. This is a strength, not a weakness.
  2. +3
    April 19 2026 05: 56
    Ruler Sophia was extraordinary.

    But one can speculate endlessly about how things would have gone if her side had prevailed. No one will check.

    I wonder if silicon brains could simulate it? However, the system is too complex and unpredictable.
  3. +3
    April 19 2026 05: 56
    As always, biased and one-sided.
    Russia benefited from the death of a number of outstanding commanders who had drawn out the war with Poland, Turkey and the Razin Uprising, Dolgorukov, Khovansky, and Romadanovsky.
    But under Sophia, Golitsyn, who had been in the rear his entire life, leads the troops.
  4. +1
    April 19 2026 06: 04
    A striking example of the role of personality in history. Sophia-Peter, Lenin-Trotsky, Beria-Khrushchev, only I.V. Stalin is beyond competition.
  5. +6
    April 19 2026 07: 47
    There was absolutely no difference between the two clans...

    The devil, as we know, is in the details.

    Everyone unanimously remembers that Golitsyn was a Westernizer. But no one writes about what kind of Westernizer he was.
    And suddenly he was an ardent Polonophile.

    He had every right to do so. At that point, it wasn't yet obvious that the Polish path was a dead end. Poland had only recently achieved a resounding victory in the war with Sweden. But for Russia, the consequences of choosing the Polish path would have been clearly dire.

    And yes ...
    During V. Golitsyn's second campaign against Crimea in 1689, his army numbered 112,000 men, 80,000 of whom were in the "new order" regiments. But in 1695, out of Peter I's 120,000-strong army, the "new order" regiments numbered only 14,000. Just six years had passed, but the difference was astounding.


    On the one hand, it's a great mystery. Because no documents about the dissolution have survived.

    But on the other hand, there is no mystery.

    In November 1681, Tsar Feodor appointed Vasily Golitsyn responsible for military reform. This responsibility remained with him until Sophia's fall. A separate order was even established for this task.

    What is the result?

    At the time of Golitsyn's appointment, the regiments of the new formation numbered 90 men. At the time of the second Crimean campaign allegedly 80 тыс.

    But further ...

    Don't talk about 1895... In 1689, at the time of Sophia's fall, where were the regiments of the new order??? As the one responsible for military reform, Golitsyn himself should have commanded them. And where are these allegedly 80 thousand at a decisive moment in Russian history???

    The losses in the Crimean campaigns were certainly enormous. But overall, the mystery of the disappearance of the new regiments at the moment of Sophia's fall do not decide.

    In general, the documents have not survived, but the context is obvious:
    Golitsyn was responsible for military reform from 1681.
    Golitsyn was a Polonophile.
    At the time of Golitsyn's appointment, the regiments of the new formation numbered 90 thousand people.
    At the time of Sophia's overthrow, Golitsyn had no regiments of the new order at his disposal.

    The obvious conclusion is that Golitsyn disbanded the regiments of the new order.
    (By the way, he could have easily done this in the short period after the second Crimean war. They embarrassed themselves, after all. And suffered losses. A good reason for an effective manager to make a decision.)
  6. +2
    April 19 2026 08: 21
    I think everyone knows, even if some people don't like it, that today's history of Peter the Great was written under Catherine the Great. Or rather, rewritten. It was from then on that he began to be romanticized and exalted, while all his opponents were denounced as reactionaries and moral monsters, and even admired for his contempt (even hatred) for the culture and traditions of his own people, the blasphemies of the All-Drunken Council, and the 6,5-fold increase in taxes. But even Pushkin, who initially admired Peter, began writing "The History of Peter the Great"—and abandoned it—because he realized it wouldn't be published. He learned so many unpleasant and unflattering facts about his idol...
    1. VLR
      +4
      April 19 2026 11: 27
      Speaking of Pushkin, everyone remembers the saying: "Russia (Peter the Great) reared." However, when a horse rears, it stays in place when it's under stress! And Pushkin, who rode, knew this very well. So, if this is a "compliment," it's a very ambiguous one. But perhaps it's not a compliment. Now, if it were about "breaking into a gallop"...
  7. +8
    April 19 2026 08: 27
    That Sophia actually ruled instead of Fyodor seems like a strong exaggeration.
    Khovansky was Tararui, not Tatarui.
    The regiments of the New Order before Peter were not always distinguished by high combat effectiveness.
    1. +2
      April 19 2026 08: 48
      That Sophia actually ruled instead of Fyodor seems like a strong exaggeration.

      It doesn't seem so. Fyodor was a deeply ill man. And I, as a doctor, can assure you that seriously ill people—they're not interested in themselves; they lose interest in anything unrelated to their illness. A striking example is Ivan, Fyodor and Peter's brother. He wasn't feeble-minded, but seriously ill, and so he kept his distance, even though his royal status was undisputed. And that's why none of the doctors believe in Stephen Hawking—his illness completely precludes intellectual activity, as well as sexual activity—but someone fathered his wife with children, and someone made statements in his name. Hawking is a hoax. And Fyodor Alekseevich ruled as a very energetic and vigorous man, because he didn't rule—someone did it for him. Sophia? Considering how quickly she took control of the country, it's more likely she was someone like Boris Godunov.
      1. 0
        April 19 2026 16: 09
        For example, Armand Jean du Plessis's health was far from exceptional, especially in his later years. Alessandro Farnese even had to be carried around on a stretcher.
        And Fyodor Alekseevich was chronically ill, but he got married and even had a child.
        1. VLR
          +4
          April 19 2026 16: 39
          No, Richelieu's relatively poor health can't be compared to the severe illness of Feodor Alekseevich, who was already so weak at the time of his father's death that he was carried to the funeral on a stretcher. Constant shortness of breath, swelling of the legs, constant pain, and severe impairment of self-care. Feodor's child by his first wife was born unviable, his second wife never became pregnant, and it's unclear whether she had any reason to become pregnant. They write about scurvy, but it's not scurvy—more likely a congenital heart defect. His capacity for work and "business activity," judging by the documents and decrees he issued, is simply fantastic, and clearly beyond his physical capabilities. Someone was "standing behind" him, slipping him documents to sign. Most likely, it was Sophia, who immediately, without a running start, later took charge of the country—it's unlikely she started working "from scratch." Feodor's brother Ivan also quickly became an old man. Alexei Mikhailovich's first wife had trouble conceiving boys, apparently due to some genetic defect. All the girls were healthy, and Sofia was also intelligent and strong-willed.
    2. +2
      April 19 2026 09: 08
      The regiments of the New Order before Peter were not always distinguished by high combat effectiveness.

      Under Peter I, this was also far from always the case.
      1. +1
        April 20 2026 13: 49
        Quote: vet
        The regiments of the New Order before Peter were not always distinguished by high combat effectiveness.

        Under Peter I, this was also far from always the case.

        Again, who to fight with?
        But only the Battle of Poltava, and indeed the entire Northern War, demonstrated their superiority. Although comparing the regiments of Golitsyn's time and those of the Battle of Poltava is completely pointless.
  8. +1
    April 19 2026 10: 21
    Quote: vet
    That Sophia actually ruled instead of Fyodor seems like a strong exaggeration.

    It doesn't seem so. Fyodor was a deeply ill man. And I, as a doctor, can assure you that seriously ill people—they're not interested in themselves; they lose interest in anything unrelated to their illness. A striking example is Ivan, Fyodor and Peter's brother. He wasn't feeble-minded, but seriously ill, and so he kept his distance, even though his royal status was undisputed. And that's why none of the doctors believe in Stephen Hawking—his illness completely precludes intellectual activity, as well as sexual activity—but someone fathered his wife with children, and someone made statements in his name. Hawking is a hoax. And Fyodor Alekseevich ruled as a very energetic and vigorous man, because he didn't rule—someone did it for him. Sophia? Considering how quickly she took control of the country, it's more likely she was someone like Boris Godunov.

    I wonder if Stephen Hawking has absolutely no capacity for intellectual activity, when, for example, he wrote a book I have at home, and on which his name is listed as the author?! By the way, what illness do you think Tsar Ivan suffered from? I'm curious. Frankly, I've only read about him in Tolstoy's "Peter the Great."
    1. +1
      April 20 2026 09: 45
      For example, he wrote a book that I have at home.

      Hawking couldn't write anything. From the age of 21, he was a self-contained "vegetable," incapable of intellectual activity.
      Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: the disease is characterized by moodiness, emotional lability, aggressiveness, and lack of self-control. Intelligence tests reveal a decline in thinking ability, mental faculties, memory, and attention. Patients become depressed and apathetic, losing interest in the outside world and their loved ones. Speech and pronunciation deteriorate, and tongue movement becomes difficult. Swallowing is impaired, with constant choking and food spilling out of the nose. Patients experience involuntary twitching of the tongue. As the disease progresses, complete muscle atrophy occurs, with patients losing facial expressions, unable to open their mouths or chew food, and developing urinary and fecal incontinence.
      What science? And what children?
      Quite extravagant and highly dubious articles from a scientific point of view were written (or were written) by the person (people) who fathered his wife's children and who were ashamed to publish dubious material under their own name.
  9. +2
    April 19 2026 11: 40
    As for Sophia, she was certainly an outstanding woman of her time, who, with her education and talents, was many times superior all his brothers.

    Oh really?
    The further narrative does not seem to confirm this)) Everyone supported her, being so smart, but in the end she lost. request
    husband of Peter I's first wife, Prince B. I. Kurakin.

    What? belay
    During V. Golitsyn’s second campaign against Crimea in 1689, his army numbered 112 thousand people, of which 80 thousand were in the “new order” regiments.

    The only problem was that this army proved completely ineffective. And Golitsyn, fully aware of this, never dared attack Perekop.
    Ultimately, the Crimean expedition turned into a tourist voyage. They came, they saw, and they returned (not all of them). request
    1. VLR
      +1
      April 19 2026 12: 27
      I already wrote that the word "sisters" was missing, it will be corrected, but I can't do it myself anymore, I need to wait for the editor.
      1. VLR
        +2
        April 19 2026 12: 33
        Regarding the Prut campaign: wise men advised Peter to await the Turks at the Dnieper rapids—in which case, weakened by the long march, the Ottomans would be routed at a second Poltava. But Peter decided he knew better. And then he ran around the camp, shouting that he "found himself in the same position as brother Charles."
        1. +1
          April 20 2026 08: 22
          Quote: VlR
          But Peter decided that he knew better what to do.

          It's called "dizziness from success"))))
    2. +1
      April 20 2026 09: 36
      As for Sophia, she was undoubtedly an outstanding woman of her time, who surpassed all her brothers in education and talent.
      Oh really?
      The further narrative does not seem to confirm this))

      This suggests that she was a decent woman and had no intention of killing her brother, who later wanted to kill her, but Lefort talked him out of it.
  10. Fat
    +7
    April 19 2026 13: 02
    Quote: Hunter 2
    the creation of a system of military training and education, regulated by regulations,

    hi The first foreign regiments appeared in 1630, during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich. The regiments were formed from taxpayers and Cossacks, and were assembled for training in the fall after fieldwork had finished. The first regulations appeared in 1647.
    The combat effectiveness of such regiments was low, but they nevertheless played their role in the fight against the Poles.
    Maintaining a large number of foreign regiments on a permanent basis during peacetime is very costly. Therefore, their numbers fluctuated from several dozen during military operations to a handful during peacetime.
  11. +3
    April 20 2026 08: 16
    I don't know what actually happened there. As they say, I didn't see it, so I don't know. I'm talking about something else. I hope those who read the article understand why Russian Emperors stopped marrying Russian women.
    That's right, marry a lowly woman and you'll get a whole flock of hungry, greedy, and grasping people. Marry a noble woman and you'll get a gang of powerful, well-fed, but even more greedy and grasping people. And they'll all be clamoring for power. That's why they married German women (well, who else was there?), who had no support in the country other than their husbands.
    It was a real mistake with Katerina; we didn't expect such agility from her. wink!