Military Review

Russian Hamlet. During his reign, Paul the First executed no one

25
Russian Hamlet. During his reign, Paul the First executed no oneHistorical science did not yet know such a massive falsification as an assessment of the personality and activities of the Russian emperor Paul the First. After all, that there is John the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin, around whom polemic spears now mostly break! No matter how you argue, “objectively” or “biased” they killed their enemies, they still killed them. But Paul the First during his reign did not execute anyone.


He ruled more humanely than his mother Catherine the Second, especially in relation to ordinary people. Why is he a “crowned villain,” according to Pushkin? Because, without thinking, he fired negligent bosses and even expelled them to St. Petersburg (only about 400 people)? Yes, we now have many people dream of such a "crazy ruler"! Or why is he, in fact, "crazy"? Yeltsin, excuse me, sent some needs in public, and he was considered to be simply an ill-bred "original."

Not a single decree or law of Paul contains signs of insanity, on the contrary, they are distinguished by rationality and clarity. For example, they put an end to the insanity that was going on with the rules of succession after Peter the Great.

The 45-volume "Complete Code of Laws of the Russian Empire", published in 1830 year, contains 2248 documents from the Pavlovian period (two and a half volumes) - and this despite the fact that Paul reigned the entire 1582 day! Therefore, he released the 1 – 2 law every day, and those were not the grotesque reports about “Lieutenant Kizhe”, but serious acts that later became included in the “Complete set of laws”! So much for the "crazy"!

It was Paul I who legally established the dominant role of the Orthodox Church among other churches and confessions in Russia. The legislative acts of Emperor Paul said: "The preeminent and dominant faith in the Russian Empire is the Eastern Orthodox Christian Catholic", "The Emperor, who possesses the Throne of All Russia, cannot profess any other faith besides the Orthodox." We will read about the same in the Peter I Spiritual Regulations. These rules were strictly followed up to 1917. Therefore, I would like to ask our adherents of “multiculturalism”: when did Russia become “multi-religious”, as you tell us now? In the atheistic period 1917 – 1991? Or after 1991, when the Catholic-Protestant Baltic and Muslim republics of Central Asia “fell off” from the country?

Many Orthodox historians are wary of the fact that Paul was the Grand Master of the Order of Malta (1798 – 1801), considering this order to be a “Paramasonic structure.”

But it was precisely one of the main masonic powers, England, that overthrew the power of Paul in Malta, occupying the island of 5 in September of 1800. This at least suggests that in the English Masonic hierarchy (the so-called Scottish rite) did not recognize Paul my own Maybe Paul was "his" in the French Masonic "Great East", if he wanted to "get friends" with Napoleon? But it happened just after the British seized Malta, and before that, Pavel and Napoleon fought. It is necessary to understand that the title of grandmaster of the Order of Malta was required by Paul I not only for self-affirmation in the company of European monarchs. In the calendar of the Academy of Sciences, on his instructions, the island of Malta was supposed to be designated “the province of the Russian Empire”. Pavel wanted to make the title of grandmaster hereditary, and to add Malta to Russia. On the island, he planned to create a naval base to safeguard the interests of the Russian Empire in the Mediterranean and in southern Europe.

Finally, it is known that Paul favored the Jesuits. This is also put by some Orthodox historians in his guilt in the context of the complex relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. But there is a specific historical context. In 1800, it was the Jesuit Order that was considered the main ideological enemy of Freemasonry in Europe. So, in no way could freemasons welcome the legalization of Jesuits in Russia and treat Paul I as a freemason.

THEM. Muravyov-Apostol often told his children, future Decembrists, “about the enormity of the coup that took place upon Paul’s accession to the throne, an upheaval so sharp that descendants would not understand it,” and General Yermolov argued that “the late emperor had great features his historical character is not yet defined by us. ”

For the first time since the time of Elizabeth Petrovna, serfs also take an oath to the new tsar, which means that they are considered subjects and not slaves. Barshchina is limited to three days a week with the provision of weekends on Sundays and public holidays, and since there are many Orthodox holidays in Russia, this was a great relief for the working people. Domestic and serfs, Paul I forbade selling without land, and also separately if they were from the same family.

As in the times of Ivan the Terrible, in one of the windows of the Winter Palace there is a yellow box where everyone can throw a letter or petition addressed to the sovereign. The key to the room with the box was in Paul himself, who every morning read the requests of his subjects and printed answers in newspapers.

“Emperor Paul had a sincere and firm desire to do good,” wrote A. Kotzebue. - Before him, as before the kindest sovereign, the poor man and the rich, the nobleman and the peasant, were all equal. Woe to the strong, who with arrogance oppressed the wretched. The road to the emperor was open to everyone; the title of his pet did not protect anyone in front of him ... ”Of course, the nobles and rich people, who were used to impunity and living for free, did not like it. “Only the lower classes of the urban population and peasants love the emperor,” testified the Prussian envoy in St. Petersburg, Count Bruel.

Yes, Paul was extremely irritable and demanded unconditional obedience: the slightest delay in the execution of his orders, the slightest disruption in the service attracted the strictest reprimand and even punishment without distinction of persons. But he is just, kind, magnanimous, always benevolent, inclined to forgive insults and ready to repent of his mistakes.

However, the king's best and good undertakings broke against the stone wall of indifference and even obvious ill-will of his closest subjects, outwardly loyal and servile. The historians Gennady Obolensky in the book “The Emperor Paul I” (M., 2001) and Alexander Bokhanov in the book “Paul The First” (M., 2010) convincingly prove that many of his orders were reinterpreted in an absolutely impossible and treacherous way, causing an increase in hidden discontent with the king . “You know what my heart is, but you don’t know what kind of people they are,” Pavel Petrovich wrote bitterly in one of the letters about his environment.

And these people meanly killed him, for 117 years before the murder of the last Russian sovereign - Nicholas II. These events are certainly connected, the horrible crime of 1801, predetermined the fate of the Romanov dynasty.

Decembrist A.V. Poggio wrote (by the way, it is curious that many objective testimonies about Paul belong to the Decembrists): “... a drunken, riotous crowd of conspirators bursts in to him and disgustingly, without the slightest civilian goal, he is dragged, smothered, beaten ... and killed! Having committed one crime, they committed it to another, even more terrible. They intimidated, carried away the son himself, and this unfortunate, having bought a crown with such blood, during all the time of his reign will languish, disdain and unwittingly prepare an outcome, unfortunate for himself, for us, for Nikolai. ”

But I would not, as many fans of Paul do, directly oppose the reigns of Catherine the Second and Paul the First. Of course, the moral look of Paul for the better was different from the moral look of the loving empress, but the fact that her favoritism was also a method of government was not always ineffective. The favorites were Catherine needed not only for carnal joys. Pleased by the empress, they worked hard, God forbid, especially A. Orlov and G. Potemkin. The intimacy of the Empress and the favorites was a certain degree of trust in them, a kind of initiation, or something. Of course, there were loafers and typical gigolos like Lansky and Zubov next to her, but they appeared already in the last years of Catherine’s life when she lost a little of the idea of ​​reality ...

Another thing is the position of Paul as heir to the throne under a system of favoritism. A. Bokhanov writes: in November 1781 of the year “the Austrian Emperor (1765 – 1790) Joseph II arranged a magnificent meeting (Pavel. - A. V.), and in the series of ceremonial events the play Hamlet was planned. Then the following happened: the leading actor Brockman refused to play the main role, since, according to him, “there will be two Hamlets in the hall”. The emperor was grateful to the actor for his wise caution and awarded him 50 ducats. “Hamlet” Paul did not see; it remained unclear whether he knew this tragedy of Shakespeare, whose external plot extremely reminded him of his own destiny. ”

A diplomat and historian S.S. Tatishchev spoke to the famous Russian publisher and journalist A.S. Suvorin: “Paul was partly Hamlet, at least his position was Hamlet’s, Hamlet was banned under Catherine II, after which Suvorin concluded:“ In fact, it’s very similar. The only difference is that Catherine instead of Claudius was Orlov and others ... ". (If you consider the young Pavel Hamlet, and Alexei Orlov, who killed Pavel Peter III’s father, Claudius, then unfortunate Peter will be in the role of Hamlet’s father, and Catherine herself in the role of Gertrude’s mother, who married the first husband’s killer).

The position of Paul under Catherine was indeed Hamlet. After the birth of his eldest son Alexander, the future emperor Alexander I, Catherine considered the possibility of transferring the throne to her beloved grandson, bypassing the unloved son.

Paul’s fears in such a development were reinforced by Alexander’s early marriage, after which, by tradition, the monarch was considered an adult. 14 August 1792 Propulsion Ekaterina II wrote to its correspondent Baron Grimm: “At first, my Alexander will marry, and there, over time, he will be crowned with all sorts of ceremonies, celebrations and folk festivals”. Apparently, therefore, Paul pointedly ignored the celebration of the marriage of his son.

On the eve of Catherine's death, the courtiers were waiting for the publication of the manifesto on the removal of Paul, his imprisonment in the Estland castle of Lod and the proclamation of Alexander as heir. It is widely believed that while Pavel was waiting for his arrest, Catherine’s manifesto (testament) was personally destroyed by A. Bezborodko’s office secretary, which enabled him to receive the highest rank of chancellor under the new emperor.

Having ascended to the throne, Paul solemnly transferred the ashes of his father from the Alexander Nevsky Monastery to the royal tomb of the Peter and Paul Cathedral simultaneously with the burial of Catherine II. At the funeral ceremony, depicted in detail on a long picture-tape of an unknown (apparently Italian) artist, Peter III's regalia — the royal baton, scepter and a large imperial crown — were carried ... regicide — Count AF Orlov, Prince P.B. Baryatinsky and P.B. Passek. In the cathedral, Paul personally performed the coronation ceremony of the ashes of Peter III (only crowned persons were buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral). The gravestones of Peter III and Catherine II carved out the same date of burial in the head slabs - 18 December 1796, which is why the uninitiated may get the impression that they lived together for many years and died in one day.

Invented in Hamlet style!

In the book of Andrei Rossomakhin and Denis Khrustalev, “The Challenge of Emperor Paul, or the First Myth of the 19th Century” (St. Petersburg, 2011), another “Hamlet” act of Paul I was first considered in detail: the challenge to the duel that the Russian Emperor sent to all European monarchs as an alternative to wars, which killed tens and hundreds of thousands of people. (This, incidentally, is exactly what L. Tolstoy offered rhetorically in War and Peace, who did not complain about Paul I himself: they say, let emperors and kings personally fight instead of destroying their subjects in the wars).

What was perceived by contemporaries and descendants as a sign of “madness” is shown by Rossomakhin and Khrustalev as a subtle game of the “Russian Hamlet” that was cut short during a palace coup.

Also for the first time, evidence of the “English trace” of the conspiracy against Paul is presented convincingly: for example, the English satirical prints and caricatures of Paul are reproduced in color in the book in the last three months of the emperor’s life, when preparations began to conclude a military-strategic alliance between Paul and Napoleon Bonaparte. As you know, shortly before the murder, Pavel ordered an entire army of the Cossacks of the Don Cossacks (22 500 Sabers) under the command of Ataman Vasily Orlov to go on a march on India, negotiated with Napoleon, in order to “disturb” the British possessions. The task of the Cossacks was to conquer, in passing, Khiva and Bukhara. Immediately after the death of Pavel I, Orlov’s detachment was recalled from the Astrakhan steppes, and negotiations with Napoleon were curtailed.

I am sure that the “Hamlet theme” in the life of Paul I will still be the subject of attention of historical novelists. I think there will be a theater director who will put Hamlet in the Russian historical interpretation, where, while preserving the Shakespearean text, the case will take place in Russia at the end of the 18th century, and the crown prince Paul will act as Prince Hamlet, as the ghost of Hamlet's father - the murdered Peter III, in the role of Claudius - Alexei Orlov, etc. Moreover, the episode with the performance played by actors of a stray theater in Hamlet can be replaced by a foreign troupe for the performance of Hamlet in St. Petersburg, after which Catherine II and Orlov will ban the play . Of course, the real crown prince Paul, being in the position of Hamlet, outplayed everyone, but after all, the fate of Shakespeare's hero waited for him through 5 for years ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
25 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 27 May 2013 07: 24 New
    +9
    convincingly presented evidence of the "English trace" of the conspiracy against Paul
    And here it was not without geybritania, that’s where the main enemy is
    I wonder why he did not like Soviet historians? He was made almost insane
    1. My address
      My address 27 May 2013 08: 16 New
      +3
      Soviet historians are the flesh of the royal historians. There was no shmon there. And they got a stupid type in 1200 for hundreds of thousands (!) Of the Mongols with a doubled number of horses (!) (One in stock), armed with modern weapons and equipment (!), Abandoning their wives and children (!), Suddenly flooded over thousands ( !) kilometers to fight Russia. And I at school believed this nonsense. And fifteen years ago I read that from the point of view: common sense, economy, the ability of nature to feed so many horses moving almost alongside, population numbers at that time, the absence of material traces of the Mongol empire and other and other things is impossible. It became a shame for their willingness to believe debility drunken graphomaniac.
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 27 May 2013 07: 40 New
    +1
    He set the article + for trying an unbiased excursion, although in many respects he did not quite agree. Pavel, of course, was a far-fetched person and it would be unreasonable to blame him in everything. But his rule was, as it were, nothing. He could not see a clear attitude, strong actions, he wanted to do better for everyone, for everyone to be good, and it doesn’t happen. With his shy things, he could not win supporters, because no one understood what he ultimately wanted.
  3. iulai
    iulai 27 May 2013 07: 49 New
    13
    But the marching step in the Army, and remained the same as Paul introduced him.
    1. morehod73
      morehod73 27 May 2013 15: 55 New
      0
      In addition to the marching step and much more, “poor Paul” remained, including in the “antillery”. Vladimir Tomsinov has a lot of interesting things written about this period of our history, the truth about Arakcheev, but still ....
      1. Raul
        Raul 28 May 2013 03: 54 New
        0
        Quote: morehod73
        In addition to the marching step and much more, “poor Paul” remained, including in the “antillery”. Vladimir Tomsinov has a lot of interesting things written about this period of our history, the truth about Arakcheev, but still ....

        The overcoat that he introduced, and the form of which was personally developed by Paul I, has not yet been canceled.

        And so, I personally suspect that most of the laws were born during the time that Paul I spent in Gatchina (from 1783 to 1796). A working person would simply not waste time. Accordingly, Paul I, being a lover of Charter, worked out the legal aspects of the structure of his future state in advance. After the succession to the throne, he had only to bring the developed laws into effect, as soon as the structures of power and society were ready. It seems that not everyone wanted to live according to the law and the charter.
  4. My address
    My address 27 May 2013 07: 53 New
    +1
    Similarly, according to Richard the Third in England and Stalin with us. Scoundrels, with their hands up to their elbows in blood, as they could have perverted their predecessors - the Knight and the Person. First of all, after looking in the mirror and remembering their abominations, they accused of cannibalism.
  5. Dima190579
    Dima190579 27 May 2013 08: 49 New
    +9
    Englishwoman Gadil Gadila and wakes the gadit. You can not believe the small Britain. am
    1. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 27 May 2013 17: 02 New
      +1
      “The world seems so unfair when no one is at war with Russia!” British Prime Minister Palmerston
  6. tixon444
    tixon444 27 May 2013 09: 17 New
    +7
    During his reign, Paul the First did not execute anyone. But in vain.
    As for small Britain, as soon as this s.ran appeared in world history, it doesn’t come out of wars. And to give a damn about Russia - so do not feed her, a reptile, with bread. I wish her the fate of Atlantis.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 27 May 2013 15: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: tixon444
      With regard to small Britain

      Pavel had plans for a joint campaign with Napoleon in India. Therefore, Britain was alarmed! And she did everything possible so that Paul would be “replaced”!
      By the way, in the time of I.V. Stalin also had a mailbox for letters on the Kremlin wall. Do you have it now?
      1. tixon444
        tixon444 27 May 2013 16: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: Egoza
        in the time of I.V. Stalin also had a mailbox for letters on the Kremlin wall. Do you have it now?

        It’s unlikely on the wall, because the box has long grown to the size of the Reception Office of the President of the Russian Federation for the reception of citizens in Moscow. http://letters.kremlin.ru/receptions
      2. Denis
        Denis 27 May 2013 16: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Egoza
        Do you have it now?
        Now progress, he just wakes up and immediately into the tweeter, what eta wrote there
        Thinks about the people
  7. Letnab
    Letnab 27 May 2013 09: 23 New
    +1
    correct article!
  8. Uzoliv
    Uzoliv 27 May 2013 09: 47 New
    +4
    A curious story from the time of Paul.
    Pavel Vasilievich Chichagov (Admiral, Minister of Marine under Alexander 1, participant in the war of 1812), during the reign of Paul, was captain of a warship. While being repaired in one of the English ports, he fell in love with the daughter of the port chief. Made an offer and was refused. For the Englishman (the head of the port), Captain Chichagov - a Russian nobleman, the son of an admiral who had connections at the court - was not considered an equal. (such an English phonoberia). But the father of the bride was very ill and soon dying. It seemed that there were no obstacles in front of the lovers, however, according to the laws of the Russian Empire, a Russian filed could be married to foreigners only after the permission of the emperor. Chichagov files a petition to the emperor. Having examined the petition, Pavel says: “there are enough girls in Russia, there is no need to look for them in England” and rejects it.
    After some time, Chichagov (already Rear Admiral) was called to an audience with the Tsar, where there is a sharp conversation on both sides, Chichagov is accused of almost treason and put in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Interestingly, Pavel writes a letter to the prisoner’s father, in which he says that disgrace on his son does not in any way extend to his father and the emperor still favors Chichagov Sr. for his services to the throne and the Fatherland.
    After some time, Pavel walks around, the Chichagovs have connections at the court - there is someone to say a word. Chichagov goes free, is allowed to marry. And here we get an interesting passage. Chichagov goes home, and on his way to meet, under arrest, his father is being taken to the Peter and Paul Fortress, who already managed to annoy the emperor with something.
    That's the story.
  9. creak
    creak 27 May 2013 10: 00 New
    +7
    Along with concessions for serfs, Pavel took a number of measures aimed at making life easier for ordinary soldiers and strengthening discipline among officers, primarily the guards. Among ordinary soldiers, Paul was popular. Since the accession to the throne of Elizabeth, the guard began to claim the role of the Praetorians under the Roman emperors. She naturally did not like the tough measures of the emperor, as well as a significant part of the nobility, accustomed to a free life under mother Catherine.
    This, coupled with other factors, led to a sad end. The activity of Paul was never given an objective assessment, as well as a number of other historical figures, such as, for example, Barclay de Tolly.
  10. avt
    avt 27 May 2013 10: 05 New
    +4
    The article is good, the personality is not ordinary and perhaps too soft to rule in Russia, despite the fact that he put me in the heat. Well, as far as kookies, Petrusha I drunkenly drunk so I didn’t cry, and drank well, no less than Yeltsin worked with “documents.” In general, they betrayed and killed the anointed of another and reported on the liquidation of the crazy king - they saved de Russia bearers of the nobility, honor and traditions of the gentlemen of the guard officers. By the way, Pavel did a lot for the soldiers, for example, introduced personal responsibility for the death of recruits. So if they hadn’t removed the soldiers from the guard, hell would have reached Pavlik.
  11. Belogor
    Belogor 27 May 2013 10: 12 New
    +3
    Simply, in Soviet times, it was necessary, for ideological reasons, from the former rulers to choose and exalt the one who, although he was a tyrant, but brought Russia good. The analogy is very clearly visible. So they elevated both Peter 1 and Ivan the Terrible. There was a social order, at this time appeared: A. Tolstoy’s novel “Peter!”, S. Eisenstein’s film “Ivan the Terrible” and more. History books written. Well, the others were either wiped off or put up in a negative way. In addition, the British clean only those who can benefit Russia, they canals in this "dog ate."
  12. avt
    avt 27 May 2013 10: 48 New
    +3
    Quote: Belogor
    There was a social order, at this time appeared: A. Tolstoy’s novel “Peter!”, S. Eisenstein’s film “Ivan the Terrible” and more. History books written. Well, the others were either wiped off or put up in a negative way. In addition, the British clean only those who can benefit Russia, they canals in this "dog ate."

    Not just wiped away - made a complete nerd. Remember the old film, “Lieutenant Kizhe.” In Soviet times, the historian Aidelman wrote a good book about Pavlush, then he first got acquainted with real decrees on the army. We must pay tribute to the soldiers who were treated not like wooden logs, but especially the guard officers, like Peter III made me really serve. Naturally - tyrant laughing
  13. Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 27 May 2013 11: 27 New
    +2
    Ranger!
    I completely agree with you both regarding Paul’s actions regarding the army, and about his actions regarding serfs. In my opinion, Pavel Petrovich is the unfortunate of all our IMPERIAL monarchs (worse, maybe only John Antonovich was): not understood by contemporaries, ridiculed by descendants.
    He, in my opinion, had 2 main mistakes:
    1. Copying the Prussachina. This is his real blunder, especially when you consider that in 1796 there was a fresh memory of how the Russian army beat Frederick the Great (therefore, according to the majority of the military, including A.V.Suvorov, the Prussians are not our standard).
    2. His confessional games. It is clear that he, as a religious person, wanted to eliminate the contradictions between the two Sister Churches, I do not even understand this course of things today, in the 21st century, and then ...
    However, he is the only one of all our figures who openly decided to go to Britain, for which he paid. The most interesting thing is that his son, Alexander I, Pavlovich, when meeting with Napoleon, said: "I, too, like you, I hate England", but hating is one thing, but to openly challenge is another.

    In general, in my opinion, Pavel was not such a bad king, and all the jokes and jokes (such as "Lieutenant Kizhe") appeared after his death.
    1. Pancho
      Pancho 27 May 2013 21: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Fuzeler
      He, in my opinion, had 2 main mistakes

      I think that the involvement of the anti-French coalition and the campaign of troops under the command of Suvorov in Italy and Switzerland is also a mistake. After such a campaign, and even with such "allies", Suvorov soon died, not to mention the bloodshed of Russian soldiers in vain
  14. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 27 May 2013 11: 54 New
    +5
    “They missed me in Paris, but ended up in Russia” —Napoleon about the murder of Pavel 1. If there hadn’t been this heinous murder, there would have been no Patriotic War of 1812 and many thousands of Russian soldiers who died for the interests of Great Britain and later Austria and Prussia.
    1. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 27 May 2013 17: 06 New
      +1
      Russia was, is and will be an enemy for the “Western” world, so that they do not hypocritically proclaim and no matter what curtsies towards Russia, languidly smile or “do not build eyes”. The whole historical experience of relations with them shows this. We, for our mentality, are aliens to them, incomprehensible and unpredictable - wild Asians in European clothes - this is terrible (and not the army). And those who are afraid of that and are at war. And no matter what Russia is — a monarchy, a Soviet of Deputies or a democracy. To paraphrase a classic - only that nation is worth something if it knows how to defend itself!
  15. Avenger711
    Avenger711 27 May 2013 13: 35 New
    +3
    But Paul the First during his reign did not execute anyone.


    For which he paid.
  16. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 27 May 2013 19: 29 New
    +2
    <<< “Only the lower classes of the urban population and peasants love the Emperor,” said the Prussian envoy to St. Petersburg, Count Bruhl.
    “Emperor Paul had a sincere and firm desire to do good,” wrote A. Kotzebue. - Before him, as before the kind sovereign, the poor and the rich, the nobleman and the peasant, were all equal. Woe to the strong, who with arrogance oppressed the wretched. The road to the emperor was open to everyone .... Paul the First during his reign did not execute anyone.
    However, the king’s best and good undertakings were smashed against a stone wall of indifference and even the obvious ill-will of his closest subjects, outwardly faithful and servile ..... The evidence of the “English trace” of the conspiracy against Paul is also convincingly presented for the first time: English satirical books are reproduced in color engravings and caricatures of Paul, the number of which increased precisely in the last three months of the emperor’s life, And these people meanly killed him, >>>
    Throughout the ninth and twentieth centuries, impudent-sraxes constantly unceremoniously interfered in the affairs of Russia, considering it (and today too) the main obstacle to establishing their hegemony in the world and, unfortunately, NOT SUCCESSFUL! Moreover, they could not have achieved any success if it were not for the corrupt part of the Russian aristocracy, who did not want to lose their privileged position and power for the sake of some (including progressive) transformations necessary to strengthen the power of Russia, and at the same time close to power, which is capable of not only sabotaging all the good undertakings of the omnipotent monarch, but also eliminating it !!! It must be said bluntly that even today Western heidemicity towards Russia acts in the same way using the same venal trash, which has settled in power structures, which quietly, and sometimes without hesitation, works in the interests of the West. The lessons of history still need to be taught!
  17. CreepyUknow
    CreepyUknow 27 May 2013 19: 30 New
    0
    Thanks to the author for the article! A lot of dirt and slander against this more than worthy person; nice to see competent proof of his merits to the homeland.
  18. reichsmarshal
    reichsmarshal 27 May 2013 21: 58 New
    -1
    Among all the viper of the Romanov monarchy, Pavel is the only exception!
  19. ed1968
    ed1968 27 May 2013 22: 40 New
    0
    Pavel really could make Russia GREAT found himself a worthy ally, he was a knight and behaved like a real knight his identity is still shrouded in a fog of mysticism and secrets Mikhailovsky Castle reliably keeps its secrets that no one had yet to figure out Paul represented a terrible danger for the English women united with Bonoparte he was able to wipe the shaving powder into powder, leaving him without a colony and removed him for that, and what’s the most offensive with the hands of corrupt creatures from his own country
  20. lesnik340
    lesnik340 28 May 2013 08: 16 New
    -1
    You respected history than taught. Tell me why the beloved poor Pavel didn’t execute, and why, if you are unlikely to survive if you drive a person through the stick system. And at the same time read what A. Suvorov wrote. about Paul and his innovations in the army.