Military Review

Forgotten king

35
Forgotten king

Why did the author of the first Russian “perestroika”, Sovereign Fedor Alekseevich, appear to be deleted from stories


"The old sons have three sons: / The eldest smart was a fellow, / The middle son was like that, / The youngest was a fool." It seems that Peter Ershov borrowed the beginnings of his fairy-tale story directly from Russian history. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov was survived by three of his sons. The eldest, Fyodor, had every reason to become the greatest of Russian reformers and the founder of the empire, but the youngest, Peter, was not lucky with his special talents. As a result, we got a new capital, a new alphabet and, in general, a new story performed by Peter Alekseevich, who turned upside down many of the beginnings of his older half-brother.

Restructuring

The young Fyodor Romanov ascended the throne at the age of fifteen and, as contemporaries asserted with one voice, in the twenty-first year of his life he was poisoned. On the day of the king’s death, 27 on April 1682, a palace coup was attempted: relatives of the mother of nine-year-old Peter (Naryshkins) attempted to put him on the throne, bypassing his sixteen-year-old middle brother Ivan (his and Fyodor’s mother were from the Miloslavsky clan). As one of the eyewitnesses wrote, "the boyars want to take possession of the entire state." The uprising in Moscow almost boldly the whole political system. Meanwhile, six years before that, nothing foreshadowed such shocks.

If in the 17th century the ratings of the rulers were measured, Tsar Fedor would probably turn out to be a record holder. Especially against the background of Peter, who became popular only in the writings of later historians, and during his life was ardently hated by loyal subjects. However, open any textbook on national history and see a set of stamps: Peter the Great, a window to Europe, shaved beards, the Swedes were beaten near Poltava, the founder of the empire ... Pro Fedor is succinctly informed that he was in poor health, like all descendants of Alexei’s first wife Mikhailovich, Mary Ilyinichna Miloslavskaya. Well, at best - something vague about some kind of reform.

In fact, the six-year rule of the third tsar from the Romanov dynasty led to the transformation of Russia into a European superpower. The scale of the transformations carried out by the very young king, is striking: successful modernization, growth of the population’s well-being, almost entirely restructured capital, creation of the first permanent government in Russian history ...

Today, any official will say that to solve the housing problem in Moscow in a few years is absolutely impossible. Is it conceivable to inherit the wooden capital and instantly build almost thousands of stone buildings! How can you! It's very simple: to give Muscovites interest-free loans for stone construction, the right to pay for them with the power of the state order of stone affairs, and also to approve "typical" building projects. Boyar "Khrushchev" times of Fyodor Alekseevich, called chambers, are still in abundance in Moscow. With this tsar, Red Square ceased to be a trade and became the front door, orders were erected and the first sewage system was built in the Kremlin.

For comparison: despite the decree of Peter of 1714, on the prohibition to build with stone anywhere except in St. Petersburg, the city on the Neva essentially remained the only stone structure of that time - the central part of the Menshikov Palace.

Under Fedor, the construction boom, naturally, did not go without complaints. Tsar was reproached for squandering the treasury, much of which went to the construction of new buildings of the capital. The scale can be judged by the fact that the tsar's decree forbade the construction of wooden buildings within the walls of the White City - this is approximately the border of the modern Boulevard Ring.

Acceleration

The treasury is really empty. But the government of Tsar Fedor managed to find sources of budget replenishment. Most notably, taxes are reduced. The king forgave the arrears. Taxation has been streamlined; in 1678, a population census was conducted, and in the following year, the household tax was introduced. A wealthy population brought new revenues to the treasury. In the decree on the abolition of old taxes, the king wrote: "Wealth and strengthen your country with your wealth."

This sounds surprising, but all the important decrees of Fyodor lucidly explained to the population: why did the king make such a decision, and not otherwise, and what would be its consequences. Decrees were announced in each village so that they could be understood by "every reasonable person." The king himself appealed to the electorate from the counties to hear what duties they "should bear or not and why they should not." Having before the eyes of the tax card of the country, Fedor decided to differentiate taxation by the level of economic development of the counties. With the help of elective districts taxes were calculated at different rates, the maximum in Moscow and the minimum in Siberia.

Reasonable taxes the population began to pay regularly. Moreover, the king abolished feeding - a system in which officials collected taxes not only (and not so much) into the treasury, but also for themselves. In 1679, on the same day with the announcement of the tax reform, Fyodor signed a decree on the liquidation of disparate local authorities and the transition to the “one-stop-shop” system - only the provincial administration decides everything at the local level. In this case, the governor-governor and their apparatus were supposed to live exclusively on the salary.

Finally, in 1682, the Zemsky Sobor abolished the centuries-old custom of regionalism, in which positions were held according to the genericity of the ancestors. Bit books, according to which the boyars were measured by the nobility of the clan and the merits of ancestors, were publicly burned by the order of the king. Orders with duplicate functions are combined, official hours in state institutions are formally established, a draft of the future Peter's Table of Ranks has been developed, and the state administration as a whole has been streamlined. It was Fyodor who, for the first time in Russian history, created a permanent government - the Slitting Chamber.

Against the background of all this, the “hulk” of Peter's reforms with the renaming of orders in the college and the illegal Supreme Privy Council, which many contemporaries considered, not without reason, a gathering of crooks and thieves, looks rather pale. The local government, created by Fedor and responsible for collecting taxes, his younger brother replaced the direct rule of the military authorities.

One can argue with the fact that the Russian industrial potential was created only by the incredible efforts of Peter I. This is not so. Peter is the founder of Russian state capitalism. His older brother relied on private initiative. Under Fedor, the factories were built on private capital and did not cost the penny a penny. Peter I confiscated private capital and started up state-owned enterprises (primarily military). The emperor had to wage war against the “non-refundable”, uncontrolled officials of the metallurgical, blacksmith and textile industries that flourished during the reign of his brother. This war is real - when military teams destroyed private blast furnaces and manufactories, and masters were driven into state slavery.

Publicity

Well, Russian Alekseevich still created the regular army? Are his military victories indisputable? We have to admit that such a historical story is largely a consequence of falsification.

In fact, Fedor turned out to be a far better strategist than his brother. Peter 20 spent the years waging war with Sweden over the Baltic, utterly depleting the country's resources. The accomplishment of Fyodor is the war of 1676 — 1681, which stopped the Turkish aggression in Ukraine and ended with the consolidation of vast territories in the south of Russia.

In the very first year, the Russians took the capital of Right-Bank Ukraine Chigirin, and in 1677, they defeated a huge army of Turks under it. However, the following summer, the king gave a secret — even from the Boyar Duma — a decree to the Commander-in-Chief, Prince Romodanovsky, to withdraw the troops and allow the Turks to level Chigirin with the ground. The Russian troops, who had previously defeated the best corps of the Janissaries, carried out the order. And until the conclusion of the peace of Bakhchisarai in 1681, there was no fighting.

The motif of the "retreat" was simple: the king knew how to count. War and in the XVII century was primarily a matter of money. We won the army of professionals who require expensive weapons and supplies. The Turkish budget was superior to Russia, its military-industrial complex was the most powerful in Europe. The resilience and heroism of the Russian regular forces — two regiments of soldiers deployed by Fyodor in a division, twenty regiments of archers, dragoon formations and reytar — only temporarily compensated for this imbalance. Nevertheless, managed to win a strategic victory. The Ottoman Empire in the wars with Russia now only defended itself. The last dash of the Turks managed to redirect to the West. A few years later, the Grand Vizier, Kara Mustafa, who fought with the Russians at Chigirin and with whom Tsar Fedor negotiated, would besiege Vienna. And could, by the way, and Moscow.

Let's try to draw up the military balances of the two reigns. So, Peter during the exhausting Northern War achieved a reduction in the population of Russia by 19,5 percent. For the sake of the capture of Azov and construction fleet, then surrendered to the Turks, for the sake of the notorious opening of a window to the Baltic, where the Swedish fleet dominated, capital will be confiscated, and industry will be reoriented to serfdom. Most Russians will be deprived of political rights - for the peasants even the oath of the tsar will be brought to the king by their masters. But this does not seem enough. After the victory over the Swedes, martial law will be introduced in Russia, military command and control will be assigned to taxes. By the time of Peter's death, the people were so impoverished that Menshikov, who knew a lot about cuts and kickbacks, would declare to the Supreme Privy Council that the people of the tribute “cannot bear it in any way” because they have come “in an irreparable disaster”.

Tsar Fedor avoided economic collapse. Rejecting the Turks, he built a line of fortifications far to the south, cutting off the 30 thousand square kilometers of fertile land from the Wild Field. A colossal land fund appeared necessary to provide the nobility who served in the army. The experience of military operations on the right bank of the Dnieper against such a powerful adversary (the Ottoman army reached 120 thousands during the Chigirin campaign) made it possible to implement the military-district reform, putting the army in 75 percent in a regular fashion. Instead of crowds of nobles with their lackeys, long and stupidly going to war in each county, the central regions of the country began to give soldiers and reytar for regiments and divisions in the border districts. Service was mandatory for all nobles. Peasants and citizens sent into the army "datochnyh people" one by one from a certain number of yards. Merchants and industrialists were not called upon - they were considered necessary for the development of the economy.

Yes, yes, do not be surprised. The regular Russian army was not created by Tsar Peter, but by his elder brother! According to the 1680 mural of the year, the 41 regiment of soldiers, 21 regiment of archers, 26 regiment of reiter and spearmen, and also 4 regiment of Cossack permanent service were listed in it. Their officers were trained in the regular ranks, and four reached the full generals. In 1689, after Fedor’s death, Generalissimus Vasily Golitsyn advanced with him did the impossible: he led regiments across the steppe to the Crimea, reflecting the continuous attacks of the Tatars with fire, without the rebuilds prescribed in European armies to cover the musketeers with pikemen. The army of the famous Jan Sobieski in such conditions was defeated by the Tatars, and later Peter himself capitulated to the Turks in the Prut campaign, almost captive.

The “new army” of Peter I grew out of the reforms of Fedor - in every sense. After the sudden death of his older brother, the boyars who poisoned him (as everyone believed) put the young Peter on the throne, but were thrown on spears by insurgent Muscovites headed by regular regiments. Fedor's army did not forgive the boyars of its creator’s death. In the 1698 year, taking advantage of the uprising of four rifle regiments, Peter began the destruction of the former army. Peter's recruits forcibly recruited from the serfs, officers and generals — mostly foreigners — became soldiers. Many of them, including the famous Franz Lefort, entered the Russian service, by the way, under Fedor Alekseevich. However, this ruler still gave preference to domestic personnel.

Peter's recruits and mercenaries showed themselves in all their glory in the battle of Narva. Foreign officers mostly went over to the side of the Swedes, the army fled. Only four regiments survived: Preobrazhensky, Semenovsky and two miraculously surviving after the rifle revolt of the regiment of the guard of Tsar Fedor - Lefortovo and Butyrsky.

Have you heard about such? That's it. As well as about many other things from the heritage of the king, who did not live to see the 21 year. The subsequent official chroniclers did not favor Fyodor. Say, he was weak in health, he did not rule himself, and in general his reign, as it were, wasn’t. And this is despite the fact that we have documents about the not so bad state of health of this autocrat from the third day of his reign. Many things the Russian ruling class could not forgive Fedor Alekseevich. At least the fact that, unlike his father, for whom, at the end of the reign, the neighbor boyar Artamon Matveyev, and brother Peter, who allowed the "Most Serene Prince" Alexander Menshikov, Fedor, brought up by one of the most brilliant minds of his time, personally preparing reforms. His decrees are the best consolidated sources on economics and politics of the 17th century.

Speaking of scholarship. Fyodor’s decree on the “institution of perfect science in Russia” was put under the cloth after his death. At the end of 1681, the king signed Privilege to the first university in Russia, autonomous from secular and church authorities. During the reign of Fedor Alekseevich, the literacy rate in the country increased three times, and in Moscow - five times. The king personally introduced the linear notes that we use until now. Under him, court poetry flourished, including the genre of the Russian ode, the appearance of which for some reason belongs today to the times of Lomonosov.

Changed and fashion. Shaving beards and wearing a short European dress in the Russian court began precisely in the time of Tsar Fedor. He simply forbade those who were dressed in the old Russian style to enter the Kremlin. So the tales about the groans of the boyars, who, under Peter, supposedly en masse, beard their beards, have no basis.

Enlightenment implied philanthropy. Fedor created for public money the first shelters for the elderly and disabled. And at the same time vocational schools for children of beggars and orphans who were taught new specialties in the country, such as watch making. He tried to reform the judicial system, unload the prisons and limit the previously endless preliminary investigation for a period of one hundred days. The king replaced the punishment with self-mutilation by referring to Siberia and forbade the banning of children.

Under Peter, everything returned to normal, and his elder brother was tried to be deleted from Russian history ...

Throne of wisdom

From the inscription on the parsun (portrait) of Tsar Fedor Alekseevich Romanov, made for his tomb in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin:

"The one whose image and coffin of eyes ... was the throne of wisdom, treasure council, royal and civil foundations of guarding and fortification, debate by decision, the Russian kingdom assertion ... He kindly said that ... peace, silence and every kind of people well-being multiplied ... He, from many years of wars to the Russian kingdom, created the venomous world. From the darkness of Mohammedanism and idolatry, a lot of people did not coerce, but brought Christian Orthodox piety into the light of the Orthodox faith ... He constantly thought about teaching the free wisdom of the Russian people ... Houses of stone for the stay of the needy and the poor were satisfied with such food and made thousands like them. The royal perennial debts of the people forgiven and henceforth tax eased. Brotherly-hated ... distant disputes stopped. Tsar's pretitory renewed his home, city of the Kremlin, and China's city, changed clothes that were unprofitable to the people, made many other honorable things and made decent memory - and prepared everything for everything useful and necessary for the people ... The most pious and gracious king of 6 reigned years , and two months, and days 28.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.itogi.ru/nashe/2013/18/189501.html
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. carver
    carver 28 May 2013 09: 31 New
    +2
    Everything is of course interesting, but in such articles it is simply necessary to refer to specific sources on which conclusions are drawn. The article is neither plus nor minus.
  2. avt
    avt 28 May 2013 09: 49 New
    14
    It's like that . Article + Indeed - the tsar diligently forgotten by "historians" ala Pivovarov, for the sake of the European choice of Petrushka. There was also sister Sophia, but her people were also presented as a stupid old lady from Surikov's painting, although even Peter's supporters in their memoirs spoke very positively about her rule. Meanwhile, she continued Fedor's policy of evolutionary development. request Alas! The drunken cathedral and the country's unrestrained race for the "European choice" again played a cruel joke on the state.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 28 May 2013 10: 44 New
      11
      This "European choice" has been a bone in the throat for many centuries. And as soon as we begin to reach for Europe, we get devastation and colonization of our country. Output?...
      1. Andrew-001
        Andrew-001 29 May 2013 17: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: klimpopov
        Conclusion?...

        The conclusion seems to be only one - to erase Europe into powder recourse
        Otherwise, our rulers will still look - and how they have it, in Europe, but let's try the same, but worse, etc.
    2. carver
      carver 28 May 2013 10: 53 New
      0
      Really not really, references to sources from the analysis of which conclusions are drawn.
  3. omsbon
    omsbon 28 May 2013 10: 42 New
    +8
    All important decrees Fedor lucidly explained to the population.

    This is a very interesting fact, plus tax reform. In those days it was a revolution. There are many unlit spots in our history.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 28 May 2013 10: 45 New
      +6
      But these "spots" are not very profitable to illuminate, you know who. Moreover, all the academic science on the history of Russia was written by whom? ..
  4. Augustswsw
    Augustswsw 28 May 2013 10: 57 New
    +8
    The whole story was very carefully and qualitatively corrected and polished by the Romanovs during the 300 years of their reign. This is a fairly well-known fact. And if we take into account that the Germans or Germanized people like Peter the Great and Anna Ioannovna are a great honor from the dynasty, then it becomes clear why the reign of the Russian tsars, beginning with Ivan the Terrible and ending with Tsarevna Sophia, vilified and faded from memory by spoofing and falsification. Soviet historians only picked up the baton, additionally denigrating the Romanovs themselves.
    1. Orik
      Orik 28 May 2013 12: 23 New
      +2
      And if we take into account the lack of male children in Peter and the incomprehensible origin of Paul, the "Romanovs" are a big question.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 28 May 2013 16: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Augustwsw
        The whole story was very carefully and qualitatively corrected and polished by the Romanovs during the 300 years of their reign.

        And still, they haven't cleaned everything up! Whatever one may say, but "Peter 1 went to the German settlement." Where did it come from if, according to some historians, "Peter was the first to call foreigners-Europeans into the service." It means that there were, and many, and not poor people, but with ranks and titles.
  5. IRBIS
    IRBIS 28 May 2013 10: 58 New
    -1
    Here you can argue. For instance. For a regular army there should be uniform requirements (charters) and Peter was the first to introduce them. The Russian army lagged significantly behind the European in most respects, including armaments and tactics. The Streltsy regiments did not meet the challenges and it was Peter who created the modern, well-armed and trained regiments. We are not even talking about weapons. Peter knew a lot about weapons, from pistols to guns. You can go on and on. And don’t say that, but it was under Peter that Russia became an Empire and Europe began to reckon with this.
    1. avt
      avt 28 May 2013 11: 46 New
      +5
      Quote: IRBIS
      And don’t say that, but it was under Peter that Russia became an Empire and Europe began to reckon with this.

      Well, what to do with Ambassador Sigismund Herberstein, who in his reports called Russia the Empire? Or was he an ambassador for Petrusha? Modern "historians" claim that he so flattered the Tsar of the Muscovites. This is in the reports to his sovereign!? I don’t want to argue about military affairs, even under daddy Petrushka Solovki, majors and other soldiers' ranks also sieged modern weapons during the Polish campaigns Military affairs evolved according to the era, then whoever was late - the karachun. Well, about the "historical" links, I will answer this way - the seeker will find, at the same time I want to ask the admirers of Peter and his innovations. How did Semyon Dezhnev pass from Arctic okiyan to the Pacific, and then the Great, without sarcasm, Bering, opened "the strait of his time? Despite the fact that Dezhnev's reports were in the archives and he himself was promoted to chieftain for his merits? Well, the Barents Sea is the Cold Sea, where the wild are not civilized Did the Pomors save the European discoverer? So, before Peter, was there a musty, decaying kingdom for good luck "by Peter, cultured and Europeanized"?
      1. Horde
        Horde 28 May 2013 22: 46 New
        +1
        pay attention here is a map of 1656. 1 northern war. Troops of Alexei Mikhailovich according to the TI SILENT number of 80000 soldiers besieging Swedish Riga, which defend 9000 soldiers, but do not take it according to the TI, how can this be?


        http://history-maps.ru/view-picture.php?id=674>
  6. Orik
    Orik 28 May 2013 11: 05 New
    +3
    Unfortunately, both Alekseevichs for some reason began to destroy Russian life, demanding from the courtiers foreign clothes and shaving their beards. So gradually in the ruling layer, folk culture is destroyed and a wedge is driven between the people and the elite! The article is interesting, but links are needed.
  7. deman73
    deman73 28 May 2013 12: 37 New
    +4
    An interesting article has something to ponder
  8. Altor86
    Altor86 28 May 2013 12: 47 New
    +4
    The census of history is the favorite pastime of our rulers. At all times.
  9. alicante11
    alicante11 28 May 2013 13: 03 New
    +2
    Yes, the sources would not hurt.
    From what bothered and without sources.
    The abandonment of Chigirin is a victory. And the disruption of Azov is a defeat. It should be noted that Chigirin was much closer to the Russian lands than Azov, and, therefore, the Russians were here in much better conditions, having a shorter supply than the Turks. The importance of this moment may well be illustrated by the Sevastopol epic in the Crimean campaign.

    Peter fought a war for 20 years, which ended victoriously. Russia got access to the Baltic Sea. Yes, going out to the Ocean is something else. But this is not the case all at once. Firstly, a respite was needed, and secondly, the Turks again raised their heads in the south. So it was his descendants who had to complete the deeds of Peter. And Fedor waged a war for 3 years, at the end of which he made a "strategic retreat." Those. his brother's stubbornness (or stubbornness) did not differ.

    Handwritten decrees and "reforms". Well, forgive me, but I don’t believe that a sixteen-year-old boy and even a 21-year-old guy could draw up so many decrees and reforms by himself. Throwing is peculiar to youth. At the age of 16-20, I also thought that I knew everything and could do everything. But if I had been allowed to steer something serious then, I now understand that I would have broken a lot of firewood. Therefore, all the same, most of the positive aspects should be attributed to Fedor's entourage.

    As for the contradictory nature of Peter. That, well, God forbid you to have such a childhood, which Peter had. To kill your relatives before your eyes. So that everyone else around you is constantly scared from every knock on the door, fearing that it was archers to complete what was started. In this situation, it is clear that Peter grew up a neurotic with a persecution mania and heightened cruelty.
    But, in the end, we must remember the words of Comrade Stalin on what needs to be done so that "we are not crushed." So it’s not a fact that the evolutionary reform that Alexei and his eldest son were slowly pursuing would have "had time" to be completed before Russia would have cracked like a tough nut in the Swedish-Turkish iron grip. Did we have time for evolution? Or was there a need for a revolution?
    At the expense of the "western" nature of Peter. Here, too, you need to understand that Peter did not have a Russian society before accession to the throne. Who will be with the "second king"? And the "Germans" from the settlement replaced both teachers and society for him. It is not so strange that at the beginning of his reign, Peter so zealously dragged them to the service. However, at the end of his reign, did he not say that "Paris stinks"? It is possible that Peter became disillusioned with his teachers. But his hasty death did not allow him to restore order among the foreign contingent he had recruited. And his self-styled "heir" - Aleksashka Menshikov, was too roguish and narrow-minded to hold out against the front of foreigners trying to hold on to power and old boroughs like the Golitsyns, eager for revenge. The result was the "German" enslavement of Russia for the remainder of the Romanovs' reign.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 28 May 2013 16: 42 New
      +2
      "+" !!! It turns out that there are like-minded people. I agree 100%!
    2. avt
      avt 28 May 2013 17: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: alicante11
      But, in the end, we must remember the words of Comrade Stalin on what needs to be done so that "we are not crushed." So it’s not a fact that the evolutionary reform that Alexei and his eldest son were slowly pursuing would have "had time" to be completed before Russia would have cracked like a tough nut in the Swedish-Turkish iron grip. Did we have time for evolution? Or was there a need for a revolution?

      What vise? What are you talking about ? Well, even traditionalists point out through clenched teeth that the epic with the Swedes was stirred up by the Europeans, specifically the Danes. Well, the Turkish grip "is generally from the realm of fantasy, even if you don't take the completely inadequate Turkish reaction to the capture of Azov, the construction of Taganrog and the construction of the Black Sea Fleet," which, in general, it simply rotted without proper care. That after the Prut campaign, when the great commander just with the whole army fell into the cauldron, if desired and in the presence of a "grip", the Turks could simply end the reign of Peter, that in fact Charles was defeated and hiding in the Turkish train and demanded. The Turks simply restored the status quo. And comparing the inheritance received by Petrusha and Stalin is generally impossible and stupid. If you really want to - rather, this is the time of the "Quiet" daddy who really got into a serious civil war with Stenka Razin, having also the Polish question with the Khmelnitskys, father and son, and then there was no such devastation of the country as Misha Romanov got, here is the one, yes, he started a campaign like Stalin's from a position close to zero, but even under him no drang nakh osten started and the Turks were in no hurry to fight off Kazan for some reason, and if they were hacked to death, then again for Ukraine.
      1. xan
        xan 29 May 2013 11: 40 New
        0
        the smoking-room is alive, you push all ideas with an alternative story
        Quote: avt
        Then after the Prut campaign, when the great commander just with the whole army fell into the cauldron, if desired and in the presence of "grip", the Turks could simply end the reign of Peter, which in fact Charles, defeated and hiding in the Turkish train, demanded

        The meaning of the Turks strain for the sake of the Swedes? The Turks tried to destroy the surrounded army of Peter, but didn’t get it - the Russians were not going to lay down their arms, and the Janissaries were repulsed and refused to attack. Plus, the Turks have serious graters in the Balkans and in Europe. The Turks had little choice - to fight with the indefatigable army of Peter and receive in case of victory a seriously battered and incapable of further actions, or you can not win, or get something from your advantageous position without a fight. Peter had a choice - to make a breakthrough, try to withdraw the troops - to receive serious losses, lose the combat-ready troops, or agree on loot, and the concessions of the captured Azov. The Turkish vizier chose what is more reliable and lossless, and Peter agreed. Peter did not believe in a Russian soldier. The dashing Catherine’s generals in such a situation would consider that they were just Turks, and demonstrate how to win. An example is the defeat of the Turks under Cahul with an even more unfavorable balance of power for the Russians.
        I recommend Molchanov's book "The Diplomacy of Peter the Great", published in the USSR, for understanding that time. Regarding the dominance of the Germans under Peter, there were natural hares at all key posts in the army, diplomacy and in the economy.
        1. avt
          avt 29 May 2013 11: 53 New
          0
          Quote: xan
          and the Janissaries were rebuffed and refused to attack.

          laughing good Oh, these pesky Turks from non-alternative history.
          Quote: xan
          Peter did not believe in a Russian soldier.

          Quote: xan
          The Turks had little choice - to fight with the indefatigable army of Peter and get a seriously battered and incapable of further actions in case of victory
          Milok, I would understand my classical interpretation of the story about faith and not faith in soldiers.
          Quote: xan
          or agree on loot, and concessions to the captured Azov.

          The dismantling of Taganrog, the burning of the Black Sea Fleet and the sale of five ships to the Turks, including the Goto Predistinatsiya, talk the classic version of a diplomatic victory to the end. Well, from the classics, for a start - read Pushkin, he described everything very well in art form about the Prut campaign , its beginning and end.
          1. xan
            xan 29 May 2013 12: 05 New
            -2
            I'm crazy, well, you have the speed of response, what are you grazing chtoli here.
            Quote: avt
            The dismantling of Taganrog, the burning of the Black Sea Fleet and the sale of five ships to the Turks, including the Goto Predistinatsiya, talk the classic version of a diplomatic victory to the end. Well, from the classics, for a start - read Pushkin, he described everything very well in art form about the Prut campaign , its beginning and end.

            Pushkin is an authoritative historian?
            You probably think Ksyusha Sobchak as an authoritative politician
            1. avt
              avt 29 May 2013 12: 39 New
              +1
              Quote: xan
              Pushkin is an authoritative historian?

              Yes, dear, imagine if you missed in the educational process, he also dealt with history, and with the permission of the tsar - the Pugachev riot with access to archival documents and even traveled to places of events. Well, you do not believe it - look at Parfyonov, he briefly talked about this in his series about Pushkin for people like you, too, who conducted an educational program. But for a fan of non-alternative history, of course, is more pleasant than Karamzin. Oh well, fuck on.
              1. xan
                xan 29 May 2013 14: 13 New
                0
                Quote: avt
                But for a fan of non-alternative history, of course, is more pleasant than Karamzin.

                I didn’t mention about Karamzin
                you are some kind of strange, you are inviting you with your personal brains to cut out from knowledge those facts that cannot be faked, and you start with authorities and throw slogans.
                Peter solved problems comparable to the tasks of the Soviet government in the early years, or maybe something more complicated. And he decided them, no one disputes this, neither Karamzin, nor Pushkin.
                1. avt
                  avt 29 May 2013 17: 27 New
                  0
                  Quote: xan
                  you are some kind of strange, you are inviting you with your personal brains to cut out from knowledge those facts that cannot be faked, and you start with authorities and throw slogans.

                  laughing All blown away? And he began as a pillar of classical history and denouncer of the alternative. So when he was broadcasting about Peter’s clumsy army and his distrust of the Russian soldier, were these facts and not slogans? laughing Well, and when specifically on the topic, then at first Pushkin is not a historian, but now he is just the authority thrown at you? And now calls have fallen for brains. laughing So nice man, I don’t scatter my brains, I have them alone, I’m sorry. request
                  Quote: xan
                  Peter solved problems comparable to the tasks of the Soviet government in the early years, or maybe something more complicated.

                  But you stop throwing these slogans, read different books, good ones, again Pushkin, and compare Poltava and the Bronze Horseman, and the brigadier's notes about the Prut campaign, as I said for a start, you don't have to throw your brains and you will start thinking and analyzing yourself.
                  1. xan
                    xan 29 May 2013 21: 20 New
                    -2
                    Quote: avt
                    But you stop throwing these slogans, read different, good books, again Pushkin, and compare "Poltava" and "Bronze Horseman" and the notes of the brigadier about the Prut campaign

                    Yes, you have verbal enuresis, temporary-textual cretinism, obviously from a lack of what you do not scatter, because they feel sorry for them.
                    I realized that soon you will bring me Ksyusha Sobchak as a historian. And you propose to study the civil war on "Quiet Don" and "Walking about torments", clown?
                    I stop throwing "pearls in front of pigs", I can't wait for logic from you.
                    "Blessed is the man who does not go to the counsel of the wicked, for they are like dust that is blown by the wind from the face of the earth"
  10. Gorinich
    Gorinich 28 May 2013 13: 05 New
    +1
    The article is interesting if only because it raises questions, although the lack of references to sources greatly depreciates it.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 28 May 2013 16: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: Gorinich
      although the lack of references to sources greatly depreciates it.

      In principle, you can see the Encyclopedia "All the monarchs of the world. Russia". Although the article about Tsar Fyodor III Alekseevich Romanov also speaks of his poor health, it is noted that "in 3 and 1679 self-mutilation was abolished as a form of execution ... Several decrees were issued to streamline regional administration and tax collection. more attention was paid to the regiments of the "new order", staffed and trained in the western manner. The decree in 1680 on the destruction of parochialism was very important ... "(Well, I typed this from the book, probably there is also in the internet.
  11. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 28 May 2013 14: 06 New
    +2
    <<< However, open any textbook on Russian history and you will see a set of stamps: Peter the Great, a window to Europe, shaved beards, the Swedes were beaten near Poltava, the founder of the empire ... It is succinctly reported about Fedor that he was in poor health, ... .. Well, at best - something vague about some kind of reforms.
    In fact, the six-year reign of the third tsar from the Romanov dynasty led to the transformation of Russia into a European superpower. >>>
    Russia, historically located on the border of Europe and Asia, was constantly torn apart by contradictions fueled from the outside: Above there was always a struggle between traditionalists (supporters of the development of Russia on the basis of Russian traditions and values) and supporters of the "European choice" - lovers of looking through the "window to Europe", i.e. e. follow in the forvator of Europe, copying it. This duality has survived to this day, and depending on which of these currents is in power, the entire previous history of Russia is interpreted. This is where the legs of the unpredictability of the History of Russia “grow!” It is finally necessary to determine WHO IS HY in the history of Russia! And this must be done without delay to our learned men, who are not biased and independent of any ideology, except for the ideology of serving the greatness of Russia!
  12. dmb
    dmb 28 May 2013 14: 27 New
    +2
    One thing is not clear why, in general, a sensible article should be spoiled with conspiracy theories. This is me about the poisoning of Fedor. The author will definitely not attach sources to this. Now it is extremely fashionable, if we are to debunk the official hero, then according to the principle "there are not enough bastards." Peter, of course, was not sugar, but also to talk about what was done to him. brought Russia only harm, is unlikely to correspond to the truth. After all, there are many people who made the glory of Russia. grew up precisely in the Petrine period and thanks to, and not in spite of him.
  13. Igarr
    Igarr 28 May 2013 15: 22 New
    +4
    It’s interesting to read the essay.
    True, other kings are immediately remembered.
    Probably also "hit" on takeoff - Boris Godunov, for example. The first large dispatch of nobles to study in Europe was under him.
    In general, all the good fellows. And all - autocratic muzzles. About anyone you can pick up at least bad, even good - so, snub-nosed Pavel, it turns out, did not "bang" anyone. But his - .... famously.
    ....
    The fate of Russia - you will erase your teeth with frustration and anger.
    Everyone wants it - BETTER.
    It turns out - for everyone.
    Well, whoever succeeds is better, the more they get. Of everyone.
    The obvious is incredible.
  14. maxcor1974
    maxcor1974 28 May 2013 17: 05 New
    +1
    It is strange to read an unfounded essay (without bringing the data to the primary sources) about the reformer king who was only 15 years old at the time of his accession to the throne. One must be completely "blissfully believing" to consider the king independently making such decisions. Just as in all times, then there was a clique of courtiers that influenced decision-making. And I really want to reproach the author of the article that the results of the reign of any ruler are measured by the legacy left by him, enshrined by his followers. Therefore, it was the deeds of Peter the Great (access to the Baltic, the fleet, the army, administrative and political reform) that remained in the memory of the people, and not the deeds of Fyodor (it is doubtful that they were accepted by him).
  15. Const
    Const 28 May 2013 21: 51 New
    +2
    Another article on the issue of teaching history at school. They didn’t even give me a hint. It seems like before Peter I sheer savagery and barbarism.
  16. Horde
    Horde 28 May 2013 21: 57 New
    +6
    I want to enlighten people, a NEW VERSION OF HISTORY 17-18 is being published by the professional historian Alexander Kas. "The collapse of the Empire of the Russian Tsars." In the investigation of historical facts, sources were taken into account that were not considered when writing the history of traditional TI. Let me remind you that all the cornerstone moments of the history of Russia "The Calling of the Varangians", "The Tatar-Mongol yoke", Description of the Great Troubles of the 16-17th c. ", As well as the biography of the first Romanovs" and the "reformer tsar" Peter 1. All this was developed for Russia by German academicians - historians Schloetzer, Miller, Bayer, with the full approval of the NERUSIAN RULERS-GERMANS from Peter 1 to Catherine 2.

    http://istclub.ru/
    http://alternathistory.org.ua/taxonomy/aleksandr-kas
    http://razgovorchik.ru/index.php?showforum=322

    as an announcement of a NEW VERSION, I want to say that Alexander Kas claims that Peter1 was the first Romanov, because it was under him that the DEVELOPING reforms began. The book has not yet come out, there is a discussion on the linked sites. In my opinion, these studies A BREAKTHROUGH STORY .
    1. Yura
      Yura 28 May 2013 22: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: Horde
      I want to enlighten the residents, a NEW VERSION OF HISTORY 17-18v is coming out

      Thanks for the links, and I went to get acquainted with the material.
      1. Horde
        Horde 28 May 2013 22: 39 New
        +2
        Quote: Jura
        Quote: Horde
        I want to enlighten the residents, a NEW VERSION OF HISTORY 17-18v is coming out

        Thanks for the links, and I went to get acquainted with the material.


        fair wind smile I want to say that the material that was not worked out by Alexander Kas is HUGE, but all this is read in a fascinating way ...
        1. Yura
          Yura 29 May 2013 18: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Horde
          I want to say that the material that was not worked out by Alexander Kas is HUGE, but all this is read in a fascinating way ...

          I’m somewhat puzzled, I’m talking about myself, while I read a pity there’s not much time, then I need to read it again to digest it, everything is interesting and there is motivation to say so very unusual conclusions, until I understand this material is convincing for me or not, there we'll see. Thank you again.
  17. My address
    My address 28 May 2013 22: 23 New
    +2
    The article is very interesting. And before that, I read, but in passing, that Peter the Great had plowed down many good things. I will try to find something more about Fedor. As usual, our Western-Historical Historical Science was engaged in a favorite affair — rewarding the uncomplicated, punishing the innocent, exposing our ancestors to goobs. I believe that it was from scholars of historians that liberasts originated.
  18. Pushkar
    Pushkar 29 May 2013 00: 15 New
    0
    Another version of an alternative story.
  19. luka095
    luka095 29 May 2013 02: 18 New
    +3
    Article plus. Links, of course, I would like. But, with interest, you can find everything yourself.