Military Review

Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 3: Alexander I

43

"However," continues the special project "Portraits of Russian Tsars in the West." This topic is interesting, first of all, because Russian leaders have always been the embodiment of their country for the western elite and the townsfolk. And in relation to the “king” figure, one can judge which image of Russia was in demand in the West at one time or another. It should be noted that most of the portraits in our gallery are holographic pictures. After all, when it was beneficial for Western politicians to conclude a tactical alliance with Moscow, the king was portrayed as a wise ruler capable of pragmatic deals. When the need for an alliance with the Russians fell away, the picture was shown from a different angle - traditional Russophobic stereotypes were revived, and the king turned into a “cunning Byzantine”, an unpredictable despot or a survivor of a comedian.


If we talk about the current epoch, the image of Putin, like the image of his predecessors, in the West is constantly transforming depending on the foreign policy conjuncture. (However, in the Medvedev period, the existence of a tandem facilitated the task: the portrait of one leader was served in light, the second - in dark colors.) In most cases, however, Western portraitists operated with “holographic pictures”, occasionally turning them with the right side: “wolf - Bunny "," Bunny - Wolf ", as in the Soviet labels based on" Well, wait! ".

"Holographic" somewhat different kind can be traced when the Russian tsar (and, therefore, our country) is viewed by researchers of a later era. It is easy to see that contemporaries evaluate people and events in the system of values ​​and concepts of “time of action”, and historians unobtrusively approach the past with the criteria of the future - when out of good motives, and when out of all the same applied ones. By the way, we should remember about the “holographic features” when, for internal political reasons, some Russian experts trump these or those quotes that reflect “objective Western assessments”.

"Alexander's Days is a great start"

A striking example of Western holographic technology is the metamorphosis, which occurred with the image of Emperor Alexander I. “Alexander's Days are a beautiful beginning” was described in the West as the “era of liberal transformations”. The French writer Francois Chateaubriand spoke with delight about the "sublime soul of the emperor, in which at the same time there is something from a knight and a bishop hiding his vow under a helmet." “This is a man of a remarkable mind,” wrote Madame de Stael, “who does not doubt the harm of despotism and sincerely wishes to free the peasants.” “Sire, your character is already a constitution for your empire, and your conscience is its guarantee,” she said in a conversation with Alexander. Representatives of the Whig Party of Britain assured that "the king, together with his advisers from the Secret Committee, is ready to introduce fair laws in the country and create opposition." “Alexander only thinks about the happiness of his subjects,” noted the Prussian reformer Heinrich Friedrich von Stein, “but he is surrounded by non-sympathetic people, and without sufficient willpower, he is forced to turn to arms slyness and cunning to accomplish their goals. Nevertheless, one cannot help wondering to what degree this sovereign is capable of devotion to the cause, to self-sacrifice, to the struggle for all the great and noble. "

Historians have long been no doubt that in the conspiracy, in which Alexander ascended the throne, the British played a key role. His tutor was the Swiss lawyer of republican views, Frederick César La Harpe. And it is not surprising that representatives of the “creative class”, the liberal establishment, which set the tone for the West at that time, pinned great hopes on the Russian tsar. “The appearance of such a person on the throne,” they asserted, “is a phenomenal phenomenon.” “Alexander is eager to improve the situation of mankind,” noted British radical politician and book publisher John Harford Stone in a letter to the famous natural scientist Joseph Priestley. - And it is very likely that soon he will play a leading role in Europe, surpassing his equal in power, but infinitely inferior to his rulers in kindness and nobility (Napoleon was meant). This young man almost with the same Machiavellianism steals despotism from his subjects, with which other sovereigns steal freedom from their fellow citizens. ”

American President Thomas Jeffeson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, which was in correspondence with the Russian emperor, was even ready to let Alexander sins beforehand if his liberal thoughts did not materialize. “Alexander has the Herculean task before him,” he noted in the letter to Priestley, “to ensure freedom for those who are unable to take care of themselves. And, probably, it would be inappropriate for him to stir up fears among the privileged classes in an attempt to create something like a representative government. ”

Alexander was needed by the liberal western elite as a counterweight to Napoleon, whom she perceived as "a despot who trampled upon the legacy of the French Revolution." Perhaps, best of all, oddly enough, the aristocrat Charles Talleyrand (French foreign minister) expressed these sentiments at a secret meeting with Alexander after the historical division of Europe in Tilsit: “The French people are civilized, his sovereign is not civilized. The Russian sovereign is civilized, but his people are not. Consequently, the Russian sovereign must be an ally of the French people. "

At first, Bonaparte Alexander did not complain, portraying him as a weak and indecisive ruler and constantly hinting that he was responsible for the murder of his father. In the 1804 year, with his knowledge, the Paris Monitor newspaper even published an article that spoke about the role of England in the palace coup 1801 of the year and expressed regret that "the killers had escaped retribution." After the meeting in Tilsit, however, Napoleon changed his mind about the Russian tsar. “I just had a meeting with Alexander and was extremely pleased with him! This is a young, extremely kind and beautiful emperor; he is much smarter than they think, ”he wrote to his wife Josephine.

Of course, it cannot be said that before the 1812 war of the year Alexander was not criticized in Europe. Many Western contemporaries noted that he was "dodgy and hypocritical as a Greek." “The emperor can easily enchant,” Napoleon wrote, “but this must be feared; he is insincere; this is a true Byzantine of the times of the decline of the empire "... The Swedish ambassador to St. Petersburg, Count Lagerbylke, proclaimed that" in politics, Alexander is as thin as a pin, as sharp as a razor and as false as sea foam. " However, Western politicians and journalists did not see anything wrong with the "Byzantine" Russian Tsar until, of course, "the Cossacks did not set up their tents in the center of Paris."

"Tartuffe on the throne"

The first to "see clearly" was French diplomat Armand de Kolenkur, from 1807 to 1811. who served as ambassador to Russia. “Alexander is not taken for who he really is. He is considered weak and mistaken. Undoubtedly, he may suffer frustration and hide his displeasure ... But this lightness of character has its limits - it will not go beyond the circle outlined for itself, but this circle is made of iron and does not bend ... "

After the victory over Napoleon, Alexander became not only a participant in big European politics, but also its legislator. For all history This happened for the first time in Russia, and only after 130 years did it happen again. Of course, the Russian leader, who dictates his will to European nations, caused allergies among local elites (in both cases Europe, regardless of the social and political ideals of the “tsars,” took desperate steps to put Russia in place). Alexander naively believed that the defeat of the aggressor, the pacification of the continent and the “nobility, open-mindedness and humanistic ideals” that he showed at the same time would allow him to play the role of Agamemnon of Europe. It was not there.

Yes, at the first congresses of the Sacred Union, the Russian tsar came up with a number of humanistic international initiatives that were ahead of their time (in particular, he proposed to consider issues of simultaneous reduction of the armed forces of European powers, mutual guarantees of inviolability of the territory, acceptance of the international status of persons of Jewish nationality, creation of an inter-union headquarters) . However, in the West, his intelligence, insight and diplomatic art were taken for primitive cunning, religiosity, the brotherhood of peoples and rulers preached by him - for bigotry, balanced judgment and flexibility - for duplicity, firmness in upholding the principles and a clear understanding of the role of the monarch in Russian society - for cruelty and tyranny.

“The king used for his own purposes the events from which Europe suffered,” wrote English General Robert Wilson, who represented the interests of London in the Russian army, “and took up the scepter of world domination. And we all felt the barbaric spirit of Attila, Genghis Khan and Timur reborn. ” Note, this is the words of the formal ally of St. Petersburg - the representative of the British Empire, who took an active part in the creation of the “Vienna system”.

Alexander turned from a “liberal civilized ruler” into a cunning despot who, according to the editor of the Westminster Review, John Bowring, “divided kingdoms according to his own whim and dictated the fates of peoples”. European intellectuals, liberals, and "progressive" journalists began to demonize the king, calling him "Kalmyk" and "savage."

And if earlier in Europe they admired Alexander's “refined artistry” and even dubbed him “northern Talma”, after the victory of the Russian army over Napoleon, this quality of the king was presented quite differently. “With such a sophisticated enemy, combining European prudence and Asian perfidy,” wrote David Urquhart, a British fighter for the independence of the mountainous Cherkessia, “vigilance and caution are needed. When dealing with him, you always risk being deceived. It is from his aggressive ambitions that the threat to peace in Europe comes. And act against it should be tough. " “The most essential properties of Alexander’s nature,” the county Laferon, French ambassador to St. Petersburg, said, “is vanity and pretense; if he were to wear a woman’s dress on him, he could have become a fine, secular woman. ” After searching for the ideological basis for the Holy Union he had created, Alexander became fascinated with mystical Christianity, liberals in the West began to sneer at him and dubbed "Tartuffe on the throne."

Perhaps the clearest picture of the holographic technique of Western portrait painters can be made by comparing the two characteristics of Alexander I, cited in the London Times: one after the coup 1801 of the year, and the second after the death of the emperor. "This is the first civilized ruler of Russia, a defender of freedom, who, above all, thinks not about expansion, but about establishing a fair and reasonable order." “The main inspirer, creator and master of the Sacred Alliance, the last emperor was an enemy of the political rights of all civilized nations, an opponent of human freedom and happiness. He was never ready to sacrifice his ambitious hopes for the territorial expansion of the empire to the principles of justice. ” What is called, feel the difference.

Also indicative are the characteristics that, at the end of his reign, those politicians who glorified “Alexander's days a great start” gave the emperor. In 1824, teacher Alexander Frederick Lagarp, who at that time had already participated in the experiment to create the Poluyakobinskaya Helvetic Republic, wrote: “I was enticed by the hope that I educated Marcus Aurelius for the fifty millionth population ... But, in the end, the bottomless abyss consumed the fruits of my labors with everyone my hopes. "

“I think our former favorite Alexander,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, “evaded the true faith. Participation in the imaginary alliance, the anti-national principles expressed by him, his position at the head of the alliance, which seeks to chain humanity to slave chains for all time, all this puts a shadow on his character. ” It is worth noting, however, that the Sacred Union, whatever Western contemporaries and historians may say about it, calling Romanov Russia the “gendarme of Europe”, allowed for a long time to maintain the established balance of forces on the continent and the firmness of the established boundaries. Alexander I, who was the main instigator of the Vienna agreements, succeeded in creating a collective security system that has been providing stability in Europe for forty years. Yes, in recent years the reign of the Western liberals began to represent him as a crafty tyrant who went astray on the grounds of religious mysticism, but what was left for them to do? Sing him hosanna, thus agreeing with the Russian claims to a leading position in Europe? It is curious that in Western historiography the image of Alexander was presented in extremely negative colors. Historians in the West, as a rule, portrayed him as a hypocrite, hiding the “bestial grin” behind the beautifully soulful liberal phraseology and dreamed of fulfilling the “will of Peter the Great,” who allegedly bequeathed the descendants to extend the power of St. Petersburg to the entire European continent.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/
Articles from this series:
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 1: Stalin
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 2: Khrushchev
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part of 3: Alexander I
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part IV: Brezhnev
Russian tsars: view from the West. Part V: Gorbachev and Yeltsin
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ruslan207
    ruslan207 11 January 2014 09: 22
    .
    What kind of Russians are there already half of Europe in their blood after Peter the Great is Russian and does not smell
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. ruslan207
        ruslan207 11 January 2014 11: 35
        -4
        In Israel, not only Jews live for your information, but what are you, the Nazis themselves, who also give me an Aryan where such nationalists come from, and a Jew, and I’m not ashamed of what you achieved in life and made useful for your country
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Mature naturalist
        Mature naturalist 11 January 2014 13: 21
        +3
        Alexander I Pavlovich the Blessed - Emperor and autocrat of All Russia, protector of the Order of Malta, Grand Duke of Finland, Tsar of Poland, the eldest son of Emperor Paul I and Maria Fedorovna

        Father - Paul I Petrovich - The All-Russian Emperor, the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, the son of Peter III Fedorovich and Catherine II Alekseevna.

        Mother - Maria Feodorovna; before the transition to Orthodoxy - Sofia Maria Dorothea Augusta Louise of Württemberg - Princess of the Württemberg House, second wife of the Russian Emperor Paul I

        Grandfather - Peter III Fedorovich (nee Karl Peter Ulrich Holstein-Gottorp - Russian emperor, the first representative of the Holstein-Gottorp (Oldenburg) branch on the Russian throne.

        Grandmother - Catherine II the Great (nee Sofia Augusta Frederick Anhalt-Zerbst - All-Russian Empress from 1762 to 1796.

        And where is the Russian blood here?
        1. gennadi
          gennadi 11 January 2014 13: 44
          +2
          And he was born in Russia and spoke Russian and documentation, decrees and correspondence again in Russian!
          1. Alex_Popovson
            Alex_Popovson 11 January 2014 13: 50
            -4
            The conversation is not about whether he was Russian, but about who he was by blood.
            1. gennadi
              gennadi 11 January 2014 14: 15
              0
              Does haplogroup R1a tell you anything?
              1. Alex_Popovson
                Alex_Popovson 11 January 2014 14: 22
                +1
                Of course! And what does it have to do with it? Do you have the genetic material of Alexander I preserved?
                1. gennadi
                  gennadi 11 January 2014 14: 36
                  0
                  It is just the same genetic material that is easiest to check with the numerous European descendants of Nicholas I!
                  1. Alex_Popovson
                    Alex_Popovson 11 January 2014 15: 34
                    0
                    Through a photograph? Or do you have access to the remains of all the monarchs of Europe?
                    1. gennadi
                      gennadi 11 January 2014 15: 58
                      0
                      This is not about the remains, but about living descendants.
          2. dv-v
            dv-v 12 January 2014 07: 49
            +1
            Gennadi, have you read the "war and peace" of Leo Tolstoy?
            1. gennadi
              gennadi 12 January 2014 13: 07
              -3
              Honestly, I didn’t like this novel far from life at school either.
              1. blizart
                blizart 12 January 2014 13: 47
                +2
                Do not read the novel once, do not operate assessments of the distantness of life. This novel is the core of the Russian worldview. I read it 17 times, and if your assessment is this I can say, you are far from understanding Russian life. Although about its influence, a joke in the subject.
                There is a kind of snob in front of a picture, let's say "Mona Lisa", and says - What was found in it? She doesn't make any impression on me! Ranevskaya's voice is heard from behind - My dear, this picture made the impression on so many people that she herself could choose who to produce it for!
              2. dv-v
                dv-v 13 January 2014 01: 57
                +1
                well, now immediately visible is distant including from history.

                firstly, smoke the difference between a story and a novel so that at least the phrase "far from life" in relation to specific litforms disappears from your vocabulary forever. although from the statement that in literature, especially Russian, you can no longer be ignorant.

                secondly, in the novel, large pieces in French just testify that in the Russian high society, including the emperor, this language was not just widespread - it was evidence of a decent upbringing, many people spoke Russian with difficulty. those. and wrote in French.
          3. erg
            erg 12 January 2014 10: 54
            0
            I can also add that Peter 3, although he did not have time to be crowned, was proclaimed emperor, like Peter Romanov. Although the idea was under his own name, but then it meant a change of dynasty. In Russia, this was considered unacceptable and left the dynastic name of the Romanovs. And his wife Catherine, who later became Empress, completely abandoned the Oldenbur inheritance. So that after it all direct descendants could be called only Romanovs. This says that in those days, priority was given to Russian roots. Therefore, the subsequent Romanovs were considered the Oldenbur branch of the Romanov house, but only a branch, not a trunk, and not the roots of a dynastic tree.
            1. dv-v
              dv-v 12 January 2014 11: 32
              0
              the Gothic almanac looks at this with bewilderment.
            2. Mature naturalist
              Mature naturalist 16 January 2014 19: 36
              0
              Quote: erg
              in those days, priority was given to Russian roots

              What are the "Russian roots"? Solid Germans, everything is written.
              Or I am stupid (and not only me), but they are not Germans, but "Prussian" and the letter "p" must be removed, then there will be "Russians" ...
          4. The comment was deleted.
        2. Artyom
          Artyom 11 January 2014 15: 46
          +11
          But interestingly, Pushkin is a Russian poet, or what other nationality?
          The attitude to the belonging of the people is determined not by the blood of another nation, but by the inner spiritual content / by whom a person feels himself, another Jew can observe the interests of Russia better than a purebred Slav! It's all about education. If you were raised by wolves, you will remain a wolf for life and will remain, even if you were taught to speak and walk on 2 legs.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 January 2014 13: 58
            0
            Quote: Artyom
            If you were raised by wolves, you will remain a wolf for life and will remain, even if you were taught to speak and walk on 2 legs.

            However, do not raise a wolf, he will not become a man.
            Quote: Artyom
            The attitude to the belonging of a people is determined not by the presence of blood of another nation

            What nonsense are you writing? This was invented by the Jews in order to infiltrate other races. In order for a representative of another race to become Russified, several generations need to live among the Russians, and not in the palace.
            1. Artyom
              Artyom 12 January 2014 19: 24
              0
              "This was invented by the Jews to penetrate into other races"
              I see here on the site the Black Hundreds got started, now they will start screaming about the purebred Aryan scatter, in the spirit of "if there is no water in the tap, then the Jews have drunk!" and far .... but this is also from education, so about wolves, I'm still right! hi
        3. Ulairy
          Ulairy 11 January 2014 21: 25
          0
          Well, nice, man knows the story, damn it! The Württemberg dynasty, barely surviving in the Spanish-French wars, escaped simply by marriage to the Russian monarchies ... (just kidding, just kidding) ...
        4. AntonR7
          AntonR7 11 January 2014 22: 00
          0
          Peter 3’s mother was the Russian daughter of Peter 1 Anna Petrovna. And what doesn’t suit you? Anna Petrovna is not Russian or what? Not only in Russia did they marry foreign princes and princesses, and yet they were considered representatives of the ruling dynasties.
          1. dv-v
            dv-v 12 January 2014 07: 55
            +1
            In fact, the same Saxe-Coburg-Gottes did not have a problem until the PMV happened and they were renamed to Windsor. and the representatives of the Romanovs all the time tried to put pressure on the publishers of the Gotta almanac, who honestly wrote the Gottorp Holstein.

            So it goes.
        5. dv-v
          dv-v 12 January 2014 07: 48
          +1
          hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...
      4. Alex_Popovson
        Alex_Popovson 11 January 2014 13: 26
        0
        The fact that after the death of Peter II and Elizabeth Petrovna there were basically no descendants of Peter I (the very real Romanov) on the throne, but only princes and princesses of German blood, is just as foolish to deny (and the British also added something to the tree of our monarchs). So Ruslan said everything correctly.
        1. gennadi
          gennadi 11 January 2014 13: 46
          +11
          Russianness is:
          a) language
          b) Orthodoxy
          c) statehood
          d) culture and customs
          1. Yarik
            Yarik 11 January 2014 16: 28
            -3
            The trees are green, at the very grandfather was an Orthodox priest, but ... 2014, the 21st century in the yard. What do you have from this Orthodoxy? A great achievement ... ahh, you probably um ... clergyman?
        2. ruslan207
          ruslan207 11 January 2014 14: 57
          +3
          Well, not only the kings had German blood, the Windsor English dynasty was also of German origin
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 11 January 2014 16: 09
          +1
          Quote: Alex_Popovson
          and there were only German blood princes and princesses, denying is just as stupid

          Yes, the point is not in blood, but in the fact that they assimilated and pursued a policy of prosperity. It means the upbringing to which they were subjected, studied and adopted Orthodoxy, studied the history of Russia, loved it. Excluding the dark years 1730-40 when Biron ruled and Anna Ivanovna
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 January 2014 14: 09
            0
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Yes, the point is not in blood, but in the fact that they assimilated and pursued a policy of prosperity.

            Do you refer to serfdom as "prosperity"?
        5. AntonR7
          AntonR7 11 January 2014 22: 02
          0
          I repeated Peter 3 the son of Anna Petrovna’s daughter Peter 1, which means that after Elizabeth there were Russian tsars in Russia.
      5. Bosk
        Bosk 11 January 2014 14: 19
        +4
        And what have the Jews to do with it? Dear, so that we are Russian to stipulate that we are not Jews, not Germans, not even Eskimos are not needed ... we ourselves sometimes seem to be just doing this! By the way, at the expense of Russianness, I do not remember who said, "A Russian person is a person who thinks in Russian and does not divide people by nationality!"
        1. Klim
          Klim 12 January 2014 10: 31
          +2
          Stalin, too, it seems to me was not quite Russian, but how much he did for the country, albeit under a different name, but still Russia
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 January 2014 14: 13
            0
            Quote: Klim
            Stalin, too, it seems to me was not quite Russian, but how much he did for the country, albeit under a different name, but still Russia

            There are two scenarios of the war with Germany, Stalin and Nicholas II. under Nicholas the Second, the Germans did not reach Moscow.
            1. erg
              erg 12 January 2014 16: 42
              0
              But even under Nicholas 2, they lost part of the territory. And for the next 3 years until 1917, they were not returned. And under Stalin, for the same 3 years since the beginning of the war, the country's territory was cleared of Germans, except for a small part of Latvia.
            2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 11 January 2014 09: 34
    +7
    Nothing has changed in relation to Russia from the West.
  3. individual
    individual 11 January 2014 10: 36
    +8
    How all this is disgusting.
    Again, all opinions are decided by Western opinion.
    I do not believe that their Bismarck, Jefferson or King George was evaluated by Russian thinkers in the words of their national researchers and biographers! am
  4. demotivator
    demotivator 11 January 2014 12: 53
    +6
    Quote: individ
    Again, all opinions are decided by Western opinion.

    I understand you, but we Russians, first of all, should be guided by the opinion of our tsars not by "intellectuals" from the West, but by what the Russian people think of them. So what if the West awarded the bastard Gorbachev with all the existing prizes and awards that exist, including the Nobel! After all, in the Russian people, this bastard did not increase respect because of these awards. Well, let the West kiss him and those like him, we here, in Russia, know the true value of such figures. As for the assessments of the reign of Tsar Alexander I, there are many different opinions. Some consider him a liberal, but, after all, it was during his time that the Decembrist uprising in 1925, which eventually led to his own collapse. It is enough to read on this topic Karamzin, Klyuchevsky and other our historians. Well, why do we need this "opinion of the West"?
    1. gennadi
      gennadi 11 January 2014 13: 47
      +4
      The king died before the Decembrist uprising, I give you a "two"!
  5. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 11 January 2014 13: 15
    +2
    Here is what Alexander 1, his paid agent, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Napoleonic France Charles Talleyrand wrote about:
    "Sovereign, why did you come here? You have to save Europe, and you will achieve this, only in no way inferior to Napoleon. The French people are civilized, their sovereign is not civilized. The Russian sovereign is civilized, but his people are not. Therefore, the Russian sovereign should be an ally of the French people. "

    During a date in Erfut in 1808, at one point, Napoleon threw his hat to the ground, to which Alexander objected: "You are hot-tempered. I am stubborn. You will not achieve anything with anger from me. Let's talk, reason, otherwise I will leave."
    After the departure of Alexander Napoleon said:
    “The Russian emperor is undoubtedly an outstanding man; he has a mind, grace, education; he easily creeps into the soul, but you cannot trust him: he has no sincerity. This is a true Greek ancient
    Byzantium. He is subtle, false and dexterous. ”

    The statement of the Swedish ambassador in Petersburg, Count Lagerbilke, is well known: “In politics, Alexander is thin as a pin, sharp as a razor, false as sea foam.”
    However, Alexander was able to be stubborn even formidable:
    So at the Vienna Congress, when Austria and England, together with the defeated France, wanted to deprive Russia of the fruits of its victories.
    Excerpt from the memorandum of the English Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lord Castleleigh:
    "The plan of the Russian emperor to annex the Duchy of Warsaw <...> spread excitement and horror at the courts of Austria and Prussia, filled with fear all the states of Europe <.> Russia, already enlarged by Finland, Bessarabia, Persian lands, rushes to the West, in the heart of Germany"

    Here is what the colonel of the royal retinue, later the famous military historian A.I., wrote in the diary of 1815. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky:
    “I often happen to invite His Majesty Metternich, Gardenberg, Wellington, Castlery, Talleyrand and others and hear from their other room their very long and loud conversations and disputes, from which these gentlemen came out with such fiery faces that they were forced to wipe sweat from them ". After one of such disputes about Poland, Metternich, as it became known to the agents of the Vienna police, “was so puzzled by the harsh response of the Russian emperor that, leaving, he could barely get in the door.” According to the reports of the same agents, Metternich and Talleyrand began to see “the second Napoleon” in Alexander, and Lord Castle Castle in this regard remarked: “The mind of the emperor is not quite healthy.”

    http://www.bibliofond.ru/view.aspx?id=447596

    The tsar also acted in a similar way in the matter of Poland, when the British and Austrians sharply opposed the annexation of the former Duchy of Warsaw to Russia, Alexander answered them: “the question of the duchy is subject only to Russian competence”, emphasizing at the same time: “I have won the duchy, and I have 480 thousand soldiers to protect him! ”
    Prussia sought to annex Saxony to itself. Alexander I energetically supported Frederick William III: “The Prussian king will be king of Prussia and Saxony, as I will be emperor of Russia and king of Poland!” The tsar broke the objection with a “Napoleonic cry”:
    “If the Saxon king does not abdicate voluntarily, he will be sent to Russia and die there. One king has already found his end there! ”

    That was such an outstanding person ...
    1. gennadi
      gennadi 11 January 2014 13: 51
      +3
      Contrary to popular belief among the Poles, Russian power in Poland was a reaction to Polish power in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and neither religion nor culture of the Poles suffered from this.
    2. xan
      xan 11 January 2014 14: 59
      +1
      Quote: Novel 1977
      That was such an outstanding person ...

      Well, and what difference does he have Russian blood or not. Recently there was an article where the Russian colonialists of Georgian Tsitsians and I don’t remember the name of Colonel Abkhazian went to get the keys to Azerbaijani Baku and were killed - there is no Russian blood either.
      For reference - in the English royal family there is no English blood, as in Swedish, Spanish, Dutch, etc. - almost all monarchs have German blood.
      The Englishman Chandler in his book "The Battles of Napoleon" under the portrait of Alexander 1 says "a historical character not fully understood"
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. knn54
    knn54 11 January 2014 14: 04
    +4
    I would also like to note the strategic plan to "squeeze" Napoleon out of Russia. It was possible to capture Napoleon, COMPLETELY defeat the French. But do not forget that the exhausted Russian army would have met on the border with the FRESH numerous army of Austria-Hungary behind which was Albion. Buonoparta, the Emperor and the genius strategist Kutuzov ensured that the frightened German princes and dukes rushed to Russia for help. The Pseudo-Allies, frightened by the new army recruited by Napoleon in France, were also not opposed to the Russian Army "finishing off the enemy in his own den" ... And for a third of a century, EVERYONE understood WHO is the OWNER in the European house.
    1. Artyom
      Artyom 11 January 2014 16: 13
      +1
      Kutuzov was a brilliant diplomat, for which Catherine II was valued, he was not at all going to smash Napoleon completely, he was needed as a counterweight to England, he did not trust the British at all and did the right thing, that’s why we call it the expulsion of the French army from Russia. And even the king did not understand, unfortunately, this plan.
  8. oscar
    oscar 11 January 2014 14: 23
    +2
    Russian troops saved Paris twice in the 20th century .. only the good is always quickly forgotten.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. ruslan207
      ruslan207 11 January 2014 15: 00
      +1
      And what Russia got from this is nothing
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 11 January 2014 22: 09
        0
        Quote: ruslan207
        And what Russia got from this is nothing

        But what was she supposed to get? A piece of Prussia? Everything that could be taken in Europe was taken. You could try to get the Bosphorus out of the way. Something went wrong with Turkey, it seems that we won the war and there were no forces left for the Bosphorus. You could to say that Alexander didn’t really strive for conquest, he understood that there would be a people's war and partisanism, and other countries could unite as under Nikolai in 1855.
  9. grotto
    grotto 11 January 2014 14: 57
    +2
    The strong comes, the weak wipes. The West, in such a case, is sure to spit poisonous saliva. Everything as usual. And, as always, the West of Russia (hereinafter I quote the thought) needs one thing - that Russia does not exist.
  10. pink
    pink 11 January 2014 15: 25
    +1
    If the British weave the intrigues of the accession to the throne of the Russian tsars, then they consider the Russians smarter than themselves and, therefore, are afraid of them.
  11. RoTTor
    RoTTor 11 January 2014 15: 50
    +1
    What to do with stupid bickering about the nationality of the rulers, I recall: in the Russian Empire, ONLY religion was taken into account; the most prominent ruler of Russia was Catherine the Great - a German by blood and had nothing to do with the Romanovs, what to speak of Great STALIN.
    About Alexander is worth reading the book of Alexander Arkhangelsky. Or, at worst, to dry out her audio version.
  12. Tron
    Tron 11 January 2014 19: 41
    0
    The reason for the accession to the imperial throne of Alexander I was the Masonic conspiracy, as a result of which his father, Emperor Paul, was killed. The end of the reign was marked by an even larger Masonic conspiracy - the Decembrist uprising, which involved not only the broad layers of the nobility, but also the elite of the Russian army. What was laid down by the liberal policy of Alexander’s rule in the Empire, came back a hundred years later with three revolutions in Russia.
  13. wanderer
    wanderer 11 January 2014 19: 49
    +3
    Well, it’s certainly not in the blood, but in the mind.
    Who has done more for Russia?
    "Non-Russians" Catherine II with Comrade Stalin or Russians Gorbachev with Yeltsin,
    not to mention Nikita Sergeevich.
  14. Tron
    Tron 11 January 2014 20: 22
    +1
    Quote: wanderer
    or Russian Gorbachev with Yeltsin,


    You can call these renegades as you want, but not Russian, and even with a capital letter.
  15. Ramil Zaripov
    Ramil Zaripov 11 January 2014 21: 08
    +1
    I read the comments and was shocked. Someone in the forest, some for firewood, and this is our story.
  16. barbiturate
    barbiturate 12 January 2014 08: 46
    0
    and most importantly, no one said, or I did not see that he was a paricide and a regicide in combination and that there are very unpleasant poems by Pushkin about him. He killed his father, sat on the throne - nothing good will come of this, only a "bald dandy" and "accidentally warmed up by the glory" of the victory over Napoleon
  17. ReifA
    ReifA 12 January 2014 08: 50
    +1
    On the issue of Russian \ not Russian
    I believe that if a person thinks in Russian, it already has a determining weight in its spiritual formation.
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 12 January 2014 14: 57
      0
      Quote: ReifA
      I believe that if a person thinks in Russian, it already has a determining weight in its spiritual formation.
      You are now "pecked" by svidomye .... Shevchenko kept his personal diary exclusively in Russian, but .......... the great Ukrainian poet ....
  18. Boris63
    Boris63 12 January 2014 19: 13
    0
    There is also enough Russian "blood" in Europe; in the early Middle Ages, Russian princesses were considered a good "party" for the rulers of Europe. And it makes no sense to measure by the number of any "blood" of the ruler. For deeds they will be rewarded.
  19. RuslanNN
    RuslanNN 12 January 2014 19: 53
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    There are two scenarios of the war with Germany, Stalin and Nicholas II. under Nicholas the Second, the Germans did not reach Moscow.

    But after the script of Nicholas II, the Russian Empire collapsed, and after Stalin - a cosmic power, without whose consent they were afraid to sneeze in the world
  20. RuslanNN
    RuslanNN 12 January 2014 19: 54
    0
    Space sorry