Military Review

Knight on the throne. Foreign policy and military activities of Paul I

Pavel Petrovich paid much attention to the financial situation of Russia. When Empress Catherine II finances were very upset. The Russian Empress spent too recklessly on state funds for unnecessary celebratory, entertaining events and for her favorites. Pavel had a different attitude towards state funds. The sovereign considered state revenues to be the wealth of the state, and not the personal treasury of the king. Costs were to be measured by parishes and used according to state needs, so as not to burden the population.

Paper money (introduced because of financial problems) collected and burned the square in front of the Winter Palace. Total burned paper money worth more than 5 million rubles. To restore the value of money, many court silver sets and things were melted down and minted a coin. The cost of money has recovered.

As can be seen from these events, Paul tried to correct the distortions that appeared in the empire during the “golden age” of Catherine II. All of them are reasonable and no trace of the “crazy despot” is observed. In general, in the events of Paul, an unusually slender, complete and internally integral system was viewed. If Paul had not been killed, Russia could have made a serious development breakthrough. Moreover, it was precisely along the “Russian path” that gradually freed from the Western fetters that hampered the development of Russia. For the enemies of Russia, Pavel was really crazy, he was tearing the Russian state from the West, returning it to the original civilizational path.

Pavel Petrovich was still thinking about the Western informational influence on the Russian youth. It must be said that at present, Russian society has again begun to come to the thought about the pernicious influence of the West on Russia, about the danger of educating and educating young people in the Western spirit. In the spring of 1800, some western books were banned from importing into Russia. Banned sending abroad young people to study in foreign educational institutions. This immediately gave results. Passion for all foreigners has decreased. The highest circles of society began to switch from French to Russian.

Knight on the throne. Foreign policy and military activities of Paul I

Coronation ceremony of Paul I

Foreign policy

Pavel Petrovich is often blamed for the fact that his foreign policy was contradictory and inconsistent. Like, he began to destroy the achievements of the mother, rushing from side to side. The reason for the "inconsistency" of Paul's foreign policy is also seen in his "abnormality."

However, this is an obvious deception. Suffice it to say that Paul achieved the "highest honor" from Russia's external enemies, the masters of the Western project, when England played an active role in organizing his murder. This is the highest rating of its activities. Pavel Petrovich began to reach the level of global politics, challenging England and the forces behind it. The Russian empire of Paul I was ready to carry out an independent policy, which put the whole western project at risk. Russia could offer mankind a different model of existence, while the West continued to build a global slave-owning civilization, where power and all wealth belonged to a small group of “masters”, and the rest of the people were assigned the role of “two-legged tools”.

As heir to the throne, Paul traveled extensively throughout Europe and was well acquainted with the political situation and the interests of various countries. Therefore, his foreign policy was sober. She was contradictory only at first glance. Paul was a staunch enemy of revolutionary France. And it was quite reasonable. The French Revolution was a project of the Freemasons and the Illuminati, who followed the path of the revolutionary transformation of Europe, the destruction of the old political systems, traditions and morals, up to their complete demolition. In fact, they were the forerunners of the internationalist revolutionaries who, after 1917, staged a bloody massacre in Russia that claimed millions of Russian lives.

What will happen to revolutionary Europe is a good example of France. A brutal terror was arranged in the country. Thousands of people hacked heads and drowned in barges. At the same time a bunch of speculators and bankers fabulously enriched. This bloody orgy and financial and economic degradation put an end to Napoleon.

It is clear that it was necessary to fight such a plague. Moreover, it is better at long distances. Therefore, Paul became an ally of Austria and England in the fight against revolutionary France. Soon, however, the Russian emperor realized that Vienna and London want to use Russian soldiers as cannon fodder and care less about fighting with France, but about using the victories of the Russian troops and fleet in their own interests. The disinterested impulse of the “emperor-knight”, who wished the good of all Europe, was crushed. Due to Russian victories, Austria wanted to gain a foothold in Italy, and England in the Mediterranean. In addition, the Allies, especially the Austrians, intrigued against the Russian army, which almost led to its defeat. Only the miracle that Alexander Suvorov (formerly grandfather) performed with his heroes saved the Russian army from defeat and shame.

Naturally, such "allies" of Russia were not needed. He decided to withdraw from the anti-French coalition and withdraw troops from Western Europe. There was another important reason, apart from the treachery of the coalition allies, which forced Paul to radically reconsider his foreign policy. Pavel I studied the situation in France attentively and saw that the young first consul of the French Republic Napoleon was striving to suppress the most destructive consequences of the revolution, to establish order and restore the monarchy. When Napoleon broke up the Directory, and then - the Council of Five Hundreds, it became obvious that this was the end of the revolution in France. Tens of thousands of immigrant royalists were allowed to return to France. The country gradually returned to its traditional monarchy, albeit under the authority of another dynasty. Further events confirmed this conclusion.

Napoleon was a visionary man and also constantly sought to establish friendly relations with Russia. He was the first to take a step towards reconciliation - he said that he wanted to release all the captured Russian soldiers to the homeland (about 6 thousand people). When the Russian envoy General Sprengporten arrived in 1800, Napoleon immediately expressed the deepest feeling of sympathy and respect for the Russian emperor. The return of the prisoners was accompanied by unprecedented courtesy: the first consul ordered all Russians to be sewed new uniforms according to the shape of their parts at the expense of the French treasury, issued shoes and even weapon. Pavel was sent a letter informing him that peace between the two powers could be concluded within 24 hours. Pavel agreed to peace in order to restore "peace and quiet" to Europe.

Napoleon went further; he saw a great future with the military-political union of Russia and France. Such a union at that time was perfectly reasonable: 1) the two powers did not have any fundamental contradictions; 2) Russia and France could hold back the ambitions and expansion of England. England was dangerous not only to France, but also to Russia. London pursued a policy of containing Russia in almost all areas - from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Caucasus. The fact that England was the worst enemy of Russia and the Russian people, confirmed the whole further course stories right up to the present, when British intelligence agencies took almost a leading role in the creation of the Caliphate and in the attempt to set off the Islamic world with the Russian civilization (the project “Islam against Russia”).

The capture of Malta by the British, the island which was the legal possession of Paul, only confirmed the conclusion of the hostility of England. The shelling by the British fleet of peaceful Copenhagen angered European public opinion against England. Therefore, without any special efforts, Russian diplomacy in December 1800 concluded agreements with Sweden and Denmark on joint struggle against England. This is how the League of the Northern Powers appeared, with an anti-British orientation. Prussia also joined the union. A powerful coalition was created against England. In Europe, a new political picture emerged that allowed us to isolate England and stop its expansion.

Having made the correct conclusion that the real enemy of Russia is England, Paul begins to prepare for war with her. It was an alliance with France. Began active preparation of the campaign in India. It must be said that for a long time the campaign against India is considered in our literature as undoubted proof of the insanity of Paul I. However, this is a conscious deception or stupidity. The blow to the most vulnerable place of the British colonial empire, the seizure of the “pearl” of the British crown was not stupid. This strategic step could be a fatal blow to the plans of the Anglo-Saxons. It is foolish to blame Paul for “madness” when the idea of ​​going to India was the most beloved project of Napoleon. He even dreamed of leading the combined Russian-French army, which was to march from southern Russia. Apparently, it is more useful to reckon with the authority of Napoleon than with the conclusions of those who like to “carve Russia”.

In general, Napoleon’s opinion of Paul completely refutes the inventions of those who diligently turned the Russian emperor into a caricature and worked in the interests of London. Napoleon respected Pavel with great respect and spoke to the Russian envoy Sprengporten: "Together with your sovereign, we will change the face of the world." Upon learning of the murder of Paul, Napoleon was furious, his cherished dreams collapsed: "They missed me ... but they hit me in Petersburg." Later, already in exile, the French emperor, recalling the death of Paul, with whom he established such warm relations, always associated this tragedy with the name of the British ambassador.

The idea of ​​creating "spiritual chivalry"

Paul's "Abnormal" is often reproached for the Maltese direction of his policy. In 1797, King Paul I assumed the duties of the protector of the Order of Malta. 29 November 1798 of the year Paul put upon himself the marks of the head of the order - a white Maltese cross, a knightly mantle, a crown and a sword. He became the Grand Master of the Order of St.. John of Jerusalem. The new Russian Maltese order consisted of two sections: Orthodox and Catholic.

Having stood at the head of the order, Paul wanted to solve two main tasks. First, he understood that with malicious ideas one should fight with ideas too, there is not enough physical struggle alone. Paul decided to oppose the revolutionary ideas and Freemasonry to a religious-political structure, a religious-secular order uniting the best forces of Europe. In this regard, the Order of Malta, having hundreds of years of hard, heroic struggle against the enemies of Christian Europe, seemed the appropriate structure. Russian resources and capabilities could lead the order to a completely different level.

The Russian emperor cherished the idea of ​​grouping around the renewed Order of Malta all the healthy spiritual and military forces of Europe without distinction of nationality or religion in order to suppress forces that wanted to build their order in the world (order based on injustice, parasitism and the cruelest exploitation of humanity).

Secondly, the principles underlying the Order of Malta: strict Christian piety, helping others, defending justice with arms and unconditional obedience to the younger ones (healthy hierarchy), as well as the knightly way and his mystical religious direction, fully corresponded to the emperor's worldview. In fact, Paul wanted to create a Russian spiritual order that would be able to resist decomposition, which gradually spread across Europe. Under Stalin, this idea will be remembered when they compare the Bolsheviks with the "Order of the Sword," which will have to switch to ideological and educational work (the idea will not have time to realize).

The spiritual-secular order was supposed to serve the revival of the Russian nobility, its essence and at the same time bring to the service of Russia the best representatives from other classes and social groups of the population. The highest circles of the nobility, spiritually and intellectually, were badly corrupted and infected with various Western ideas. Paul was not opposed to the nobility as such. But he wanted the nobility not only to be considered the highest and noble class, but to be so. It was necessary to force the Russian nobles to follow the ideals of chivalry. To such people as Suvorov, Ushakov, Lazarev, Kornilov and Nakhimov were not the exception to the rule, but the typical representatives of the “Russian chivalry”.

Pavel wanted to create a stratum of the population that would rightfully be a national elite and developed steadily from generation to generation, taking into its membership the best representatives of all social groups. To this end, Paul in every way sought to facilitate access to the order of people of non-noble origin by introducing for them the title of honorary gentlemen. Paul saw salvation not in the “democratization of society”, which usually led to alignment with the lower and degradation, but in aristocracy. He wanted to introduce the broad masses to the kingdom of nobility and honor and create a new aristocracy of spirit in Russia and Europe.

It was a serious challenge to the owners of the Western project, who consistently undermined the spiritual, intellectual and physical potential of humanity in order to turn people into “two-legged tools”, human-like cattle, not rising above physical needs and imposed degenerative habits.

Unfortunately, the death of Pavel for a long time buried the idea of ​​creating a spiritual knighthood in Russia, a spiritual and secular order, which is working on the aristocratization of society and fighting against hostile informational "viruses".


Even as heir to the throne, Pavel noted that Russia no longer needed to worry about increasing the territory - the empire basically reached its natural frontiers. The main enemies were defeated: Sweden lost its dominant role in the Baltic and could not return it, the Commonwealth was eliminated, the Ottoman Empire suffered heavy defeats. Russia achieved superiority in the Northern Black Sea region, created the Black Sea Fleet, solving the problem of security in the southern direction. Therefore, Paul proposed to move to a defense strategy and wanted to reduce the army to reduce costs and focus on the internal problems of the country.

For a long time, Pavel was criticized for failing to appreciate the originality of the Russian military school of Rumyantsev and Suvorov and turned a blind eye to his achievements. It should be noted that both of the great Russian commanders did not at all share the enthusiasm of Catherine II for Western political ideas. Rumyantsev and Suvorov tried to develop the Russian army on the basis of the renewal of the traditions of Russian military art. Alexander Suvorov was hostile to the French "educational" philosophy. As a result, the Russian army under Catherine II was in fact the only area of ​​the state that developed in the spirit of Russian historical traditions. The Russian army of the times of Rumyantsev, Potemkin and Suvorov was radically different from the European armies: it was a national army with high morale, not European soulless discipline, with slender tactics, with the training of soldiers only that they could be useful in the march and combat, convenient "Potemkin" form ". The corporal punishments rarely used by Rumyantsev, under Potemkin, almost completely disappeared from the everyday life of the army.

However, the unhealthy political and moral atmosphere that prevailed in Russia during the times of the epoch of palace coups, could not but have an impact on the army, especially on the morals of the officers. If in the units that were directly subordinate to Rumyantsev and Suvorov, real military spirit and tough discipline reigned, then other units were far from ideal. The military genius of Suvorov was not used to transform the entire army, although it would have been a reasonable step. Under Catherine II, Suvorov was not allowed to tackle the most important issues of the organization of military affairs. Alexander Suvorov was a genius commander who was used only to solve crisis phenomena - the war with the Turks, the suppression of the unrest of the Poles. They even threw out the fire of the Pugachev region.

The brain of the army — the general staff (its chief was then called the quartermaster general) was disorganized and was powerless to change anything. The commanders-in-chief (local senior military commanders) completely disregarded him, relying on their connections at court. A significant part of the army was used for other purposes - tens of thousands of soldiers were dragged as servants and serfs. Theft reigned. Meanwhile, the revolutionary French army was victorious after victory, actively promoting talented commanders and raising a number of brilliant generals.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the emperor Paul firmly took over the establishment of order in the army. On the first day of his reign, the emperor dismissed the old General Staff and on the fourth day he formed him from new people. Then the “purge” of the command began: during the reign of Pavel, 7 field marshals, more than 300 generals and over 2000 headquarters officers and chief officers were sent out.

Massive dismissal of officers from the army tried to explain the tyranny of Paul. This is similar to the “purge” of the army under Stalin, when the leader of the Soviet Army, who defeated the united armed forces of all Europe, was accused of “bloody terror” and weakening the army. Although most of the officers were simply fired for disciplinary offenses, drunkenness, hooliganism, low qualifications, etc. Pavel I carried out a similar purge of the army at the turn of the XVIII — XIX centuries. He fought with embezzlement, violations of military discipline, the transformation of soldiers into serfs. He dismissed the generals and officers for the fact that they could not answer basic questions about military affairs. He fired officers for the so-called. "Long holidays", the nobles were listed in the shelves, but in fact they were absent. They cleaned the rows from the undead, children who were recorded in the officers. From now on, the leave for officers and generals should not exceed one month per year. Paul, like Peter I, demanded that the nobles serve their state.

Pavel paid much attention to the rank and file. For officers, a real disciplinary and criminal liability for the life and health of soldiers was introduced. Corporal punishment was allowed only in extreme cases, and it was specifically stipulated that they should not cripple, but correct negligent soldiers. For the lower ranks of the introduced vacation - 28 days a year. For the lower ranks, a cloth overcoat with sleeves for winter and cold time was introduced as the subject of the uniform (before this instruction, the soldiers had only a uniform for all seasons, under which they could put what they could). For the guard in the winter time introduced sheepskin coats and felt boots. Moreover, in the guardroom in the guardroom, the boots should be as long as necessary for each change of soldiers to wear dry felt boots. Under the fear of penal servitude, Paul forbade to make deductions from the soldiers' salary and not to give it out at all. The salaries and salaries themselves were increased. The soldiers were distributed awards orders: for 20 years of immaculate service began to issue signs of St.. Anne.

In each regiment were established hospitals. Only those persons who passed the exam at the Medical College could be doctors in them. The king introduced soldiers to service 25 for years and retired from service because of injuries to pensions containing them in disabled teams. The soldiers who died and died were ordered to be buried with military honors, and their teams were to be looked after by disabled teams. The soldier was forbidden to use as a labor in the interests of commanders. The massive construction of the barracks began to rid the army of the harmful effects of permanent residence.

Paul tried to stop the process of turning the nobility into social parasites. He tried to put an end to the era of sybarism and hedonism. Pavel forced all the officers to work hard to turn the army into a powerful combat unit. It is clear that representatives of aristocracy, accustomed to hedonism, simply hated the emperor. Subsequently, many of them tried to trample his name in the dirt.

Pavlovskaya Mushtra, a military historian A. Kersnovsky (“The History of the Russian Army”) recognized this, “strongly pulled up a brilliant, but disbanded army, especially the guard of the end of the reign of Catherine. The dandies and sybarites, who skimped on their duties, looked at the service as a pleasant sinekur, and considered that “it is not a bear — it will not run away into the forest”, it is given to understand (and feel) that service is primarily service ... Order, clarity in “uniformity everywhere were brought exemplary.

Fyodor Rostopchin noted that the Russian infantry had been greatly transformed within one year. He wrote to S. Vorontsov: “I saw that (infantry), which cost so much work to the late Prussian king (Frederick the Great), and I assure you that it would be ours.” The historian Schilder, who wrote an extensive study about Pavel I and who had a negative opinion about him, nevertheless noted: "The way of life of the guards officers has changed completely." Now they were not driving around theaters and societies, but were engaged in military training from morning to evening.

Another anti-hero of the pro-Western and liberal-minded public - Arakcheev, in a short time turned the Russian artillery into a formidable type of military force, which would play a huge role in future victories of the Russian army. I must say that the principles of the organization of artillery, laid Arakcheev, lasted until the First World War (!).

Pavel did a lot for the development of the military and commercial fleet. Russia owes him patronage of the merchant navy, assistance to the Siberian industrialist Shelikhov and the establishment of the Russian-American Company.

It is clear that there were mistakes. The main mistake of Pavel in military construction was that while reforming the Russian army, the sovereign took not the ingenious principles of Rumyantsev and Suvorov, but the best European system - the military system of the Prussian king Frederick the Great, as the basis for its reorganization. Apparently, this was due to the upbringing of the Russian monarch. Although Catherine did not like her son, she nevertheless tried to educate and give him an education in the European spirit. Paul did not become a fan of the ideas of "enlightenment" and an atheist, but still he was able to inspire the idea of ​​the superiority of some European orders over the Russians. Pavel Petrovich was well aware of the disarray of the Russian army in the era of palace coups, when only the genius of individual commanders and unyielding resilience, the self-sacrifice of Russian soldiers saved the army and the state from a number of military catastrophes. Therefore, Paul began to build an army on the basis of the principles of the Prussian king. Hence, a meaningless drill, uncomfortable uniforms and boots, braids, wigs, powder and other attributes of the Russian army of the Paul I era. If in domestic politics Pavel Petrovich tried to return Russia to the traditional historical path, then he tried to rebuild the army in the Prussian manner. It did not bring the army happiness.

Thus, even a little material shows that Pavel Petrovich was a great historical figure, a man who with all his heart worked for the Russian cause and tried to bring benefit to the people and Russia. For this he was slandered and blackened, like many other Russian devotees.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Severomor
    Severomor 2 October 2014 10: 28
    Still, it's time to break the stereotypes. Paul 1 - tyrant, etc.
    A man, at 42, ascended the throne. An adult husband, not some kind of youngster in 15-16 years. Got a decent education.
    Even this is enough to reflect, why do historians (read authority) so persistently dislike Paul?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Aleksander
      Aleksander 3 October 2014 23: 00
      The author is cunning. Giving some positive quotes from the military historian A. A. Kersnovsky (“History of the Russian Army”), he takes them out of context. And the final conclusion of Kernsovsky is completely negative:
      In general, the reign of Emperor Paul - did not bring happiness to the Russian army. Russian military doctrine - solid and ingenious in its simplicity - was abandoned. We voluntarily left our place - the first place in a series of European military exercises, to take the last little honorable place of the Prussian echoes, some sub-Prussians. "
      And it seems to me that this is the main and accurate assessment of his activities
      And how to forget about the buccles introduced by Paul (!), Braids (!), Wigs, powder (!), Uncomfortable uniforms and boots, and this is in the war, on campaigns! Bullying is the most appropriate term.
      What he did positive for the army would be done by any ruler, because for this the conditions had ripened and society and production would have developed accordingly — wouldn't his overcoat or infirmaries have appeared without it?
      Pavel is a mediocre state. figure of the era of Suvorov. But he did not understand this ....

  2. Velizariy
    Velizariy 2 October 2014 11: 01
    What kind of true history of the Russian state can we talk about? If its history under Peter was written by Germans and "Dutch merchants", who by nationality they were is known to every reasonable person. And the works of Lomonosov were edited by the same German. And now, bit by bit, people seeking the truth find the truth and not the slander of foreigners with gentiles. And the history of the reign of Ivan the Terrible was presented to us from the words of the same foreigners and the traitor, Prince Kurbsky! All the rulers truly loyal to Orthodoxy and the Russian people, surrounded by the liberals of their time, have been killed and vilified and slandered by their enemies. For many centuries, a bazaar-monetary model of government has been imposed on us and taught to rivalry among themselves, playing on the base feelings of a person, turning him into a lustful animal with a deprived mind, which can be used for any purpose, and most importantly, to destroy the soul - this is the very goal of our main enemy.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 2 October 2014 12: 19
      Here they are, the great "Russian" "historians": Gottlieb Bayer (1694-1738), Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705-1783), August Schlozer (1735-1809), Arist Kunik (1814-1899)
      Over the hundred and ten years of the existence of the Russa Academy, out of 28 of its members, the “creators” of Russian history, not a single Russian surname, and only since 1841, out of 42 full members of the Russian Academy, 37 are already Russian.
  3. qwert
    qwert 2 October 2014 11: 20
    Great article. Although I have long been interested in this monarch, but thanks to the author, the meaning of Napoleon’s attack on Russia became clear.
    It is known that he was planning an Indian campaign. It turns out together with the Russians. And he didn’t refuse him, but the fact that he decided to lay it through Moscow is also clear. Where did he come from love and respect for Alexander?
    That's how the Russian and French peoples paid with the lives of their sons through the fault of England.
    And I don't understand those "Russians" who admire and bow down to America and England. They are not Russian. "Thomas of kinship, not remembering and unworthy of their ancestors." Throughout history, England and America have been our enemies. And they will be.
    1. nikon7717
      nikon7717 2 October 2014 14: 53
      I will add only one to the already general statements. We must remember and know our own history ourselves, and not let the visiting visitors go to the mercy, comprehend every step of the ancestors in their place and everything will be clear. It is necessary in EACH FAMILY to pass on to her the inheritance and the memory of the past merits of grandfathers, great-grandfathers, where the clan went from and nobody will deceive us then.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 2 October 2014 11: 20
    If Pavel had not been killed, Russia could have made a major breakthrough in development...It is possible, gradually, without sudden movements .. But he crossed the road of England, encroached on the holy .. India ...
  5. alovrov
    alovrov 2 October 2014 12: 29
    Yes, Paul crossed the road to the Anglo-Sanks on their path to world domination. Therefore, Alexander I turned out to be a brilliant monarch, but he did not join the continental blockade ... The moral is simple - never cooperate with the Anglo-Saxons anywhere.
  6. KEX
    KEX 2 October 2014 12: 56
    Quote: alovrov
    Yes, Paul crossed the road to the Anglo-Sanks on their path to world domination. Therefore, Alexander I turned out to be a brilliant monarch, but he did not join the continental blockade ... The moral is simple - never cooperate with the Anglo-Saxons anywhere.

    nothing to add ... everything is correct ...
  7. andrew42
    andrew42 2 October 2014 13: 35
    Good article. And it is so clear that Paul was a talented ruler, if only because what nonentities participated in the murder - as if sybarites, careerists and people unprincipled, unscrupulous. Alexander clearly understood this, and none of these "gentlemen" was granted anything, their careers had ended ingloriously. But it should be remembered that Paul was not an apologist for Russian culture, treated the state as a pure mechanism, and in the fight against Catherine's mess he was simply manic, that is, he was left without allies. But you can imagine yourself in his place, in a country consisting of the estates of a couple of dozen former mama's lovers. Unloved son against a couple of dozen stepfathers! You will not envy. In short, a Europeanized maximalist. What got away with Peter I did not get away with Paul even to a much lesser extent. The injustice of history. And a lesson: you cannot "break over the knee" the branch on which you sit, namely the Guard, which was at that time the only real quasi-political force in the era of palace coups. He wanted to rule, but he could not divide. Got burned out on the army reform. For that, thanks to Pavel for some kind of order in Russian office work.
  8. washi
    washi 2 October 2014 13: 49
    And he is not torn and not the last whom the Anglo-Saxons killed.
    Ivan the Great (according to Western terminology of Grozny) - poisoned
    Peter 1, when he matured and changed his mind - poisoned
    Peter 3, began to pursue an anti-English policy (for example: the exchange of Berlin and Koenig for Schleswig-Holstein (his ancestral lands) - was killed
    Nicholas 2 (when they could organize the army and navy) - killed (Lenin and Stalin did not give commands. Proven) - killed.
    Alexander 3, presumably, died after the assassination attempt (train accident)
    Lenin - after the rejection of the Angles - an attempt.
    Frunze - not timely treatment - died
    Kirov - killed
    Stalin - poisoned.
    Zhdanov - not providing honey. services - died
    Ponomarenko removed from office, exiled as ambassador
    Masherov - died (or killed)
    Andropov - died
    Putin is still alive.
    I read somewhere that there were more than 50 attempts on him.
    I understand why he got divorced, and why about his daughters, marriage, etc. a lot of rumors.
  9. Velizariy
    Velizariy 2 October 2014 15: 51
    Quote: Severomor
    Here they are, the great "Russian" "historians": Gottlieb Bayer (1694-1738), Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705-1783), August Schlozer (1735-1809), Arist Kunik (1814-1899)
    Over the hundred and ten years of the existence of the Russa Academy, out of 28 of its members, the “creators” of Russian history, not a single Russian surname, and only since 1841, out of 42 full members of the Russian Academy, 37 are already Russian.

    Therefore, the conclusion is that the envious and unwashed heretics Europeans envied the successes of the Russian state, but the main role in the destruction of identity and autocracy, with the hands of these savages from Europe, was played by one "chosen" people ... and is playing to this day, preventing the revival of the sovereignty of the Orthodox state.
  10. Tamod
    Tamod 2 October 2014 16: 26
    Under Empress Catherine II, finances were very upset. The Russian Empress spent too recklessly public funds on unnecessary events of a festive, entertaining nature and on her favorites. I did not read further
  11. understudy
    understudy 2 October 2014 23: 14
    Yeah ... which of the "chosen of God" has not yet been washed white? No matter how you look at the articles on the tsarist "theme", emotion overwhelms the people, such darlings led the people, such darlings ...
    Pavel cherished, Pavel wanted, Pavel saw, Pavel tried ... That's just that there is no confirmation of good thoughts, I remember one chernukha. And especially in relation to the main ally of the state - the Army. And the star and the order of the Maltese cross among the official Russian awards, obviously, testify to the incredible struggle against massism?
  12. oratai104
    oratai104 2 October 2014 23: 32
    Guys, this is how we go. Let's respect our own history (at least officially accepted)! After all, you can respect one without disparaging the other. For example: Catherine - "The fool is illiterate" having fun, politically and military, defeated the Crimean Khanate. Accordingly, she annexed Crimea to Russia and created Novorossiya. This is so offhand.
    Each subsequent ruler, logically, continued the activities of the previous one. So the successes and failures of each of them are prepared in the past and in their present. Paul's success in the reign of Catherine. I doubt that in today's Ukraine. someone in 4 years will be able to restore order. For that Russia, 4 years was also not a very long time. This is our story and the Romanovs gave the Bolsheviks an Empire created from not very large Russia.
    In the history of any country there is a lot of controversial, mutually exclusive and sometimes false (alien and his own, too, thrown). And by the way, this is normal from a political point of view, a specific state (interests)
    Each time has its own time. We do not need to judge, but accept, preserve, protect and develop, preferably, relying on the best and not repeating the mistakes of the past. A story to respect. Something like this.
    1. fruassar
      fruassar 6 October 2014 13: 12
      Catherine did not annex Crimea to Russia - she returned the original Russian Tavria to
      Crimea is the name of the Tatar village in the northeast of Tavria (now it is the city of Old Crimea)
  13. Prikaz4ikov1992
    Prikaz4ikov1992 3 October 2014 08: 53
    It is a pity that the empire collapsed. All the same, the monarchy is better than communism, democracy and so on.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 3 October 2014 09: 37
      Have you lived under communism? It’s very interesting, you can sit down, just no one lived, didn’t try and essno does not know what it is. Only theoretically. But theoretically there (in communism) everything is very attractive. Therefore, it is very interesting why the monarchy is better than communism, enlighten.
      I agree with democracy, in the sauce in which we are presented, but the monarchy is never a pity.
  14. understudy
    understudy 3 October 2014 20: 04
    And the conclusion suggests itself very frank: the more the historians of the Soviet period kicked this or that political figure, the sweeter it became for today's democrats and liberals. I will not be surprised at all that these are the same "principled" champions of "justice", such as the Volkogonovs and other Yakovlevs ...
  15. fruassar
    fruassar 6 October 2014 13: 22
    The author unfortunately did not mention one of the most important legislative acts of Paul I - He
    returned the normal law of succession (the throne is inherited by the eldest son and further on seniority).
    Before him the testament principle established by Peter I
    which gave a great opportunity to organize palace coups.
    This act of Paul I ensured relative stability throughout the 19th century.
  16. Prager
    Prager 3 November 2014 15: 15
    Paul’s work is still underestimated by historians and society. Bright memory to him!