Peter I, nicknamed Peter the Great for his services to Russia, is a figure for Russian history not just iconic, but key. Peter 1 created the Russian Empire, therefore he turned out to be the last tsar of all Russia and, accordingly, the first All-Russian Emperor. The son of the king, the godson of the king, the brother of the king - Peter himself was proclaimed the head of the country, and at that time the boy was barely 10 years old. Initially, he had a formal co-ruler Ivan V, but from the age of 17 he already ruled independently, and in 1721 Peter I became emperor.

Tsar Peter the First | Haiku Deck

For Russia, the years of the reign of Peter I were a time of large-scale reforms. He significantly expanded the territory of the state, built the beautiful city of St. Petersburg, incredibly boosted the economy by founding a whole network of metallurgical and glass factories, and also reduced the import of foreign goods to a minimum. In addition, Peter Great first of the Russian rulers began to adopt their best ideas from Western countries. But since all the reforms of Peter the Great were achieved through violence against the population and the eradication of any dissent, the personality of Peter 1 among historians still evokes diametrically opposed assessments.

Childhood and youth of Peter I

The biography of Peter I initially implied his future reign, since he was born in the family of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov and his wife Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina. It is noteworthy that Peter the Great turned out to be the 14th child of his father, but the firstborn for his mother. It is also worth noting that the name Peter was completely unconventional for both dynasties of his ancestors, so historians still cannot figure out where he got this name from.

The boy was only four years old when the king-father died. His older brother and godfather Fyodor III Alekseevich ascended the throne, who took custody of his brother and ordered him to give him the maximum a good education. However, Peter the Great had big problems with this. He was always very inquisitive, but just at that moment the Orthodox Church started a war against foreign influence, and all Latin teachers were removed from the court. Therefore, the prince was taught by Russian clerks, who themselves did not have deep knowledge, and Russian-language books of the proper level did not yet exist. As a result, Peter the Great had a meager vocabulary and wrote with errors until the end of his life.

Tsar Fedor III rules only six years old and died due to poor health at a young age. According to tradition, another offspring of Tsar Alexei, Ivan, was to take the throne, but he was very painful, so the Naryshkin family organized a virtual palace coup and declared Peter I the heir. It was beneficial for them, since the boy was a descendant of their family, but the Naryshkins did not take into account that the Miloslavsky family would raise an uprising because of the infringement of the interests of Tsarevich Ivan. The famous Streltsy rebellion of 1682 took place, the result of which was the recognition of two tsars at the same time - Ivan and Peter. The Kremlin Armory still has a double throne for the brother-kings.

The favorite game of young Peter I was training with his army. Moreover, the soldiers of the prince were not at all toys. His peers dressed in uniform and marched through the streets of the city, and Peter the Great himself "served" in his regiment as a drummer. Later, he even started his own artillery, also real. The funny army of Peter I was called the Preobrazhensky regiment, to which the Semenovsky regiment was later added, and, in addition to them, the tsar organized a funny fleet.

Tsar Peter I

When the young tsar was still a minor, his older sister, Princess Sophia, and later his mother Natalya Kirillovna and her relatives, the Naryshkins, stood behind him. In 1689, co-ruler brother Ivan V finally gave all power to Peter, although he nominally remained co-tsar until he suddenly died at the age of 30. After the death of his mother, Tsar Peter the Great freed himself from the burdensome guardianship of the princes Naryshkins, and it was from that time that one can speak of Peter the Great as an independent ruler.

He continued military operations in the Crimea against the Ottoman Empire, conducted a series of Azov campaigns, which resulted in the capture of the Azov fortress. To strengthen the southern borders, the tsar built the port of Taganrog, but Russia still did not have a full-fledged fleet, so it did not achieve a final victory. The large-scale construction of ships and the training of young nobles abroad in shipbuilding began. And the tsar himself learned the art of building a fleet, even working as a carpenter on the construction of the ship "Peter and Paul".

While Peter the Great was preparing to reform the country and personally studied the technical and economic progress leading European states, a conspiracy was conceived against him, and the first wife of the king was at the head. Having suppressed the streltsy rebellion, Peter the Great decided to reorient military operations. He concludes a peace agreement with the Ottoman Empire and starts a war with Sweden. His troops captured the fortresses Noteburg and Nienschanz at the mouth of the Neva, where the tsar decided to found the city of St. Petersburg, and placed the base of the Russian fleet on the nearby island of Kronstadt.

Wars of Peter the Great

The above conquests made it possible to open an exit to the Baltic Sea, which later received the symbolic name "Window to Europe". Later, the territories of the Eastern Baltic joined Russia, and in 1709, during the legendary Battle of Poltava, the Swedes were completely defeated. Moreover, it is important to note: Peter the Great, unlike many kings, did not sit out in fortresses, but personally led the troops on the battlefield. In the Battle of Poltava, Peter I was even shot through his hat, that is, he really risked own life.

After the defeat of the Swedes at Poltava, King Charles XII took refuge under the patronage of the Turks in the city of Bender, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, and today is located in Moldova. With the help of the Crimean Tatars and the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, he began to escalate the situation on the southern border of Russia. Seeking the expulsion of Charles, Peter the Great, on the contrary, forced Ottoman Sultan unleash a Russo-Turkish war again. Russia found itself in a situation where it was necessary to wage a war on three fronts. On the border with Moldova, the king was surrounded and agreed to sign peace with the Turks, giving them back the fortress of Azov and access to the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov.

In addition to the Russian-Turkish and northern wars, Peter the Great escalated the situation in the east. Thanks to his expeditions, the cities of Omsk, Ust-Kamenogorsk and Semipalatinsk were founded, later Kamchatka joined Russia. The king wanted to carry out campaigns in North America and India, but failed to realize these ideas. On the other hand, he conducted the so-called Caspian campaign against Persia, during which he conquered Baku, Rasht, Astrabad, Derbent, as well as other Iranian and Caucasian fortresses. But after the death of Peter the Great, most of these territories were lost, as the new government considered the region not promising, and maintaining the garrison in those conditions was too expensive.

Reforms of Peter I

Due to the fact that the territory of Russia expanded significantly, Peter managed to reorganize the country from a kingdom into an empire, and starting from 1721, Peter I became emperor. Of the numerous reforms of Peter I, the transformations in the army clearly stood out, which allowed him to achieve great military victories. But no less important were such innovations as the transfer of the church under the subordination of the emperor, as well as the development of industry and trade. Emperor Peter the Great was well aware of the need for education and the fight against an outdated way of life. On the one hand, his tax on wearing a beard was perceived as tyranny, but at the same time, there was a direct dependence of the promotion of the nobles on the level of their education.

Under Peter, the first Russian newspaper was founded and many translations of foreign books appeared. Artillery, engineering, medical, naval and mining schools were opened, as well as the first gymnasium in the country. And now comprehensive schools not only the children of noble people could visit, but also the offspring of soldiers. He really wanted to create a mandatory for all primary school, but did not manage to carry out this plan. It is important to note that the reforms of Peter the Great affected not only the economy and politics. He financed the education of talented artists, introduced a new Julian calendar, tried to change the position of women by banning forced marriage. He also raised the dignity of his subjects, obliging them not to kneel even before the king and to use full names, and not call yourself "Senka" or "Ivashka" as before.

In general, the reforms of Peter the Great changed the value system of the nobles, which can be considered a huge plus, but at the same time, the gap between the nobility and the people increased many times over and was no longer limited only to finances and title. The main disadvantage of the tsarist reforms is considered to be the violent method of their implementation. In fact, it was a struggle of despotism with uneducated people, and Peter hoped to instill consciousness in the people with a whip. Indicative in this regard is the construction of St. Petersburg, which was carried out in the most difficult conditions. Many craftsmen rushed from hard labor to flee, and the king ordered their entire family to be imprisoned until the fugitives returned with a confession.

Since not everyone liked the method of governing the state under Peter the Great, the tsar founded the Preobrazhensky Prikaz, an organ of political investigation and court, which later grew into the infamous Secret Chancellery. The most unpopular decrees in this context were the prohibition of taking notes in a closed room, as well as the prohibition of non-speech. Violation of both of these decrees was punishable by death. In this way, Peter the Great fought conspiracies and palace coups.

Personal life of Peter I

In his youth, Tsar Peter I liked to visit German Quarter, where he not only became interested in foreign life, for example, he learned to dance, smoke and communicate in a Western manner, but also fell in love with a German girl Anna Mons. His mother was very alarmed by such a relationship, so when Peter reached the age of 17, she insisted on his wedding with Evdokia Lopukhina. However, they did not have a normal family life: shortly after the wedding, Peter the Great left his wife and visited her only in order to prevent rumors of a certain kind.

Tsar Peter I and his wife had three sons: Alexei, Alexander and Pavel, but the last two died in infancy. The eldest son of Peter the Great was to become his heir, but since Evdokia in 1698 unsuccessfully tried to overthrow her husband from the throne in order to transfer the crown to her son and was imprisoned in a monastery, Alexei was forced to flee abroad. He never approved of his father's reforms, considered him a tyrant and planned to overthrow his parent. However, in 1717 the young man was arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and next summer he was sentenced to death. The matter did not come to execution, since Alexei soon died in prison under unclear circumstances.

A few years after the dissolution of the marriage with his first wife, Peter the Great took 19-year-old Marta Skavronskaya as his mistress, whom the Russian troops captured as spoils of war. She gave birth to eleven children from the king, half of them even before the legal wedding. The wedding took place in February 1712 after the woman adopted Orthodoxy, thanks to which she became Ekaterina Alekseevna, later known as Empress Catherine I. Among the children of Peter and Catherine are the future Empress Elizabeth I and Anna, mother, the rest died in childhood. Interestingly, the second wife of Peter the Great was the only person in his life who knew how to calm his violent temper even in moments of rage and fits of anger.

Despite the fact that his wife accompanied the emperor in all campaigns, he was able to get carried away by the young Maria Cantemir, the daughter of the former Moldavian ruler, Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich. Maria remained the favorite of Peter the Great until the end of his life. Separately, it is worth mentioning the growth of Peter I. Even for our contemporaries, a more than two-meter man seems very tall. But in the time of Peter I, his 203 centimeters seemed absolutely incredible. Judging by the chronicles of eyewitnesses, when the Tsar and Emperor Peter the Great walked through the crowd, his head towered over the sea of ​​people.

Compared to his older brothers, born to a different mother from their common father, Peter the Great seemed to be quite healthy. But in fact, he was tormented by severe headaches almost all his life, and in last years reign, Peter the Great suffered from kidney stones. The attacks intensified even more after the emperor, along with ordinary soldiers, pulled out the boat that had run aground, but he tried not to pay attention to the illness.

At the end of January 1725, the ruler could no longer endure pain and fell ill in his Winter Palace. After the emperor had no strength left to scream, he only groaned, and the whole environment realized that Peter the Great was dying. Peter the Great accepted death in terrible agony. Doctors called pneumonia the official cause of his death, but later doctors had strong doubts about such a verdict. An autopsy was performed, which showed a terrible inflammation of the bladder, which had already developed into gangrene. Peter the Great was buried in the cathedral at the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg, and his wife, Empress Catherine I, became the heir to the throne.

Baida Evgeny Trofimovich

Last year (written in 2003) the 330th anniversary of the birth of Tsar Peter I was celebrated. Now these days grandiose festivities begin on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St. Petersburg. The international, “international” (approx. These are two words of different meanings), political and even state significance of this celebration, it seems, will far exceed the recent celebration of the 850th anniversary of the founding of Moscow. Busts of Peter the Great now adorn the offices of many statesmen. In honor of Peter the Great, awards and prizes are established. Ships are named after him. And there is every reason to believe that the honoring of Peter the Great will only grow with time.
Why so?

Who was Peter I or Peter the Great for Russia really? Good or evil? What threatens us with his current exaltation?

One can count isolated attempts to understand the consequences of Peter's reforms for Russia. Before the revolution, all historians and writers only exalted Peter the Great and his transformations, turning him into almost the main and only founder of the Russian state. The first attempt to understand the true merits of Peter the Great was made by the historian M.N. Pokrovsky (1868 - 1932), when immediately after the revolution, any criticism of tsars and emperors, and especially Russian history, was a good deed. But times soon changed and his critical analysis of the Petrine reforms was recognized as erroneous for reasons of "simplification, sociological vulgarization and national nihilism" (TSB 1975, vol. 20, p. 493). The era of Stalin's reforms has come and a support was needed in the past. Peter became Great again for a short time. The second critical period of rethinking the acts of Peter the Great came in the 90s of the last century, when again, until what time was it allowed to criticize everything and everyone. One of the first publications with a critical assessment of the deeds of Peter was published in 1995 in the literary almanac "Realist". Publicist and critic Anatoly Lanshchikov in the article "Moscow - the Third Rome, the Russian Empire and Russian laziness" showed all the perniciousness and sad consequences of the time of Peter the Great for the economy and development of Russia.
Historians almost never touch this topic. Even domestic church historians try to avoid this topic. The outstanding historian of the church, Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), who wrote a 12-volume history of the Russian Church, reached only 1666 and did not have time to cover this period. Metropolitan of St. Petersburg John (Snychev), in one of his books, promised to tell the whole truth about Peter, but also did not have time, he died in 1995. In the 9-volume History of the Russian Church, published on the basis of the books of Metropolitan Macarius, the period of the The Orthodox Church in the synodal period of 1700 - 1917 (8 volumes, parts 1 and 2) is presented from the point of view of the foreign historian I.K. Smolich. And I must say, it leaves a sad and depressing impression, both from the acts and statements of Peter himself, and from the consequences of his reforms for the Russian Orthodox Church. The church reforms of Peter were supposed to essentially destroy the Russian Orthodox Church, but it stood firm and the gates of hell did not overcome it.
Books by A.M. Burovsky published in 2000 - 2001. "The Failed Empire" (books 1 and 2) are the last revelatory publications about Peter the Great and the events that followed his death.
There is another revelatory book by Boris Bashilov, Robespierre on the Throne, about Peter the Great and his consequences of his reforms, but unfortunately it was published in a very small edition and is available only on the Internet on the Russian Sky website.
I will not mention other modern publications about Peter the Great, which have the opposite interpretation and glorify his reforms and himself as the most brilliant and greatest reformer of Russia. Soon, after reading this and the above materials, you yourself will be able to assess his deeds. And we, on the basis of well-known and accessible materials - books, encyclopedias, will try to figure out who and what Peter really was, what were his merits or crimes. Historical archives were not used in this analysis.
I will say right away that this analysis is based on the version that there were two Peters: Tsar Peter I and Emperor Peter the Great, - two different person. The latter was an alien impostor. And there is also a virtual artistic pictorial image Peter the Great. And then the whole story of Peter and his reforms is perceived in a completely different way.
past and modern historians and researchers of Peter I and Peter the Great, criticizing or praising his deeds and believing that this is one person, are always forced to explain contradictory and mutually exclusive actions and traits of their character. Moreover, it turns out that those who praise Peter do not want to see his crimes, and those who criticize do not want to notice good deeds and good intentions.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in the memoirs of Peter I and Peter the Great, by accident or intentionally, the dates of certain events, as a rule, of a domestic nature, are sometimes mixed up. Therefore, what Peter I said or how he acted is often attributed to the emperor "Peter the Great" and vice versa. This is very confusing in determining their character traits and the true motives of certain actions.

What is said above is just food for thought. I do not want to immediately impose my interpretation of these events. Maybe you yourself will find the truth. I am sure there is a lot of evidence of the imposture of "Peter the Great". This site will be updated and in future releases we will try to answer the following questions:

Who was and where did the impostor come from?
What is the true role of Peter's entourage in these events?
Why did the impostor manage to gain a foothold on the throne?
Why was the secret kept after his death?
Why was the secret kept by all subsequent emperors?
Why was the secret kept after the revolution?
Why is the secret of the imposture of "Peter the Great" preserved now?
What could be the consequences of exposing the imposture of "Peter the Great" or keeping it a secret for our time and the future?

The goal that I set is to restore the good name of Tsar Peter I, who was killed in the Paris Bastille in 1703, and for us to learn a lesson from these events in order to protect us from such mistakes and then his death in French casemates and all those trials that have already endured by our country and our people will not be in vain

Generalized evidence of the imposture of the emperor "Peter the Great"

1
The coincidence in time of the substitution of Tsar Peter I (August 1698) and the appearance of a prisoner in the "Iron Mask" in the Bastille in Paris (September 1698). In the lists of prisoners of the Bastille, he was listed under the name Magchiel, which may be a distorted record of Mikhailov, the name under which Tsar Peter traveled abroad. His appearance coincided with the appointment of a new commandant of the Bastille Saint-Mars. He was tall, carried himself with dignity, and always wore a velvet mask on his face. The prisoner was respectfully treated and kept well. He died in 1703. After his death, the room where he was kept was carefully searched, and all traces of his stay were destroyed.

2
The Orthodox Tsar, who preferred traditional Russian clothes, left for the Great Embassy. There are two portraits of the king made during the journey, in which he was depicted in a Russian caftan, and even during his stay and work at the shipyard. A Latin man returned from the embassy, ​​wearing only European clothes and never again wearing not only his old Russian clothes, but even royal attire. There is reason to believe that Tsar Peter I and the "imposter" differed in body structure: Tsar Peter was shorter and denser than the "imposter", the size of the boots was different, the "imposter" with a high growth of more than 2 meters had a clothing size that corresponded to the modern size 44 !!!

Wax painted statue of C. Rastrelli
and the freak of M. Shemyakin is not a fruit creative imagination sculptors,
and the true appearance of "Peter the Great" and his "reforms"
3
In the portraits of Peter I (Godfried Kneller), made during the Great Embassy, ​​Peter's hair is curly, short, in a bracket, not on the shoulders, as "Peter the Great" later wore, a mustache that is slightly breaking through, a wart on the right side of the nose. With a wart, it is generally not clear, since it is not on the lifetime portraits of "Peter the Great", so it is important to find out when it was and when it was not. The age of "Peter the Great", which is confirmed by lifetime portraits dating back to 1698-1700, is at least 10 years older than Tsar Peter!!!

4
The impostor did not know the location of the library of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, although this secret was passed on to all the kings, and even Tsar Peter's sister Tsarevna Sophia knew and visited this place. It is known that "Peter the Great" tried to find the library immediately after returning from the "Great Embassy" and even carried out excavations in the Kremlin for this.

5
After returning from the Great Embassy, ​​“Peter the Great” hid surrounded by conspirators, did not appear in front of the people and did not even visit his closest relatives until the bloody executions of the archers were carried out, and the bloody “initiation” of new impostor close associates had not passed (Surikov’s picture is not corresponds to historical reality). The suppression of the "streltsy revolt" provoked by Romodanovsky and officials was, in fact, a coup d'état, the purpose of which was primarily to destroy the old armed forces that could oppose the impostor and create a new Russian army under the command of foreign officers. Secondly, it became a bloody "baptism" of the new nobility - the "new Russians", who for the first time in Russia played the role of executioners.

6
In memory of the suppression of the "streltsy rebellion", a medal for the destruction of archers was knocked out, on which Samson was depicted standing over a defeated serpent. All inscriptions on Latin. It is known that Samson was from Dan's family, from where, according to the prophecies, the Antichrist should come. It is also noteworthy that "Peter the Great", unlike Tsar Peter I, wore long hair, which is a sign of origin from Dan's family. Later, on the occasion of the victory in the Battle of Poltava, a medal with the image of Samson was also knocked out. Even earlier, a medal was struck on the occasion of the “Great Embassy”, which depicts a horseman slaying a snake (George the Victorious? A strange symbol on the occasion of the trip. In the Masonic lodges of the Scottish rite, one of the symbols is a horseman slaying a snake).

Medal in memory of the suppression of the Streltsy rebellion

Medal in memory of the Great Embassy

Medal for the capture of Azov

7
The people, at that time, spoke directly about the substitution of the king abroad, but these rumors and attempts to clarify this were cruelly suppressed and called a conspiracy or rebellion. It was to prevent such rumors that the Secret Decree was formed.
8
A change in attitude towards his wife, with whom he lived in harmony for eight years. For the environment of the "king" and historians is unknown true reason Peter's cooling off towards his wife after returning from abroad. There are only versions that the tsarina allegedly participated in a conspiracy against her husband, which, generally speaking, is incredible (encouraged the archers to speak out against her husband’s beloved tsar?) and another, that Peter was carried away by Anna Mons (see below). After his return, the “king” did not meet with his wife, Empress Evdokia, and she was immediately sent to a monastery. In exile, Queen Evdokia is in strict isolation, she is even forbidden to talk to anyone. And if this is violated, then the culprit was severely punished (Stepan Glebov, impaled, guarding the queen)
9
The abolition of the Patriarchate in Russia and the subordination of the management of the church to secular power through the Synod, the device of an amusing Council at the choice of the Patriarch.
10
An attempt to "Protestantize" the Orthodox Church. The subordination of the management of the Orthodox Church to a native of the Vatican, to whom he entrusts the reformation of the Church. He tries to oblige the priests to convey what they say in confession if the penitent speaks of plots against the king or other crimes.
11
The introduction of tobacco smoking in Russia, which is considered the greatest sin in Orthodoxy.
Encouragement and inculcation of drunkenness.
12
Debauchery. The strange behavior of the "king" after his return from abroad is noted. So he always took a soldier to bed with him at night. Later, after the appearance of Catherine, he simultaneously kept concubines. Similar depravity was in the royal palace only under the false Dmitry impostors.
13
The murder of Tsarevich Alexei, although in the Orthodox traditions for disobedience, from the point of view of his father, he could only be sent to the monastery, as Tsarevich Alexei asked for.
14
The destruction of Russian folk traditions, the fight against them. Establishing the superiority of Latin Western culture over traditional Russian.
15
The first reform of the Russian language, which returned the inscription of letters to the ancient Aryan alphabetic symbolism.
16
Transfer of the capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg to the very outskirts Russian Empire, while in the traditions of all states was the placement of the capital in the center of the state. Perhaps St. Petersburg was conceived by him or his advisers as the capital of a future united Europe, in which Russia was supposed to be a colony?
17
The division of the Russian people into nobles and serfs by birth, the introduction of serfdom, in its meaning, corresponding to the creation of a slave-owning state with slaves from its people, in contrast to the ancient states that made slaves only prisoners of war.
18
The weakening and even freezing of the development of the Russian economy due to the tightening of serfdom, the hard labor industry of serf factory workers, the cessation of the development of the regions of the Northern Urals, Arkhangelsk, Eastern Siberia, for almost 150 years until the abolition of serfdom in 1861.
19
Tsar Peter visited Arkhangelsk and the Solovetsky Monastery, where he personally made a wooden cross in memory of salvation in a storm. He liked it there. "Peter the Great" consigned Arkhangelsk to oblivion.
20
Subordination of foreign policy Russian state interests of the Western European states.
21
Creation of a bureaucratic machine of government.
22
Establishing the power and control of foreigners, in the army, public administration, the science of their privileges over the Russians, the distribution of noble titles, lands and serfs to them.
23
The organization of Masonic lodges (1700) even earlier than in Europe (1721.), which practically seized power in Russian society to this day.
25
Construction of a new capital of the Venetian (Jewish) model on the bones of Russian Orthodox people. The place for construction was chosen extremely inconvenient in the swamps.
*****
Relations with Anna Mons, who in fact has always been Lefort's mistress, are invented (intentionally?) by rumor. Although the king gave royal gifts to her family for some kind of service. The proof of this is that upon returning from abroad and sending his wife into exile, Anna Mons does not enjoy his attention, and after the sudden death of the young Lefort, Anna Mons is completely under house arrest. Since 1703, Catherine has been living with the "king".

*****
There is an assumption that the death of P. Gordon and the “friend” of Peter the young Lefort, upon returning from the Great Embassy, ​​which occurred almost simultaneously in 1699, happened because “Peter the Great” or his secret patrons wanted to get rid of the guardianship of those who contributed his penetration on the Moscow throne.

One of the reasons that led to the emergence of the version about the substitution of Tsar Peter I was the research of A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky

The beginning of these studies were the findings made during the study of an exact copy of the throne of Ivan the Terrible. In those days, the zodiac signs of the current rulers were placed on the thrones. Thanks to the study of the signs placed on the throne of Ivan the Terrible, scientists have found that the actual date of his birth differs from the official version by four years.

Scientists compiled a table of the names of Russian tsars and their birthdays, and thanks to this table, it was revealed that the official birthday of Peter I does not coincide with the day of his angel, which is a blatant contradiction compared to all the names of Russian tsars. After all, names in Russia at baptism were given exclusively according to the holy calendar, and the name given to Peter breaks the established centuries-old tradition, which in itself does not fit into the framework and laws of that time.

Photo by Stan Shebs from wikimedia.org

A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky, on the basis of the table, found out that the real name, which falls on the official date of birth of Peter I, is Isakiy. This explains the name of the main cathedral of tsarist Russia. So, in the dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron it says: “St. Isaac's Cathedral is the main temple in St. Petersburg, dedicated to the name of St. Isaac of Dalmatia, whose memory is honored on May 30, the birthday of Peter the Great"

Image from lib.rus.ec

All lifetime portraits of Peter 1

Let's look at the following obvious historical facts. Their totality shows a fairly clear picture of the substitution of the real Peter I for a foreigner:

1. An Orthodox ruler was leaving Russia for Europe, wearing traditional Russian clothes. Two surviving portraits of the king of that time depict Peter I in a traditional caftan. The tsar wore a caftan even during his stay at the shipyards, which confirms his adherence to traditional Russian customs. After the end of his stay in Europe, a man returned to Russia wearing exclusively European-style clothes, and in the future, the new Peter I never put on Russian clothes, including an attribute obligatory for the tsar - royal vestments. This fact is difficult to explain with the official version of a sudden change in lifestyle and the beginning of adherence to the European canons of development.

2. There are quite weighty grounds for doubting the difference in the structure of the body of Peter I and the impostor. According to accurate data, the growth of the impostor Peter I was 204 cm, while the real king was shorter and denser. It should be noted that the height of his father, Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, was 170 cm, and his grandfather, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, was also of average height. The difference in height of 34 cm is very much out of the general picture of true kinship, especially since in those days people over two meters tall were considered an extremely rare occurrence. Indeed, even in the middle of the 19th century, the average height of Europeans was 167 cm, and the average height of Russian recruits at the beginning of the 18th century was 165 cm, which fits into the general anthropometric picture of that time. The difference in height between the real king and the false Peter also explains the refusal to wear royal clothes: they simply did not fit the size of the newly appeared impostor.

3. On the portrait of Peter I by Godfried Kneller, which was created during the stay of the king in Europe, a distinct mole is clearly visible. In later portraits, the mole is absent. It is difficult to explain this by the inaccurate works of portrait painters of that time: after all, the portraiture of those years was distinguished by the highest level of realism.

Image from softmixer.com

4. Returning after a long trip to Europe, the newly-minted tsar did not know about the location of the richest library of Ivan the Terrible, although the secret of finding the library was passed from tsar to tsar. So, Princess Sophia knew where the library was and visited it, and the new Peter repeatedly made attempts to find the library and did not even disdain excavations: after all, the library of Ivan the Terrible kept the rarest publications that could shed light on many secrets of history.

5. An interesting fact is also the composition of the Russian embassy that went to Europe. The number of those accompanying the king was 20 people, while the embassy was headed by A. Menshikov. And the returned embassy consisted, with the exception of Menshikov, only of the subjects of Holland. Moreover, the duration of the trip has increased many times over. The embassy, ​​together with the king, went to Europe for two weeks, and returned only after two years of stay.

6. Returning from Europe, the new king did not meet either with relatives or with his inner circle. And subsequently, in a short time, he got rid of his closest relatives in various ways.

7. Archers - the guards and the elite of the tsarist army - suspected something was wrong and did not recognize the impostor. The streltsy rebellion that had begun was brutally suppressed by Peter. But the archers were the most advanced and combat-ready military formations that faithfully served the Russian tsars. Sagittarius became by inheritance, which indicates the highest level these divisions.

Image from swordmaster.org

Peter I was an impostor who stole and imprisoned the real Russian Tsar. It is to this conclusion that the researchers of the biography of the ruler came.

The history of any country knows at least several hoaxes with false representatives of the ruling dynasties. Such conspiracies with the substitution of representatives of the ruling dynasty or the concealment of the fact of their death were beneficial to the "gray cardinals" - behind-the-scenes political players who had a huge influence on the rulers or dreamed of gaining it. In the history of tsarist Russia, the most obvious replacement of the tsar can be considered the double of Peter I, who successfully ruled the country for many years. From historical data it is not difficult to compile a list of direct evidence of such a substitution.

1. The return of Menshikov

In 1697-1698, Peter led a diplomatic mission called the Great Embassy, ​​which went from Russia to Western Europe. Together with him, 20 nobles and 35 commoners took part in it, of which only Alexander Menshikov survived. All the rest were killed under unclear circumstances, about which Peter I refused to talk with his entourage and representatives of the clergy until the end of his days. All these people knew the tsar by sight and could confirm that another person returned to Russia instead of him.

2. Wonderful transformation during the trip

It would be really difficult to convince the deceased supporters of the king that the impostor and their former ruler are one person. To prove the version of the substitution, we can compare two portraits made before the departure of Peter I and immediately after his return to his homeland. He left the country as a man who looked 25-26 years old, with a wart under his left eye and a round face. Peter I was taller than average and rather dense build.

On the trip, a strange transformation happened to him: his height “stretched out” to 2 meters 4 centimeters, he dramatically lost weight and “changed” the shape of his face. The man in the portrait, who has been away from home for only a year, appears to be at least 40 years old. After his arrival, many foreigners began to openly say:

3. Rejection of the family and the war with the sister

Of course, the one who replaced Peter I was hindered by his relatives, who were able to recognize the impostor at the first meeting. The tsar's sister, Sofya Alekseevna, had experience in governing the country and immediately realized that Europe had sent a replacement for her brother in order to have influence on such big country. Sophia led the Streltsy rebellion, since there were many of her like-minded people in the ranks of the Streltsy, who managed to communicate with the substituted tsar and personally make sure that he did not look like Peter I. The rebellion was suppressed, Princess Sophia was sent to a monastery, and to every person who decided to openly talk about false king, they imposed physical punishment and arrest.

The new Peter acted no less cruelly with the wife of the one for whom he pretended to be. Evdokia Lopukhina was perhaps the only person whom the tsar trusted as himself. During the Great Embassy, ​​he corresponded with her almost daily, but then communication ceased. Instead of a loving husband, Evdokia saw a cruel impostor who, immediately after her arrival, sent her to a monastery and did not honor with an answer any of her many requests to reveal the reasons for such an act. Peter I did not even listen to the clergy, who had previously had a strong influence on him and were against the imprisonment of Evdokia.

4. Poor memory for faces

Sister Sophia and the archers are not the only ones who were not recognized by the tsar who returned home. He could not remember the faces of other relatives and teachers, was constantly confused in names and did not remember a single detail from “ past life". His associates Lefort and Gordon, and then several other influential people who stubbornly sought communication with the king, were killed under strange circumstances immediately after their arrival. It is also curious that the tsar "forgot" after his arrival about the location of the library of Ivan the Terrible, although the coordinates of its location were transmitted strictly from tsar to tsar.

5. The Prisoner in the Iron Mask

Immediately after the departure of Peter I from Europe, a prisoner appears in the Bastille prison, whose real name was known only to King Louis XIV. The overseers called him Michael, which is a reference to the Russian name of Pyotr Mikhailov, which the tsar introduced himself to on trips when he wanted to remain unrecognized. The people called him the "Iron Mask", although the mask that he was doomed to wear until his death was velvet. Voltaire wrote that he knew who the prisoner was, but "like a real Frenchman", he must remain silent. The appearance and complexion of the prisoner ideally matched the appearance of Peter I before leaving for Europe. Here is what can be found in the notes of the head of the prison about the mysterious prisoner:

"He was tall, carried himself with dignity, he was ordered to be treated like a person of noble birth."

And it's all. He died in 1703, after the destruction of the body, the room was thoroughly searched, and all traces of his life were destroyed.

6. Abrupt change in clothing style

Since childhood, the tsar loved old Russian clothes. He wore traditional Russian caftans even on the hottest days, being proud of his origin and emphasizing it in every possible way. A Latin man returned to Russia from Europe, forbidding the sewing of Russian clothes for himself and never again wearing traditional royal robes, despite the persuasion of the boyars and confessors. Until his death, the false Peter wore exclusively European clothes.

7. Hatred for everything Russian

Suddenly, Peter I hated not only the Russian style of clothing, but everything that was connected with the homeland. He began to speak and understand Russian poorly, which caused bewilderment of the boyars at councils and secular receptions. The tsar claimed that during the year of his life in Europe he had forgotten how to write in Russian, he decided to refuse to observe fasts in spite of his former piety and could not remember anything about all the sciences that he was taught as a representative of the Russian high nobility. On the other hand, he acquired the skills of a simple artisan, which were even considered offensive to the royal people.

8. Strange disease

The royal doctor could not believe his eyes when, after returning from a long trip, the ruler began to be tormented by regular bouts of chronic tropical fever. It could be infected by traveling through the southern seas, which Peter I had never seen. The grand embassy traveled by northern sea route, so the possibility of infection was ruled out.

9. New combat system

If earlier the king made plans for foot conquests and equestrian battles, then Europe changed his approach to the very process of waging war. Having never seen sea battles, Peter demonstrated excellent experience in boarding battles on the water, which surprised all the military nobility. His combat skills are said to have features that can be acquired by fighting on ships over the years. For the former Peter I, this was physically impossible: his childhood and youth were spent on land that did not have access to the seas.

10. Death of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich

Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich, the eldest son of Peter and Evdokia Lopukhina, ceased to be of interest to the false ruler when his own son was born. The new Peter I began to force Alexei to take the tonsure, showing dissatisfaction with the mere fact of his being at court - the son in whom he had previously doted. Aleksey Petrovich fled to Poland, from which he planned to go to the Bastille (obviously in order to rescue his real father from there) on some personal business. Supporters of the false Peter intercepted him on the way and promised that upon his return he would take the throne with their support. After arriving in Russia, the prince was interrogated by Peter I and killed.

For some reason, the word "tantra" is strongly associated with sex for many, and moreover, many believe that it is just an abbreviation of the phrase "tantric sex". However, this is by far not the truly remarkable feature of this spiritual trend. It is much more interesting that tantra is a purely elite teaching, especially "sharpened" for power.

For some reason, the word "tantra" is strongly associated with sex for many, and moreover, many believe that it is just an abbreviation of the phrase "tantric sex". As a result, almost every specialist on this topic, if he starts writing something popular, is forced to start his text by exposing the fallacy of such an equalization. There is no doubt that Tantrism is indeed imbued with gender symbolism and not only symbolism. However, this is far from being its truly remarkable feature. Gender symbolism, the motive of intercourse and fertilization are characteristic of all cultures and have been developed by them to one degree or another. The fact that Tantrism developed this in particular is not so interesting. Something else is interesting - tantra is a purely elite teaching, in a special way “sharpened” for power.

Many do not associate yoga and spiritual psychotechniques with power. It seems that all yogis simply meditate in the forests and monasteries, only caring about their own enlightenment. However, in the East, the possession of spiritual practices, the possession of spiritual experience and power are almost synonymous. And there is nothing surprising.

What did the eastern rulers always need, who were fed up with hundreds or even thousands of concubines, not to mention everything else? What were they even interested in? They were interested in two things: spirituality as such and what would help them in the business of government. Both were given to them by the sages, and in return, these sages and the traditions to which they, by definition, belonged, gained control over the mind of this or that emperor, or even entire generations of rulers. The sages and their traditions needed power to realize their ideas about the ideal world order. At the same time, it should be noted that such ideas about the ideal world order could sometimes be monstrous.

In the West, philosophy exists as something that seems to be purely secular and mental (although in fact this is also a big question). In the East there is no other philosophy than religious. Therefore, an Eastern sage is always a spiritual guide and preacher, the holder of some spiritual tradition. Actually, these lines of spiritual traditions in a complex way sorted out the relationship both with each other and with the authorities, which was and still is the most important part of political history.

So, tantra is not "tantric sex", but in the strict sense of the word, in general, just a certain type of texts. There are sutras and there are tantras. However, these texts, of course, belong to a certain spiritual and philosophical direction, which can be generally called tantra. Relatively speaking, there is a Hindu tantra and a Buddhist one (it is usually called the Vajrayana). Why conditionally? Here is what the buddhologist Yevgeny Torchinov writes in his classic book Introduction to Buddhology:

“Here it is appropriate to point out one significant difference between Buddhist Tantrism and the Hindu (Shaivist) Tantrism that developed in parallel with it. In Buddhism, the feminine principle is prajna, that is, wisdom, intuition of reality as it is and understanding of the nature of samsara as essentially empty states of consciousness; prajna is passive. In Shaivism, the feminine principle is shakti, that is, strength, energy, unity with which introduces one to the world-creating power of God; shakti is by definition active. The Buddhist-Hindu convergence at the level of yoga, however, has gone so far that in the latest tantras (for example, in the Kalachakra Tantra, the beginning of the 11th century), the concept of “Shakti” appears, which had not been used in the Buddhist tantras before.

That is, not only did both tantrisms develop in parallel, but also in the Kalachakra Tantra we are dealing with their syncretism. Let's add to this, let's say, a very high "elasticity" of everything related to gender identification, which is characteristic of this culture. So, for example, the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, whose official reincarnation is the Dalai Lama, can be represented in a male guise, but matriarchal features are much stronger in his image. But that's not all. Torchinov writes:

“Just as the sexual symbolism of the Tantras had its prototype in the archaic fertility cults (apparently of Dravidian origin) ancient India, which were radically rethought by Buddhism and became, in essence, derivatives of archaic cults and images, being included in the context of the Buddhist worldview, Buddhist philosophy and psychology, the tantric pantheon was also largely rooted in the cults of archaic deities, the veneration of which was mostly preserved in the lower estates and castes of Indian society, as well as pariahs (dombi, chandala).

As it is easy to see, the Hindu and Buddhist tantras have the same source - the ancient Dravidian (pre-Indo-European) cults. These cults were associated with the worship of various hypostases of the "great mothers", the most famous of which are the goddesses Kali and Durga. Actually, Tantrism is, to put it very roughly, the direction that, as it were, additionally strengthens both in Hinduism and Buddhism the spirit of the ancient dark matriarchy. The strengthening of the influence of this spirit can actually be traced already from the Vedas, and Mircea Eliade called this process the "rise of mothers."

Sri Devi Nrithyalaya

Being within Hinduism and Buddhism, Tantrism occupies a dominant position within their institutions. The fact is that tantra promises to achieve the highest religious goal of liberation already in this life, and not like "ordinary" Buddhism and Hinduism - during many births and deaths. If the "ordinary" orthodox Buddhist or Hindu basically only makes offerings and worships to deities, then the tantrist is engaged in spiritual practices and achieves certain results - personality transformation. What it is is a separate and little-studied question. But the fact that such a devout practice leads to some results and that the adepts who achieve them occupy the highest levels in the spiritual and power hierarchy is beyond doubt.

Moreover, such an “architecture” (and it is it that interests us here in particular) has been recorded in many countries. Thus, in all the main Tibetan schools (Nyingma, Kadam, Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug) there are two different initiations: for "ordinary" Buddhists and for Tantric ones. The fact is that tantric practices imply a lot of things that an “ordinary” orthodox Buddhist should not do. Therefore, when initiating into the tantric direction, the adept cannot swear that he will not do what the “ordinary” believer should not do. This state of affairs is fixed in two different "lines" of initiations. As it is easy to see, the “elevator” to the higher hierarchies is precisely the tantric line.

The leading role in Tibet has long been occupied by the Gelug school of “yellow caps”. At its core is the Kalachakra Tantra mentioned above. The Dalai Lama initiates this tantra personally and quite officially. However, the main thing is that the Dalai Lama is not just a spiritual leader, but a theocratic ruler. That is, he is the power. Moreover, a certain syncretism of the Hindu and Buddhist tantras in the person of the Dalai Lama takes place not only because, as Torchinov told us above, that the Kalachakra Tantra inherits the concept of shakti from Hinduism, but also because the Dalai Lama is considered the reincarnation of the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara . And the image of Avalokiteshvara has a pre-Buddhist background and refers first to Shaivism, and then to that very Dravidian matriarchy.

The main patron of Nepal, Saint Matsyendranath, who lived around the 10th century, is revered as the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara. However, he was by no means a Buddhist, but a Shaivite. And the cult of Shiva, as more or less already established today, has a pre-Indo-European genesis.

However, if such syncretism can be considered, relatively speaking, natural (after all, one Indian culture), then the connection of Tantra with Confucianism and Japanese Shintoism is hardly. Nevertheless, the penetration of tantra into China and Japan, with many "syncretic" consequences, is an indisputable fact.

As I said above, the tantric tradition was originally "sharpened" for a certain type of interaction with the authorities, being able to respond to its irrevocable requests. Already one of the earliest and most important tantric texts, the Guhyasamaja tantra (“Innermost Cathedral Tantra”) tells the following very revealing story.

There was an Indian king, Indrabodha, who had 500 concubines. And then he sees that someone flies past him. He learns that it is the Buddha along with his five hundred disciples. The Buddha tells him about his teachings, about asceticism and that the whole world is an illusion and is filled with suffering. The king admired the preaching of the Buddha, but noted that, although he was ready to become a Buddhist, he was the ruler and had to fulfill his "earthly" duties, and 500 concubines would be bored without him. After that, he asked the Buddha if it was possible, within the framework of his teaching, to somehow combine the higher and the lower. To which the Buddha replied that it was quite possible, and told the king the Guhyasamaja tantra in detail.

The Chinese and Japanese emperors could not refuse such a thing. What's happening today in modern China and Japan is a separate issue. But the fact that the line of Tantric Buddhism of the Shingon school moved to Japan from China, and having managed to fool the Chinese authorities, is a fact.

It was brought to Japan by the famous monk Kukai in 804. He studied under the monk Hui Guo. Hui Guo was a student of Amoghavajra, and he, in turn, was a student of Vajrabodhi. Both Amoghavajra, and Hui Guo, and many of the disciples of Vajrabodhi (for example, the monk I-Sin) were in one capacity or another under the Chinese emperors. And then they were treated kindly, then they fell into disgrace.

As a result, one way or another, Taoist-Buddhist syncretism developed in China, which on the whole repeated the spiritual and imperious "architecture" that I spoke about above. Only in China did Confucianism play the role of "ordinary" Buddhism and Hinduism.

What worshiped Confucius is still not exactly known. Most likely it was the Tao. The main thing is that Confucius forbade even being interested in metaphysical issues. That is, Confucianism, in principle, is the doctrine of the correct performance of rituals, but, as it were, without a metaphysical "head".

Regarding this feature of Confucianism, the famous orientalist Alexei Maslov expressed himself bitingly and definitely: “Confucianism is an epistemological “dummy”, an absolute volume that can be filled with almost any content.”

By the time the Tantrics arrived in China, the role of this “content”, the metaphysical “head”, was performed by the Taoists, who then entered into complex relations with the adepts of Tantric Buddhism who came.

A little later, this "construction", in which Tantra is at the top and Confucianism is at the bottom, migrated to Japan along with the teachings of the Shingon school.

In the article "The ritual structure of relations between the emperor and the Buddhist sangha in Japan in the Heian era (X - XII centuries) (on the example of the Buddhist ceremonies Misae and Mishuho)" orientalist Elena Sergeevna Lepekhova writes:

“On the one hand, the emperor symbolically donated his kingdom in the form of his clothes to the Buddha, his teachings and the sangha, on the other hand, during the “empowerment” ritual, he received his robe back and, through the consecration of cintamani scented water, turned from an ordinary ruler into a universal ruler- chakravartin and a member of the universal family of the Tathagata Buddha."

Quote from the video of Lepekhov E.S. Classification of Buddhist teachings in the Tendai school and the theory of Lawrence Kohlberg. Save Tibet

That is, the Shingon tantric school dedicated the Japanese emperor to the ideal Buddhist rulers, chakravartins, passing him the pearl of cintamani. What relation after this ceremony did the Japanese emperor have to the national religion of Shinto, and whether he had any at all, would require separate consideration.

As a result, we can say that the spiritual and political construction of power in the East meant that there would be some kind of teaching below, requiring only the performance of rites and rituals, and at the top there was already a “powerful” tier. This tier was usually filled by tantrists. As for the West, such an "architecture" could not fail to attract some part of its elite sooner or later. For me, one of the obvious conductors of such an "architecture" in the West was Dante Alighieri, in whom Roman law began to play the role of Confucianism or "ordinary" Buddhism or Hinduism. However, this issue requires separate consideration ...