Peter the Great and Charles 12. Comparison of Peter I and Charles XII during the battle. The sponge-catcher was returning from her traditional North African fishing grounds to her home on Symi Island, off Rhodes, when a storm hit

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution

higher professional education

"Siberian State Industrial University"

Department of History

Peter I and Charles XII

Completed: Art. gr. MTA13 Donishchenko S.A.

Scientific adviser: Antidze T.N.

Novokuznetsk 2013

Introduction

1. Biography of Peter I Charles XII

1.2 Charles XII

2. Assessments of the activities of Peter I and Charles XII

3. Reforms of Peter I

4. The beginning of the northern war

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

Peter I and Charles XII played a great role as inspirers and symbols after their death. Peter, together with the people, had a huge impact not only on the subsequent historical fate of Russia, but also partly of Europe. The personality of Peter I can be attributed to the number of the brightest historical figures of the world scale. Peter had more than two meters in height, was famous for his enormous capacity for work. His desire for knowledge was boundless. He wanted Russia to learn as much as possible from Western Europe.

Peter I used the experience of Western European countries in the development of industry, trade and culture. He supervised the construction of the fleet and the creation of a regular army. At the initiative of Peter I, many educational establishments, Academy of Sciences, civil alphabet adopted. Being the creator of a powerful state, he achieved recognition for Russia of the authority of a great power.

Charles XII went down in history as a great warrior king; this primarily refers to his war with Peter and Russia. Peter is known as a great reformer and as a monarch who brought Russia closer to the rest of Europe. But Peter is also known for his martial arts with Karl. Since the struggle between Russia and Sweden lasted from 1700 to 1721. The period should be compared with the time of Peter's reign, which can be designated by the years 1689 - 1725. It was the outcome of this struggle that made Russia one of the great powers of Europe.

It is enough to look at the titles and military ranks of Peter to understand how important the war with Sweden was. After the Poltava victory, Peter became a general. After the end of the Northern War, he was already an admiral.

People of different cultures, temperaments, mentality, Karl and Peter were surprisingly similar at the same time. But this similarity is of a special nature - in dissimilarity to other sovereigns. To acquire such a reputation in an age when extravagant self-expression was in vogue is not an easy task. But Peter and Karl overshadowed many. Their secret is simple - both did not strive for extravagance at all. They lived without fuss, building their behavior in accordance with the ideas of what should be. Therefore, much that seemed so important and necessary to others played almost no role for them. And vice versa. Their actions were perceived by the majority of contemporaries at best as eccentricity, at worst as ignorance, barbarism.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze the activities of Peter I and Charles XII.

Abstract tasks:

Consider the personal characteristics of Peter I and Charles XII;

Analyze their state activities;

Consider the results of the Northern War for Russia and Sweden;

Assess the military talent of Peter I and Charles XII

1. Biography of Peter I and Charles XII

Peter I (Peter Alekseevich; born May 30 (June 9), 1672 - died January 28 (February 8), 1725) - Tsar from the Romanov dynasty (since 1682).

In the royal family, he was the fourteenth child. Peter was not prepared to be the heir to the throne, and for this reason he did not receive special education. Having lost his father in 1676, Peter was brought up under the supervision of his older brother until he was ten years old. He studied willingly and smartly. In his spare time he liked to listen to different stories and look at books. Later, he was given "historical books", manuscripts with drawings from the palace library.

An addictive and restless nature, Peter found himself doing things that he devoted himself to with the passion of an obsessed one. Three hobbies absorbed the energy of Peter. One of them was an attachment to crafts. He mastered them easily, as if effortlessly, and in his mature years, without stress, he could perform the work that the craftsmen could do, he was a carpenter and a bricklayer, a blacksmith and a plasterer, a shipbuilder and a shoemaker. In his youth, Peter had another passion - military affairs. But most of all, Peter was attracted by the maritime business. Contemporaries and descendants were always surprised how Peter, living in Preobrazhenskoye, never having seen not only the sea, but also a large lake, became so addicted to the maritime business that it pushed all other hobbies into the background.

On January 28, 1725, Peter the Great died. He was buried in the Cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg.

Descendants called him the Great, and he fully deserves this title for all that he did for Russia. Throughout his long and active reign, Peter constantly tried to bring Russia closer to Europe, sought to awaken energy and love for work in his subjects, encouraged them to study and pointed out the benefits of teaching so that the Russians themselves could begin to develop the natural resources of vast Russia. . At the same time, Peter took care of the enlightenment of the people, taught the people new, useful crafts and crafts. In addition, Peter worked tirelessly to improve internal management state and over the eradication of abuses in various fields. To this end, Peter undertook a number of transformations in Russia, affecting almost all aspects of Russian state, public and national life.

1.2 Charles XII

King of Sweden (1697_1718) Charles XII was born on June 17, 1682. Son of King Charles XI of Sweden and Queen Ulrika Eleonora, Princess of Denmark. The king of Sweden is a general who spent most of his reign on long wars in Europe. He received a good classical education, spoke several foreign languages.

When King Charles XI died at the age of 41, his 14-year-old son was well prepared to take the throne. Until the king reached the age of 18, his actions were to be controlled by the regency council, but it soon became clear that Charles intended to be a full monarch; he was crowned when he was only 15 years old.

Charles led Sweden to the pinnacle of power, securing the country's enormous prestige through his brilliant military campaigns. However, his ambitious desire for a victorious continuation of the war with Russia, which was supported by the restored anti-Swedish coalition, eventually brought Sweden a defeat and deprived it of its status as a great power.

On November 30, 1718, near Fredriksten, Charles XII, who was watching his soldiers dig trenches, was killed by a musket ball that hit him in the left temple. According to another version - he became a victim of a conspiracy of the Swedish ruling circles, dissatisfied with the ruin of the country by endless wars, and was killed as a result of an assassination attempt.

Charles XII passed away without marrying or leaving an heir. This turned into new difficulties for Sweden. Charles XII became the last monarch of Europe to fall on the battlefield.

2. Evaluation of the activities of Peter I and Charles XII

The Swedish and Russian monarchs were distinguished by hard work. Moreover, with the light hand of the Moscow sovereign, the image of a monarch was formed, whose virtues were determined not by prayerful zeal and indestructible piety, but by labors. Actually, after Peter, work was made the duty of a true ruler.

The industriousness of Peter and Karl is the flip side of their curiosity. In the history of transformations, it was the tsar's curiosity that acted as a kind of perpetual motion of reforms. The inexhaustible inquisitiveness of the king is surprising, his ability to be surprised until his death is not lost.

Carl's curiosity is more restrained. She is devoid of Petrine ardor. The King is prone to cold, systematic analysis. This was partly due to the difference in education. It's just incomparable different type and direction. The father of Charles XII personally developed a plan for education and upbringing for his son. The prince's teachers were some of the most intelligent officials and professors. Charles XII showed a penchant for mathematical sciences. There was someone to develop his talent - he communicated with the best mathematicians. Against this background, the modest teachers of Peter lost a lot. And this was not enough in terms of future reforms. The paradox, however, was that neither Peter himself nor his teachers could even guess what kind of knowledge the future reformer needed. Peter was doomed to the lack of a European education; it simply did not exist. Peter has been self-educating all his life - and his results are impressive. However, the king clearly lacked a systematic education, which he had to fill with common sense and great labors.

Karl and Peter were deeply religious people. The religious upbringing of Charles was distinguished by purposefulness. The extraordinary perseverance and stubbornness of Karl, who did not want to go to the world under any circumstances, and his failures are just tests of strength sent down by God. The religiosity of Peter is devoid of the earnestness of Charles. It is lower, more meaningful. The king believes that faith always turns to the visible benefit of the state. While remaining a deep believer, Peter did not have a deep respect for the church and the church hierarchy. That is why he began to remake the church dispensation in the right way. With the light hand of the tsar, a period began in the history of the Russian Church when top management the church was reduced to a simple department for spiritual and moral affairs under the emperor.

Both loved the military. The war, which completely captured Karl, played a cruel joke with him. The king very soon confused ends and means. And if the war becomes the goal, then the result is almost always sad, sometimes self-destruction. And this is what the Northern War cost the Swedes themselves, but Charles himself burned down in the fire of war, and Sweden overstrained itself, unable to withstand the burden of great power.

Unlike Charles, Peter never confused ends and means. The war and the transformations connected with it remained for him a means of exalting the country. Starting at the end of the Northern War for "peaceful" reforms, the tsar considers his intentions, how to instill military art.

Karl liked to take risks, usually without thinking about the consequences. Whatever episode from the life of Karl we have not subjected to consideration, the insane courage of the hero-king, and the desire to test himself for strength, are everywhere visible. He, without bowing, walked under the bullets.

Peter's personal life turned out to be richer and more dramatic than Karl's personal life. Unlike his opponent, the king knew family happiness. But he also had to fully drink the cup of family adversity. He went through a conflict with his son, Tsarevich Alexei, the tragic outcome of which placed on Peter the stigma of a son-killer. war swedish russian

3. Reforms of Peter I

All state activities of Peter can be conditionally divided into two periods: 1695-1715 and 1715-1725. The peculiarity of the first stage was haste and not always thoughtful nature, which was explained by the conduct of the Northern War. The reforms were aimed primarily at raising funds for the conduct of the Northern War, were carried out by force and often did not lead to the desired result. In addition to state reforms, at the first stage, extensive reforms were carried out to change the cultural way of life. In the second period, the reforms were more systematic and aimed at the internal arrangement of the state. In general, Peter's reforms were aimed at strengthening the Russian state and familiarizing the ruling stratum with European culture while strengthening the absolute monarchy.

Over the course of more than 35 years of his reign, he managed to carry out many reforms in the field of culture and education. Thus, the monopoly of the clergy on education was abolished, and secular schools were opened. Under Peter, the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences (1701), the Medical and Surgical School (1707) - the future Military Medical Academy, the Naval Academy (1715), the Engineering and Artillery Schools (1719), schools of translators at the colleges. In 1719, the first museum in Russian history began to operate - the Kunstkamera with a public library.

ABC books, educational maps were published, a systematic study of the country's geography and cartography was laid. The spread of literacy was facilitated by the reform of the alphabet (cursive was replaced with civil type, 1708), the publication of the first Russian printed newspaper Vedomosti (since 1703). In the era of Peter I, many buildings were erected for state and cultural institutions, the architectural ensemble of Peterhof (Petrodvorets).

However, the reforms of Peter I aroused the resistance of the boyars and the clergy.

By the end of the reign of Peter I, a powerful Russian empire, which was headed by the emperor, who had absolute power. In the course of the reforms, Russia's technical and economic lag behind European states was overcome, access to the Baltic Sea was won, and transformations were carried out in all spheres of life in Russian society.

4. The beginning of the northern war

1700 - Peter realizes that the only way out to Europe for Russia is through the Baltic Sea. But the Swedes, led by the king and the talented commander Charles XII, are in charge of the Baltic. The king refuses to sell the Baltic lands to Russia. Realizing the inevitability of war, Peter goes to the trick - he unites against Sweden with Denmark, Norway and Saxony.

For the state, obtaining access to the Baltic Sea was an important economic task. By the beginning of the Northern War, the only port providing trade relations with Europe was Arkhangelsk on the White Sea. But navigation in it was irregular and very difficult, which made trade difficult.

The Northern War has been going on for almost the entire life of Peter, sometimes fading away, then resuming again.

Carl's love of risk is his weakness and strength. Indeed, this character trait of Karl gave him an advantage over his opponents, since they were guided by a logic that eliminated risk. Karl appeared there and then, when and where he was not expected, acted as no one had ever acted. A similar thing happened near Narva in November 1700.

The victory of the King of Sweden Charles XII over Peter I in the Battle of Narva in 1700 was the beginning of the Great Northern War. The invincible Swedish army had an unhindered path to Moscow. However, Charles XII, who had won the glory of a hero, suddenly stopped. For nine years, the Swedish king waged grueling campaigns against less serious opponents. During this time, Peter managed to create modern army and also build a fleet. In the decisive Battle of Poltava on June 28, 1709, the Swedish troops were defeated, and their proud king was wounded and forced to seek refuge on the outskirts of the Ottoman Empire.

For Russia to enter the war, it was necessary to make peace with the Ottoman Empire. After reaching a truce with the Turkish Sultan for a period of 30 years, on August 19, 1700, Russia declared war on Sweden under the pretext of avenging the offense against Tsar Peter.

The main reasons for the northern war were the following:

Peter's desire to turn Russia into a maritime power

Gaining control over the Baltic Sea, which ensures not only trade interests, but also the security of the northwestern borders of the state

The nobility wanted to get new lands

For the development of trade, the merchants needed access to the seas

The attempt to capture the fortress of Narva ended with the defeat of the Russian army. On November 30, 1700, Charles XII with soldiers attacked the camp of Russian troops, and completely defeated the fragile Russian army. Considering that Russia was sufficiently weakened, Charles XII went to Livonia.

However, Peter, having hastily reorganized the army, resumed fighting. Already in 1702 (October 11 (22)), Russia captured the Noteburg fortress (renamed Shlisselburg), and in the spring of 1703, the Nienschanz fortress at the mouth of the Neva. Here, on May 16 (27), 1703, the construction of St. Petersburg began, and the base of the Russian fleet, the Kronshlot fortress (later Kronstadt), was located on Kotlin Island. The exit to the Baltic Sea was broken. In 1704, Narva and Derpt were taken, Russia was firmly entrenched in the Eastern Baltic.

Peter again focused on the war with the Swedes, in 1713 the Swedes were defeated in Pomerania and lost all possessions in continental Europe. However, thanks to the dominance of Sweden at sea, the Northern War dragged on. The Baltic Fleet was just being created by Russia, but managed to win the first victory in the Gangut battle in the summer of 1714. In 1716, Peter led the combined fleet from Russia, England, Denmark and Holland, but due to disagreements in the camp of the allies, it was not possible to organize an attack on Sweden.

As the Russian Baltic Fleet strengthened, Sweden felt the danger of an invasion of its lands. In 1718, peace negotiations began, interrupted by the sudden death of Charles XII. swedish queen Ulrika Eleonora resumed the war, hoping for help from England. On August 30 (September 10), 1721, the Treaty of Nystadt was concluded between Russia and Sweden, which ended the 21-year war. Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea.

Thus, as a result foreign policy Peter's Russia from a weak and almost unknown country turned into an empire firmly established on the shores of the Baltic Sea. The army, raised by Peter, did not know defeat in big battles for more than a hundred years.

After the victory in the Northern War and the conclusion of the Peace of Nystadt in September 1721, the Senate and the Synod decided to present Peter with the title of emperor of all Russia. October 22 (November 2), 1721, Peter I took the title, not just honorary, but testifying to the new role of Russia in international affairs.

But the pay for these conquests was also great. The country was devastated by the unbearable burden of twenty years of hostilities, many people died during the war, disappeared in the swamps during the construction of St. Petersburg. Peter's transformations and conquests that pushed Russia forward.

Conclusion

The fate of Peter and Charles is the story of the eternal dispute about which ruler is better: an idealist who put principles and ideals above all else, or a pragmatist who stood firmly on the ground and preferred real rather than illusory goals. Karl in this dispute acted as an idealist and lost, because his idea to punish, in spite of everything, treacherous opponents from the absolute turned into absurdity.

Karl was sure that a person is saved by faith alone. And he believed in it unshakably. In the perception of his destiny, the Swedish king is a more medieval sovereign than Tsar Peter.

Karl, in his incredible stubbornness and in his talent, contributed a lot to the reforms in Russia and the formation of Peter as statesman. This required the incredible efforts of Peter and Russia. Had Sweden yielded sooner, and who knows how strong the formation of reforms and the imperial ambitions of the Russian Tsar would have been? Charles, with all his skills to win battles and lose the war, was a worthy rival to Peter.

Literature

1. Russian history. Full course of lectures in 3 books. Book 2. - M.: Thought, 1993, p. 458.

2. Pavlenko N.I. Peter the Great and his time: tutorial.-2nd ed., add.-M.: Enlightenment, 1989.- 175s.

3. Belikov K.S. History of Russia: textbook / K.S. Belikov, S.E. Berezhnoy, M.N. Krot. - 3rd ed., add. and revised. - Rostov-on-Don .: Phoenix, 2005.- 351p.

4. Tsvetkov S.E. Charles XII. The last viking. 1682 - 1718 / S.E. Tsvetkov. -M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2005. - 79 p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

The sponge-catcher was returning from her traditional North African fishing grounds to her home on Symi Island, off Rhodes, when a storm hit

Document

On Easter 1900, a group of Greek sponge-catchers were returning from their traditional fishing grounds in North Africa home to the island of Symi, off Rhodes, when a storm hit.

Explanatory note Planning is made in accordance with the program of educational institutions in literature for grades 5-11 of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (3)

Lesson

Planning is made in accordance with the program educational institutions in literature for grades 5-11 of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, edited by G.

N. G. Chernyshevsky Balashov branch Department of the Russian language Shumarin S. I., Shumarina M. R. Theory and practice of scientific speech special course for non-humanitarian specialties of universities Educational and methodological complex

Training and metodology complex

Requirements of the State educational standards Higher professional education for the professional readiness of specialists and bachelors of non-humanitarian specialties determines that a university graduate must be able to solve problems related to analysis

Literature work program Grade 7 MBOU "Gymnasium No. 2"

Working programm

This literature program for grade 7 was created on the basis of the federal component state standard main general education and the program of educational institutions "Literature" edited by V.

A mature 28-year-old husband, having started a war with a 17-year-old Swedish king, Peter found in him an enemy, at first glance, strikingly different in character, direction of political will, and understanding of people's needs. A more careful consideration and comparison of the circumstances of their lives, the most important personality traits, reveal much in common in them, an obvious or hidden relationship of destinies and mindsets, which gave additional drama to their struggle.

First of all, it is striking that neither one nor the other received a systematic, complete upbringing and education, although the educational and moral foundation laid in Karl by his teachers seems to be more solid. Peter, up to ten years old, that is, until the bloody events pushed him out of the Kremlin, only had time to learn the skill of Church Slavonic letters under the guidance of the deacon Nikita Zotov. The same sciences that Karl studied with experienced teachers - arithmetic, geometry, artillery, fortification, history, geography, and so on - Peter made up for himself, without any plan, with the help of Jan Timmerman's doctor (a very mediocre mathematician who more than once did mistakes, for example, in multiplication problems) and other no more knowledgeable teachers. But with a desire for learning and agility in independently acquiring knowledge, Peter far surpassed his opponent. The upbringing of the Swedish king can be called book-heroic, the upbringing of Peter - military-craft. Both sovereigns loved military amusements in their youth, but Charles treated military affairs idealistically, seeing in it a way to satisfy his ambition, and the king approached the same subject purely practically, as a means of solving state problems.

Karl early found himself torn from the circle of children's ideas due to the loss of his parents, Peter - due to a palace coup. But if Karl firmly mastered the traditions of Swedish statehood, then Peter broke away from the traditions and traditions of the Kremlin palace, which formed the basis of the political worldview of the old Russian tsar. The concepts and inclinations of Peter in his youth took an extremely one-sided direction. According to Klyuchevsky, all his political thought was for a long time absorbed in the struggle with his sister and the Miloslavskys; his whole civil mood was formed from hatred and antipathy towards the clergy, boyars, archers, schismatics; soldiers, cannons, fortifications, ships took the place of people, political institutions, people's needs, civil relations in his mind: The area of concepts about society and public duties, civil ethics "remained an abandoned corner in the spiritual economy of Peter for a very long time." It is all the more surprising that the Swedish king soon despised public and state needs for the sake of personal inclinations and sympathies, and the Kremlin outcast put his life in the service of the Fatherland, expressing his soul in immortal words: “And about Peter, know that life is not dear to him, if only Russia would live in blessedness and glory for your well-being."

Both Karl and Peter turned out to be autocratic sovereigns of huge empires in a very early age, and both as a result of a political upheaval (in the case of Peter, however, more dramatic). Both, however, managed to subordinate events to themselves and did not become a toy in the hands of palace parties and influential families. Peter felt hesitation under his throne for a long time and, after the Streltsy uprising, was wary of leaving Russia for a long time, while Charles could not visit Sweden for fifteen years without any fear for the fate of his crown. The very same desire to change places was equally characteristic of both: both the king and the king were eternal guests both abroad and at home.

In the same way, they also had a tendency to unlimited rule - neither one nor the other never doubted that they were God's anointed and were free to dispose of the life and property of their subjects at their own discretion. Both severely punished any attempt on their power, but Peter at the same time easily fell into a rage and outright butchery. The hand-made massacre of the archers and Tsarevich Alexei are textbook examples of this. True, a noticeable difference in relation to his rank can be seen in the fact that Peter was not ashamed to make his own power the subject of a joke, magnifying, for example, Prince F.Yu. Romodanovsky as the king, sovereign, “your most radiant royal majesty”, and himself as “always a slave and serf Piter” or simply in Russian Petrushka Alekseev. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact source of addiction to such buffoonery. Peter inherited from his father, “who also loved to joke, although he was wary of being a jester.” However, rather, a comparison with similar antics of Ivan the Terrible in relation toSimeon Bekbulatovich (the name adopted after baptism by the Kasimov Khan Sain-Bulat (? -1616); he became the nominal ruler of the Russian state from 1575, when Ivan the Terrible pretended to lay down the royal crown). Apparently, here we are dealing with a purely Russian phenomenon - fits of foolishness in an autocratic sovereign, to whom his power sometimes seems exorbitant. Another distinguishing feature of Peter's autocracy was the ability to heed sound advice and deviate from his decision if, on mature reflection, it is wrong or harmful - a feature completely absent from Charles with his almost maniacal mania for infallibility and fidelity to a decision once made.

In close connection with Peter's buffoonery in relation to his dignity were his obscene to the point of blasphemy parodies of church rituals and hierarchy, and these amusements were regular, dressed in clerical uniforms. The collegium of drunkenness, established earlier than others, or, according to the official definition, “the most extravagant, most joking and most drunken cathedral”, was chaired by the greatest jester, who bore the title of prince-pope, or the most noisy and most joking patriarch of Moscow, Kukui and all Yauza. Under him there was a conclave of 12 cardinals and other "spiritual" ranks, who bore nicknames that, according to Klyuchevsky, would not appear in the press under any censorship charter. Peter bore the rank of protodeacon in this cathedral and himself composed a charter for him. The cathedral had a special order of clergy, or, rather, drunkenness, "serving Bacchus and honest treatment with strong drinks." For example, a newly accepted member was asked the question: “Do you drink?”, Parodying the church: “Do you believe?” At Maslenitsa in 1699, the tsar arranged a service for Bacchus: the patriarch, prince-pope Nikita Zotov, a former teacher of Peter, drank and blessed the guests kneeling before him, overshadowing them with two chibouks folded crosswise, just as bishops dodikirium and trikirium*; then, with a staff in his hand, the "master" began to dance. It is characteristic that only one of those present could not bear the foul spectacle of Orthodox jesters - a foreign ambassador who left the meeting. In general, foreign observers were ready to see in these outrages a political and even educational trend, allegedly directed against the Russian church hierarchy, prejudices, and also against the vice of drunkenness, which is presented in a ridiculous form. It is possible that Peter really vented his annoyance at the clergy, among whom there were so many opponents of his innovations, by such foolishness. But there was no serious attempt on Orthodoxy, on the hierarchy, Peter remained a pious man who knew and honored the church rite, loved to sing on the kliros with choristers; in addition, he perfectly understood the protective significance of the Church for the state. In the meetings of the most joking council, the general rudeness of the Russian customs of that time, the habit rooted in the Russian person to joke in a drunken minute over church objects, over the clergy, is rather visible; even more visible in them is the feeling of permissiveness of imperious revelers, revealing a general deep decline in church authority. Charles set a completely opposite example to his subjects; but he was brought closer to Peter by the fact that he also did not tolerate the claims of the clergy to authority in the affairs of the state.

* Dikiriy, trikiriy - two or three candles, respectively, with which believers are blessed in the church.

The instinct of arbitrariness completely determined the nature of the reign of these sovereigns. They did not recognize the historical logic of social life, their actions were not consistent with objective assessment opportunities for their peoples. However, one cannot blame them too much for this; even the most outstanding minds of the century had difficulty understanding the laws of social development. So, Leibniz, at the request of Peter, developed projects for the development of education and government controlled in Russia, he assured the Russian tsar that in Russia the easier it was to plant science, the less she was prepared for this. All the military and state activities of the king and king were guided by the thought of the necessity and omnipotence of imperious coercion. They sincerely believed that everything was subject to force, that a hero could direct people's life in a different direction, and therefore they strained people's forces to the extreme, wasting human strength and life without any thrift. The consciousness of one's own significance and omnipotence prevented one from taking other people into account, from seeing in a person a person, a personality. Both Karl and Peter were excellent at guessing who was good for what, and used people as working tools, remaining indifferent to human suffering (which, oddly enough, did not prevent them from often showing justice and generosity). This feature of Peter was excellently captured by two of the most educated ladies of that time - Elector Sophia of Hanover and her daughter Sophia Charlotte, Elector of Brandenburg, who paradoxically described him as a sovereign“very good and very bad at the same time”. This definition applies to Karl as well.

Peter I and Charles XII. German engraving from 1728

Their appearance corresponded to their imperious natures and made a strong impression on those around them. The noble appearance of Karl bore the patrimonial imprint of the Palatinate-Zweibrücken dynasty: sparkling blue eyes, a high forehead, an aquiline nose, sharp folds around a beardless and beardless mouth with full lips. With a small stature, he was not stocky and well built. And this is how the Duke of Saint-Simon, the author of the famous Memoirs, saw Peter during his stay in Paris, carefully looking at the young king: “He was very tall, well-built, rather lean, with a roundish face, high forehead, beautiful eyebrows ; his nose is rather short, but not too thick, towards the end; the lips are rather large, the complexion reddish and swarthy, fine black eyes, large, lively, penetrating, beautifully shaped; a look majestic and welcoming when he watches himself and restrains, otherwise severe and wild, with convulsions in the face, which are not often repeated, but distort both the eyes and the whole face, frightening all present. The convulsion usually lasted for an instant, and then his glance became terrifying, as if bewildered, then everything immediately assumed its usual form. His whole appearance showed intelligence, reflection and greatness, and was not without charm.

As for the habits of everyday life and personal inclinations, here, too, a certain similarity of these people is set off by striking contrasts. The Swedish and Russian sovereigns were people of hot temperament, sworn enemies of court ceremonial. Accustomed to feeling like masters always and everywhere, they were embarrassed and lost in the solemn atmosphere, breathing heavily, blushing and sweating at audiences, listening to high-flown nonsense from some envoy who presented himself. Neither of them had delicate manners and were very fond of ease in conversation. They were characterized by simplicity of getting around and unpretentiousness in everyday life. Peter was often seen wearing worn shoes and stockings mended by his wife or daughter. At home, getting out of bed, he received visitors in a simple "Chinese" dressing gown, went out or went out in an unpretentious caftan made of coarse cloth, which he did not like to change often; in the summer, when he went out not far, he almost never wore a hat; he usually traveled in a one-wheeler or a bad pair, and in such a convertible, in which, according to the remark of a foreign eyewitness, not every Moscow merchant would dare to leave. In all of Europe, only the court of the Prussian king-miser Friedrich Wilhelm I could argue in simplicity with Peter's (Karl, with his personal asceticism, never counted state money). The splendor with which Peter surrounded Catherine in her last years, perhaps, was simply supposed to make those around her forget her too simple origin.

This stinginess was combined with Peter's violent intemperance in food and drink. He had a sort of invincible appetite. Contemporaries say that he could eat always and everywhere; whenever he came to visit, before or after dinner, he was now ready to sit down at the table. No less striking is his passion for drinking and, most importantly, incredible endurance in drinking wine. The first commandment of the aforesaid most drunken order was to get drunk every day and not to go to bed sober. Peter honored this commandment sacredly, giving hours of evening leisure to cheerful gatherings over a glass of Hungarian or something stronger. At solemn occasions or meetings of the cathedral they drank terribly, a contemporary notes. In the palace built on the Yauza, an honest company was locked up for three days, according to Prince Kurakin, "for drunkenness so great that it is impossible to describe, and many happened to die from it." The journal of Peter's travel abroad is full of entries like: "We were at home and had enough fun," that is, they drank all day after midnight. In Deptford (England), Peter and his retinue were assigned a room in a private house near the shipyard, having equipped it accordingly by order of the king. After the embassy left, the landlord filed a proper account of the damage caused by the departing guests. This inventory is the most disgraceful monument to drunken Russian swine. The floors and walls were spat-stained, stained with traces of fun, the furniture was broken, the curtains were torn, the paintings on the walls were used as targets for shooting, the lawns in the garden were trampled as if a whole regiment was marching there. The only, albeit weak, justification for such habits is that Peter adopted the drunken customs in the German Quarter, communicating with the dregs of the world into which he so stubbornly aspired.

As for Karl, he seemed to hold some kind of state post and in his mature years was content with a plate of millet porridge, a slice of bread and a glass of weak dark beer.

The king did not avoid female society, unlike Charles (who died a virgin), but in his youth he suffered from excessive shyness. In the town of Coppenburg, he had to see the Electors we already knew. They tell how the king at first did not want to go to them. True, later, after much persuasion, he agreed, but on the condition that there were no strangers. Peter entered, covering his face with his hand, like a shy child, and to all the courtesies of the ladies he answered only one thing:
- I can not talk!

However, at dinner he quickly recovered, talked, got everyone drunk in Moscow style, admitted that he did not like music or hunting (although he danced diligently with the ladies, having fun with all his heart, and the Moscow gentlemen mistook the corsets of German ladies for their ribs), and he loves to sail the seas, build ships and fireworks, showed his callused hands, with which he raised his ears and kissed a ten-year-old princess, the future mother of Frederick the Great, ruining her hair.

The Northern War finally determined the character and way of life of both Charles and Peter, but each of them chose a role in it that corresponded to his usual occupations and tastes. Interestingly, both of them abandoned the role of the sovereign ruler, directing the actions of subordinates from the palace. The role of the military commander-in-chief also could not fully satisfy them. Karl, with his notions of Viking prowess, will soon prefer the glory of a reckless fighter to the glory of a commander. Peter, leaving his generals and admirals to conduct military operations, will take over the technical side of the war that is closer to him: recruiting, drawing up military plans, building ships and military factories, and preparing ammunition and ammunition. However, Narva and Poltava will forever remain great monuments of the military art of these crowned enemies. It is also worth noting a curious paradox: Sweden, a maritime power, brought up an excellent land commander who set foot on a ship almost twice in his life - when sailing from Sweden and when returning there; while Russia, cut off from the seas, was ruled by an unsurpassed shipbuilder and skipper.

The war, which required tireless activity and strain of all the moral forces of Peter and Charles, forged their characters one-sided, but in relief, made them national heroes, with the difference that Peter's greatness was not affirmed on the battlefields and could not be shaken by defeats.

Candidate historical sciences I. ANDREEV.

AT Russian history Swedish king Charles XII was not lucky. In the mass consciousness, he is represented as an almost caricatured, extravagant, conceited young king, who first defeated Peter, and then was beaten. "He died like a Swede near Poltava" - this, in fact, is also about Karl, although, as you know, the king did not die near Poltava, but, having escaped capture, continued to fight for almost ten more years. Having landed in the mighty shadow of Peter, Karl not only faded, but got lost, cringed. He, like an extra in a bad play, had to occasionally appear on the historical stage and give remarks designed to profitably highlight the main character - Peter the Great. The writer A. N. Tolstoy did not escape the temptation to present the Swedish king in this way. It's not that Karl appears on the pages of the novel "Peter the Great" episodically. Significantly different - the motivation of actions. Carl is frivolous and capricious - a sort of crowned egocentrist who roams Eastern Europe in search of glory. He is absolutely opposite to Tsar Peter, albeit quick-tempered and unbalanced, but day and night thinking about the Fatherland. The interpretation of A. N. Tolstoy entered the blood and flesh of the mass historical consciousness. Talented literary work in its influence on the reader almost always outweighs volumes of serious historical writings. The simplification of Charles is at the same time a simplification of Peter himself and the scale of everything that happened to Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. This alone is enough to try to comprehend what happened through a comparison of these two personalities.

Peter I. Engraving by E. Chemesov, made from the original by J.-M. Nattier 1717.

Charles XII. Portrait by an unknown artist, early 18th century.

Young Peter I. Unknown artist. Early 18th century.

Officer of the Life Guards Semenovsky Regiment. First quarter of the 18th century.

Science and life // Illustrations

Personal belongings of Peter I: a caftan, an officer's badge and an officer's scarf.

Bust of Peter I by Bartolomeo Carlo Rastrelli. (Painted wax and plaster; Peter's hair wig; eyes - glass, enamel.) 1819.

View of Arkhangelsk from the bay. Early 18th century engraving.

Carl Allard's book "The New Golan Ship Structure" was translated into Russian by Peter's decree. There were several copies of this edition in Peter's library.

Cup carved by Peter I (gold, wood, diamonds, ruby) and presented by him to MP Gagarin for organizing a holiday in Moscow in honor of the victory over the Swedes near Poltava. 1709

A lathe created by craftsman Franz Singer, who worked for the Florentine Duke Cosimo III Medici for many years, and then came to St. Petersburg at the invitation of the Russian Tsar. In Russia, Singer headed the tsar's turning workshop.

Medallion with a relief image of the Battle of Grenham in the Baltic on July 27, 1720 (the work of a turning workshop).

Peter I in the battle of Poltava. Drawing and engraving by M. Marten (son). First quarter of the 18th century.

Peter and Carl never met. But for many years they argued in absentia with each other, which means that they tried on, looked at each other. When the king found out about the death of Charles, he was quite sincerely upset: "Ah, brother Charles! How sorry I am for you!" One can only guess what exactly the feelings were behind these words of regret. But it seems - something more than just royal solidarity ... Their dispute was so long, the king was so imbued with the logic of the illogical actions of his crowned opponent that it seems that with the death of Charles, Peter lost, as it were, a part of himself.

People of different cultures, temperaments, mentality, Karl and Peter were surprisingly similar at the same time. But this similarity is of a special nature - in dissimilarity to other sovereigns. Let us note that to acquire such a reputation in an age when extravagant self-expression was in vogue is not an easy task. But Peter and Karl overshadowed many. Their secret is simple - both did not strive for extravagance at all. They lived without fuss, building their behavior in accordance with the ideas of what should be. Therefore, much that seemed so important and necessary to others played almost no role for them. And vice versa. Their actions were perceived by the majority of contemporaries at best as eccentricity, at worst as ignorance, barbarism.

The English diplomat Thomas Wentworth and the Frenchman Aubrey de la Motre left descriptions of the "Gothic hero". Karl in them is stately and tall, "but extremely untidy and slovenly." Facial features are thin. The hair is blond and greasy and doesn't seem to meet a comb every day. The hat is crumpled - the king often sent it not on his head, but under his arm. Reiter's uniform, only cloth of the best quality. Boots are high, with spurs. As a result, everyone who did not know the king by sight took him for a Reiter officer, and not of the highest rank.

Peter was just as undemanding in dress. He wore a dress and shoes for a long time, sometimes up to holes. The habit of the French courtiers every day to appear in a new dress caused him only a mockery: "It seems that a young man cannot find a tailor who would dress him to his liking?" - he teased the Marquis of Libois, assigned to the high guest by the regent of France himself. At the reception of the king, Peter appeared in a modest frock coat made of a thick gray barakan (a kind of matter), without a tie, cuffs and lace, in - oh horror! - an unpowdered wig. The "extravagance" of the Moscow guest shocked Versailles so much that it became fashionable for a while. Court dandies for a month embarrassed court ladies with a wild (from the point of view of the French) costume, which received the official name "savage outfit".

Of course, if necessary, Peter appeared before his subjects in all the splendor of royal grandeur. In the first decades on the throne, it was the so-called Grand Sovereign attire, later - a richly decorated European dress. So, at the wedding ceremony of Catherine I with the title of Empress, the tsar appeared in a caftan embroidered with silver. The ceremony itself, and the fact that the hero of the occasion diligently worked on embroidery, obligated to this. True, at the same time, the sovereign, who did not like unnecessary expenses, did not bother to change his worn-out shoes. In this form, he laid on the kneeling Catherine the crown, which cost the treasury several tens of thousands of rubles.

To match the clothes were the manners of the two sovereigns - simple and even rude. Karl, according to his contemporaries, "eats like a horse," delving into his thoughts. In thoughtfulness, he can smear butter on bread with his finger. Food is the simplest and seems to be valued mainly in terms of satiety. On the day of his death, Karl, having dined, praises his cook: "You feed so well that you will have to be appointed head cook!" Peter is just as undemanding in food. His main requirement is that everything should be served piping hot: in the Summer Palace, for example, it was arranged in such a way that dishes fell on the royal table directly from the stove.

Unpretentious in food, the sovereigns differed greatly in their attitude to strong drinks. The maximum that Karl allowed himself was a weak dark beer: that was the vow that the young king gave after one plentiful libation. The vow is unusually strong, without retreats. Peter's unbridled drunkenness evokes nothing but a bitter sigh of regret from his apologists.

It is difficult to say who is to blame for this addiction. Most of the people close to Peter suffered from this vice. Clever Prince Boris Golitsyn, to whom the tsar owed so much in the fight against Tsarevna Sophia, according to one of his contemporaries, "drank incessantly." Not far behind him and the famous "deboshan" Franz Lefort. But he is perhaps the only person whom the young king tried to imitate.

But if the entourage dragged Peter into drunkenness, then the tsar himself, having matured, no longer tried to put an end to this protracted "service to the tavern." Suffice it to recall the "sessions" of the famous All-Joking and All-Drunken Council, after which the sovereign's head was shaking convulsively. The "patriarch" of the noisy company, Nikita Zotov, even had to warn "herr protodeacon" Peter against excessive prowess on the battlefield with "Ivashka Khmelnitsky".

Surprisingly, the king turned even a noisy feast to the benefit of his cause. His Most Joking Council is not just a way of wild relaxation and stress relief, but a form of affirming a new everyday life - the overthrow of the old with the help of laughter, demonism and abuse. Peter's phrase about "ancient customs" that are "always better than new ones" most successfully illustrates the essence of this plan - after all, the tsar praised "Holy Russian antiquity" at the clownish antics of the "crazy cathedral."

It is somewhat naive to oppose Karl's sober lifestyle to Peter's predilection "to be drunk all the days and never go to bed sober" (the main requirement of the charter of the Most Joking Council). Outwardly, this did not particularly affect the course of affairs. But only outwardly. A dark spot on the history of Peter falls not only the facts of unbridled drunken anger, anger to the point of murder, loss of human appearance. Formed "drunk" style of life of the court, the new aristocracy, deplorable in all respects.

Neither Peter nor Karl were distinguished by subtlety of feelings and sophistication of manners. Dozens of cases are known when the king, by his actions, caused a slight stupor in those around him. The German princess Sophia, smart and insightful, described her impressions after the first meeting with Peter in this way: the tsar is tall, handsome, his quick and correct answers speak of quickness of mind, but "with all the virtues that nature has endowed him with, it would be desirable that there was less rudeness in him."

Grub and Carl. But this is rather the underlined rudeness of a soldier. This is how he behaves in defeated Saxony, making it clear to Augustus and his subjects who lost the war and who should pay the bills. However, when it came to close people, both could be attentive and even gentle in their own way. Such is Peter in his letters to Catherine: "Katerinushka!", "My friend", "My friend, my heart's cue!" and even "Lapushka!". Karl is also caring and helpful in his letters to his relatives.

Karl avoided women. He was evenly cold with noble ladies and with those who, as women "for all," accompanied his army in the carts. According to contemporaries, the king, in dealing with the weaker sex, looked like "a guy from a provincial village." Such restraint over time even began to disturb his family. They repeatedly tried to persuade Karl to marry, but he avoided marriage with enviable persistence. The dowager queen-grandmother of Hedwig-Eleanor was especially baked about the family happiness of her grandson and the continuity of the dynasty. It was to her that Karl promised to "settle down" by the age of 30. When, upon reaching the deadline, the queen reminded her grandson of this, Karl in a short letter from Bender announced that he was "completely unable to remember his promises of this kind." Moreover, until the end of the war, he will be "overloaded beyond measure" - quite a weighty reason for postponing the matrimonial plans of "dear Mrs. Grandmother."

The "Northern Hero" passed away without marriage and without leaving an heir. This turned into new difficulties for Sweden and gave Peter the opportunity to put pressure on the stubborn Scandinavians. The fact is that Karl's nephew, Karl Friedrich Holstein-Gottor, son of the king's deceased sister, Hedwig-Sophia, claimed not only the Swedish throne, but also the hand of Peter's daughter, Anna. And if in the first case his chances were problematic, then in the last - things quickly went to the wedding table. The king was not averse to taking advantage of the situation and bargaining. The tractability of the intractable Swedes was made by Peter dependent on their attitude towards peace with Russia: if you persist, we will support the claims of the future son-in-law; go to the signing of peace - we will take our hand away from Duke Charles.

Peter's treatment of the ladies was distinguished by impudence and even rudeness. The habit of commanding and stormy temperament did not help curb his seething passions. The king was not particularly picky in communications. In London, girls of easy virtue were offended by the completely non-royal payment for their services. Peter reacted immediately: what is the work, such is the pay.

It should be noted that what was condemned by the Orthodox Church and called "fornication" was considered almost the norm in Europeanized secular culture. Peter somehow quickly forgot about the first and easily accepted the second. True, he never had enough time and money for truly French "polites". He acted more simply, separating feelings from connections. Catherine had to accept this point of view. The endless campaigns of the king to the "metresses" became the subject of jokes in their correspondence.

Peter's wildness did not prevent him from dreaming of a home and a family. From there grew his affections. First, to Anna Mons, the daughter of a German wine merchant who settled in the German Quarter, then to Martha-Catherine, whom the tsar first saw in 1703 at Menshikov's. It all started as usual: a fleeting hobby, of which there were many in the sovereign who could not stand the refusal. But years passed, and Catherine did not disappear from the life of the king. Even temper, gaiety and warmth of soul - all this, apparently, attracted the king to her. Peter was at home everywhere, which meant he had no home. Now he has got a house and a mistress who gave him a family and a sense of family comfort.

Catherine is just as narrow-minded as the first wife of Peter, Tsarina Evdokia Lopukhina, imprisoned in a monastery. But Peter did not need an adviser. But, unlike the disgraced queen, Catherine could easily sit in a male company or, leaving things in a wagon, rush after Peter to the ends of the world. She did not ask the trifling question whether such an act was proper or obscene. The question just didn't cross her mind. Sovereign betrothed called - so it is necessary.

Even with a very large condescension, Catherine can hardly be called an intelligent person. When, after the death of Peter, she was elevated to the throne, the empress's complete inability to do business was revealed. Strictly speaking, it was with these qualities that she apparently pleased her supporters. But the limitations of Catherine the Empress became at the same time the strength of Catherine the friend, and then the wife of the Tsar. She was worldly smart, which does not require a high mind at all, but only the ability to adapt, not to annoy, to know her place. Peter appreciated the unpretentiousness of Catherine and the ability, if circumstances so required, to endure. Her physical strength also came to the heart of the sovereign. And right. It was necessary to have considerable strength and remarkable health in order to keep up with Peter.

Peter, who had little regard for human dignity, once publicly mocked a certain cook of Catherine, who was deceived by his wife. The king even ordered deer antlers to be hung over the door of his house. And then he landed in an ambiguous position! Peter was beside himself. "He was pale as death, his wandering eyes sparkled ... Everyone, seeing him, was seized with fear." The banal story of betrayed trust in the performance of Peter received a dramatic coloring with echoes that shook the whole country. Mons was arrested, tried and executed. The vengeful king, before forgiving his wife, forced her to contemplate the severed head of the unfortunate chamberlain.

At one time, L. N. Tolstoy intended to write a novel about the time of Peter. But as soon as he delved into the era, many similar cases turned the writer away from his plan. The cruelty of Peter struck Tolstoy. "Rabid beast" - these are the words that the great writer found for the reformer king.

No such accusations were made against Karl. Swedish historians even noted his decision to ban the use of torture during the investigation: the king refused to believe in the reliability of the accusations received in this way. This is a remarkable fact, testifying to the different state of Swedish and Russian society. However, the feeling of humanism, combined with Protestant maximalism, was selective in Karl. It did not prevent him from reprisals against Russian prisoners taken in battles in Poland: they were killed and maimed.

Contemporaries, evaluating the behavior and manners of the two sovereigns, were more condescending to Peter than to Charles. They did not expect anything else from the Russian monarch. The rudeness and impudence of Peter for them is exotic, which must have accompanied the behavior of the ruler of the "Muscovite barbarians". Karl is more difficult. Charles is the sovereign of a European power. And neglect of manners is unforgivable even for a king. Meanwhile, the motivations for the behavior of Peter and Karl were largely similar. Karl rejected, Peter did not adopt what prevented them from being sovereigns.

The Swedish and Russian monarchs were distinguished by hard work. Moreover, this industriousness greatly differed from the industriousness of Louis XIV, who at one time proudly declared that "the power of kings is acquired by labor." It is unlikely that both of our heroes would dispute the French monarch in this. However, Louis' industriousness was very specific, limited by subject, time and royal whim. Louis did not allow not only clouds on the Sun, but also calluses on the palms. (At one time, the Dutch issued a medal on which the clouds obscured the Sun. The "Sun King" quickly figured out the symbolism and blazed with anger towards the fearless neighbors.)

Charles XII got his industriousness from his father, King Charles XI, who became a model of behavior for the young man. The example was reinforced by the efforts of the enlightened educators of the heir. From early childhood, the Viking King's day was filled with work. Most often, these were military concerns, a hard and troublesome bivouac life. But even after the end of hostilities, the king did not allow himself any indulgences. Karl got up very early, sorted out papers, and then went to inspect regiments or institutions. Actually, the very simplicity in manners and in clothes, which has already been mentioned, comes largely from the habit of working. Exquisite attire is just an obstacle here. Karl's manner of not unfastening his spurs was born not from bad manners, but from his readiness to jump on a horse at the first call and rush about business. The King has demonstrated this time and time again. The most impressive demonstration is Karl's seventeen-hour ride from Bender to the Prut River, where the Turks and Tatars surrounded Peter's army. It is not the fault of the king that he had to see only columns of dust over the columns of Peter's troops leaving for Russia. Karl had no luck with the "capricious girl Fortune". It is no coincidence that she was depicted in the 18th century with a shaved head: gape, did not grab her hair in time in front - remember her name!

“I heal my body with water, and my subjects with examples,” declared Peter in Olonets (Karelia, almost 150 kilometers from Petrozavodsk) at martial springs. In the phrase, the emphasis was on the word "water" - Peter was incredibly proud of the opening of his own resort. History rightly shifted the emphasis to the second part. The tsar really gave his subjects an example of tireless and disinterested labor for the good of the Fatherland.

Moreover, with the light hand of the Moscow sovereign, the image of a monarch was formed, whose virtues were determined not by prayerful zeal and indestructible piety, but by labors. Actually, after Peter, work was made the duty of a true ruler. A fashion began to work - not without the participation of enlighteners. Moreover, not just state labor was revered, as it was in debt. The sovereign was also charged with private labor, a work-example, during which the monarch descended to his subjects. So, Peter was a carpenter, built ships, worked in a lathe (historians lost count when counting the crafts that the Russian sovereign mastered). The Austrian Empress Maria Theresa regaled the courtiers with excellent milk, milking the cows on the imperial farm with her own hands. Louis XV, breaking away from love pleasures, was engaged in wallpaper craft, and his son Louis XVI, with the dexterity of a regimental surgeon, opened the mechanical womb of the clock and brought them back to life. In fairness, we must still note the difference between the original and copies. For Peter, work is a necessity and a vital need. His epigones have rather joy and fun, although, of course, if Louis XVI had become a watchmaker, life would have ended in bed, and not on the guillotine.

In the perception of contemporaries, the industriousness of both sovereigns, of course, had its own shades. Charles appeared to them primarily as a soldier king, whose thoughts and works revolved around the war. Peter's activities are more diverse, and his "image" is more polyphonic. The prefix "warrior" rarely accompanies his name. He is the sovereign who is forced to do everything. The versatile, ebullient activity of Peter was reflected in the correspondence. For more than a hundred years, historians and archivists have been publishing letters and papers of Peter I, but meanwhile it is still far from completion.

The remarkable historian M. M. Bogoslovsky, in order to illustrate the scale of the royal correspondence, took as an example one day from the life of Peter - July 6, 1707. A simple list of topics covered in the letters inspires respect. But the tsar-reformer touched them from memory, demonstrating great awareness. Here is the range of these topics: payment to the Moscow City Hall of amounts from the Admiralty, Siberian and local orders; coinage; recruitment of the dragoon regiment and its armament; issuance of grain provisions; construction of a defensive line in the Derpt chief commandant's office; translation of the Mitchel Regiment; bringing traitors and criminals to justice; new appointments; digging device; putting the Astrakhan rebels on trial; sending a clerk to the Preobrazhensky Regiment; replenishment of Sheremetev's regiments by officers; contributions; search for an interpreter for Sheremetev; the expulsion of the fugitives from the Don; sending convoys to Poland to the Russian regiments; investigation of conflicts on the Izyum line.

On that day, Peter's thought covered the space from Derpt to Moscow, from Polish Ukraine to the Don, the tsar instructed, admonished many close and not very close employees - princes Yu. V. Dolgoruky, M. P. Gagarin, F. Yu. Romodanovsky, field marshal B. P. Sheremetev, K. A. Naryshkin, A. A. Kurbatov, G. A. Plemyannikov and others.

The industriousness of Peter and Karl is the flip side of their curiosity. In the history of transformations, it was the tsar's curiosity that acted as a kind of "primal impetus" and at the same time perpetuum mobile - the perpetual motion machine of reforms. The inexhaustible inquisitiveness of the king is surprising, his ability to be surprised until his death is not lost.

Carl's curiosity is more restrained. She is devoid of Petrine ardor. The King is prone to cold, systematic analysis. This was partly due to the difference in education. It is simply incomparable - a different type and focus. The father of Charles XII was guided by European concepts, personally developing a plan for education and upbringing for his son. The prince's tutor is one of the most intelligent officials, royal adviser Eric Lindsheld, the teachers are the future bishop, professor of theology from Uppsala University Eric Benzelius and professor of Latin Andreas Norkopensis. Contemporaries spoke of Karl's penchant for mathematics. There was someone to develop his talent - the heir to the throne communicated with the best mathematicians.

Against this background, the modest figure of the deacon Zotov, Peter's main teacher, loses a lot. He, of course, was distinguished by piety and for the time being was not a "hawker". But this is clearly not enough in terms of future reforms. The paradox, however, was that neither Peter himself nor his teachers could even guess what kind of knowledge the future reformer needed. Peter is doomed on the lack of European education: firstly, it simply did not exist; secondly, it was revered as evil. It's good that Zotov and others like him did not discourage Peter's curiosity. Peter will be engaged in self-education all his life - and his results will be impressive. However, the king clearly lacked a systematic education, which would have to be replenished through common sense and great work.

Karl and Peter were deeply religious people. The religious upbringing of Charles was distinguished by purposefulness. As a child, he even wrote essays on court sermons. Karl's faith bore a touch of earnestness and even fanaticism. "In any circumstances, - noted contemporaries - he remains true to his unshakable faith in God and His almighty help." Isn't this partly the explanation for the extraordinary courage of the king? If, according to divine providence, not a single hair flies off the head ahead of time, then why beware, bow to bullets? As a devout Protestant, Karl never for a moment leaves the exercise of piety. In 1708, he re-read the Bible four times, became proud (even wrote down the days when he opened the Holy Scriptures) and immediately condemned himself. Recordings flew into the fire under the comment: "I boast of it."

An exercise in piety is also a feeling of being a conductor of the divine will. The king is not just at war with Augustus the Strong or Peter I. He acts as the punishing hand of the Lord, punishing these named sovereigns for perjury and treachery - a motive extremely important for Charles. The extraordinary stubbornness, more precisely, the stubbornness of the "Gothic hero", who did not want to go to peace under any circumstances, goes back to his conviction that he was chosen. Therefore, all failures for the king are only a test sent by God, a test of strength. Here is one small touch: Karl in Bendery drew plans for two frigates (not only Peter did this!) And unexpectedly gave them Turkish names: the first - "Yilderin", the second - "Yaramas", which together translates as "here I will come!" The drawings have been sent to Sweden with strict orders to begin construction immediately, so that everyone knows: nothing is lost, it will come!

The religiosity of Peter is devoid of the earnestness of Charles. It is more base, more pragmatic. The king believes because he believes, but also because faith always turns to the visible benefit of the state. There is a story associated with Vasily Tatishchev. The future historian, upon his return from abroad, allowed himself caustic attacks against the Holy Scriptures. The king set out to teach the freethinker a lesson. "Teaching", in addition to measures physical property, was reinforced by instruction, very characteristic of the "teacher" himself. “How dare you weaken such a string, which makes up the harmony of the whole tone? - Peter was furious. - I will teach you how to read it (Holy Scripture. - I. A.) and do not break the circuits that everything in the device contains".

Remaining a deep believer, Peter did not feel any reverence for the church and the church hierarchy. That is why, without any reflection, he began to remake the church dispensation in the right way. With the light hand of the tsar, the synodal period began in the history of the Russian church, when the highest administration of the church was, in fact, reduced to a simple department for spiritual and moral affairs under the emperor.

Both loved the military. The king plunged headlong into "Mars and Neptune's fun." But very soon he stepped over the boundaries of the game and set about radical military transformations. Carl didn't have to arrange anything like that. Instead of "amusing" regiments, he immediately received "ownership" of one of the best European armies. It is not surprising that he, unlike Peter, had almost no pause in his discipleship. He immediately became a famous commander, demonstrating outstanding tactical and operational skills on the battlefield. But the war, which completely captured Karl, played a cruel joke with him. The king very soon confused ends and means. And if the war becomes the goal, then the result is almost always sad, sometimes self-destruction. French after endless Napoleonic Wars who knocked out the healthy part of the nation, "decreased" in height by two inches. I don’t know exactly what the Northern War cost the tall Swedes, but it can definitely be argued that Charles himself burned down in the fire of war, and Sweden overstrained itself, unable to withstand the burden of great power.

Unlike "brother Charles," Peter never confused ends and means. The war and the transformations connected with it remained for him a means of exalting the country. When embarking on "peaceful" reforms at the end of the Northern War, the tsar declares his intentions in this way: zemstvo affairs must be "brought into the same order as military affairs."

Karl liked to take risks, usually without thinking about the consequences. Adrenaline boiled in his blood and gave him a feeling of fullness of life. Whatever page of Karl's biography we take, no matter how big or small the episode is subjected to close scrutiny, everywhere one can see the insane courage of the hero-king, the unceasing desire to test himself for strength. In his youth, he hunted a bear with one horn, and to the question: "Isn't it scary?" - He answered without any frills: "Not at all, if you are not afraid." Later, without bowing, he walked under the bullets. There were cases when they "stung" him, but until a certain time he was lucky: either the bullets were at the end, or the wound was non-fatal.

Carl's love of risk is his weakness and strength. More precisely, if we follow the chronology of events, we must say this: first - strength, then - weakness. Indeed, this trait of Karl's character gave him a visible advantage over his opponents, since they almost always followed "normal", risk-free logic. Karl appeared there and then, when and where he was not expected, acted as no one had ever acted. A similar thing happened near Narva in November 1700. Peter left the positions near Narva the day before the Swedes appeared (he went to rush the reserves) not because he was frightened, but because he proceeded from the situation: after the march, the Swedes should rest, set up a camp, reconnoiter, and only then attack. But the king did the opposite. He gave no rest to the regiments, the camp did not arrange it, and at dawn, barely visible, he rushed headlong into the attack. If you think about it, all these qualities characterize a true commander. With the proviso that there is a certain condition, the fulfillment of which distinguishes a great commander from an ordinary military leader. This condition: the risk must be justified.

The king did not want to reckon with this rule. He defied fate. And if fate turned away from him, then, in his opinion, let it be worse ... fate. Should we be surprised at his reaction to Poltava? “I’m doing well. And only recently, due to one special event, misfortune happened, and the army suffered damage, which, I hope, will soon be corrected,” he wrote in early August 1709 to his sister Ulrike-Eleonora. This is "everything is good" and a small "misfortune" - about the defeat and capture of the entire Swedish army near Poltava and Perevolnaya!

Carl's role in history is a hero. Peter did not look so brave. He is more circumspect and careful. Risk is not his forte. Even moments of weakness of the king are known, when he lost his head and strength. But the closer we are to Peter, who is able to overcome himself. It is in this that one of the most important differences between Charles and Peter finds its manifestation. They are both men of duty. But each of them understands duty in their own way. Peter feels himself a servant of the Fatherland. This view for him is both a moral justification for everything he has done, and the main motive that encourages him to overcome fatigue, fear, and indecision. Peter thinks of himself for the Fatherland, and not the Fatherland for himself: "And know about Peter that his life is inexpensive for him, if only Russia would live in bliss and glory for your well-being." These words spoken by the king the day before Battle of Poltava, as accurately as possible reflected its internal setting. Karl is different. With all his love for Sweden, he turned the country into a means of realizing his ambitious plans.

Charles, in a purely Protestant way, was sure that a person is saved by faith alone. And he believed in it unshakably. It is symbolic that the earliest surviving written by Charles is a quote from the Gospel of Matthew (VI, 33): "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all this will be added to you." Charles not only followed this commandment, he "implanted" it. In the perception of his destiny, the Swedish king is a more medieval sovereign than the king of the "barbarian Muscovites" Peter. He is seized with sincere religious piety. Protestant theology for him is completely self-sufficient in substantiating his absolute power and the nature of his relationship with his subjects. For Peter, however, the former "ideological equipment" of the autocracy, which rested on theocratic foundations, was completely insufficient. He justifies his power more broadly, resorting to the theory of natural law and the "common good".

Paradoxically, Karl, in his incredible stubbornness and in his talent, contributed a lot to the reforms in Russia and the formation of Peter as a statesman. Under the leadership of Charles, Sweden not only did not want to part with the great power. She strained all her strength, mobilized all the potential, including the energy and intelligence of the nation, in order to maintain her position. In response, this required the incredible efforts of Peter and Russia. If Sweden yielded earlier, and who knows how strong the "roll" of reforms and the imperial ambitions of the Russian tsar would have been? Of course, there is no reason to doubt the energy of Peter, who would hardly have refused to goad and spur the country. But it is one thing to carry out reforms in a country that is waging a "three-dimensional war," another thing that is ending the war after Poltava. In a word, Karl, with all his skills to win battles and lose the war, was a worthy rival to Peter. And although there was no king among those captured on the Poltava field, the congratulations cup for teachers raised by the king undoubtedly had a direct bearing on him.

I wonder if Karl would have agreed - if he had been present at the same time - with his field marshal Renschild, who muttered in response to Peter's toast: "Well, you thanked your teachers!"?

Peter the Great and Charles 12. Comparison of Peter I and Charles XII during the battle. The sponge-catcher was returning from her traditional North African fishing grounds to her home on Symi Island, off Rhodes, when a storm hit

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

The sponge-catcher was returning from her traditional North African fishing grounds to her home on Symi Island, off Rhodes, when a storm hit

Explanatory note Planning is made in accordance with the program of educational institutions in literature for grades 5-11 of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (3)

N. G. Chernyshevsky Balashov branch Department of the Russian language Shumarin S. I., Shumarina M. R. Theory and practice of scientific speech special course for non-humanitarian specialties of universities Educational and methodological complex

Literature work program Grade 7 MBOU "Gymnasium No. 2"

Read also:

Recent Entries

Peter the Great and Charles 12. Comparison of Peter I and Charles XII during the battle. The sponge-catcher was returning from her traditional North African fishing grounds to her home on Symi Island, off Rhodes, when a storm hit

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

The sponge-catcher was returning from her traditional North African fishing grounds to her home on Symi Island, off Rhodes, when a storm hit

Explanatory note Planning is made in accordance with the program of educational institutions in literature for grades 5-11 of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (3)

N. G. Chernyshevsky Balashov branch Department of the Russian language Shumarin S. I., Shumarina M. R. Theory and practice of scientific speech special course for non-humanitarian specialties of universities Educational and methodological complex

Literature work program Grade 7 MBOU "Gymnasium No. 2"

Read also:

Amount of movement Amount of movement of a system of material points

Eccentric tension - compression

Examples Determine if a sequence is infinitesimal

Recent Entries