Karl 12 and Peter 1 comparison is brief. Comparative characteristics of Peter I and Charles XII (based on an excerpt from Alexander Pushkin's poem "Poltava"). Other questions from the category "Arts and Culture"

Candidate historical sciences I. ANDREEV.

IN russian history the Swedish king Charles XII was not lucky. In the mass consciousness, he is represented as an almost caricature-extravagant, vain king-young man who first defeated Peter, and then was beaten. "He died like a Swede near Poltava" - this is, in fact, about Karl, although, as you know, the king did not die near Poltava, and, having escaped captivity, continued the struggle for almost ten years. Having pleased Peter in the mighty shadow, Karl was not that dark, but lost, cringed. He, like an extra in a bad play, had to occasionally appear on the stage of history and give remarks designed to favorably highlight the main character - Peter the Great. The temptation to present the Swedish king in this way was not avoided by the writer A.N. Tolstoy. The point is not that Karl appears sporadically on the pages of Peter the Great. Another thing is essential - the motivation of actions. Karl is frivolous and capricious - a sort of crowned egocentric who prowls Eastern Europe in search of fame. He is absolutely opposite to Tsar Peter, albeit hot-tempered and unbalanced, but day and night thinking about the Fatherland. AN Tolstoy's interpretation entered the blood and flesh of mass historical consciousness. A talented literary work almost always outweighs volumes of serious historical works in its influence on the reader. 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 the comparison of these two personalities.

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

Charles XII. Portrait of an unknown artist of the early 18th century.

Young Peter I. Unknown artist. The beginning of the 18th century.

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

Science and Life // Illustrations

Science and Life // Illustrations

Science and Life // Illustrations

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

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

View of Arkhangelsk from the bay. Engraving from the early 18th century.

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

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

A lathe and copying machine created by the master 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 Grengam battle in the Baltic on July 27, 1720 (work of a lathe).

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

Peter and Karl have never met. But over the course of many years, they were arguing in absentia with each other, which means they tried on, looked closely at each other. When the tsar found out about the death of Charles, he was quite sincerely upset: "Oh, brother Karl! How sorry I am for you!" One can only guess what kind of feelings were behind these words of regret. But it seems - something more than just the monarch's solidarity ... Their dispute was so long, the tsar 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 at the same time surprisingly similar. But this similarity is of a special quality - in the difference from other sovereigns. Note that gaining 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 at all strive for extravagance. They lived without fancy, building their behavior in accordance with the ideas of what should be done. Therefore, much that seemed to others so important and necessary, for them almost did not play any role. And vice versa. Their actions were perceived by most contemporaries at best as eccentricity, at worst as ignorance, barbarism.

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

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

Of course, if necessary, Peter appeared before his subjects in all the splendor of the royal greatness. In the first decades on the throne, it was the so-called Great Tsar's 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 the embroidery was obliged 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 the crown on the kneeling Catherine, which cost the treasury several tens of thousands of rubles.

The manners of the two sovereigns also matched the clothes - simple and even rude. Karl, as his contemporaries remarked, “eats like a horse,” deep in thought. In thoughtfulness, he can smear butter on bread with his finger. The food is the simplest and seems to be prized mainly in terms of satiety. On the day of his death, Karl, having dined, praises his cook: "You feed so satisfyingly that I will have to appoint you as a senior cook!" Peter is equally undemanding in food. His main requirement is that everything should be served in the heat: in the Summer Palace, for example, it was arranged so that the dishes fell on the tsar's table directly from the stove.

Unpretentious in food, 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 heavy drink. The zarok is unusually strong, no digression. Petrov's unbridled drunkenness evokes nothing but a bitter sigh of regret in his apologists.

It is difficult to tell who is responsible for this addiction. Most people close to Peter suffered from this defect. The clever prince Boris Golitsyn, to whom the tsar owed so much in the fight against Princess Sophia, according to one of his contemporaries, "drank incessantly." The famous "brawler" Franz Lefort did not lag behind him. But he is almost the only person whom the young tsar tried to imitate.

But if the environment dragged Peter into drunkenness, then the tsar himself, having matured, no longer tried to put an end to this protracted "bar service". Suffice it to recall the "meetings" of the famous All-Sighing and Most-Drunken Council, after which the Emperor's head shook seizures. The "patriarch" of the noisy company Nikita Zotov even had to warn "Herr Protodeacon" Peter against excessive daring on the battlefield with "Ivashka Khmelnitsky".

Surprisingly, the king turned even a noisy feast for the benefit of his cause. His Most Sense Cathedral is not just a way of wild relaxation and stress relief, but a form of affirming a new everyday life - overthrowing the old with the help of laughter, demonic possession and outrage. Peter's phrase about "old customs", which are "always better than new ones", most successfully illustrates the essence of this plan - after all, the tsar praised the "Svyato-Russian antiquity" in the clownish antics of "the most extravagant cathedral."

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

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

Rough and Karl. But this is rather the underlined rudeness of the 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!" and even "Honey!" Karl is also caring and helpful in his letters to his family.

Karl avoided women. He was evenly cold with noble ladies and with those who, with the rights of women "for all", accompanied his army in carts. According to contemporaries, the king in dealing with the weaker sex was like "a guy from a provincial village." Over time, such restraint even began to disturb his family. They more than once tried to persuade Karl to marry, but he avoided marriage ties with enviable persistence. Particularly concerned about the family happiness of the grandson and the continuity of the dynasty was the Dowager Queen-Grandmother Hedwig Eleanor. It was to her that Karl promised to "settle down" by the age of 30. When the Queen reminded her grandson of this upon reaching the deadline, Karl announced in a short letter from Bender that he was "completely unable to remember his promises of this kind." In addition, until the end of the war, he will be "overloaded beyond measure" - quite a weighty reason for postponing the matrimonial plans of "dear Madam Grandma."

The "Northern Hero" passed away without marrying and leaving no 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, the son of the king's deceased sister, Hedwiga-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 case it quickly went to the wedding table. The king was not averse to taking advantage of the situation and bargaining. The pliability of the intractable Swedes was made by Peter dependent on their attitude to the world with Russia: if you persist, we will support the claims of the future son-in-law; go to the signing of the 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 to curb his seething passions. The king was not particularly picky in his connections. In London, girls of easy virtue were offended by the not royal payment for their services. Peter reacted immediately: what the job is, so is the pay.

Note, That which was condemned orthodox Church and was called "fornication", in the Europeanized secular culture was considered almost the norm. Peter somehow quickly forgot about the first and easily accepted the second. True, he never had enough time and money for a truly French "politeness". He acted in a simpler way, separating feelings from connections. Catherine had to accept this point of view. The tsar's endless campaigns to the "metressa" became the subject of jokes in their correspondence.

Peter's unbridled nature did not prevent him from dreaming of a home and family. From here his affections grew. First to Anna Mons, the daughter of a German wine merchant who settled in the German settlement, then to Martha Catherine, whom the tsar first saw in 1703 at Menshikov's. It all began as usual: a fleeting hobby, of which there were many in the sovereign who did not tolerate refusal. But the years passed, and Catherine did not disappear from the life of the king. Smooth disposition, gaiety and warmth - all this, apparently, attracted the king to her. Peter was at home everywhere, which meant that he did not have a home. Now he got a house and a mistress, who gave him a family and a feeling 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 a counselor. But, unlike the disgraced queen, Catherine could easily sit in a men's company or, leaving things in a carriage, rush after Peter to the end of the world. She didn’t ask the trivial question whether such an act was appropriate or indecent. Such a question simply did not occur to her. The sovereign constricted called - so it is necessary.

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

Peter's personal life turned out to be richer and more dramatic than Karl's personal life. Unlike his opponent, the tsar experienced family happiness. But he also had to fully drink the cup of family hardships. He went through a conflict with his son, Tsarevich Alexei, the tragic outcome of which laid the stigma of a sonicide on Peter. Was in the life of the king and dark story with one of Anna Mons's brothers, Chamberlain Willim Mons, who was convicted in 1724 in connection with Catherine.

Peter, who had little regard for human dignity, once publicly mocked a certain Catherine's kitchen master, whom his wife had deceived. The king even ordered to hang antlers over the door of his house. And then he himself got into an ambiguous position! Peter was beside himself. "He was pale as death, his wandering eyes sparkled ... Everyone, seeing him, were seized with fear." The banal story of deceived trust in the performance of Peter got dramatic overtones with echoes that shook the whole country. Mons was arrested, tried and executed. The vengeful king, before forgiving his wife, made her 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 such cases turned the writer away from his plan. Peter's cruelty amazed Tolstoy. "The 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 prohibit the use of torture during the investigation: the king refused to believe in the veracity of the accusations thus obtained. A remarkable fact, testifying to the different state of the Swedish and russian society... However, Charles' sense of humanism combined with Protestant maximalism was selective. It did not prevent him from inflicting reprisals on 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. For them, Peter's rudeness and impudence was exotic, which should have accompanied the behavior of the ruler of the "barbarians-Moscovites". Karl is more difficult. Charles is the sovereign of the European power. And neglect of manners is unforgivable even for a king. Meanwhile, the motivations for the behavior of Peter and Karl were in many ways similar. Karl discarded, Peter did not take over what prevented them from being sovereigns.

The Swedish and Russian monarchs were distinguished by their diligence. Moreover, this hard work was very different from hard work 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 challenge the French monarch in this. However, Louis' diligence was very specific, limited by subject matter, time and royal whim. Louis did not allow not only clouds in the sun, but also calluses on his palms. (At one time, the Dutch issued a medal, on which clouds obscured the Sun. The "Sun King" quickly figured out the symbolism and flared up with anger towards the fearless neighbors.)

The hard work of Charles XII inherited 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 labor. More often than not, these were military concerns, a hard and troublesome camp life. But even after the end of hostilities, the king did not allow himself to indulge. Karl got up very early, sorted out the papers, and then went to inspect the shelves or offices. Actually, the very simplicity in manners and in clothes, which has already been mentioned, comes largely from the habit of working. Exquisite attire here is just an obstacle. Karl's manner of not unfastening his spurs was born not from bad manners, but from the readiness to jump on a horse at the first call and race on business. The king has demonstrated this more than once. The most impressive demonstration is Karl's seventeen-hour race from Bendery to the Prut River, where the Turks and Tatars surrounded Peter's army. It was not the king's fault that he had to see only columns of dust over the columns of Peter's troops leaving for Russia. Karl was unlucky with the "naughty girl Fortuna". It is no coincidence that she was depicted in the 18th century with a shaved head: she gape, did not grab her hair in front in time - remember her name!

"I heal my body with waters, and my subjects - with examples," announced Peter in Olonets (Karelia, almost 150 kilometers from Petrozavodsk) on the marcial springs. In the phrase, the emphasis was on the word "water" - Peter was incredibly proud of the opening of his own spa. The story rightly shifted the emphasis to the second part. The tsar really taught his subjects an example of tireless and selfless labors for the good of the Fatherland.

Moreover, with the light hand of the Moscow sovereign, the image of a monarch was formed, whose merits were determined not by prayer zeal and indestructible piety, but by labor. Actually, after Peter, labor was made the duty of a true ruler. A fashion has started to work - not without the participation of educators. Moreover, the work was revered not just state, as it was in debt. The sovereign was also charged with private work, labor-example, during which the monarch descended to his subjects. Thus, Peter worked as a carpenter, built ships, worked in a lathe (historians lost count of the crafts that the Russian sovereign mastered). The Austrian Empress Maria Theresa regaled the courtiers with excellent milk, milking the cows with her own hands on the imperial farm. Louis XV, breaking away from amorous pleasures, was engaged in the wallpaper trade, and his son Louis XVI, with the dexterity of a regimental surgeon, opened the mechanical wombs of watches and brought them back to life. For the sake of fairness, it should still be noted that the original differs from the copies. For Peter, work is a necessity and a vital need. His epigones are rather joy and fun, although, of course, if Louis XVI had become a watchmaker, he would have ended his life in bed, and not on the guillotine.

In the perception of contemporaries, the industriousness of both sovereigns naturally had its own shades. Charles appeared before them primarily as a soldier king, whose thoughts and works revolved around the war. Peter's activity is more varied, 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, tireless 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, and yet 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 in the life of Peter - July 6, 1707. A simple list of the 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 of sums to the Moscow City Hall from the Admiralty, Siberian and local orders; coin re-minting; recruiting of the dragoon regiment and its armament; distribution of grain provisions; the construction of a defensive line in the Dorpat Ober-commandantry; transfer of the Mitchelov regiment; bringing traitors and criminals to justice; new appointments; digging; bringing the Astrakhan rebels to trial; sending a clerk to the Preobrazhensky regiment; replenishment of Sheremetev's regiments with officers; indemnity; search for a translator for Sheremetev; deportation of fugitives from the Don; sending convoys to Poland to the Russian regiments; investigation of conflicts on the Izyum line.

Peter's thought covered on the indicated day the space from Dorpat to Moscow, from Polish Ukraine to the Don, the tsar instructed, enlightened many close and not very close associates - 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 hard work of Peter and Karl is the flip side of their curiosity. In the history of transformations, it was the tsar's curiosity that served as a kind of "first impulse" and at the same time perpetuum mobile perpetual motion machine reforms. The tsar's inexhaustible inquisitiveness is surprising, his ability to wonder, not lost until his death.

Karl's curiosity is more restrained. She is devoid of Peter's ardor. The king is prone to cold, systematic analysis. This was partly due to the difference in education. It is simply not comparable - different type and direction. Father Charles XII was guided by European concepts, personally developing a training and education plan for his son. The prince's governor is one of the most intelligent officials, the royal councilor Erik Lindscheld, teachers - the future bishop, professor of theology from Uppsala University Erik 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 clerk Zotov, Peter's main teacher, loses a lot. He, of course, was distinguished by piety and for the time being was not a "hawk maker". But this is clearly not enough from the point of view of future reforms. The paradox, however, was that neither Peter himself nor his teachers could even guess what kind of knowledge the future reformer would need. Peter is doomed the absence of European education: firstly, it simply did not exist; secondly, it was considered 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 tsar clearly lacked systematic education, which will have to be replenished at the expense of common sense and great works.

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

Practicing piety is also the feeling of being a conductor of divine will. The king is not just at war with Augustus the Strong or Peter I. He acts as the avenging hand of the Lord, punishing these named sovereigns for perjury and treachery - a motive extremely important for Charles. The extraordinary stubbornness, or rather, the stubbornness of the "Gothic hero" who did not want to go to the world under any circumstances, goes back to his conviction of being 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 Bender drew plans for two frigates (not only Peter was involved in this!) And unexpectedly gave them Turkish names: the first - "Yylderin", the second - "Yaramas", which together translates as "here I come!" The drawings were sent to Sweden with a strict order to start construction immediately, so that everyone would know: nothing is lost, he will come!

The religiosity of Peter is devoid of the zealousness 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 returning from abroad, allowed himself stinging attacks on the Holy Scriptures. The king set out to teach the free-thinker a lesson. "Teaching" besides measures physical properties, was supported by an instruction very characteristic of the "teacher" himself. “How dare you to loosen such a string, which makes up the harmony of the whole tone? - Peter angrily. - I will teach you how to read it (Holy Scripture. - I. A.) and do not break the circuit, everything in the device contains ".

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

Both loved military affairs. The king plunged headlong into the "Mars and Neptune fun". But very soon he overstepped the boundaries of the game and began a radical military transformation. Karl didn't have to do anything like that. Instead of "funny" regiments, he immediately received one of the best European armies as "property". It is not surprising that he, unlike Peter, had almost no discipleship pause. He immediately became a famous commander, showing outstanding tactical and operational skill on the battlefield. But the war, which completely captured Karl, played a cruel joke with him. The king soon confused purpose and means. And if war becomes a goal, then the outcome is almost always sad, sometimes self-destruction. The French, after the endless Napoleonic wars that knocked out a healthy part of the nation, "shrunk" in height by two inches. I do not know exactly what the Northern War cost to the tall Swedes, but it can definitely be argued that Karl himself was burned in the fire of the war, and Sweden overstrained, unable to withstand the burden of great power.

Unlike "brother Karl", Peter never confused ends and means. War and the transformations associated with it remained for him a means of raising the country. At the end of the Northern War, embarking on "peaceful" reforms, the tsar declares his intentions: Zemstvo affairs must "be brought in 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 sense of fullness of life. Whichever page of Karl's biography we take, no matter how big or small an episode is subjected to close scrutiny, the insane courage of the hero king, the never-ending desire to test oneself for strength, is visible everywhere. In his youth, he hunted a bear with one spear, and when asked: "Isn't it scary?" - answered without any pretense: "Not at all, if not afraid." Later, without bowing, he walked under the bullets. There were cases when they "stung" him, but up to a certain point they were lucky: either the bullets were exhausted, or the wound was not fatal.

Karl's love of risk is his weakness and strength. More precisely, if you follow the chronology of events, you must say this: first - strength, then - weakness. Indeed, this trait of Karl gave him a visible advantage over opponents, since they were almost always guided by "normal", risk-free logic. Karl, on the other hand, appeared there and then, when and where he was not expected, acted as no one had ever done. A similar thing happened near Narva in November 1700. Peter left the position 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 set: the Swedes after the march should rest, set up a camp, reconnoiter, and only then attack. But the king did the opposite. He gave no rest to the regiments, did not arrange the camp, and at dawn, barely visible, 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 is a 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 am doing well. And only recently, due to one special event, a misfortune happened, and the army suffered damage, which, I hope, will soon be corrected," he wrote in early August 1709 to his sister Ulrike-Eleanor. This "all is good" and a small "misfortune" - about the defeat and capture of the entire Swedish army at Poltava and Perevolnaya!

The role of Karl in history is a hero. Peter did not look so brave. He's more circumspect and more careful. Risk is not his thing. There are even known moments of the Tsar's weakness, when he lost his head and strength. But the closer to us is 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 people of duty. But each of them understands duty differently. Peter feels himself a servant of the Fatherland. For him, this view is both a moral justification for everything he has done, and the main motive that prompts him to overcome fatigue, fear, and indecision. Peter thinks of himself for the Fatherland, and not the Fatherland for himself: "But about Peter, know that his life is inexpensive for him, only Russia would live in bliss and glory for your well-being." These words, spoken by the tsar on the eve of the Battle of Poltava, reflected his inner attitude as accurately as possible. Karl is different. With all his love for Sweden, he turned the country into a vehicle for the realization of his ambitious plans.

The fate of Peter and Karl is the story of an eternal dispute about which ruler is better: an idealist who put principles and ideals above all else, or a pragmatist who firmly stood on the ground and prefers real, not 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, in a purely Protestant manner, was convinced that man is saved by faith alone. And he believed in it unshakably. It is symbolic that the earliest preserved of what Charles wrote 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." Karl not only followed this commandment, he "planted" it. In the perception of his destiny, the Swedish king is a more medieval sovereign than the tsar of the "barbaric Muscovites" Peter. He is engulfed in 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. Peter, however, was completely inadequate for the former "ideological equipment" of the autocracy, which rested on theocratic foundations. He justifies his power more broadly, resorting to the theory of natural law and "the common good."

Paradoxically, Karl, in his incredible stubbornness and talent, contributed a lot to the reforms in Russia and the formation of Peter as a statesman. Under Karl's leadership, Sweden not only did not want to part with the great power. She exerted all her forces, mobilized all the potential, including the energy and intelligence of the nation, in order to maintain her position. In response, this required incredible efforts from Peter and Russia. If Sweden had yielded earlier, and who knows how strong the "push" 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 prod and spur the country. But it is one thing to carry out reforms in a country that is waging a "three-dimensional war", and another - which ends the war after Poltava. In a word, Karl, with all his skills in winning battles and losing a war, was a worthy rival of Peter. And although there was no king among the captives in the Poltava field, the good cup for the teachers raised by the king undoubtedly had a direct bearing on him.

I wonder if Karl - if he was present - would agree with his Field Marshal Renschild, who muttered in response to Peter's toast: "Well, you thanked your teachers!"

As a mature 28-year-old husband, having started a war with the 17-year-old Swedish king, Peter found in him an enemy who, at first glance, was strikingly different in his character, direction of political will, and understanding of the people's needs. A closer examination and comparison of the circumstances of their life, the most important personality traits reveal in them a lot in common, an explicit or hidden relationship of fate and mentality, 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 literacy under the guidance of clerk 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 the "dochur" Jan Timmerman (a very mediocre mathematician who did mistakes, for example, in multiplication problems) and other no more knowledgeable teachers. On the other hand, Peter was far superior to his adversary by his willingness to learn and quickness in acquiring knowledge on his own. The upbringing of the Swedish king can be called bookish-heroic, the upbringing of Peter - military-craft. Both sovereigns loved military fun in their youth, but Charles had an idealistic attitude to military affairs, seeing in it a way to satisfy his ambition, and the tsar approached the same subject purely practically, as a means of solving state problems.



Karl was early 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 assimilated the traditions of Swedish statehood, then Peter broke away from the traditions and legends of the Kremlin palace, which formed the basis of the political outlook of the old Russian tsar. The concepts and inclinations of Peter in his youth received 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 entire civil mood was formed from hatred and antipathy towards the clergy, boyars, archers, schismatics; soldiers, cannons, fortets, ships took the place of people, political institutions, national needs, civil relations in his mind: The area of \u200b\u200bconcepts about society and social duties, civic 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 serving the Fatherland, expressing his soul in immortal words: “And about Peter, know that life is not dear to him, if only Russia lived in bliss and glory for your welfare. "

Both Karl and Peter turned out to be autocratic sovereigns of huge empires at a very early age, and both as a result of a political upheaval (in the case of Peter, it is true, more dramatic). Both, however, managed to subjugate events and did not become a toy in the hands of palace parties and influential families. Peter felt hesitations under his throne for a long time and after the Streltsy uprising he was careful not to leave Russia for a long time, while Karl 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 tsar were eternal guests both abroad and at home.

Likewise, they had a tendency to unlimited rule - neither one nor the other ever doubted that they were God's anointed ones 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 personal massacre of the archers and Tsarevich Alexei are textbook examples of this. True, a noticeable difference in the attitude towards his rank is evident 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, the king, the sovereign, "your most blessed royal majesty," and himself "the everlasting slave and slave Piter" or simply in Russian Petrushka Alekseev. It is difficult to pinpoint the source of addiction to such buffoonery. Klyuchevsky believed that the character prone to jokes and fun went to Peter from his father, “who also loved to joke, although he was wary of being a jester.” However, 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 since 1575, when Ivan the Terrible pretended to lay off the royal crown)... Apparently, here we are dealing with a purely Russian phenomenon - fits of foolishness in the autocratic sovereign, to whom his power sometimes seems exorbitant. Another distinctive feature of Peter's autocracy was the ability to listen to good advice and back off from his decision if, on mature reflection, it is wrong or harmful - a feature completely absent from Charles with his almost maniacal mania of infallibility and loyalty to a decision once made.

In close connection with Peter's buffoonery in relation to his dignity were also his obscene to blasphemy parodies of church rituals and hierarchy, and these amusements were regular, clothed in clerical forms. The collegium of drunkenness established earlier than others, or, according to the official definition, "the most extravagant, all-joking and all-drunken council," was chaired by the biggest jester who bore the title of Prince-Pope, or the most noisy and all-joking patriarch of Moscow, Kukui and all Yauza. Under him there was a conclave of 12 cardinals and other "clerical" ranks who bore nicknames that, according to Klyuchevsky, would not appear in print 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 sacred rites, or, better to say, drunkenness, "serving Bacchus and honestly dealing with strong drinks." For example, a newly admitted member was asked the question: "Do you eat?", Parodying the church: "Do you believe?" At Maslenitsa in 1699, the tsar arranged a service to Bacchus: the patriarch, prince-pope Nikita Zotov, a former teacher of Peter, drank and blessed the guests kneeling before him, overshadowing them with two crossed shanks, just as the bishops dodikiri and triciri *; then, with a staff in hand, the "lord" began to dance. It is characteristic that only one of those present, the foreign ambassador who left the meeting, could not endure the foul spectacle of Orthodox clowns. In general, foreign observers were ready to see in these outrages a political and even a popular upbringing tendency, supposedly directed against the Russian church hierarchy, prejudices, and also against the vice of drunkenness, presented in a ridiculous way. It is possible that Peter, in fact, with such tomfoolery tore off his annoyance with the clergy, among whom there were so many opponents of his innovations. But there was no serious attack on Orthodoxy, on the hierarchy, Peter remained a devout man who knew and respected the church rite, who loved to sing in the choir with the singers; besides, he perfectly understood the protective significance of the Church for the state. In the meetings of the most joking council, one can see rather the general rudeness of the Russian customs of that time, the habit rooted in the Russian people of joking at a drunken moment over church objects, over the clergy; even more in them one can see the feeling of permissiveness of powerful revelers, revealing a general deep decline of church authority. Karl set a completely opposite example to his subjects; but what brought him closer to Peter was that he, too, did not tolerate the claims of the clergy to authority in the affairs of the state.

* Savage, trikiry - respectively two or three candles, which bless the believers in the church.

The instinct of arbitrariness completely determined the nature of the rule of these sovereigns. They did not recognize the historical logic of social life, their actions did not conform to an objective assessment of the capabilities of their peoples. However, one cannot blame them too much for this; even the most prominent minds of the century had a hard time understanding the laws social development... So, Leibniz, at the request of Peter, developed projects for the development of education and government controlled in Russia, assured the Russian tsar that in Russia, the easier it is to plant science, the less prepared it is for this. All military and state activities of the king and the king were guided by the thought of the necessity and omnipotence of imperious coercion. They sincerely believed that everything is subject to power, that the hero can direct the people's life in a different direction, and therefore they strained the people's forces to the extreme, wasted human strength and lives without any frugality. The awareness of one's own significance and omnipotence made it difficult to take into account other people, to see a person in 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 revealing justice and generosity). This trait of Peter was perfectly captured by two of the most educated ladies of that time - the Elector of Hanover Sophia and her daughter Sophia Charlotte, the Elector of Brandenburg, who paradoxically characterized him as a sovereign"Very good and together very bad"... This definition applies to Karl as well.


Peter I and Charles XII. German engraving of 1728

Their appearance matched their domineering natures and made a strong impression on those around them. Karl's noble appearance bore the patrimonial imprint of the Palatinate-Zweibrucken 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 Peter saw Peter during his stay in Paris, the Duke of Saint-Simon, the author of the famous "Memoirs", who carefully looked at the young tsar: “He was very tall, well built, rather lean, with a roundish face, high forehead, beautiful eyebrows ; his nose is rather short, but not too short and somewhat thick towards the end; the lips are quite large, the complexion is reddish and swarthy, beautiful black eyes, large, lively, penetrating, beautifully shaped; the look is majestic and affable when he watches himself and restrains himself, otherwise stern and wild, with spasms on his face that do not recur, but distort both the eyes and the whole face, frightening everyone present. The convulsion usually lasted for one instant, and then his gaze became terrible, as if bewildered, then everything immediately took on a normal look. All his appearance showed intelligence, reflection and greatness and was not devoid of charm. "

As for the habits of everyday life and personal inclinations, here, too, some similarities of these people are set off by striking contrasts. The Swedish and Russian sovereigns were people of hot temperament, sworn enemies of the court ceremony. Accustomed to feeling like masters always and everywhere, they were embarrassed and lost among the solemn atmosphere, breathing heavily, blushing and sweating at audiences, listening to pompous nonsense from some envoy who introduced himself. Neither one nor the other possessed delicate manners and were very fond of ease in conversation. They were characterized by ease of handling and unpretentiousness in everyday life. Peter was often seen in worn-out 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 rough cloth, which he did not like to change often; in the summer, when going out nearby, he almost never wore a hat; I usually went in a one-wheeler or a bad pair and in such a convertible, in which, according to a foreign eyewitness, not every Moscow merchant would dare to leave. In all of Europe, perhaps only the court of the Prussian curmudgeon king Friedrich Wilhelm I could argue in simplicity with Peter's (Karl, with his personal asceticism, never counted state money). The pomp that Peter surrounded in last years Catherine, perhaps, simply had to make those around her forget her too simple origin.

Peter combined this stinginess with violent intemperance in eating and drinking. He possessed an unbreakable appetite. Contemporaries say that he could eat anytime, anywhere; 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, his incredible endurance in wine drinking. The first commandment of the above-mentioned drunken order was to get drunk every day and not go to bed sober. Peter honored this commandment sacredly, giving hours of evening leisure to merry gatherings over a glass of Hungarian or something stronger. At solemn occasions or meetings of the cathedral, they drank terribly, notes a contemporary. In the palace built on the Yauza, the honest company was locked for three days, according to Prince Kurakin, "for drunkenness so great that it is impossible to describe, and many have happened to die from it." The journal of Peter's trip 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, equipping it by order of the king accordingly. After leaving the embassy, \u200b\u200bthe 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 spattered, stained with traces of fun, furniture was broken, curtains were torn off, paintings on the walls were used as targets for shooting, the lawns in the garden were trampled as if a whole regiment were marching there. The only, albeit weak, justification for such habits is that Peter adopted drunken manners in the German settlement, communicating with the scum of the world into which he so stubbornly strove.

As for Karl, he seemed to be holding some kind of sovereign 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 tsar did not avoid female society, unlike Karl (who died a virgin), but in his youth he suffered from excessive shyness. In the town of Coppenburg, he had to meet with the electors already familiar to us. They tell how the king at first never wanted to go to them. True, then, after much persuasion, he agreed, but on the condition that there were no outsiders. 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, got into a conversation, got everyone drunk in Moscow, admitted that he did not like music or hunting (though he danced diligently with the ladies, having fun from the heart, and the Moscow gentlemen took the corsets of German ladies by their ribs), and loves to sail the seas, build ships and fireworks, showed his calloused hands, which he raised by the ears and kissed the 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 for himself in it, corresponding 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 combat commander-in-chief also could not fully satisfy them. Karl, with his notions of Viking prowess, will soon prefer the glory of a commander to the glory of a reckless swordsman. Peter, leaving to conduct military operations to his generals and admirals, will take on the technical side of the war that is closer to him: recruiting, drawing up military plans, building ships and military factories, stocking up 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 an interesting paradox: Sweden, a naval power, brought up an excellent land commander who stepped on a ship almost twice in his life - when he left Sweden and when he returned there; while cut off from the seas, Russia was ruled by an unrivaled shipbuilder and skipper.

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

4.38 /5 (87.50%) 8 votes

One of the largest battles of the 18th century took place near Poltava during the Northern War on June 27, 1709 between Russian and Swedish troops. The key role in the battle, as well as the outcome of the war as a whole, was played by the commanders of each side: Peter I and Charles XII.

The chief conductors of military events, the young and pragmatic rulers of the two greatest powers of their time, understood perfectly well what was at stake in the battle of a protracted war - a crown and laurels for the winner, or loss and humiliation for the loser. The personal qualities and strategic thinking of each of the commanders during the battle distributed this con.

Tsar Peter I was always distinguished by the ability to make the right decision at a difficult moment. And the Battle of Poltava was no exception - competent maneuvers of troops, effective use of artillery, infantry and cavalry, practical implementation of the idea of \u200b\u200bredoubts - this and much more was the beginning of the end for the Swedish enemy. It is important to note that by personal example, Peter I instilled in the souls of Russian soldiers the will to win, confidence in their own strength. Prompt and firm instructions during the battle in conjunction with courageous and sometimes adventurous actions did not keep waiting for a long result - Peter's army brilliantly passed from defense to the offensive and the final defeat of the army of Charles XII.

The opposite of Peter during the battle was Charles XII. The king's short-sighted decisions and arrogant temper bled and weakened the once strongest military power. Uncertainty in their strengths and pessimistic mood on the eve of the battle could not but be transferred to the army. Broken Karl led his soldiers to certain death - the redoubts and artillery of Peter. Under the onslaught of the enemy, Karl fled, leaving his soldiers and loyal generals behind.

As a result of the confrontation between the characters of Peter I and Charles XII in the Battle of Poltava, the history of Europe received a new round - the strong army of King Charles XII no longer existed, Charles himself fled to Ottoman Empire, Sweden's military might was lost.

write an essay on the topic Poltava, comparative characteristics of Peter 1 and Karl 12

• The image of Peter I interested, carried away Pushkin all his life. Ptr I commander, patriot of his Fatherland, decisive, impetuous, ideal military leader. Ptr I acted in the name of the interests of peace and unity within the country and to strengthen it as a great power. Ptr hero. Beauty, strength, greatness, power are inherent in him. And he raced before the regiments, mighty and joyful, like a battle…. In the poem Poltava, the image of Peter is perceived as a demigod, the ruler of the historical destinies of Russia. Here is how Peter's appearance on the battlefield is described: It was then that inspired from above, Peter's resonant voice rang out.The combination of the terrible and the beautiful in the image of Peter emphasizes his superhuman features: he both admires and inspires horror with his greatness to ordinary people. His mere appearance inspired the army, brought them closer to victory. Wonderful, harmonious is this sovereign, who defeated Charles and was not proud of his luck, who knows how to treat his victory so royally: In his tent, he treats His leaders, foreign leaders, And caresses glorious captives, And raises a Zadravny cup for his teachers. The significance of the role of Peter the Great in the poem confirms
  epilogue. A hundred years after the Battle of Poltava, nothing remained of these strong, proud men .... There is only a history of a huge monument to Peter the Great. The monument is the main thing in the epilogue,
  the main thing left after the battle. Therefore, Peter the Great becomes, one might say, an ideal hero.
  The image of Peter in the poem is contrasted with the image of another commander Karl 12.
  The poet is also precise in his portrayal of Karl. The young king was a warrior by vocation. With his immense thirst for battle and courage, his personal example, he inspired his warriors. They believed in him and worshiped him.
  It was a soldier king who lived only in army, war, campaigns. He simply did not have any personal life in the proper sense of the word.
  Pushkin does not hide his personal courage, but he is waging a war of conquest, he has no progressive goals, he acts from ambitious considerations. This is how Mazepa describes Karl in his poem: he is blind, stubborn, impatient, and frivolous and arrogant. His defeat is predetermined, and Karl himself feels it. : Karla seemed to be puzzled by the Desired Battle Fallen to the highest degree military glory and greatness, wounded and tormented by grief and vexation, Karl crossed the Dnieper with Mazepa and a small retinue, and sought refuge in the Turkish Empire. But even there he did not find support. The epilogue of Poltava brings together the entire content of the poem:
  A hundred years have passed and what is left
  From these strong, proud husbands,
  Passions so full of will?
  Their generation has passed
  And with him the trail of blood disappeared
  Efforts, disasters and victories.
  The triumph of Peter's deed is embodied in historical destiny Russia, in whose name he worked; the memory of Charles XII is inextricably linked with the memory of his infamy

Speech development lesson

Comparative characteristics Peter I and Charles XII (based on an excerpt from the poem by Alexander Pushkin "Poltava").

1. Conversation on issues:

2. Reading passages depicting generals in battle:

3. Comparative portrait characteristics of two generals. Planning.

The appearance of the generals. How does Peter appear? Charles? What verbs for "appearing" does the poet use?

Portraits of heroes. What does the poet emphasize in the guise of Peter? (eyes, face, movements) What does Karl's portrait draw our attention to? (pallor, embarrassment, suffering) What means of expression create portraits of heroes?

Poses. (Peter raced on a horse, Karl was carried out on a stretcher).

Environment. How do Peter's associates appear? What verb characterizes their swiftness? What does Pushkin write about Karl's associates? What verb speaks of their movement?

Behavior in battle. Whose side is moral superiority? Who enjoys fighting the battle?

The mood of the heroes.

Can these descriptions be used to judge the author's attitude to the heroes?

4. Tell according to the plan about one of the heroes.

Homework: an oral story about one of the heroes, supported by quotes from the text.