Having started a war with the 17-year-old Swedish king as a mature 28-year-old husband, Peter found in him an enemy who, at first glance, was strikingly different in character, direction of political will, and understanding of the people's needs. A more careful examination and comparison of the circumstances of their lives, the most important personality traits, reveal much in common between them, an obvious or hidden kinship of destinies and mentalities, 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 more solid. Until the age of ten, that is, until the bloody events pushed him out of the Kremlin, Peter only managed to undergo training in 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 caught up on his own, without any plan, with the help of “doctor” Jan Timmerman (a very mediocre mathematician who had done errors, for example, in multiplication problems) and other no more knowledgeable teachers. But with a desire to learn and agility in independently acquiring knowledge, Peter was far superior to his opponent. The upbringing of the Swedish king can be called bookish-heroic, while Peter's upbringing can be called military-craft. Both sovereigns loved military fun in their youth, but Charles had an idealistic attitude towards 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 found himself 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 adopted 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. Peter's concepts and inclinations in his youth received an extremely one-sided direction. According to Klyuchevsky, his entire political thought for a long time was absorbed in the struggle with his sister and the Miloslavskys; his entire civic mood was formed from hatred and antipathy towards the clergy, boyars, archers, schismatics; soldiers, guns, fortifications, ships took the place of people, political institutions, popular needs, civil relations in his mind: The area of concepts about society and public duties, civil ethics “remained an abandoned corner in Peter’s spiritual economy for a very long time.” It is all the more surprising that the Swedish king soon disdained public and state needs for the sake of personal inclinations and sympathies, and the Kremlin outcast devoted his life to serving the Fatherland, expressing his soul in the immortal words: “And about Peter, know that life is not dear to him, if only Russia lives in bliss and glory for your well-being."
Both Charles and Peter found themselves autocratic rulers of vast empires at a very early age, and both as a result of political upheaval (in Peter's case, however, 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 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 desire to change places was equally characteristic of both: both the king and the tsar were eternal guests both abroad and at home.
Equally, they also had a tendency to unlimited rule - neither one nor the other ever doubted that they were God’s anointed and were free to dispose of the lives and property of their subjects at their own discretion. Both cruelly punished any attempt on their power, but Peter easily fell into rage and outright executioner. The personal massacre of the archers and Tsarevich Alexei are textbook examples of this. True, a noticeable difference in attitude towards his rank can be seen in the fact that Peter was not ashamed to make his own power the subject of a joke, dignifying, for example, Prince F.Yu. Romodanovsky as king, sovereign, “your most illustrious royal majesty,” and himself as “always slave and serf Piter” or simply in Russian Petrushka Alekseev. It is difficult to pinpoint the source of the passion for such buffoonery. Klyuchevsky believed that his character was prone to jokes and fun Peter inherited from his father, “who also loved to joke, although he was careful not to be a jester.” However, a comparison with similar antics of Ivan the Terrible in relation toSimeon Bekbulatovich (the name adopted after the baptism of the Kasimov Khan Sain-Bulat (? -1616); he became the nominal ruler of the Russian state since 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 distinctive feature of Peter's autocracy was the ability to listen to sound advice and retreat from his decision if, on mature reflection, it was wrong or harmful - a feature that was completely absent from Karl with his almost manic mania for infallibility and fidelity to a once made decision.
In close connection with Peter's buffoonery in relation to his rank were his obscene parodies of church ritual and hierarchy, obscene to the point of blasphemy, and these amusements were standard, dressed in clerical forms. The college 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 greatest jester, who bore the title of Prince-Pope, or the most noisy and all-joking patriarch of Moscow, Kukui and all Yauza. With him there was a conclave of 12 cardinals and other “clerical” officials who bore nicknames that, according to Klyuchevsky, would not appear in print under any censorship regulations. Peter held the rank of protodeacon in this cathedral and himself composed a charter for it. The cathedral had a special order of sacred rites, or, better said, drunken rites, “service to Bacchus and honest handling of strong drinks.” For example, a newly admitted member was asked the question: “Do you eat?”, parodying the church: “Do you believe?” At Maslenitsa 1699, the tsar organized a service to Bacchus: the patriarch, prince-pope Nikita Zotov, Peter’s former teacher, drank and blessed the guests kneeling before him, blessing them with two chibouks folded crosswise, just as bishops dodikiriem and trikiriem*; then, with a staff in his hand, the “lord” began to dance. It is characteristic that only one of those present could not stand the disgusting spectacle of Orthodox jesters - the foreign ambassador who left the meeting. In general, foreign observers were ready to see in these outrages a political and even educational tendency, supposedly directed against the Russian church hierarchy, prejudices, as well as against the vice of drunkenness, presented in a funny way. It is possible that Peter actually took out his frustration with such foolishness on 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 church rites, who loved to sing in the choir with the singers; in addition, he perfectly understood the protective significance of the Church for the state. In the meetings of the most humorous council, one can rather see the general rudeness of Russian morals of that time, the habit ingrained in Russian people of making jokes in a drunken moment about church subjects, about the clergy; Even more visible in them is the sense of permissiveness of the powerful revelers, revealing a general deep decline in church authority. Charles set a completely opposite example for his subjects; but what brought him closer to Peter was the fact that he, too, did not tolerate the clergy’s claims to authority in state affairs.
*Dikiriy, trikiriy - respectively, two or three candles that are used to bless believers in the church.
The instinct of arbitrariness entirely determined the nature of the rule of these sovereigns. They did not recognize the historical logic of social life, their actions were not consistent with an objective assessment of the capabilities of 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. Thus, Leibniz, who, at Peter’s request, developed projects for the development of education and public administration in Russia, assured the Russian Tsar that the easier it is to introduce science in Russia, the less prepared it is for this. All military and state activities of the king and tsar were guided by the thought of the necessity and omnipotence of imperious coercion. They sincerely believed that everything was subject to power, that a hero could direct people’s life in a different direction, and therefore they strained the people’s strength to the extreme, wasting human energy and lives without any frugality. The consciousness of one's own importance and omnipotence prevented one from taking other people into account, from seeing a person as a person, as an individual. 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 demonstrating justice and generosity). This trait of Peter was perfectly 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 at the same time very bad”. This definition also applies to Karl.
Peter I and Charles XII. German engraving from 1728
Their appearance matched their domineering natures and made a strong impression on others. Karl’s noble appearance bore the ancestral 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. Although he was short in 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, who carefully looked closely at the young king: “He was very tall, well-built, rather lean, with a roundish face, high forehead, beautiful eyebrows ; his nose is quite short, but not too short and somewhat thick towards the end; the lips are quite large, the complexion is reddish and dark, beautiful black eyes, large, lively, penetrating, beautifully shaped; the look is majestic and welcoming when he watches himself and restrains himself, otherwise stern and wild, with convulsions on the face that are not repeated often, but distort both the eyes and the whole face, frightening everyone present. The spasm usually lasted one moment, and then his gaze became terrible, as if confused, then everything immediately took on its normal appearance. 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 some similarities between these people are shaded 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 pompous nonsense from some envoy who introduced himself. Neither of them had delicate manners and were very fond of ease in conversation. They were characterized by ease of manners 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” robe, went out or went out in a simple caftan made of coarse cloth, which he did not like to change often; in the summer, when going out nearby, he almost never wore a hat; He usually drove a single-wheeler or a bad pair and in a convertible in which, according to a foreign eyewitness, not every Moscow merchant would dare to travel. In all of Europe, only the court of the Prussian miser king Frederick William I could compete in simplicity with that of Peter the Great (Karl, with his personal asceticism, never counted government money). The pomp with which Peter surrounded Catherine in recent years may simply have made those around her forget her too simple origins.
Peter combined this stinginess with violent intemperance in food and drink. He had some kind of indestructible 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 amazing is his passion for drinking and, most importantly, his incredible endurance in drinking wine. The first commandment of the aforementioned all-drunken order was to get drunk every day and not go to bed sober. Peter revered this commandment sacredly, devoting his evening leisure hours to cheerful gatherings over a glass of Hungarian or something stronger. During special occasions or cathedral meetings, they drank terribly, notes a contemporary. In the palace built on the Yauza, the honest company locked itself 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 trip abroad is full of entries like: “We were at home and having fun,” that is, they drank all day after midnight. In Deptford (England), Peter and his retinue were given a room in a private house near the shipyard, equipped accordingly by order of the king. After the departure of the embassy, the landlord filed an account of the damage caused by the departing guests. This inventory is a most shameful monument to drunken Russian swinishness. The floors and walls were spit on, stained with traces of fun, the furniture was broken, the curtains were torn, the pictures on the walls were used as shooting targets, the lawns in the garden were trampled down as if a whole regiment had marched there. The only, albeit weak, justification for such habits is that Peter adopted drunken morals in the German settlement, communicating with the scum of the world into which he so persistently strove.
As for Karl, he seemed to hold some kind of sovereign post and in his mature years was content with a plate of millet porridge, a loaf 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 Koppenburg he had to meet the Electors, already familiar to us. They tell how the king at first did not want to go to them. True, then, 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 ladies’ pleasantries he answered only one thing:
- I can not talk!
However, at dinner he quickly recovered, got into conversation, gave everyone a drink in Moscow style, admitted that he did not like music or hunting (however, he danced diligently with the ladies, having fun with all his heart, and the Moscow gentlemen mistook the corsets of the German ladies for their ribs), and loves to sail the seas, build ships and fireworks, showed his calloused hands, with which he lifted 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 lifestyle of both Charles and Peter, but each of them chose a role in it that corresponded to his usual activities and tastes. Interestingly, both of them abandoned the role of the sovereign-ruler, directing the actions of his subordinates from the palace. The role of a combat general-commander also could not fully satisfy them. Charles, with his concepts of Viking valor, will soon prefer the glory of a reckless fighter to the glory of a commander. Peter, having left military operations to his generals and admirals, would take on the technical side of the war that was closer to him: recruiting recruits, drawing up military plans, building ships and military factories, procuring ammunition and supplies. However, Narva and Poltava will forever remain great monuments to the military art of these crowned enemies. It is also worth noting an interesting paradox: Sweden, a maritime power, raised 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 governed by an unrivaled 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 asserted on the battlefields and could not be shaken by defeats.
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/
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 supervisor: Antidze T.N.
Novokuznetsk 2013
Introduction
1. Biography of Peter I and Charles XII
1.2 Charles XII
2. Assessments of the activities of Peter I and Charles XII
3. Reforms of Peter I
4. Beginning of the Northern War
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
Peter I and Charles XII played a large role as inspirers and symbols after their deaths. Peter, together with the people, had a huge influence not only on the subsequent historical destinies of Russia, but also partly of Europe. The personality of Peter I can be considered one of the most prominent historical figures on a global scale. Peter was more than two meters tall and was famous for his enormous capacity for work. His desire for knowledge was limitless. 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. On the initiative of Peter I, many educational institutions, the Academy of Sciences, were opened, and the civil alphabet was adopted. Being the creator of a powerful state, he achieved recognition for Russia as 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 single combat with Charles. Since the struggle between Russia and Sweden lasted from 1700 to 1721. The period should be compared with the reign of Peter, which can be designated as 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 Peter's titles and military ranks 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, mentalities, Karl and Peter were at the same time surprisingly similar. But this similarity has a special quality - in its dissimilarity from other sovereigns. To achieve such a reputation in an age when extravagant self-expression was in vogue is no easy task. But Peter and Karl eclipsed many. Their secret is simple - both did not strive for extravagance at all. They lived without any fuss, building their behavior in accordance with ideas about what should be done. Therefore, much that seemed so important and necessary to others played almost no role for them. And vice versa. Their actions were perceived by most contemporaries as eccentricities at best, and as lack of education and barbarism at worst.
The purpose of this essay is to analyze the activities of Peter I and Charles XII.
Abstract objectives:
Consider the personal characteristics of Peter I and Charles XII;
Analyze their government activities;
Consider the results of the Northern War for Russia and Sweden;
Assess the military leadership 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 any special education. Having lost his father in 1676, Peter was raised 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 “history books,” manuscripts with drawings from the palace library.
An enthusiastic and restless nature, Peter found activities for himself to which he devoted himself with the passion of an obsessed person. Three hobbies absorbed Peter's energy. One of them was an attachment to crafts. He mastered them easily, as if playfully, and in his mature years, without tension, he could perform work that was feasible for masters; he was a carpenter and mason, a blacksmith and plasterer, a shipbuilder and a shoemaker. In his youth, Peter developed another passion - military affairs. But most of all, Peter was attracted to maritime affairs. Contemporaries and descendants were always surprised how Peter, living in Preobrazhenskoye, having never seen not only the sea, but also a large lake, became so addicted to maritime affairs that it pushed all other hobbies into the background.
Peter's personal life turned out to be richer and more dramatic than Karl's personal life. Unlike his opponent, the king experienced family happiness. But he 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 the stigma of a son-killer on Peter.
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, strove to awaken energy and love of work in his subjects, encouraged them to study and pointed out the benefits of learning so that the Russians themselves could begin to develop the natural resources of vast Russia . At the same time, Peter took care of educating the people, teaching the people new, useful crafts and crafts. In addition, Peter worked tirelessly to improve the internal management of the state and to eradicate abuses in various areas. To this end, Peter undertook a whole series of transformations in Russia, affecting almost all aspects of Russian state, social and national life.
1.2 Charles XII
King Charles XII of Sweden (1697_1718) was born on June 17, 1682. Son of the Swedish King Charles XI and Queen Ulrika Eleonora, Princess of Denmark. The King of Sweden is a military leader who spent most of his reign fighting long wars in Europe. He received a good classical education and 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 a 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 XII inherited his hard work from his father, King Charles XI, who became a model of behavior for the young man. The example was consolidated through the efforts of the heir’s enlightened educators. From early childhood, the king's day was filled with work. Most often these were military concerns. But even after the end of hostilities, the king did not allow himself any relief. Karl got up very early, sorted out the papers, and then went on an inspection to the regiments or institutions.
Charles led Sweden to the pinnacle of power, bringing enormous prestige to the country 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, ultimately brought Sweden defeat and deprived it of its status as a great power.
On November 30, 1718, near Fredriksten, Charles XII, 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 by the Swedish ruling circles, dissatisfied with the ruin of the country by endless wars, and was killed in an assassination attempt.
Charles XII passed away without marrying and without leaving an heir. This resulted in new difficulties for Sweden. Charles XII became the last European monarch to fall on the battlefield.
2. Assessment of the activities of Peter I and Charles XII
The Swedish and Russian monarchs were distinguished by their hard work. Moreover, with the light hand of the Moscow sovereign, the image of a monarch was formed, whose merits were determined not by prayerful zeal and indestructible piety, but by his labors. Actually, after Peter, work was made the responsibility of a true ruler.
In the perception of contemporaries, the hard work of both sovereigns naturally had its own shades. Charles appeared before them primarily as a soldier-king, whose thoughts and works revolved around war. Peter I is the sovereign who is forced to do everything.
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 acted as a kind of perpetual engine of reforms. The king’s inexhaustible inquisitiveness, his ability to be surprised, which was not lost until his death, is surprising.
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 differences in education. It is simply incomparable - different type and focus. Charles XII's father personally developed a training and education plan for his son. The prince's teachers were some of the most intelligent officials and professors. Charles XII showed a penchant for mathematics. There was someone to develop his talent - he communicated with the best mathematicians. Against this background, Peter’s modest teachers lost greatly. And this was not enough from the point of view of future reforms. The paradox, however, was that neither Peter himself nor his teachers could even imagine what knowledge the future reformer needed. Peter was doomed by the lack of 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 systematic education, which he had to make up for through common sense and great work.
Karl and Peter were deeply religious people. Karl's religious upbringing was focused. The extraordinary tenacity and stubbornness of Karl, who did not want to accept the world under any circumstances, and its failures are only tests of strength sent by God. Peter's religiosity is devoid of Charles's fervor. It is more base, more meaningful. The Tsar believes that faith always turns to the visible benefit of the state. While remaining a deep believer, Peter did not have deep respect for the church and the church hierarchy. That is why he began to remake the church structure in the right way. With the light hand of the tsar, a period began in the history of the Russian church when the highest administration of the church was demoted to a simple department for spiritual and moral affairs under the emperor.
Both loved military affairs. The war, which completely captured Charles, played a cruel joke on him. The king very soon confused the goal and the means. And if war becomes the goal, the result is almost always sad, sometimes self-destruction. And this is what the Northern War cost the Swedes themselves, but Charles himself burned in the fire of war, and Sweden strained itself, unable to bear the burden of great power.
Unlike Karl, Peter never confused ends and means. The war and the transformations associated with it remained for him a means of elevating the country. When embarking on “peaceful” reforms after the end of the Northern War, the tsar pondered his intentions on how to inculcate military affairs.
Karl loved to take risks, usually without thinking about the consequences. Whatever episode from the life of Charles we examine, the insane courage of the hero-king and the desire to test his strength are visible everywhere. He walked under bullets without bowing.
Peter's personal life turned out to be richer and more dramatic than Karl's personal life. Unlike his opponent, the king experienced family happiness. But he 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 the stigma of a son-killer on Peter. war Swedish Russian
Having started a war with the 17-year-old Swedish king as a mature 28-year-old husband, Peter found in him an enemy who, at first glance, was strikingly different in character, direction of political will, and understanding of the people's needs. A more careful examination and comparison of the circumstances of their lives, the most important personality traits, reveal much in common between them, an obvious or hidden kinship of destinies and mentalities, which gave additional drama to their struggle.
3. Reforms of Peter I
All of Peter's state activities can be divided into two periods: 1695-1715 and 1715-1725. A feature of the first stage was haste and not always well-thought-out, which was explained by the conduct of the Northern War. The reforms were aimed primarily at raising funds for the Northern War, were carried out by force and often did not lead to the desired result. In addition to government reforms, at the first stage, extensive reforms were carried out to change the cultural way of life. In the second period, reforms were more systematic and aimed at the internal development of the state. In general, Peter's reforms were aimed at strengthening the Russian state and introducing the ruling stratum to European culture while simultaneously strengthening the absolute monarchy.
Over the course of more than 35 years of rule, he managed to carry out many reforms in the field of culture and education. Thus, the monopoly of the clergy on education was eliminated, and secular schools were opened. Under Peter, the School of Mathematical and Navigational Sciences (1701), the Medical-Surgical School (1707) - the future Military Medical Academy, the Naval Academy (1715), the Engineering and Artillery Schools (1719), and translator schools were opened. at the collegiums. In 1719, the first museum in Russian history began to operate - the Kunstkamera with a public library.
ABC books and educational maps were published, and a systematic study of the country's geography and cartography began. The spread of literacy was facilitated by the reform of the alphabet (cursive was replaced by civil script, 1708), and the publication of the first Russian printed newspaper Vedomosti (from 1703). During the era of Peter I, many buildings for state and cultural institutions, the architectural ensemble of Peterhof (Petrodvorets) were erected.
However, the Reforms of Peter I caused resistance from the boyars and clergy.
By the end of the reign of Peter I, a powerful Russian Empire was created, headed by an emperor who had absolute power. During the reforms, Russia's technical and economic lag behind European countries was overcome, access to the Baltic Sea was gained, and transformations were carried out in all spheres of life of Russian society.
4. Beginning of the Northern War
1700 - Peter realizes that the only exit to Europe for Russia is through the Baltic Sea. But the Baltic is ruled by the Swedes, led by the king and talented commander Charles XII. The king refuses to sell the Baltic lands to Russia. Realizing the inevitability of war, Peter uses a trick - he unites against Sweden with Denmark, Norway and Saxony.
For the state, gaining 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 there was irregular and very difficult, making trade difficult.
The Northern War was waged almost throughout Peter's life, then fading away, then resuming again.
Karl's love of risk is both his weakness and his strength. In fact, this character trait of Karl gave him an advantage over his opponents, since they were guided by risk-free logic. Karl appeared there and then, when and where he was not expected, and acted as no one had ever acted. A similar thing happened near Narva in November 1700.
The victory of King Charles XII of Sweden over Peter I at the Battle of Narva in 1700 marked the beginning of the Great Northern War. The invincible Swedish army had an unhindered path to Moscow. However, Charles XII, who had gained fame as a hero, suddenly stopped. For nine years the Swedish king waged grueling campaigns against less serious opponents. During this time, Peter managed to create a modern army, as well as 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.
To enter the war, Russia needed to make peace with the Ottoman Empire. After reaching a truce with the Turkish Sultan for a period of 30 years, Russia declared war on Sweden on August 19, 1700, under the pretext of avenging an insult to Tsar Peter.
The main causes of 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 gain new lands
· Merchants needed access to the seas to develop trade
The attempt to capture the Narva fortress ended with the defeat of the Russian army. On November 30, 1700, Charles XII and his soldiers attacked the camp of the Russian troops, and completely defeated the fragile Russian army. Considering that Russia was sufficiently weakened, Charles XII left for Livonia.
However, Peter, hastily reorganizing the army, resumed hostilities. Already in 1702 (October 11 (22)), Russia captured the Noteburg fortress (renamed Shlisselburg), and in the spring of 1703, the Nyenschanz fortress at the mouth of the Neva. Here, on May 16 (27), 1703, the construction of St. Petersburg began, and on the island of Kotlin the base of the Russian fleet was located - the Kronshlot fortress (later Kronstadt). The exit to the Baltic Sea was breached. In 1704, Narva and Dorpat 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 their possessions in continental Europe. However, thanks to Sweden's dominance at sea, the Northern War dragged on. The Baltic Fleet was just being created by Russia, but managed to win its first victory in the Battle of Gangut in the summer of 1714. In 1716, Peter led a united fleet from Russia, England, Denmark and Holland, but due to disagreements in the Allied camp, it was not possible to organize an attack on Sweden.
As Russia's 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. The Swedish queen Ulrika Eleonora resumed the war, hoping for help from England. On August 30 (September 10), 1721, the Peace of Nystad was concluded between Russia and Sweden, ending the 21-year war. Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea.
Thus, as a result of Peter’s foreign policy, Russia from a weak and almost unknown country turned into an empire firmly positioned on the shores of the Baltic Sea. The army raised by Peter did not know defeat in major 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 Synod decided to present Peter with the title of Emperor of All Russia. On October 22 (November 2), 1721, Peter I accepted the title, not just an honorary one, but indicating a new role for Russia in international affairs.
But the price 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, and perished in the swamps during the construction of St. Petersburg. The transformations and conquests of Peter, which 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, or a pragmatist who stood firmly on the ground and preferred real rather than illusory goals. Karl acted as an idealist in this dispute and lost, since his idea of punishing, in spite of everything, treacherous opponents from an absolute turned into an 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 his talent, contributed greatly to reforms in Russia and the formation of Peter as a statesman. This required incredible efforts by Peter and Russia. Had Sweden ceded earlier, and who knows how strong the formation of reforms and imperial ambitions of the Russian Tsar would have been? Karl, for all his skills in winning battles and losing wars, was a worthy rival to Peter.
Literature
1. Russian history. Full course of lectures in 3 books. Book 2. - M.: Mysl, 1993, p. 458.
2. Pavlenko N.I. Peter the Great and his time: textbook. - 2nd ed., additional - M.: Enlightenment, 1989. - 175 p.
3.Belikov K.S. History of Russia: textbook / K.S. Belikov, S.E. Berezhnoy, M.N. Mole - 3rd ed., add. and processed. - Rostov-on-Don.: Phoenix, 2005.- 351 p.
4. Tsvetkov S.E. Charles XII. The last Viking. 1682 - 1718 / S.E. Tsvetkov. -M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2005. - 79 p.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
History of the time of Charlemagne. The rise of the Carolingian Empire. Beneficial reform and Charles Martell. Charlemagne's rise to power. Childhood and youth of Charlemagne. Wars and internal politics of Charlemagne. Formation of the state under Charlemagne.
abstract, added 01/05/2009
Childhood. First training. Azov campaigns. Fleet development. Grand Embassy. Internal and political events after the “Great Embassy” and before the start of the Northern War. Reforms of Peter the Great: church reforms, duty on pants.
abstract, added 03/15/2006
Childhood and youth of Peter I. The beginning of military reforms, the Crimean campaigns and stages of army reform. Internal and political events from the beginning of the Northern War to the Peace of Nystad. Expansion of noble privileges. "Decree on Single Inheritance" and "Table of Ranks".
abstract, added 04/13/2014
Formation of the empire of Charlemagne. Fundamentals of the functioning of Charlemagne's control system. Wars of the Franks and their influence on the way of life of the peoples of the Frankish Empire. Characteristics of historical figures of the Carolingian era. Church in the empire of Charlemagne.
thesis, added 05/07/2012
Sources of law on the prerequisites for the emergence and development of the Empire of Charlemagne. System of organization of power and form of government; evolution of the Frankish state apparatus; controls. Domestic and foreign policy of Charlemagne; reasons for the collapse.
course work, added 11/20/2012
Biography and features of the formation of the personality of Peter I. Prerequisites, stages and outcome of the Northern War. Foreign, economic and social policy, reforms of the army and government bodies, transformations in the sphere of culture and everyday life during the reign of Peter the Great.
abstract, added 11/23/2009
Peter's childhood. Peter's crowning. "Khovanshchina". Peter in Preobrazhenskoye. Peter's innovations. Peter the diplomat. Peter's engineering interests. The place and role of Russia in international relations. An emperor woven from contradictions.
abstract, added 11/28/2006
The reasons for the start of the Northern War, the course of events. Victories and defeats of Peter, Mazepa and Charles. The main task of Peter the Great's foreign policy at the end of the 17th century. Conclusion of the Northern Alliance in 1699 with the King of Poland. The defeat of the Swedes near Poltava, the history of events.
abstract, added 01/10/2013
Beginning of the reign of Charlemagne. Karl's personality and appearance. A long and fierce war with the Saxons: murders, robberies and fires. Karl's wives and children. The politics of Charlemagne, the results of his reign. The period of feudal fragmentation of the state.
presentation, added 04/05/2015
A study of the life path and state activities of Peter I the Great - the Russian Tsar and the first Russian Emperor, the creator of the Russian fleet, commander and diplomat, who managed to carry out the most radical transformations (reforms) in the history of Russia.
write an essay on the topic of Poltava, a comparative description of Peter 1 and Charles 12
- The image of Peter I interested and fascinated Pushkin all his life. Peter I is a commander, a patriot of his Fatherland, a decisive, impetuous, ideal military leader. Peter I acted in the name of the interests of peace and unity within the country and its strengthening as a great power. Ptr hero. He is characterized by beauty, strength, greatness, power. And he rushed in front of the shelves, powerful and joyful, like battle... In the poem Poltava, the image of Peter is perceived as a demigod, the arbiter of the historical destinies of Russia. This is how the appearance of Peter on the battlefield is described: Then, inspired from above, the sonorous voice of Peter was heard. The combination of the terrible and the beautiful in the image of Peter emphasizes his superhuman features: he both delights and inspires horror with his greatness in ordinary people. His very appearance inspired the army and brought them closer to victory. Beautiful, harmonious is this sovereign, who defeated Charles and is not proud of his luck, who knows how to treat his victory in such a royal way: In his tent he treats his leaders, the leaders of strangers, and caresses the glorious captives, and raises a healthy cup for his teachers. The significance of the role of Peter the Great in the poem is confirmed by
epilogue. A hundred years after the Battle of Poltava, nothing remained of these strong, proud men... All that remains is the history of the huge monument to Peter the Great. The monument is the main thing in the epilogue,
the main thing is what remains 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, Charles 12.
The poet is also accurate in his depiction of Karl. The young king was a warrior by vocation. With his immense thirst for battle and courage, and personal example, he inspired his warriors. They believed in him and worshiped him.
He was a soldier-king who lived only by the army, war, and 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 for ambitious reasons. This is how Mazepa describes Karl in the poem: he is blind, stubborn, impatient, and frivolous and arrogant. His defeat is predetermined, and Karl himself feels it. : It seemed that Charles was perplexed by the desired battle. Having fallen from the highest degree of military glory and greatness, wounded and tormented by grief and annoyance, Charles 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 the entire content of the poem together:
A hundred years have passed and what remains?
From these strong, proud men,
So full of willful passions?
Their generation has passed
And with it the bloody trail disappeared
Efforts, disasters and victories.
The triumph of Peter’s work is embodied in the historical fate of Russia, in whose name he worked; the memory of Charles XII is inextricably linked with the memory of his infamy
(1 option)
A.S. Pushkin appreciates Peter I for his ability to make the right decision. In 1828, A.S. Pushkin wrote the poem “Poltava”, in which, along with a love, romantic plot, he developed a historical storyline related to the socio-political problems of Russia during Peter’s time. Historical figures of that time appear in the work: Peter I, Charles XII, Kochubey, Mazepa. The poet characterizes each of these heroes as an independent personality. A. S. Pushkin is primarily interested in the behavior of the heroes during the Poltava battle, a turning point for Russia.
Comparing the two main participants in the Battle of Poltava, Peter I and Charles XII, the poet pays special attention to the role played by the two great commanders in the battle. The appearance of the Russian Tsar before the decisive battle is beautiful, he is all in motion, in the feeling of the upcoming event, he is the action itself:
...Peter comes out. His eyes
They shine. His face is terrible.
He's like God's thunderstorm.
With his personal example, Peter inspires Russian soldiers, he feels his involvement in the common cause, therefore, when characterizing the hero A.S. Pushkin uses verbs of motion:
And he rushed in front of the shelves,
Powerful and joyful, like battle.
He devoured the field with his eyes...
The complete opposite of Peter is the Swedish king, Charles XII, who portrays only a semblance of a commander:
Carried by faithful servants,
In a rocking chair, pale, motionless,
Suffering from a wound, Karl appeared.
The entire behavior of the Swedish king speaks of his bewilderment and embarrassment before the battle; Charles does not believe in victory, does not believe in the power of example:
Suddenly with a weak wave of the hand
He moved his regiments against the Russians.
The outcome of the battle is predetermined by the behavior of the commanders. Describing two military leaders in the poem “Poltava”, A.S. Pushkin characterizes two types of commanders: the phlegmatic Swedish king, Charles XII, who cares only about his own benefit, and the most important participant in the events, ready for the decisive battle, and subsequently the main winner of the Battle of Poltava, the Russian Tsar Peter the Great. Here A.S. Pushkin appreciates Peter I for his military victories, for his ability to make the only right decision at a difficult moment for Russia.
(Option 2)
The images of the two emperors in the poem “Poltava” are contrasted with each other. Peter and Karl have already met:
Severe was in the science of glory
She was given a teacher: not one
An unexpected and bloody lesson
The Swedish paladin asked her.
But everything has changed, and with anxiety and anger Charles XII sees before him
No longer upset clouds
The unfortunate Narva fugitives,
And a string of shiny, slender regiments,
Obedient, fast and calm.
In addition to the author, both emperors are characterized by Mazepa, and if A.S. Pushkin describes Peter and Karl during and after the battle, then Mazepa recalls their past and prophesies their future. Peter, in order not to make an enemy, did not have to humiliate his dignity by pulling Mazepa’s mustache. Mazepa calls Karl “a lively and brave boy”, lists well-known facts from the life of the Swedish emperor (“jumping to the enemy for dinner”, “responding to a bomb with laughter”, “exchanging a wound for a wound”), and yet “it is not for him to fight with autocratic giant." “Autocratic giant” - Peter, leading Russian troops into battle. The characterization given to Karl by Mazepa would be more suitable for a young man than for an eminent commander: “He is blind, stubborn, impatient, // Both frivolous and arrogant...”, “a warlike tramp.” The main mistake of the Swedish emperor, from Mazepa’s point of view, is that he underestimates the enemy, “he only measures the enemy’s new strength by his past success.”
Pushkin's Karl is still “mighty”, “brave”, but then “a battle broke out”, and two giants collided. Peter comes out of the tent “surrounded by a crowd of favorites,” his voice is loud.
… His eyes
They shine. His face is terrible.
The movements are fast. He is beautiful,
He's like God's thunderstorm.
It's coming. They bring him a horse.
A faithful horse is zealous and humble.
Feeling the fatal fire,
Trembling. He looks askance with his eyes
And rushes in the dust of battle,
Proud of the powerful rider.
How unlike the heroic portrait of Peter before the battle Karl’s description is.
Carried by faithful servants,
In a rocking chair, pale, motionless,
Suffering from a wound, Karl appeared.
The hero's leaders followed him.
He quietly sank into thought.
He portrayed an embarrassed look
Extraordinary excitement.
It seemed that Karl was brought
The desired fight is at a loss...
Suddenly with a weak wave of the hand
He moved his regiments against the Russians.
Only the last two lines, breaking the picture, the rhythm, speak of how dangerous and unpredictable this person is, how much strength and threat is hidden in Karl. Peter is powerful and joyful, Karl is pale and motionless, but both are in anticipation of a fight. Next to the Russian emperor there are “chicks of Petrov’s nest”, with the Swedish one – “the leaders of the hero”. During the battle everything was mixed up: “Swede, Russian - stabbing, chopping, cutting.” The leaders, who started the battle so differently, behave the same in the heat of battle: “Among the anxiety and excitement // The calm leaders look at the battle, // The military movements follow...”. But the moment of victory is already close, and the Swedes are broken.
Peter is feasting. Both proud and clear
And his gaze is full of glory.
And his royal feast is wonderful.
At the calls of his troops,
In his tent he treats
Our leaders, the leaders of others,
And caresses the glorious captives,
And for your teachers
The healthy cup is raised.
One of Peter's teachers was Charles XII. Where is he? How does a teacher react when defeated by his student?
Danger is imminent and evil
Grant power to the king.
He wounded his grave
Forgot. Hanging my head,
He gallops, we are driven by the Russians...
“A hundred years have passed,” but are these strong and proud men remembered? “In the citizenship of the northern power, // In its warlike destiny, //...you erected, hero of Poltava, // A huge monument to yourself.” And Karl?
Three sunken in the ground
And moss-covered steps
They say about the Swedish king.
The heroes of Narva and Poltava could tell a lot about glory and defeat, poets will tell, read and remember for many generations of readers.
The uniqueness of Alexander Pushkin lies in the sophistication of his style, ideological depth and, of course, the versatility of the themes of his works. As children, readers become acquainted with his fairy tales, and as adults they learn the wonderful world of deep lyrical and epic poems and poems. Pushkin was interested in the history of his state, its formation, so he could not ignore the great reformer Tsar, Peter I. It was he who became the central character of his poem "".
The work is based on the image of the main battle near Poltava during the Russian-Swedish war. Against the backdrop of historical events, the characters of the main characters - Peter and Charles, the Swedish king - are revealed. It is in the comparison of these two important historical figures that the key to understanding exactly this ending of the battle near Poltava lies.
– winner, – loser. But why did it turn out this way and not otherwise? The author gradually reveals the images of the heroes, providing an answer to this question.
The poet speaks unflatteringly about the Swedish ruler, portraying him as a “warlike vagabond.” During the war, Karl plots a dangerous intrigue - he moves the action to Ukraine and enlists the help of the Ukrainian hetman.
"Crowded with useless glory,
Brave Karl glided over the abyss."
The king's glory turns out to be useless, because it is not confirmed by his valor. Karl is brave, which the author does not hide, but he is reckless. He “slides over the abyss,” that is, he exposes his army to unjustified risks, plotting to destroy the young Russian power. Karl is an adventurer who dreams of military glory. For the sake of victory, he is capable of any base act. He enters into a conspiracy with, realizing that the Russian Tsar trusts him.
Peter is depicted completely differently in the poem. Pushkin idealizes the reformer tsar, endowing him with the best qualities of a ruler and a person. Unlike Karl, he acts for the benefit of the state and the people, and not for personal interests. Without wanting fame, he gets it.
In the description of Peter one can find an oxymoron: “terrible - wonderful.” The author emphasizes that Peter was merciless towards the enemy - “his face is terrible.” But he served as an example for his soldiers, he always fought on an equal footing with them, which is why he seems wonderful to them. After the battle, having defeated Charles, the Russian Tsar arranges a great feast. And in this time of peace, he already shows other positive qualities - generosity, mercy. He sincerely thanks his soldiers and allies, and also shows leniency towards prisoners.
However, the author still points out one mistake of Peter. He trusted Ivan Mazepa very much, as a representative of the new nobility, and therefore did not trust Kochubey, who was loyal to him. Having survived the betrayal, Peter becomes a wiser ruler.
Comparing these historical figures in the poem "Poltava", Pushkin emphasized the nobility of the Russian Tsar Peter and the meanness of the Swedish King Charles. For the poet, the victory of Peter I is a triumph of justice.