The writer Anton Blagin voiced a version according to which St. Petersburg was not founded by Peter I. His goal was only to hide the fact that this ancient ancient city existed in Russia …
“The first person who read this article asked me a question: What is the practical meaning of this work?
As an answer to this question, I will quote the words of Pyotr Stolypin (1862-1911), who was killed in Kiev and who held the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire in the last years of his life. He said this:
"A people who do not know their history is the manure on which other peoples grow."
So, in order for us to stop being dung for someone, we must finally learn our true history and reveal one secret, carefully hidden from century to century, associated with Peter I and the city on the Neva - St. Petersburg.
I will say right away that the first Russian emperor Peter I (1672-1725) did not just appear on the historical stage as a reformer of Russia and it is not by chance that even during his lifetime, many in Russia talked about replacing one Peter (the son of the second Russian tsar from the Romanov family) with another Peter, foreign, of an unknown family.
By the way, disputes about the tribal origin of the “other” Peter I, who went down in Russian history as a great reformer and builder of the city of St. Petersburg, do not subside to this day, because it is really unclear whose blood flowed in his veins. and the portraits of his family, Russian by blood, Peter I was not unambiguous!
Promotional video:
Portraits of the first Russian emperor Peter I, his second wife Catherine I and daughters Elizabeth and Anna:
There are no Russians, Slavs, with such faces as we see in these portraits! Whose blood were Peter I, his second wife Catherine the First and their daughters? - this question remains open to this day.
As for the stormy reformatory activities of Peter I, today we know only one thing thoroughly: Peter I was literally replaced by another person, or he was “as if replaced” (delve into the meanings of the words of the Russian language!) August 1698.
Contemporaries noted, who saw and knew Peter I before, that he changed very much externally, but even more, beyond recognition, he changed internally.
Even before returning to Moscow from a trip abroad, directly from London, the 26-year-old Tsar of All Russia gave a written order to imprison his lawful wife Evdokia Lopukhina, Russian by origin, in the Suzdal Intercession Monastery, whom he married at the age of 16.
There is interesting information about the first wife of Peter I: “Evdokia Lopukhina went down in history as the last Russian wife of the Russian tsar. And all subsequent Russian emperors also took only foreign women as their wives, which is why there was less and less Russian blood in the veins of their heirs."
A very curious touch in the history of the Russian state, isn't it?
Now let's move on to considering the most interesting cases of Peter and the history of St. Petersburg.
It is known that on July 31, 1698, staying in Rava (Russian), Peter I met with the King of the Commonwealth August II. “The communication between the two monarchs, who were almost the same age, lasted for three days. The result was a personal friendship and an alliance against Sweden. The final secret treaty with the Saxon Elector and the Polish king was concluded on November 1, 1699. According to him, August II was supposed to start a war against Sweden by invading Livonia. "(Encyclopedic article" The Great Embassy ").
Reference: for the first time in the documents Rava-Russkaya was mentioned in the 15th century. In 1455 the Belzian and Mazovian prince Vladislav named a small settlement on the Rata river after his Mazovian possession, with the addition of the word “Russian” to distinguish it from Rava Mazovia, now located in Poland.
In other words, during that meeting with Augustus II, Peter I concluded a secret agreement with him, according to which, upon the return of the tsar of all Russia to Moscow, they would jointly start a war against Sweden, in order to achieve some of their interests in this war.
And shortly before that, on July 14, 1698, the 26-year-old Peter I met with the 58-year-old Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (also the ruler of Austria) Leopold I (from the Habsburg family). We can only guess about the details of that meeting, but the political steps that the young Tsar of All Russia took upon his return to Moscow are interesting.
On the collage: Leopold I & Peter I (in their youth they looked like brothers) and the coat of arms of the Holy Roman Empire, which later became the coat of arms of the Russian Empire too.
So, returning to Moscow from the foreign embassy, Peter I considered it important for himself to immediately strike a crushing blow on everything Russian, primarily on Russian history and tradition.
Why and why?
Well, Peter I did not like Russians, that is why he wanted to turn Russia into a semblance of a European state, and most of all - into a semblance of the Holy Roman Empire. In addition, during a foreign tour in Europe, 26-year-old Peter I was explained (most likely Leopold I did it) that he has every chance of turning from “Tsar of All Russia” into “Emperor of the Russian Empire” if he takes a number of correct steps.
Which ones?
Presumably, Peter I was explained this.
By that time, on the coast of the Gulf of Finland, on the territory controlled by the 18-year-old Swedish king Charles XII, there was already a small antique city with stone buildings, partially submerged by the icy waters, the very existence of which did not give rest to the powers that be.
For world history, this ancient city, first swallowed up by water, and then liberated, was the same artifact that could not be hidden anywhere, like the ancient Egyptian pyramids. Most of all, the "powerful of this world" were worried that it stood on the primordially Russian land! It was an ancient city built by the Russians! And by its existence, it proved the centuries-old, and maybe many-thousand-year-old Russian history!
These two-century-old drawings depict a part of the territory of Vasilievsky Island adjacent to the Bolshaya Neva embankment (Lieutenant Schmidt embankment) between the 25th and 19th lines. Apparently, the draftsman documented not Peter's new buildings, but the remains of an ancient stone city, where, along with the ruined buildings, there were relatively intact ones.
This engraving by Alexei Fedorovich Zubov (1682 - 1751), the artist of Peter the Great, depicts the entry of Swedish ships into the Neva on September 9, 1714 after the victory at Gangut. The inscription on the engraving "Vasilievsky Island at St. Petersburg." The artist painted in detail a stone embankment and numerous high-rise buildings on the engraving. At the same time, the official history claims that only 11 years ago there was nothing on this place! This, they say, was built by Peter I, who had only 40,000 troops for the war with Sweden …
And this century-old photograph captures the building of the Hermitage, the first floor of which, despite the fact that this building, as historians assure, is quite recent, turned out to be deep underground!
These "mighty of this world", interested in the fact that all such artifacts never speak, and visited in his foreign tour 26-year-old Russian Tsar Peter I.
»An interesting fact is the composition of the Russian embassy that went to Europe. The number of those accompanying the king was 20 people, while the embassy was headed by Alexander Menshikov. And the returned embassy consisted, with the exception of Menshikov, only of Dutch citizens! Moreover, the embassy went to Europe together with the tsar for two weeks, as expected, and returned only a year later …
The archers - the guards and elite of the Russian tsarist army - suspected that something was wrong. The outbreak of the streltsy revolt was brutally suppressed by Peter. But the archers were the most advanced and efficient military units that faithfully served the Russian tsars. Sagittarius became hereditary, which indicates the highest level of these units.
It is characteristic that the scale of the destruction of the archers was more global than according to official sources. At that time, the number of archers reached 20 thousand people, and after the suppression of the rifle revolt by the government of Peter I, the Russian army was left without infantry, after which a new set of recruits was made and the army was completely reorganized. A notable fact is that in honor of the suppression of the Streltsy revolt, a commemorative medal was issued with inscriptions in Latin, which had never been used before in minting coins and medals in Russia, but was used in the Holy Roman Empire."
On the left is the medal of Peter I "Suppression of the Strelets Riot, 1698", on the right, for comparison, the medal of Leopold I.
By the way, another interesting detail about the story of the archers' riot.
“In March 1698, 175 archers from 4 rifle regiments who participated in the Azov campaigns of Peter I in 1695-1696, summoned by Princess Sofya Alekseevna (sister of Peter I and daughter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich), appeared in Moscow urgently. Sofia Alekseevna claimed that Peter I was not her brother …
On April 4, 1698, the soldiers of the Semyonovsky regiment were sent against the archers, who, with the assistance of the townspeople, "drove" the rebellious archers from the capital. The archers returned to their shelves, where fermentation began.
On June 6, the archers removed their commanders, elected 4 electives in each regiment and headed towards Moscow. The insurgents (2,200 people) intended to elevate Princess Sophia to the throne or, in case of her refusal, V. V. Golitsyn, who was in exile.
The government sent the Preobrazhensky, Semyonovsky, Lefortovsky and Butyrsky regiments (about 4,000 people) and the noble cavalry under the command of A. S. Shein, General P. Gordon and Lieutenant General Prince I. M. Koltsov-Mosalsky against the archers.
On June 14, after a review on the Khodynka River, the regiments left Moscow. On June 17, ahead of the archers, A. I. Repnin occupied the New Jerusalem (Resurrection) monastery. On June 18, 40 versts west of Moscow, the rebels were defeated.
In the battle at the Resurrection Monastery on the part of the Government, participated:
Butyrsky regiment - General P. Gordon
"Battalion" of the Preobrazhensky Regiment - Major Nikolai von Salm
"Battalion" (6 companies) of the Semyonovsky regiment - half-colonel I. I. Angler
Lefortovo regiment - Colonel Yu. S. Lim
Artillery under the command of Colonel de Grague (Grange)."
As you can see, the names of the commanders of the government troops are clearly not Russian.
It turns out that a non-Russian head in the form of Peter I and foreigners loyal to him was put on the body of the state-forming Russian people …
After the suppression of the rebellion of the Streltsy, Peter I considered it important to reform the Russian calendar, which resulted in the fact that the Slavs had 5508 years of their history cut off and the next 7208 summer became 1700.
Peter I also replaced the Slavic word "new year" with the "New Year" ("Happy New Year!"), Invented by him, and the ancient Russian holiday "Christmas of the Sun", celebrated for centuries in Russia on December 25, 3 days after the winter solstice, he replaced for the holiday "Christmas of Christ".
If you think about the words "Happy New Year!", Then these words of congratulation (and the spelling of the word "Year" with a capital letter) is nothing more than a blasphemous congratulation invented especially for the Slavs by Peter I "HAPPY NEW GOD!" In German, God is Gott, in English God is God, as well as in a number of other languages. So it turns out that in the now widely known expression "Happy New Year!" the blasphemous meaning was originally embedded - "With a New God!" (instead of the old god, Slavic - Yarila!). That is why this word "Year" was written with a capital letter!
The logic of such a mockery of the consciousness of a Russian person is also curious. The original winter Russian holiday "Christmas of the Sun" (born from the Mother of God-Heaven and the Holy Spirit according to ancient Slavic mythology), celebrated in Russia from time immemorial on December 25, was replaced by the "Nativity of Christ" (born from the Jewish Virgin Mary and the "Holy Spirit" in the form dove, according to Jewish legend).
The reformer or reformers (perhaps Peter I took this step not alone, but with the “patriarch of all Russia”), were guided by the following considerations: “We will assume that the legendary Christ was also born on December 25, just on the day when the Slavs celebrate the holiday "Christmas of the Sun", but on that day it was not yet circumcised according to the Jewish tradition, as befits a Jew! For Jews, circumcision is done on the 8th day from birth. Therefore, by December 25 it is necessary to add another 7 days, and then in the afternoon the birth of the God-man Christ turns out exactly - January 1! ".
8 days: December - 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, January - 1. The Jews think so. December 25 is considered the first day, January 1 - the 8th day.
And after the Petrine reform it became like this:
And so it was (testimony of 1865):
Almost simultaneously with these steps, Peter I, returning from the "Great Embassy", began to prepare for a war with Sweden. It was necessary to fight for Russia's access to the Baltic Sea, and for the future title of Emperor of the Russian Empire, which Peter I acquired in 1721 after the end of the 21-year Northern War with Sweden, which began in 1700.
Historical note: “In 1699, the“Northern Alliance”was created against the Swedish king Charles XII, which, in addition to Russia, included Denmark, Saxony and the Commonwealth, led by the Saxon Elector and the Polish king August II. The driving force of the union was the desire of August II to take away from Sweden Livonia. For help, he promised Russia the return of lands that used to belong to the Russians (Ingermanlandia, which was located within the boundaries of today's Leningrad region, and Karelia)."
The latter is an important fact!
In other words, during a long trip abroad, Peter I had an idea (a friend threw in, only which, August II or Leopold I?) To take away by force from the young 18-year-old Swedish king Charles XII that part of the land that once, historically belonged to the Russians.
Modern geographic map showing the border of Russia:
And when this historically Russian land was conquered by Peter I from the Swedish king Charles XII, he laid in 1703 on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, allegedly from scratch, a new city of St. Petersburg.
This is how many historians tell about it, including Wikipedia:
“For Russia to enter the war, it was necessary to conclude peace with the Ottoman Empire. After reaching an armistice with the Turkish Sultan for a period of 30 years, Russia on August 19 (30), 1700 declared war on Sweden under the pretext of revenge for the insult shown to Tsar Peter I in Riga …
The beginning of the war for Peter I was discouraging: the newly recruited army (after the riot of the archers), handed over to the Saxon field marshal Duke de Croa, was defeated near Narva on November 19 (30), 1700.
Considering that Russia was weakened enough, Charles XII left with his troops to Livonia in order to direct all forces against August II.
However, Peter I, continuing the army reforms on the European model, resumed hostilities. Already in the fall of 1702, in the presence of the tsar, the Russian army captured the Noteburg fortress (renamed Shlisselburg), in the spring of 1703 - the Nyenskans fortress at the mouth of the Neva. Here on May 16 (27), 1703, the construction of St. Petersburg began, and on the Kotlin Island the base of the Russian fleet - the fortress of Kronshlot (later Kronshtadt) was located."
Now I propose to delve deeper into the description of the "Northern War" that Peter I waged against Sweden for as much as 21 years, and perhaps then the reader will understand that historians are simply fooling him with their words …
“On August 18, 1700, Peter received the news of the conclusion of the Constantinople Peace Treaty with the Turks and on August 19 (30), not yet knowing about Denmark's withdrawal from the war, he declared war on Sweden, and on August 24 (September 3), Russian troops launched an offensive campaign. According to the treaty of alliance with August II, Russia was to withdraw Ingermanlandia (otherwise “Swedish Ingria”) - a territory roughly corresponding to the present Leningrad region. On the border between Ingermanland and Estland there was a large city and the largest Swedish fortress in the region - Narva, which became the main target of the Russian commanders.
The campaign to Narva was not organized well, in the fall: the soldiers were systematically malnourished, the horses carrying equipment were fed so poorly that by the end of the campaign they began to die, and in addition, due to the rains that began and the poor condition of the roads, the wagons regularly broke down at the convoy. Peter I planned to concentrate over 60 thousand soldiers near Narva, but the slow pace of the army's advance towards Narva frustrated the tsar's timelines and plans. In the end, the siege of Narva began only on October 14 (25) by forces, according to various estimates, from 34 thousand to 40 thousand soldiers.
The siege of Narva was also poorly organized. The shelling of the city from cannons was ineffective due to the fact that the Russian army used too light weapons, moreover, the ammunition was enough for only two weeks. Narva was actually a double fortress together with neighboring Ivangorod, and Peter I, who personally planned the siege, was forced to greatly stretch the Russian troops, surrounding both fortresses at the same time. This unfortunate disposition of the Russian troops subsequently negatively affected their combat effectiveness during the subsequent battle of Narva.
Meanwhile, August II, having learned about the imminent withdrawal of Denmark from the war, lifted the siege of Riga and retreated to Courland, which allowed Charles XII to transfer part of his army by sea to Pernov (Pärnu). Having landed there on October 6, he headed towards Narva, besieged by Russian troops. Peter I, together with Field Marshal Count Golovin, left the army on the night of November 18 and went to Novgorod. The highest command of the army was entrusted by the tsar, the senior in the rank - a foreigner, the Duke de Croix.
On November 19 (30), 1700, the army of Charles XII of 25 thousand people inflicted a heavy defeat on the Russian army, according to various estimates, from 34 to 40 thousand people in the battle of Narva. The Duke de Croix, with his headquarters, also consisting of foreigners, surrendered to Charles XII even before the decisive moment of the battle.
By November 21 (December 2), the main part of the Russian army, which, after all the losses, still outnumbered the Swedish, surrendered by order of the Duke de Croix. The Preobrazhensky Life Guards and Semyonovsky Life Guards regiments staunchly defended themselves against the Swedes, who not only managed to avoid the shameful surrender themselves, but also covered the withdrawal of a part of the Russian army, thereby saving it from complete defeat. For the courage shown in this battle, the soldiers of the regiment in 1700-1740. wore red stockings (in memory of the fact that "in this battle they stood knee-deep in blood").
The results of the campaign for the Russian side were disastrous: the losses in killed, mortally wounded, drowned, deserted and died of hunger and frost ranged from 8 thousand to 10 thousand people, 700 people, including 10 generals and 56 officers, were captured, was lost 179 of 184 guns.
Among the reasons for the defeat of the Russian army are the following: poor preparedness for war (the Russian army was in the stage of reorganization) with a strong enemy; the troops did not know how to fight according to the rules of linear tactics, conduct reconnaissance, were poorly armed; the artillery was outdated and multi-caliber (at that time there were more than 25 different calibers in artillery, which in many respects made it difficult to supply artillery with ammunition) and, most importantly, the Russian army did not have its own national command staff, all the main command posts were foreign officers.
After this defeat for several years in Europe, the opinion about the complete incapacity of the Russian army was established, and Charles XII received the nickname of the Swedish "Alexander the Great". After the defeat at Narva, Peter I limited the number of foreign officers in the army. They could account for only 1/3 of the total number of officers in the unit.
The defeat at Narva played a huge role in the development of the Russian army and the history of the country. As the historian M. N. Pokrovsky pointed out, all Russia's interests in the war were reduced to trade, to conquering an outlet to the sea and gaining control over the commercial ports in the Baltic. Therefore, from the very beginning of the war, Peter took the Baltic ports of Narva and Riga under special sight, but having suffered a crushing defeat near Narva and being thrown back to the area of present-day St. Petersburg, he decided to build a new port and city at the mouth of the Neva, the future capital of the Russian Empire."
So, not being able to really fight, having at that time only a 40 thousandth army, (and what is 40 thousand people for the king of all Russia?), Unable even to recapture Ivangorod from the Swedes, founded in the spring of 1492 by the Moscow prince Ivan III Once, in order for Russia to have its own seaport in the Baltic, Peter I eagerly proceeds to create a new city from scratch and after 8 years declares it the capital of Russia!
Don't you think this is at least strange?
Do not you think that in this intention of Peter the Great to build a new capital of Russia on the shores of the Gulf of Finland there is a certain "second bottom", "a certain secret", which the official history is silent about …
What's the secret?
Let's say that Peter I wanted Russia to have access to the Baltic Sea, and therefore he deposed the status of the capital from Moscow and entrusted this status to the newly built city.
Agree, somehow frivolous. Well, it would be just a port city, like Ivangorod, why did the capital have to be moved ?!
There is only one explanation for this phenomenon: the "powerful of this world", whom the Russian tsar visited during his foreign tour or who (according to another version) replaced the son of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov - Peter I - with their own man, inspired him that he might one day become a great emperor, like the mighty emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but for this you need to do one little thing connected with the "northern capital of Russia": everyone must believe that the "king of all Russia" built a new stone city with a complex architecture practically from scratch!
As a result, through the efforts of Peter I, and his followers of the emperors and empresses, and Western historians who served them and wrote the history of the Russian State for us, RUSSIAN HISTORY WAS DISTORTED AND IZOLGAN, as the first Russian academician Mikhailo Lomonosov later wrote and said, for which almost paid with his life.
Well, Peter I, for his great zeal, received the title of "Emperor of All Russia" in 1721, as the engraving of the court artist Fyodor Zubov eloquently testifies to us:
Who was Peter the Great's "godfather" is not hard to guess when looking at this engraving, where the Roman commander lays the imperial crown on the head of Peter I. This “godfather” could only be the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Leopold I, whose coat of arms was copied for Russia by “Peter the Great”, changing only the attributes of power on the image of the Russian coat of arms:
The opinion of an independent historian and just a very observant person, Andrei Kadykchansky:
Peter. For me it is mysterious not so much by its appearance as by its inexplicable oblivion. It is quite obvious that it is the same antediluvian, antique city, like all those cities that Europe attributes to the achievements of their own ancestors. It is incomprehensible how it was possible to inspire the whole world that the whole Mediterranean is antiquity, the cradle of world civilization, and Petersburg is only some three hundred years old?
Historians argue that Peter I thus introduced "wild, dark, uneducated, downtrodden" Russia to the achievements of the "great Western civilization." But we now know that the Russians did not always sigh with awe at the Snickers and Marlboros. This model of behavior was introduced into the mass consciousness during the years of Khrushchev's sabotage rule, aggravated during the times of Brezhnev's decay caused by a well-fed, careless life, which took especially ugly caricature forms under Gorbachev, and reached its peak during the shameful period of "reign", the eternally drunk EBN.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that the explanation is simple - like a faceted glass: it's all about the spirituality of the Russian people. In his naive faith in justice, and in his own modesty.
It never occurred to us that someone could muster up such impudence that they would ascribe to themselves such global achievements as ancient architecture and sculpture. Because this is by nature absolutely unnatural for us. We readily believe in the brilliant achievements of Western civilization, whose representatives only grit their teeth because Petersburg is not on their territory.
Meanwhile, upon closer examination, everyone who believes their own eyes is convinced that the "ancient" Greece with Rome and the North-West of Russia are one civilization, one culture, and … not ours.
Not in the sense "not ours", that "not Russian", but in the sense that this antediluvian culture, having reached the heights that we have not yet been able to reach. And maybe we will never succeed, if in the coming years we do not change our minds and shake off the power of parasites that force us to unquestioningly fulfill their will, and kill ourselves like zombies, kill our future …"
Now let's remember the "Masonic symbols" of St. Petersburg, which are very common in the architecture of buildings.
Do you see a triangle with rays emanating from it?
Do you think this is really a "Masonic symbol"?
Here is the same symbol on a shield attached to the chest of an angel installed on the roof of St. Isaac's Cathedral. In the triangle, from which the rays emanate in all directions, the "divine eye" is also clearly visible.
The most amazing thing in our history is that someone had to create and officially register a Masonic lodge called "Freemasons" (so that everyone knows there are such guys!) Only because the city of St. Petersburg on the Neva with its amazingly rich architecture appeared on all maps of the world!
Historical background: “The modern Free Masons Order was organizationally formed at the beginning of the 18th century. On Christmas Day, St. John the Baptist On June 24, 1717, the world's first "Great Lodge" was established in the London tavern "Goose and Spit", uniting four "Small Lodges", which had gathered until that time in other city taverns. Thus, the Masonic organization of the new era was created, which laid the foundation for the institution of modern Freemasonry, which spread a couple of decades later throughout the European continent.
In 1723, The Book of Constitutions by James Anderson (1680 -1739) was published under the title “Constitutions of Freemasons, Containing the History, Responsibilities, and Rules of this Ancient and Most Venerable Brotherhood,” which was approved and accepted as the basic law by the Freemasons. The Constitutions, among other things, contained the mythical history of Freemasonry from the Garden of Eden to 1717. The goal of the Free Masons Union was designated as striving for moral self-improvement, knowledge of the Truth and oneself, as well as love for one's neighbor.
The main version of the origin of Freemasonry is considered to be a version of the origin of medieval building partnerships. Freemasonry is now spread throughout the world and is represented in various organizational forms - lodges, grand lodges, supreme councils, chapters, Areopagus, consistories, federations and confederations. The total number of freemasons in the world is estimated at 4,000,000."
Well, who else, besides these mysterious "free masons", could possess the amazing secrets of artistic stone processing and create such beauty ?! This question is, of course, sarcasm on my part.
Here is an example of the strikingly beautiful stone processing used during the construction of St. Petersburg:
The figures are stone, but the impression is that they are cast in the same shape! And they seem to be actually cast! This technology (or something like this) is used to make stone sinks for kitchens!
Part 2