The era of Peter is one of the most controversial in our history. Now very actively discussing its substitution during a trip to Europe and the ensuing sharp change in the state course. The destruction of everything Russian, the imposition of the European order, oblivion of more than 5500 years of continuous Russian history, and so on.
I wrote about all this in detail in the following article: "This strange king Peter".
In this article, we again go back to his times, but indirectly. Peter is credited with the construction of St. Petersburg and the transfer to the still unfinished city (!) Of the country's capital. First: there are reasonable doubts that he built this city from scratch. Secondly: the capital of WHICH state did he make it? Third: what does the Holy Roman Empire have to do with it?
I present to you the introductory data.
That's it - a desert area with no signs of any civilization.
We are told …
In 1703, by the decision of the Russian Tsar Peter I, on the lands conquered from the Swedes, called Ingermanland, the fortress of St. Petersburg was founded, and the city began to be called the same. The name was chosen by Peter I in honor of the holy Apostle Peter. The original Sankt-Piter-Burch was an imitation of the Dutch pronunciation (who doubts). In 1720 the name of St. Petersburg was changed to St. Petersburg.
Promotional video:
The construction of the main city buildings went outside the fortress along the banks of the river, for which the swamps located in the Neva delta were drained (aha and at the same time, the buildings were built without taking into account hydrology?). The work on the construction of the new city was supervised by foreign engineers invited by Peter to Russia (apparently all of them refused, but these did not know how to build in the swamps, or they simply did not know how to build the new city - otherwise, the laying of buildings with the deepening of the first floors below the soil surface level, do not explain! Read: Try to explain. Backfilled buildings.).
The biggest problems in St. Petersburg were caused by floods. For example, on the night of October 5, 1705, the water flooded even the higher left bank, soaked the supplies piled up in the Admiralty yard, and destroyed more than one house (and nevertheless, they were buried ?!).
Who builds like this? where are the proportions? why were they buried in the ground? did not take into account the water ???
In order to speed up the construction of stone houses, Peter even banned stone construction throughout Russia, except St. Petersburg. Bricklayers were forced to go to work in St. Petersburg (in the sense - voluntarily ?!). In addition, a "stone tax" was taken from each carriage that entered the city: it was necessary to bring a certain amount of stone with you or pay a special fee (it is generally difficult to imagine - what could be brought and how was it all to be built?).
From all the surrounding regions, peasants came to new lands (read: they were forcibly driven) to work on construction (okay, the peasants are auxiliary workers, but where are the masons, architects, engineers, foremen? How many auxiliary workers are in an ordinary construction brigade and how many specialists, you can imagine ? and where did they get so many of them?).
All the same buried floors.
The construction of the city from 1704 to 1717 was mainly carried out by the forces of "working people", mobilized within the framework of in-kind labor service. They felled forest, filled up swamps, built embankments, etc. In 1704, up to 40 thousand workers were summoned to Petersburg (driven by force) from different provinces, mainly serfs of landowners and state peasants. The work was carried out mainly on a "rotational basis" - the mobilized worker worked out for two or three months, after which he went home.
In 1707, many workers fled, sent to St. Petersburg from the Belozersk Territory. Peter I ordered to take the family members of the fugitives - their fathers, mothers, wives, children “or whoever lives in their houses” and to keep them in prisons until the fugitives are found (this looks like him!). After 1717, labor service was replaced by a cash tax (about 300,000 rubles a year), and the construction of the city was carried out by civilian workers.
And here is the first floor deep in the ground.
Since 1712, the city has been proclaimed the capital (unfinished?) Of the Russian state. All official institutions and the royal court were transferred here from Moscow. This is a unique incident in world history, when the capital of one state (Russia) was formally on the territory of another state (Sweden) for nine years. Did you know about this ????
What are the options?
Even without knowing that there are other versions - the official (sorry for the harshness) is no good. And in the future we will be convinced of this.
There are many materials on the Internet that provide a number of evidence that Peter was either dug up (after the shallowing of the Baltic Sea) or won from the Swedes. I propose to dwell on these options in more detail.
Storming the Swedish fortress.
Did anyone know about this?
The story that St. Petersburg was founded by Peter I in a wild, deserted, swampy wasteland, where people did not constantly live, except for individual Finno-Ugric peoples, does not correspond to reality. On the site of St. Petersburg, there was the Swedish fortress Nyenskans and the adjacent city of Nyen.
The area where the brilliant St. Petersburg was destined to stand, from the earliest times of the existence of Russia, belonged to the possessions of Novgorod. This is confirmed by the chronicler Nestor, saying that Novgorodians walked along the Neva to the Varangian Sea and even to Rome at that time. Peter founded the city by no means from scratch, where "men up to their waist in icy water drove each other piles into swamps", but set (or appropriated) the capital in a very profitable, lively and populated place.
According to this map - Petersburg belongs to Sweden (right in the center)!
For the possession of this territory, a long struggle was waged between Novgorod, and then Russia, on the one hand, and Sweden, on the other.
Sweden in 1611 seized other lands of the Russian north-west, and the Neva region, as well. According to the Stolbovsky peace, it remained with Sweden. By the way, the Dutch traveler Peter Van AA, in his book about Sweden, points out that Petersburg belongs to the Swedes and encloses the corresponding map.
The dotted line is the border of Muscovy, St. Petersburg is highlighted in green - in Sweden.
In the first half of the 17th century, near the fortress on the right bank of the Okhta, the commercial Nienstadt was formed, which received the status of a city in 1632. By about 1677, the city of Nyen was surrounded by an outer ring of fortifications - lunettes with batteries and ditches - from the banks of the Neva to the banks of the Okhta. By the end of the 17th century, the fortress garrison numbered more than 600 people and had about 80 cannons at its disposal.
Nyen was the largest city of the Noteborg county, much larger and richer than the administrative center of the county - the city of Noteborg (Oreshek, Shlisselburg). In total, there were about 40 settlements on the site of the modern center of St. Petersburg.
In 1703, B. P. Sheremetev's 16,000-strong army approached the fortress and the suburb, and soon Nyenskans was captured by Russian troops. The city was renamed by Peter I in Schlotburg (Netherlands. Slotburg - Castle-city).
Medal with an antique story about the capture of Nyenskans.
Who knows about this? After all, they still shamelessly lie to us about wild, undeveloped places, collecting stones from all over Russia (Muscovy) - they almost dragged them in their bosoms - they collected stones from the world for palaces … Definitely, St. Petersburg was not built from scratch, but on the spot several trading cities, fortresses, castles and numerous suburbs - it was a CONVENED and RECOVERED place!
On the map of Oreshka, already captured by Peter and renamed Shlisselburg (!), The built bastions look at the Novgorod province, and not at the sea.. why?
Dug out
Another version is connected with the non-standard architecture of the city and the fact that many buildings, including palaces, turned out to be significantly lower than the natural ground level (which, given the swampiness of the area and constant flooding, is at least strange).
Monument to Suvorov … … is it really him - our Alexander Vasilyevich?
Some researchers believe that the pronounced antique architecture of the early buildings, as well as many sculptures and monuments, is explained by the much earlier foundation of the city. It is assumed that as a result of climatic changes, he went under water, and subsequently, with a decrease in sea level, reappeared on the surface.
Where it was safely dug out and rebuilt by Peter, who, imbued with the splendor of the buildings, decided to give it the status of the capital of Muscovy.
As proof, they cite the decoration of St. Isaac's Cathedral (which is difficult or even impossible to reproduce in our time), a monument to Peter (where for some reason he is depicted in a Roman toga, sandals, a Roman short sword and without stirrups), "Tsar Bath", a stone head from Sergievsky Park, numerous decoration and stucco molding of buildings in the antique style and symbols of the Holy Roman Empire, and many other oddities.
Tsar Peter in a Roman toga, sandals and with a Roman wreath on his head is a rather unexpected decision of the sculptor.
As always happens in such cases, it is the silence and indistinct explanations of official historians that warm up and disperse interest in this version. Together with other distorted pages of our history (Tartary, the war with Napoleon, the substitution of Peter, the history of the Slavs, and so on), this causes a general distrust of the seemingly established facts.
So how was it?
For me personally, the version of Peter's use of the Swedish city and fortress is more understandable and logical. Although I cannot explain why it was to hide and stubbornly insist on building the city from scratch on the swamps …
Deserted place mean?
Don't want to admit the existence of an ancient trade center in Novgorod and the active presence of the Slavs in the Baltic (formerly called the Varangian Sea - after one of the tribes of the South Baltic Slavs) coast? Maybe you didn’t want to spoil the beautiful legend about the tsar who cut the window to Europe?
It turns out that the Slavs have long and quite successfully traded with Europe and not "out the window", but in the "wide open gates"! The Romanov historians, it was necessary to whitewash and elevate the Tsar Peter, who destroyed up to 30% of the population of Muscovy / Russia.
On the right on the shield is the coat of arms of the Holy Roman Empire, and the crown is placed by the Roman god / patrician / emperor?
For all his work on reformatting the Russian state in a Western manner, he was still awarded the title of emperor. But what kind of power - if the Moscow kingdom at that time passed along the borders of the Don and Volga? Is it by chance that there are so many Masonic symbols in Moscow and St. Petersburg? Statues and sculptural groups with ancient gods, like two peas in a pod similar to Roman, Berlin, Parisian and so on?
Perhaps it is not in vain that so many traces and signs point to the Holy Roman Empire? And Gorbachev and Yeltsin were not the first to sell the country to "Western partners"?