Continuing the theme of Peter I, one cannot ignore the figure of Catherine II. I have already mentioned in the article "A few thoughts about the battle of Poltava of Peter the Great" that it was Catherine II who began to distinguish Peter I as the greatest reformer of Russia. And she also began to create the halo of the great winner. At least the famous monument on Senate Square was erected under Catherine II.
If of course you believe the official history. Rather, if you believe those documents that confirm that everything was exactly the same then.
With the light hand of Alexander Pushkin, this monument is called "The Bronze Horseman". By the way, about the documents. I have always been surprised by the unconditional faith of historians in those records that have come down to our times.
First, that history is written by the winners is a proven axiom. Even today, we can see how historical moments are being rewritten in a single country and people begin to believe that it was so. At the same time, the census takers are not even bothered by the fact that the witnesses of those events are still alive. Their opinion is simply rejected or declared false. But at the same time, for some reason, some memories and records that have come to us from time immemorial are not questioned at all. And it follows from this secondly.
And why shouldn't it be admitted that this is just outright propaganda of those times, a deliberate distortion of history in favor of the existing system? Why do we believe that 250 years ago there lived saints, honest and decent people who could not afford to write a lie for their future descendants?
This is especially true of Catherine II, who honestly and decently killed her husband Peter III. But he was, after all, the grandson of Peter I, if, again, you believe the documents of those times.
Here, in general, a strange story turns out. Catherine II hated Elizabeth I, the daughter of Peter I. She killed her son, who was the grandson of Peter I. But at the same time she praised and sometimes invented great victories and deeds for the development of the Russian state for Peter I. And it should be noted that the population of Russia decreased only under Peter I and Catherine II. Their methods of "civilizing" Russia were simply beyond our current understanding. It would seem that serfdom, which most likely was introduced and consolidated by Peter I, was impossible to tighten, but Catherine II easily coped with it.
Even her son Paul I was a harsh critic of his mother's achievements, and Catherine II's grandson Nicholas I, having received a report covering the reign of his grandmother with the following content:
Promotional video:
I made a postscript there:
Than indirectly confirmed his agreement with the conclusions of this report.
Which, by the way, does not prevent in our time in every possible way to glorify and highlight Peter I and Catherine II. They are the only ones who continue to attribute the title of "Great", thereby emphasizing that those leaders of Russia who spread rot 90% of the population of their country were the most correct.
Returning to the glorification of Catherine II of Peter I, I think this is precisely the propaganda and justification of my actions. After all, she followed the path of Peter and was forced to create around him the halo of the greatest ruler. And I must say that she has noticeably succeeded in this matter.
True, either it has some flaws, or it is already a mistake of the further compilers of the legend of the Great Peter, but one of the greatest victories of Peter I at the mouth of the Neva was not noted in the calendars of Catherine II. Which is more than strange.
After all, by order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy on December 19, 1995, May 18 was declared the day of the creation of the Baltic Fleet and since 1996 has been annually celebrated as the Day of the Baltic Fleet.
That is, what is considered a great victory today for Catherine II was not something significant. Or this “great” victory was invented later. And the fact that it was invented I tried to show in several articles. For example, I advise you to read "A fake artifact of a fake story about the great victory of Peter the Great."
In general, I want to say that without understanding the participation of Catherine II in the mythologization of Peter I, it is very difficult to recognize these myths. And the fact that almost everything that we know about Peter the Great is mythology for me is beyond doubt.