Historical truth
The history of our state (even its official version) is replete with controversial moments. What is not an event, so several interpretations, what is not a person, so diametrically opposite assessments. Of course, Peter the Great remains one of the most controversial rulers.
As they say: history has no subjunctive mood - what could have happened if … and what would not have happened, if … no - what happened was what happened. This is HISTORY. It's another matter if they decide for us what is useful for us to know and what is better to hide. This is already a manipulation of OUR consciousness.
They don't tell us a lot about the last Tsar of Muscovy, the first emperor of Russia, Peter Alekseevich Romanov. It so happened that he became an "icon" for everyone: "Westerners" praise him for the European course of development, "patriots" praise him for the achievements and advancement of Russia from "dense antiquity to progress", "statists" - they generally deify, for multiple political paradigms that are now commonly associated with his name and (not all recognized) successes.
I do not aim to encroach on the revered and extolled monarch, but only suggest that you familiarize yourself with some of the issues of his reign, which they try not to cover in the official version of the biography of the autocrat Peter … although quite recently they wrote about it freely: "This strange Tsar Peter".
Substitution of the king
Promotional video:
The most surprising thing is not a newly invented tale of dilettantes from history, strange alternative people who doubt everything indiscriminately - there were steady talks about this already during the years of his life. And they still do not subside. In my opinion, there are very serious reasons for this …
Version 1: the substitution occurred in youth, due to an accident during the maneuvers of amusing regiments.
Version 2: replaced the king during his Grand Embassy in Europe.
To whom the war, and to whom the mother is dear …
The name Peter in our minds is firmly connected with the synonym "reformer". He is also an unsurpassed military leader, who conquered and expanded, etc. This is how we were taught from school, this is how they tell us about it today. And what is the real situation?
He really carried out many reforms, but the results of a significant part of them cannot be called an unconditional benefit for the country. And some of the results of his reign even cause stupor.
The military campaigns carried out by him, had a "bottom line" result that cannot be called outstanding or fateful. It turns out that it all depends on the presentation of the material! Even with an omniscient Internet, few of us will delve into the details and outcomes of those wars. We think we know about them - we were told !!
City on the Neva
From the same textbooks we know for certain that it was Peter the Great who, by his will, laid the most beautiful city - St. Petersburg - on the wasteland and swamp. How they drove men from all over Russia and they stood waist-deep in water, hammering piles with something. How stone was taken from all provinces for the construction of palaces (!). And so on and so forth….
But in fact, this place has been inhabited and lively for centuries (if not millennia)! Traditionally it belonged to Novgorod, and then to the Swedes. And by the time of the conquest by Peter, there were more than twenty settlements and 2 large cities (one of them is the second largest in Sweden!). Read more: So who built St. Petersburg?