Considering the great victories of Peter I, one can notice that the only serious battle can be considered the battle of Poltava. It would seem that it is simply undeniable that it was a grand battle and practically the defeat of the Swedish army. Sweden was never able to recover later and return to its former power.
Those who read the publications in my channel, of course, noticed that I am rather skeptical about the victories of Peter I and consider them to be fictitious. And what about the battle of Poltava?
After all, there is a mound with a mass grave.
Let's start with the mound. The monument over this grave was erected in 1894 as the inscription reads:
This is already strange. Almost 200 years - this field was of no particular interest to anyone, and suddenly they decided to erect a monument. But the battle of Poltava is mentioned in the "Months" of 1772, which I wrote about in the article "Review of the" Months "of 1772". So the date was celebrated, and the battlefield was desolate? Didn't anyone care about the mass grave?
Although this can be admitted by the fact that the kings before the death of the soldiers were probably all the same. And then suddenly it didn't matter anyway and decided to erect a monument and build a temple.
But in general, the construction of temples on the site of great events is an ancient tradition in Russia. At least we are told so today. Indeed, even in honor of the victory, there are ancient temples on the Kulikovo field. True, they are in Moscow.
And in honor of such a victory, the Church of the Savior was allegedly erected near Poltava, which was reconstructed in 1845. Precisely reconstructed, but not built a new one?
Promotional video:
Looking at the dates of the creation of monuments on this field, it is surprising that the oldest of them was installed in 1811. This is the Monument of Glory. Why was it installed 100 years after the victory?
Based on all of the above, I have vague suspicions that either a lie is being told about this battle, or not the whole truth. And they began to erect monuments when the details of this event were gone from the memory of the people.
First of all, it is surprising where it was decided to give a general battle in the Northern War. I want to remind you that at this time there was a war between Russia and Sweden, which was called the Northern.
And the decisive battle that makes a turning point in the course of the war takes place in the SOUTH!
How so? As you know, Poltava is Ukraine.
We are told that Peter I understood the inevitability of Charles XII's campaign against Moscow and was looking for an opportunity to give a general battle to the Swedish army.
Here the question immediately comes: why look when you can simply focus on the path of movement of the enemy troops? After all, Karl also needed to defeat the Russian troops. It just made no sense to bypass them. Get hit in the rear!
What prevented Peter from waiting somewhere for the arrival of the Swedes? We must not forget that the Russian army consisted of solid recruits. You can do the training for now if you have nothing to do at all.
But then there is a reason. Karl laid siege to Poltava, and Peter decided that this was a good opportunity to fight with him. He almost personally chops all enemies, Karl is defeated and hides.
It reminded me very much of the war of 1812. And in the plot and in the outcome. Again they decided not to go to the North, it is cold and hungry there (although Sweden is a northern country). Again, the enemy is utterly defeated and barely takes his feet. A kind of shortened version of the war with Napoleon.
And again, a lot of questions.
And if you look at this battle differently? If we accept the version that Peter did not fight with Sweden, but conquered Russia with its bayonets? Then everything will fall into place. Why?
Because Peter did not come here to fight Karl, but to smash the Zaporozhye Cossacks. I want to emphasize right away that this was not a battle with the Ukrainians, but with the remnants of the Russian regular army. After all, the Cossacks were servicemen guarding the outskirts of the Russian state.
Having destroyed the streltsy troops, Peter had to destroy the Cossacks. And everything becomes logical.
Peter was engaged in purposeful cleansing of the territory from people capable of giving a military rebuff.
And Catherine II completed his deeds and therefore singled out Peter I as a great commander. Although, in principle, he was not. If you do not accept the version that he was Charles XII.
But that's a completely different story.