To embellish your own history, covering up the unsightly truth, to keep silent about the true motives and facts, which, it would seem, are accompanied by irrefutable evidence, to expose what is happening in the right light … This is perhaps the basic rule when writing history textbooks. Academic science has long ceased to be irrefutable for people who are used to thinking independently, analyzing facts and looking for truth on their own, albeit not always in an easy way. There are many controversial moments in history in which the lines of textbooks diverge from actual events, but perhaps one of the most discussed is the substitution of Peter I - the last tsar and first emperor of Russia.
The legacy of Peter the Great
The trail left by Peter the Great is truly striking in its scale: few of the rulers were able to change the course of events so much, overturning the habitual way of life of Russians, completely changing all the foundations, habits and even the mentality of the people. Scientific, cultural and social achievements are attributed to him, and the progress that society achieved at that time seems indisputable … But all this is only on the papers of academic textbooks, which, as you know, prefer to present everything in a rosy light, believing in the disinterest and ignorance of people … At the same time, the methods of Peter I, as well as the motives that he pursued, are far from as rosy as historians imagine: for whom did he “cut a window to Europe”, what goals did he strive to achieve by introducing exorbitant taxes and imposing a culture alien to the Russian soul ? The issue is controversial.
The only reasonable and logical response to such a change in behavior can be the substitution of Peter the Great. This opinion not only explains all his reforms and atypical behavior, but also finds a response in the traces left by the tsar: numerous portraits, strikingly different before and after the trip, hints of a completely different origin of false Peter and the deliberate alienation of relatives.
Healthy doubts about the authenticity of Peter I, supported by facts, appeared among the people even during the reign of the tsar. For such speeches at that time it was possible to earn big trouble, starting with a public flogging and ending with a link to hard labor and even execution. Nevertheless, they could not eradicate such rumors: people whispered, coming up with new and new versions. Some believed that the newborn prince was replaced by German ambassadors right in the cradle, others believed that Tsarina Natalya herself gave the born baby girl to education, replacing her with an heir of German descent, allegedly fearing Alexei's discontent with her daughter. However, the most logical, consistent and reasonable version is still the substitution of the tsar during his trip to Western Europe, which ended in a completely different way from what Peter I expected when he set off.
Peter the First before traveling to Europe
Promotional video:
What was Peter I like before that ill-fated journey, and for what purpose did he go to Western Europe at all? Collecting the truth bit by bit, the easiest way is to turn to portraitists, whose works at that time were akin to today's photography: for them to distort something was a manifestation of unprofessionalism and bad form. Looking at the early images of Peter, we can conclude that he was a rather stocky man of average height, who respected Russian life and culture. In most of the paintings, the tsar is depicted in national costumes, traditional caftans, and on the occasion wore solemn tsarist vestments. The same was with his speech: according to the chronicles, he was fluent in Russian, which is not surprising for representatives of his family. In addition, the tsar visited the library of Ivan the Terrible, improving his knowledge in the fields of science and art.
With his legal wife Evdokia Lopukhina, Peter the First lived in perfect harmony for about 8 years. Being married, as well as before him, the tsar adhered to strict canons, was always restrained and was never noticed in debauchery: at that time it was unacceptable for representatives of the royal family. They had two sons - Alexey and Alexander. Alexander died in infancy, and Alexei was to become the official heir to the throne. Perhaps everything would have turned out exactly like this, if not for that ill-fated trip, which turned the way of not only the royal family, but all of Russia …
Being in excellent relations with the German Lefort, Peter I often listened to his stories about Western Europe. Curiosity drove the king to look at the distant lands, about which his friend spoke with such inspiration, if not for one "but": the king was terribly afraid of sea travel. The fact is that earlier he had already experienced a shipwreck, almost saying goodbye to life. This incident left an imprint on his behavior, so Peter tried his best to avoid water. Nevertheless, curiosity overcame, and the king decided to make a two-week visit to Western Europe.
When going on a trip, Peter the Great equipped with him a numerous retinue of 200 families (about 450-500 people). At the same time, the tsar was called Peter Alekseev Mikhailov: in Europe at that time there was no concept of patronymics, so "Alekseevich" became the second surname. But the autocrat failed to return either after the planned two weeks, or even a year later: Peter reappeared in St. Petersburg only after a little less than two years. Has he returned?
Newly born Peter
The man who returned from Europe looked a little like the former Peter the Great. And if small changes in behavior could be attributed to new habits and more "progressive" views that the king adopted in the West, then what about appearance and blatant personality changes? The portrait of the tsar, painted in Holland at the very beginning of his visit, strikingly resembles the facial features of his son Alexei. And this is not surprising: the similarity of such close relatives can be easily explained by genetics. But the subsequent portraits of the autocrat, which we are used to seeing in textbooks and other historical literature, have nothing to do with the original picture. Of course, the changes could be attributed to age, however, even after 50 years, moles and the very structure of the face cannot be corrected. And the complexion of the king has changed:after his arrival, he became thinner and stretched 15 cm, but his leg size became surprisingly miniature (about the modern 37 size). And if weight loss could be explained by a new diet, then such an increase in height and a change in the shape of the foot is simply impossible in adulthood.
In addition, portrait painters had a custom to leave signatures of those depicted on the canvas. So, on one of the later paintings of Peter I, the inscription is clearly visible: "Anatoly from Ankara." So Peter or Anatoly? Digging deeper and evaluating the manners of the newly-minted king, one can put forward an assumption about the Dutch origin of the aforementioned Anatoly, who later became the false Peter the Great. However, there are many versions as to who took the place on the throne, however, Professor Chudinov's arguments look most convincing: it was a monk who came from Ankara.
The impostor king returned, accompanied by only one person. Where the remaining retinue went is a mystery. This is not surprising: it is much easier to convince one person of the correct substitution than five hundred. The newly-minted Peter broke off communication with relatives and friends who might suspect a substitution, and he sent his wife to a monastery, never seeing her after a long separation. Moreover, the ruler's pure Russian speech was replaced by an indistinct dialect with a pronounced European accent: it was evident that complex verbal constructions were difficult for him. And the tsar stopped visiting the famous library of Ivan the Terrible: apparently, its location was simply unknown to the impostor, because this secret was passed on only to crowned persons. There is an assumption that the false Peter was subsequently engaged in excavations in order to discover a repository of Russian literature,however, apparently, he did not succeed.
Having sent his wife to a monastery, Peter-Anatoly found himself a new companion, who did not belong to the princely, noble and even to the count's family. In fact, he took her away from his subordinate, Menshikov, who, in turn, took the woman away from a representative of lower ranks in the same way. This behavior was not typical for a tsar, moreover, it ran counter to ideas about the honor and dignity of the royal family, but did this mean something for a European monk? As a result of his actions, the Empress Catherine I became not the most decent Baltic lady, which is insulting for the royal family in itself.
However, after his arrival, the false Peter changed his views not only on family values, but also on the military craft. If earlier the tsar avoided the fleet in every possible way, now he has become a real professional boarding battle. Of course, we can assume that in two years he learned how to conduct battles on the water, but where did his fear of hydration go? And why should the king do this, if even the officers disdained boarding battles - it was an occupation for the lower ranks. But Anatoly, apparently, was well acquainted with this technique and did not fail to use his own experience and knowledge.
Where did the real king go
the fate of the real Peter the Great, apparently, was disappointing. Comparing the chronology of historical events in Russia and in the West, one can notice that during the disappearance of the tsar, a legendary prisoner appeared in the Bastille, the "Iron Mask", whose face no one has ever seen. Caricaturists, replacing photographers in the modern press, portrayed him in a leather mask that completely hid all facial features, however, “Peter Alekseev Mikhailov” was carved on the camera - the name under which the autocrat set off on his journey. The prisoner was kept in decent conditions, however, in 1703 he was still executed.
The activities of the impostor
What mark did the false Peter the Great leave behind? It is believed that it was he who contributed to the progress in Russia and "opened a window to Europe", however, in reality, everything looked a little different. In his new activities, there is a lot of evidence that the interests of the Russian people became secondary for the tsar, since the Western trend came to the fore. However, this is not surprising for an impostor. What is the memory of the false autocrat?
- The culture of Russia has become more and more reminiscent of the West. Modesty as the greatest female dignity was replaced by vulgarity and cheeky behavior. Instead of classic outfits, the tsar ordered to wear low-cut ball gowns that attract the attention of the opposite sex. Such defiant outfits were offensive to women and their families, however, no one dared to argue with the decision of the false Peter.
- The appearance of men was not ignored either. Now the primordially Russian beards with a “shovel” became objectionable: they had to be shaved off. Those who refused had to pay an exorbitantly high tax to the treasury.
- The severity and restraint in entertainment was replaced by frequent mass balls, the promotion of alcohol, coffee and tobacco. In fact, the licentiousness that came from the West began to flourish precisely during the reign of the newly-minted Peter I.
- The reforms also affected the army. So, the archers closest to the tsar, who always followed the real Peter the Great and his sister Sophia, were mostly executed. This event, remembered in history as the "suppression of the rifle revolt", marked another oddity: the coin issued that year contained an image of a typical Western knight and a Latin inscription.
- Taking Europe as a model, the tsar founded in Russia the Academy of Sciences, characteristic of the West. The Russian people used to live with science, which was closely intertwined with Vedic knowledge, however, this form was abolished. This was not done at all in order to promote knowledge to the masses: in this case, Russian scientists would become representatives of the scientific community. However, there were much more Western scientists in the Academy of Sciences - about a hundred people against three domestic representatives, among whom was Lomonosov. That is why all sessions were held in German: most of the representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences did not even know Russian!
To list the "achievements" of false Peter I, which were more reminiscent of the destruction of the state, a three-volume edition is not enough: he changed the alphabet, numbers, chronology … After his reign, Russia could no longer become the same: reforms completely destroyed the usual way of people, changed their mentality and worldview. At the cost of tens of thousands of lives, the king forcibly implanted European culture, instead of going his own way. Is this not the main proof that the true representative of the Romanov family was impudently substituted. The answer to this question should not be sought in academic textbooks.