I am always wary of various loud statements among alternative researchers regarding their "great discoveries", because at least some of them too often wishful thinking: their personal versions, guesses and conjectures as allegedly proven "truth in of the last resort ". For some reason, such "discoverers of great discoveries" always forget the difference between any hypothesis and a scientifically proven fact.
Recently I watched a video by A. Zayts with an intriguing title "Peter the First - Emperor of the Roman Empire". I must say that I expected much more from such a loud name. It just seems that the author himself pursued somewhat different goals than it was indicated in such a loud title. This became clear when, after a little boring main part with a description of the genealogy of the Romanovs and the numerous children of Father Peter - Alexei Mikhailovich, I suddenly heard conclusions that overwhelmingly surprised me not only by the lack of a real evidence base for them in the main material, but also by a frank far-fetched invention … In order to make it clear what exactly I mean, I want to voice these conclusions of A. Zayts.
But first, I will voice the stated goals of this "research", which were immediately announced at the very beginning of the video:
When I heard this, a doubt immediately crept in: is Mr. A. Zayats really an alternative researcher if he defends the interests of the official Romanov history? Indeed, the textbooks of this history do not say anything about substitution. Which side is he on? And these doubts only grew with watching the video. The impression that the topic of "exposing the substitution" was ordered in the course of the video only intensified, especially since Romanov sources of information were used as evidence. Or rather, there is even only one such source - "Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire" from 1649 to 1830.
First, we already know very well that history is written by the winners, therefore it is stupid and incorrect to look for the truth about the Romanovs in the government publications of the Romanovs themselves. It is incorrect already because it is necessary to use different sources of information, including those independent of the ruling regime, in order to compare them and find contradictions and inconsistencies. The mission of A. Zayts already a priori looks like a defense of the official falsified version of history, and the defense is quite "clumsy".
The entire main part with a tedious reading of the texts that are not directly related either to the title of the video or to the stated purpose - to search for evidence of the absence of Peter's substitution during the "Great Embassy" to Western Europe in 1697-1698, leaves a clear assumption about what is needed it was only in order to "chatter" subscribers and viewers and introduce them with a kind of "trance", the task of which is precisely to suggest absolutely unproven theses presented in the form of final conclusions.
Yes, indeed, among the numerous children of Alexei Mikhailovich there was a fairly high mortality rate, and among them there was intrigue and the struggle for the throne. But how this cancels the very fact of Peter's substitution is not clear. The author of the video claims that this is the work of some "curators" of Peter, who allegedly immediately put him and his co-ruler brother Ivan on him for the implementation of the "Russia" project. However, there is no evidence of this in the video. Even the names of these most mysterious "curators" are not given. Let us pay attention to the fact that Russia is presented by A. Zayets as a project of foreign "curators" of the Romanovs, which, of course, theoretically can be. But the essence of this position of the author of the video becomes clear when he announces his profound conclusions,which amazed me with their anti-Russian orientation and clearly ordered political overtones.
However. in order not to be unfounded, we will voice them:
Promotional video:
Well, now it has come, who can do such videos? First, he immediately called all the alternatives who are considering the version of substitution Peter called enemies or fools. And secondly, it claims completely unsubstantiated that not only the Russian Empire, but also the present Russian Federation is a colony of the “Holy Roman Empire”! From such, obviously ordered and far-fetched "great discoveries" it becomes really funny. If it were not so sad that my assumptions about the introduction of provocateurs and servants of parasites into the ranks of alternative agents turned out to be correct. And this especially confirms the thesis about the need to blindly believe in Romanov historical documents, including those of the 19th century.
This, by the way, is a stone in the garden of O. Pavlyuchenko and some other alternatives, who rightly believe that the winners write history. Isn't A. Zayats himself an enemy of Russia, making such statements about the "colony"? No, of course, I am not arguing that in the 1993 constitution, colonial articles were spelled out, from which now, together with new amendments, we got rid of. But where does the modern Russian Federation and Holy Rome have to do with it? Where does such a wild fantasy come from?
Now let us ask ourselves a question: was the Russian Empire a colony of the Holy Roman Empire? Obviously not. Only a Russophobe leading anti-Russian propaganda could have come up with such a thought. I do not deny that at some point in its history, it is highly probable that Russia was part of the Holy Roman Empire just like the future German and Auto-Hungarian empires. But "colony" is complete nonsense!.. For those who support such nonsense, I want to ask one simple question: can an empire be a colony? Maybe, for example, the British Empire included the Indian, Australian, Canadian and other "empires"? Rave? Sure!
And A. Zayats himself, in his own video, talks about the magnificent ceremony of consecration to Emperor Peter I in St. Petersburg. And I do not even deny the possibility that it could be the title of the emperor of the entire Holy Roman Empire. Could such a ceremony take place on the territory of the "colony"? Maybe here, too, Mr. A. Zayats will give typical historical examples of representatives of dynasties entering the imperial throne outside of the metropolis. and in the colonies? But you will not find such nonsense even in the official version of history, which the author of this video is so awkwardly and protects from the encroachments of alternatives.
It turns out that about the "colony" - sheer lies, moreover, impudently imposed not as a hypothesis, but as an allegedly proven truth. So, such ceremonies have always taken place in the capitals of empires. And if at that time Russia was part of the Holy Roman Empire, then it is quite logical to assume that its capital (of the Holy Roman Empire) could be just St. Petersburg. It is this version that O. Pavlyuchenko recently put forward, not forgetting to rightly call it a hypothesis. This is exactly what any serious researchers of the past do.
Now let's deal with the "absence of Peter's substitution." It is possible to assert that “there can be no question of any substitution”, one can only be a witness of those events, and not on the basis of rather weak far-fetched conjectures. Yes, the Romanovs really were pro-Westerners. Having usurped power, they had to rely on mercenaries from the territory of present-day Germany and the Hanseatic League in the fight against the old dynasty. But they were not such "reckless" Russophobes who hated everything Russian, including the people, such as "Peter" who came from the West was. And they are all depicted in Russian clothes, not Western ones. For example, the pro-Westerner Alexei Mikhailovich.
By the way, not long before his tragic death, the Russian historian A. Pyzhikov found in the historical archives carefully hidden evidence that the Romanovs falsified their close relationship with the Rurikovichs. And most importantly, after the election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne in 1613, they did not have the right to transfer power by inheritance. Of course, you will not find this in the official historical documents of the Romanov era, in which A. Zayats tells us to blindly believe. But that explains. that the accession to the throne of Alexei Mikhailovich, the father of Peter, was a real usurpation of power by the Romanovs. And the "uprising of Stepan Razin" was actually an attempt to return the throne to the old dynasty. Of course, foreign mercenaries helped to win this war. And the pro-Western reforms "Aleksey Tishaishy" also carried out. And the split of the church took place during his reign. But this still does not in any way prove the absence of Peter's substitution.
They are trying to impose on us the version that since the Romanovs were pro-Western, they would have carried out all the necessary reforms to become part of the Holy Roman Empire without any substitution. But I strongly doubt that the real Peter would have begun to introduce a new chronology (not a calendar), carry out a reform of his native speech and language, and forcefully introduce European dresses. Unfortunately for such one-sided "researchers" who use only official Romanov documents, in our time one can get acquainted with those who were not generally known in the territory of Romanov's Russia.
For example, there is a little-known and still not published in Russian work "Northern and Eastern Tartaria", which was written by a member of the Dutch embassy Nicholas Witsen. In this work, he describes his travels in Moscow and the territory that is now called Siberia. So, firstly, Witsen, at the request of the co-rulers of Muscovy - Tsars Peter and Ivan, created a map of Eastern Tartary, which he published in his work. And this suggests that these tsars were not so strong pro-Westerners, since they were also interested in the eastern direction.
And secondly, this book contains a portrait of this very Tsar Peter Alekseevich before his "Great Embassy", and it does not at all look like the portraits of that false Peter who returned from Western Europe along with foreign hired regiments who suppressed the rifle revolt … And this alone refutes the tale that Peter was sent to Europe to temporarily hide him from enemies. There are many more facts deliberately kept silent by A. Zayets, which completely refute the presumptuous assertions about the alleged impossibility of replacing the tsar.
As we can see, all the Romanov tsars, before returning from the "Grand Embassy" of the impostor, wore Russian dress, sat on the Moscow throne with tsarist attributes. They also attended the Russian church. But a man who came from Europe not only never wore Russian clothes, preferring only European dress, but also did not sit on the Moscow throne and did not go to Russian churches. His height turned out to be as much as 10 centimeters taller, and his body was 10 years older. In addition, for a year in Europe he completely forgot Russian speech and literacy. So much so that until the end of his life he wrote only in Latin.
Of course, the real Peter with his amusing regiments also planned certain reforms; he was an excellent tactician and knew the art of managing land battles well. The impostor who arrived in his place showed himself to be mediocre commanders in land battles (Narva), but he had an excellent long-term experience of sea battles, including boarding battles. It is highly doubtful that the real Peter could master such an art in one year, learning to build ships. And he could not catch the chronic form of tropical fever that tormented him until the end of his life in Western Europe.
But that's not all. Whether the common people loved Peter Alekseevich or not, this is a moot point. But he definitely loved his wife and every week during the embassy (except for the last few months after the change) he sent her tender letters. But the imposter who arrived did not even want to meet with his beloved wife, sending her to the monastery. Yes, you can attribute to his sister Sophia a desire to seize the throne. But why did you need to send your wife to the monastery? A real Russian tsar could not do that.
And the most important thing is his inexplicable craving for women of German blood that appeared. Some kind of wild "inconsistency". Well, if, for example, he forgot about his beloved wife and fell for the Dutch women, then why did he and all the kings of this dynasty then take only princesses of German blood to their wives? Apparently, they knew some truth about their ancestor. There was, of course, the Danish princess “Alexandra Feodorovna”, but that was already at the dynasty's dawn in the second half of the 19th century. By the way, the impostor still arranged massive drinking binges with debauchery. And he did a lot to get the Russian people drunk. It is unlikely that the "pernicious influence of the West" could change the real Pyotr Alekseevich so much in a year.
But that's not all. False Peter behaved like a commoner dork who had seized power, and not an aristocrat of royal blood. Can you imagine any other Russian tsar or European monarch who personally chopped off the heads of conspirators or cut off the beards of vassals? There are no such examples in history. Executions were carried out by executioners, not by kings or kings. The impostor, even the mistress A. Mons, who had betrayed him, personally cut off his head, not to mention the archers who raised a riot. Here he is, in fact, the "progressive king" of official history.
Well, the fact that he could make Russia a part of the Holy Roman Empire, and moreover, become the emperor not only of the Russian, but of the entire Holy Roman Empire, I do not rule out. The true story is too much falsified, and therefore similar versions cannot be ruled out. And, of course, he had his own curators from the West, who just carried out the substitution of the Russian tsar. Moreover, until the end of his life he searched for the library of Ivan the Terrible in Russian monasteries for his owners, but he never found it. But the real king probably knew about her location, for this knowledge was passed from king to king.
But the real Peter did not reveal this secret, because this library, like many other sources of true history, did not disappear in the many kilometers underground depositories of the Vatican Library. Therefore, the main goal of this substitution was not achieved. Here is an explanation of the substitution itself. No matter how Westerners the Romanovs were, they were not going to give the library of I. Grozny to the Vatican, realizing its true value and leaving for themselves "compromising evidence" on their owners.
Most likely, this is what prompted the Vatican to replace the king. The Vatican managed to temporarily "freeze" this threat of exposure, but sooner or later this "time bomb" will undermine all the foundations of modern Western parasitic civilization, revealing its true role in the history of mankind. And isn't it because her servants are so diligently trying to divert us from the truth about our real history that they feed us hastily invented myths in defense of their masters? Moreover, they pass off these myths of theirs as the truth allegedly proved by real facts.
