Comparison of Peter I and Charles XII during the battle. Comparative characteristics of Peter I and Charles XII (based on an excerpt from A. S. Pushkin’s poem “Poltava”) Comparison of the images of Peter 1 and Charles 12

4.38 /5 (87.50%) 8 votes

One of the largest battles of the 18th century took place near Poltava during the Northern War on June 27, 1709 between Russian and Swedish troops. The key role in the battle, as well as the outcome of the war as a whole, was played by the commanders of each side: Peter I and Charles XII.

The main conductors of military events, the young and pragmatic rulers of the two greatest powers of their time, understood perfectly well what was at stake in the battle of a protracted war - a crown and laurels for the winner, or loss and humiliation for the loser. The personal qualities and strategic thinking of each of the commanders during the battle distributed this stake.

Tsar Peter I was always distinguished by his ability to make the right decision in difficult times. And the Battle of Poltava was no exception - competent maneuvers of troops, the effective use of artillery, infantry and cavalry, the practical implementation of the idea of ​​​​redoubts - this and much more became the beginning of the end for the Swedish enemy. It is important to note that by personal example, Peter I instilled in the souls of Russian soldiers the will to win and confidence in their abilities. Swift and firm instructions during the battle, coupled with brave and sometimes adventurous actions, did not make one wait long for the result - Peter’s army masterfully moved from defense to offensive and the final defeat of the army of Charles XII.

Peter's opposite during the battle was Charles XII. The king's short-sighted decisions and arrogant disposition bled and weakened what was once the strongest military power. Lack of self-confidence and a pessimistic mood on the eve of the battle could not help but be transmitted to the army. Broken Charles led his soldiers to certain death - the redoubts and artillery of Peter. Under the onslaught of the enemy, Charles fled, leaving his soldiers and loyal generals.

As a result of the confrontation between the characters of Peter I and Charles XII in the Battle of Poltava, the history of Europe received a new turn - the strong army of King Charles XII no longer existed, Charles himself fled to the Ottoman Empire, and the military power of Sweden was lost.

(1 option)

A.S. Pushkin appreciates Peter I for his ability to make the right decision. In 1828, A.S. Pushkin wrote the poem “Poltava”, in which, along with a love, romantic plot, he developed a historical storyline related to the socio-political problems of Russia during Peter’s time. Historical figures of that time appear in the work: Peter I, Charles XII, Kochubey, Mazepa. The poet characterizes each of these heroes as an independent personality. A. S. Pushkin is primarily interested in the behavior of the heroes during the Poltava battle, a turning point for Russia.

Comparing the two main participants in the Battle of Poltava, Peter I and Charles XII, the poet pays special attention to the role played by the two great commanders in the battle. The appearance of the Russian Tsar before the decisive battle is beautiful, he is all in motion, in the feeling of the upcoming event, he is the action itself:

...Peter comes out. His eyes

Shining. His face is terrible.

He's like God's thunderstorm.

With his personal example, Peter inspires Russian soldiers, he feels his involvement in the common cause, therefore, when characterizing the hero A.S. Pushkin uses verbs of motion:

And he rushed in front of the shelves,

Powerful and joyful, like battle.

He devoured the field with his eyes...

The complete opposite of Peter is the Swedish king, Charles XII, who portrays only a semblance of a commander:

Carried by faithful servants,

In a rocking chair, pale, motionless,

Suffering from a wound, Karl appeared.

The entire behavior of the Swedish king speaks of his bewilderment and embarrassment before the battle; Charles does not believe in victory, does not believe in the power of example:

Suddenly with a weak wave of the hand

He moved his regiments against the Russians.

The outcome of the battle is predetermined by the behavior of the commanders. Describing two military leaders in the poem “Poltava”, A.S. Pushkin characterizes two types of commanders: the phlegmatic Swedish king, Charles XII, who cares only about his own benefit, and the most important participant in the events, ready for the decisive battle, and subsequently the main winner of the Battle of Poltava, the Russian Tsar Peter the Great. Here A.S. Pushkin appreciates Peter I for his military victories, for his ability to make the only right decision at a difficult moment for Russia.

(Option 2)

The images of the two emperors in the poem “Poltava” are contrasted with each other. Peter and Karl have already met:

Severe was in the science of glory

She was given a teacher: not one

An unexpected and bloody lesson

The Swedish paladin asked her.

But everything has changed, and with anxiety and anger Charles XII sees before him

No longer upset clouds

The unfortunate Narva fugitives,

And a string of shiny, slender regiments,

Obedient, fast and calm.

In addition to the author, both emperors are characterized by Mazepa, and if A.S. Pushkin describes Peter and Karl during and after the battle, then Mazepa recalls their past and prophesies their future. Peter, in order not to make an enemy, did not have to humiliate his dignity by pulling Mazepa’s mustache. Mazepa calls Karl “a lively and brave boy”, lists well-known facts from the life of the Swedish emperor (“jumping to the enemy for dinner”, “responding to a bomb with laughter”, “exchanging a wound for a wound”), and yet “it is not for him to fight with autocratic giant." “Autocratic giant” - Peter, leading Russian troops into battle. The characterization given to Karl by Mazepa would be more suitable for a young man than for an eminent commander: “He is blind, stubborn, impatient, // Both frivolous and arrogant...”, “a warlike tramp.” The main mistake of the Swedish emperor, from Mazepa’s point of view, is that he underestimates the enemy, “he only measures the enemy’s new strength by his past success.”

Pushkin's Karl is still “mighty”, “brave”, but then “a battle broke out”, and two giants collided. Peter comes out of the tent “surrounded by a crowd of favorites,” his voice is loud.

… His eyes

Shining. His face is terrible.

The movements are fast. He is beautiful,

He's like God's thunderstorm.

It's coming. They bring him a horse.

A faithful horse is zealous and humble.

Feeling the fatal fire,

Trembling. He looks askance with his eyes

And rushes in the dust of battle,

Proud of the powerful rider.

How unlike the heroic portrait of Peter before the battle Karl’s description is.

Carried by faithful servants,

In a rocking chair, pale, motionless,

Suffering from a wound, Karl appeared.

The hero's leaders followed him.

He quietly sank into thought.

He portrayed an embarrassed look

Extraordinary excitement.

It seemed that Karl was brought

The desired fight is at a loss...

Suddenly with a weak wave of the hand

He moved his regiments against the Russians.

Only the last two lines, breaking the picture, the rhythm, speak of how dangerous and unpredictable this person is, how much strength and threat is hidden in Karl. Peter is powerful and joyful, Karl is pale and motionless, but both are in anticipation of a fight. Next to the Russian emperor there are “chicks of Petrov’s nest”, with the Swedish one – “the leaders of the hero”. During the battle everything was mixed up: “Swede, Russian - stabbing, chopping, cutting.” The leaders, who started the battle so differently, behave the same in the heat of battle: “Among the anxiety and excitement // The calm leaders look at the battle, // The military movements follow...”. But the moment of victory is already close, and the Swedes are broken.

Peter is feasting. Both proud and clear

And his gaze is full of glory.

And his royal feast is wonderful.

At the calls of his troops,

In his tent he treats

Our leaders, the leaders of others,

And caresses the glorious captives,

And for your teachers

The healthy cup is raised.

One of Peter's teachers was Charles XII. Where is he? How does a teacher react when defeated by his student?

Danger is imminent and evil

Grant power to the king.

He wounded his grave

Forgot. Hanging my head,

He gallops, we are driven by the Russians...

“A hundred years have passed,” but are these strong and proud men remembered? “In the citizenship of the northern power, // In its warlike destiny, //...you erected, hero of Poltava, // A huge monument to yourself.” And Karl?

Three sunken in the ground

And moss-covered steps

They say about the Swedish king.

The heroes of Narva and Poltava could tell a lot about glory and defeat, poets will tell, read and remember for many generations of readers.

Peter I and Charles XII in Pushkin’s poem “Poltava”
(1 option)
A.S. Pushkin appreciates Peter I for his ability to make the right decision. In 1828, A.S. Pushkin wrote the poem “Poltava”, in which, along with a love, romantic plot, he developed a historical storyline related to the socio-political problems of Russia during Peter’s time. Historical figures of that time appear in the work: Peter I, Charles XII, Kochubey, Mazepa. The poet characterizes each of these heroes as an independent personality. A. S. Pushkin is primarily interested in the behavior of the heroes during the Poltava battle, a turning point for Russia.
Comparing the two main participants in the Battle of Poltava, Peter I and Charles XII, the poet pays special attention to the role played by the two great commanders in the battle. The appearance of the Russian Tsar before the decisive battle is beautiful, he is all in motion, in the feeling of the upcoming event, he is the action itself:
...Peter comes out. His eyes
Shining. His face is terrible.
The movements are fast. He is beautiful,
He's like God's thunderstorm.
With his personal example, Peter inspires Russian soldiers, he feels his involvement in the common cause, therefore, when characterizing the hero A.S. Pushkin uses verbs of motion:
And he rushed in front of the shelves,
Powerful and joyful, like battle.
He devoured the field with his eyes...
The complete opposite of Peter is the Swedish king, Charles XII, who portrays only a semblance of a commander:
Carried by faithful servants,
In a rocking chair, pale, motionless,
Suffering from a wound, Karl appeared.
The entire behavior of the Swedish king speaks of his bewilderment and embarrassment before the battle; Charles does not believe in victory, does not believe in the power of example:
Suddenly with a weak wave of the hand
He moved his regiments against the Russians.
The outcome of the battle is predetermined by the behavior of the commanders. Describing two military leaders in the poem “Poltava”, A.S. Pushkin characterizes two types of commanders: the phlegmatic Swedish king, Charles XII, who cares only about his own benefit, and the most important participant in the events, ready for the decisive battle, and subsequently the main winner of the Battle of Poltava, the Russian Tsar Peter the Great. Here A.S. Pushkin appreciates Peter I for his military victories, for his ability to make the only right decision at a difficult moment for Russia.
(Option 2)
The images of the two emperors in the poem “Poltava” are contrasted with each other. Peter and Karl have already met:
Severe was in the science of glory
She was given a teacher: not one
An unexpected and bloody lesson
The Swedish paladin asked her.
But everything has changed, and with anxiety and anger Charles XII sees before him
No longer upset clouds
The unfortunate Narva fugitives,
And a string of shiny, slender regiments,
Obedient, fast and calm.
In addition to the author, both emperors are characterized by Mazepa, and if A.S. Pushkin describes Peter and Karl during and after the battle, then Mazepa recalls their past and prophesies their future. Peter, in order not to make an enemy, did not have to humiliate his dignity by pulling Mazepa’s mustache. Mazepa calls Karl “a lively and brave boy”, lists well-known facts from the life of the Swedish emperor (“jumping to the enemy for dinner”, “responding to a bomb with laughter”, “exchanging a wound for a wound”), and yet “it is not for him to fight with autocratic giant." “Autocratic giant” - Peter, leading Russian troops into battle. The characterization given to Karl by Mazepa would be more suitable for a young man than for an eminent commander: “He is blind, stubborn, impatient, // Both frivolous and arrogant...”, “a warlike tramp.” The main mistake of the Swedish emperor, from Mazepa’s point of view, is that he underestimates the enemy, “he only measures the enemy’s new strength by his past success.”
Pushkin's Karl is still “mighty”, “brave”, but then “a battle broke out”, and two giants collided. Peter comes out of the tent “surrounded by a crowd of favorites,” his voice is loud.

PETER I AND CHARLES XII - TWO PORTRAITS IN THE INTERIOR OF HISTORY

In Russian history, the Swedish king Charles XII was unlucky. In the mass consciousness, he is presented as an almost cartoonishly extravagant, vain young king, who first defeated Peter, and then was beaten. “He died like a Swede near Poltava” - this, in fact, is about Karl, although, as you know, the king did not die near Poltava, but, having avoided captivity, continued to fight for almost ten years. Having fallen into the mighty shadow of Peter, Karl not only faded, but became lost and shrank. He, like an extra in a bad play, had to occasionally appear on the historical stage and deliver remarks designed to favorably highlight the main character - Peter the Great. The writer A.N. Tolstoy did not escape the temptation to present the Swedish king in exactly this way. The point is not that Karl appears episodically on the pages of the novel Peter the Great. Another important thing is the motivation of actions. Karl is frivolous and capricious - a sort of crowned egocentric who scours Eastern Europe in search of fame. He is absolutely the opposite of Tsar Peter, albeit hot-tempered and unbalanced, but thinking about the Fatherland day and night. The interpretation of A. N. Tolstoy entered the blood and flesh of mass historical consciousness. A talented literary work almost always outweighs volumes of serious historical works in its influence on the reader. Karl's simplification is at the same time a simplification of Peter himself and the scale of everything that happened to Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. This alone is enough to try to understand what happened through a comparison of these two personalities.

Peter I. Engraving by E. Chemesov, made from the original by J.-M. Nattier 1717

Charles XII. Portrait of an unknown artist from the early 18th century

Peter and Karl never met. But for many years they had been arguing in absentia with each other, which meant they were trying on each other, looking closely at each other. When the king learned about the death of Karl, he was quite sincerely upset: “Oh, brother Karl! How I feel sorry for you!” One can only guess what exactly the feelings were behind these words of regret. But it seems - something more than just royal solidarity... Their dispute was so long, the tsar was so imbued with the logic of the illogical actions of his crowned opponent that, it seems, with the death of Charles, Peter lost a part of himself.

People of different cultures, temperaments, mentalities, Karl and Peter were at the same time surprisingly similar. But this similarity has a special quality - in its dissimilarity from other sovereigns. Note that gaining such a reputation in an age when extravagant self-expression was in fashion is not an easy task. But Peter and Karl eclipsed many. Their secret is simple - both did not strive for extravagance at all. They lived without any fuss, building their behavior in accordance with ideas about what should be done. Therefore, much that seemed so important and necessary to others played almost no role for them. And vice versa. Their actions were perceived by most contemporaries as eccentricities at best, and as lack of education and barbarism at worst.

The English diplomat Thomas Wentworth and the Frenchman Aubrey de la Motray left descriptions of the “Gothic hero”. Karl is stately and tall in them, “but extremely unkempt and sloppy.” Facial features are thin. The hair is light and greasy and doesn't seem to come across a comb every day. The hat was crumpled - the king often put it not on his head, but under his arm. Reitar uniform, only cloth of the best quality. High boots with spurs. As a result, everyone who did not know the king by sight mistook him for a Reitar officer, and not of the highest rank.

Peter was equally undemanding in his clothing. He wore his dress and shoes for a long time, sometimes to the point of holes. The habit of French courtiers to appear every day in a new dress caused him only ridicule: “Apparently, the young man can’t find a tailor who would dress him quite to his taste?” - he teased the Marquis of Libois, who was assigned to the distinguished guest by the Regent of France himself. At the reception with the king, Peter appeared in a modest frock coat made of thick gray sheepskin (a type of material), without a tie, cuffs or lace, and - oh horror! - an unpowdered wig. The “extravagance” of the Moscow guest so shocked Versailles that it temporarily became fashionable. For a month, the court dandies embarrassed the court ladies with their wild (from the French point of view) costume, which received the official name “savage outfit.”

Of course, if necessary, Peter appeared before his subjects in all the splendor of royal grandeur. In the first decades on the throne, it was the so-called Great Sovereign's outfit, later - a richly decorated European dress. Thus, at the ceremony of crowning Catherine I with the title of empress, the tsar appeared in a caftan embroidered with silver. This was required both by the ceremony itself and by the fact that the hero of the occasion worked diligently on the embroidery. True, the sovereign, who did not like unnecessary expenses, did not bother to change his worn-out shoes. In this form, he placed the crown on the kneeling Catherine, which cost the treasury several tens of thousands of rubles.

The manners of the two sovereigns matched the clothes - simple and even rude. Karl, as contemporaries noted, “eats like a horse,” deep in his thoughts. While thoughtful, he may spread butter on the bread with his finger. The food is the simplest and seems to be valued mainly from the point of view of satiety. On the day of his death, Karl, after having dinner, praises his cook: “Your food is so satisfying that I’ll have to appoint you as a senior cook!” Peter is equally undemanding when it comes to food. His main requirement was that everything should be served piping hot: in the Summer Palace, for example, it was arranged so that dishes came to the royal table directly from the stove.

Unpretentious in food, the sovereigns varied greatly in their attitude towards strong drinks. The maximum that Charles allowed himself was weak dark beer: that was the vow that the young king made after one copious libation. The vow is unusually strong, without deviation. Peter's unbridled drunkenness evokes nothing but a bitter sigh of regret among his apologists.

It is difficult to say who is to blame for this addiction. Most people close to Peter suffered from this vice. The clever prince Boris Golitsyn, to whom the tsar owed so much in the fight against Princess Sophia, according to one of his contemporaries, “drank incessantly.” The famous “debaucher” Franz Lefort did not lag behind him. But he is perhaps the only person whom the young king tried to imitate.

But if Peter was drawn into drunkenness by his surroundings, the Tsar himself, having matured, no longer tried to put an end to this protracted “service to the tavern.” Suffice it to recall the “meetings” of the famous All-Joking and All-Drunken Council, after which the sovereign’s head began to shake fitfully. The “Patriarch” of the noisy company, Nikita Zotov, even had to warn “Herr Protodeacon” Peter against excessive prowess on the battlefield with “Ivashka Khmelnitsky”.

Surprisingly, the king turned even a noisy feast to benefit his business. His All-Joking Council is not just a way of wild relaxation and stress relief, but a form of affirmation of a new everyday life - the overthrow of the old with the help of laughter, madness and outrage. Peter's phrase about "ancient customs" that are "always better than new ones" most successfully illustrates the essence of this plan - after all, the tsar praised the "Holy Russian antiquity" in the clownish antics of "the most extravagant cathedral."

It is somewhat naive to contrast Karl’s sober lifestyle with Peter’s passion for “being drunk all the time and never going to bed sober” (the main requirement of the charter of the All-Joking Council). Outwardly, this did not particularly affect the flow of affairs. But only externally. A dark stain on the story of Peter lies not only with the facts of unbridled drunken anger, anger to the point of murder, and loss of human appearance. A “drunk” lifestyle of the court, the new aristocracy, was taking shape, deplorable in all respects.

Neither Peter nor Karl were distinguished by subtlety of feelings and sophistication of manners. There are dozens of cases where the king, through his actions, caused a slight consternation among those around him. The German princess Sophia, intelligent and perceptive, described her impressions after the first meeting with Peter: the king is tall, handsome, his quick and correct answers speak of the liveliness of his mind, but “with all the virtues that nature has endowed him with, it would be desirable that there was less rudeness in him."

Grub and Karl. But this is rather the emphasized rudeness of the soldier. This is how he behaves in defeated Saxony, making it clear to Augustus and his subjects who lost the war and who must pay the bills. However, when it came to close people, both could be attentive and even tender in their own way. This is Peter in his letters to Catherine: “Katerinushka!”, “My friend,” “My dear friend!” and even “Sweetheart!” Karl is also caring and helpful in his letters to his family.

Karl avoided women. He was exactly cold with noble ladies and with those who, as women “for everyone,” accompanied his army in the carts. According to contemporaries, the king was like “a guy from a remote village” in his dealings with the weaker sex. Over time, such restraint even began to worry his relatives. They tried more than once to persuade Karl to marry, but he avoided marriage with enviable tenacity. The dowager-queen-grandmother Hedwig-Eleanor was especially concerned about the family happiness of her grandson and the continuity of the dynasty. It was to her that Karl promised to “settle down” by the age of 30. When, upon reaching the deadline, the queen reminded her grandson of this, Charles, in a short letter from Bender, announced that he was “completely unable to remember his promise of this kind.” In addition, before the end of the war he will be “overloaded beyond measure” - a very good reason for postponing the matrimonial plans of “dear Mrs. Grandmother.”

The “Northern Hero” passed away without marrying and without leaving an heir. This turned out to be new difficulties for Sweden and gave Peter the opportunity to put pressure on the stubborn Scandinavians. The fact is that Karl’s nephew, Karl Friedrich of Holstein-Gottor, the son of the king’s deceased sister, Hedwig-Sophia, laid claim not only to the Swedish throne, but also to the hand of Peter’s daughter, Anna. And if in the first case his chances were problematic, then in the latter, things quickly went to the wedding table. The king was not averse to taking advantage of the situation and bargaining. Peter made the agreement of the intractable Swedes dependent on their attitude towards peace with Russia: if you persist, we will support the claims of your future son-in-law; If you go to sign peace, we will take our hand away from Duke Charles.

Peter's behavior with the ladies was impudent and even rude. The habit of commanding and violent temperament did not help curb his seething passions. The king was not particularly picky in his connections. In London, girls of easy virtue were offended by the far from royal payment for their services. Peter responded immediately: such is the work, such is the pay.

It should be noted: what was condemned by the Orthodox Church and called “fornication” was considered almost the norm in Europeanized secular culture. Peter somehow quickly forgot about the first and easily accepted the second. True, he never had enough time or money for truly French “politeness.” He acted more simply, separating feelings from connections. Catherine had to accept this point of view. The tsar's endless trips to the "metresses" became the subject of jokes in their correspondence.

Peter's wildness did not stop him from dreaming of a home and family. This is where his affections grew. First to Anna Mons, the daughter of a German wine merchant who settled in the German settlement, then to Martha Catherine, whom the tsar first saw in 1703 at Menshikov’s. It all started as usual: a fleeting hobby, of which the sovereign, who could not tolerate refusal, had many. But the years passed, and Catherine did not disappear from the tsar’s life. Her even disposition, gaiety and warmth - all this, apparently, attracted the king to her. Peter was at home everywhere, which meant he had no home. Now he has acquired a home and a mistress who has given him a family and a sense of family comfort.

Catherine is as narrow-minded as Peter’s first wife, Tsarina Evdokia Lopukhina, who was imprisoned in a monastery. But Peter did not need an adviser. But, unlike the disgraced queen, Catherine could easily sit in a male company or, leaving her things in a cart, rush after Peter to the ends of the world. She did not ask the trivial question: whether such an act was decent or indecent. Such a question simply did not occur to her. The sovereign betrothed called - it means it’s necessary.

Even with very great condescension, Catherine can hardly be called an intelligent person. When, after the death of Peter, she was elevated to the throne, the empress’s complete inability to do business was revealed. Strictly speaking, it was precisely with these qualities that she apparently pleased her supporters. But the limitations of Catherine the Empress became at the same time the strength of Catherine the friend, and then the Tsar’s wife. She was worldly smart, which does not require a high intelligence at all, but only the ability to adapt, not to irritate, and to know one’s place. Peter appreciated Catherine’s unpretentiousness and ability, if circumstances required it, to endure. The sovereign also liked her physical strength. And rightly so. It was necessary to have considerable strength and remarkable health to keep up with Peter.

Peter's personal life turned out to be richer and more dramatic than Karl's personal life. Unlike his opponent, the king experienced family happiness. But he had to fully drink the cup of family adversity. He went through a conflict with his son, Tsarevich Alexei, the tragic outcome of which placed the stigma of a son-killer on Peter. There was also a dark story in the tsar’s life with one of Anna Mons’ brothers, chamberlain Willim Mons, who was caught in 1724 in connection with Catherine.

Peter, who had little regard for human dignity, once publicly mocked a certain cook of Catherine, who was deceived by his wife. The king even ordered deer antlers to be hung over the door of his house. And here I found myself in an ambiguous position! Peter was beside himself. “He was pale as death, his wandering eyes sparkled... Everyone, seeing him, was gripped by fear.” The banal story of betrayed trust, performed by Peter, received a dramatic overtones with echoes that shook the whole country. Mons was arrested, tried and executed. The vengeful king, before forgiving his wife, forced her to contemplate the severed head of the unfortunate chamberlain.

At one time, L.N. Tolstoy intended to write a novel about the time of Peter. But as soon as he delved deeper into the era, many similar incidents turned the writer away from his plan. Peter's cruelty struck Tolstoy. “A rabid beast” - these are the words that the great writer found for the reformer king.

No such accusations were made against Karl. Swedish historians even noted his decision to prohibit the use of torture during the investigation: the king refused to believe in the reliability of the accusations received in this way. This is a remarkable fact, indicating the different state of Swedish and Russian society. However, Karl’s sense of humanism, combined with Protestant maximalism, was selective. It did not stop him from carrying out reprisals against Russian prisoners taken in battles in Poland: they were killed and maimed.

Contemporaries, assessing the behavior and manners of the two sovereigns, were more lenient towards Peter than towards Charles. They did not expect anything else from the Russian monarch. The rudeness and unceremoniousness of Peter for them is exotic, which should certainly have accompanied the behavior of the ruler of the “barbarian Muscovites.” It's more difficult with Karl. Charles is the sovereign of a European power. And disregard for manners is unforgivable even for a king. Meanwhile, the motivations for the behavior of Peter and Karl were in many ways similar. Karl discarded it, Peter did not adopt it what prevented them from being sovereigns.

The Swedish and Russian monarchs were distinguished by their hard work. Moreover, this diligence differed greatly from the diligence of Louis XIV, who at one time proudly declared that “the power of kings is acquired by labor.” It is unlikely that both of our heroes would challenge the French monarch in this. However, Louis's industriousness was very specific, limited by theme, time and royal whim. Louis did not allow not only clouds in the sun, but also calluses on his palms. (At one time, the Dutch issued a medal in which clouds obscured the Sun. The “Sun King” quickly understood the symbolism and became angry with his undaunted neighbors.)

Charles XII inherited his hard work from his father, King Charles XI, who became a model of behavior for the young man. The example was consolidated through the efforts of the heir’s enlightened educators. From early childhood, the Viking king's day was filled with work. Most often it was military worries, a hard and troublesome bivouac life. But even after the end of hostilities, the king did not allow himself any relief. Karl got up very early, sorted out the papers, and then went on an inspection to the regiments or institutions. Actually, the very simplicity in manners and clothing, which has already been mentioned, comes largely from the habit of working. An elegant outfit is just an obstacle here. Karl’s manner of not unfastening his spurs was born not from bad manners, but from his readiness to jump on a horse at the first call and rush off on business. The king demonstrated this more than once. The most impressive demonstration is Charles's seventeen-hour ride from Bendery to the Prut River, where the Turks and Tatars surrounded Peter's army. It was not the king’s fault that he only saw columns of dust above the columns of Peter’s troops leaving for Russia. Karl was unlucky with the “capricious girl Fortuna”. It is no coincidence that she was depicted in the 18th century with a shaved head: she gaped, did not grab the hair in front in time - remember what her name was!

“I heal my body with waters, and my subjects with examples,” Peter announced in Olonets (Karelia, almost 150 kilometers from Petrozavodsk) at the marcial springs. In the phrase, the emphasis was on the word “water” - Peter was incredibly proud of opening his own resort. The story rightly shifted its emphasis to the second part. The Tsar really gave his subjects an example of tireless and selfless work for the good of the Fatherland.

Moreover, with the light hand of the Moscow sovereign, the image of a monarch was formed, whose merits were determined not by prayerful zeal and indestructible piety, but by his labors. Actually, after Peter, work was made the responsibility of a true ruler. There was a fashion for work - not without the participation of educators. Moreover, it was not just state work that was revered, as it was due to duty. The sovereign was also charged with private work, work as an example, during which the monarch descended to his subjects. So, Peter worked as a carpenter, built ships, worked in a lathe (historians have lost count when counting the crafts that the Russian sovereign mastered). The Austrian Empress Maria Theresa treated her courtiers with excellent milk, having personally milked the cows on the imperial farm. Louis XV, having taken a break from love affairs, was engaged in the wallpaper craft, and his son Louis XVI, with the dexterity of a regimental surgeon, opened the mechanical wombs of watches and brought them back to life. In fairness, it is still necessary to note the difference between the original and copies. For Peter, work is a necessity and a vital requirement. His epigones are more about joy and amusement, although, of course, if Louis XVI had become a watchmaker, he would have ended his life in bed, and not on the guillotine.

Karl Allard's book "The New Golan Shipbuilding" was translated into Russian by order of Peter. Peter's library contained several copies of this publication.

A glass made by Peter I (gold, wood, diamonds, ruby) and presented by him to M.P. Gagarin for organizing a holiday in Moscow in honor of the victory over the Swedes near Poltava. 1709

A turning and copying machine created by master Franz Singer, who worked for many years for the Florentine Duke Cosimo III de' Medici, and then came to St. Petersburg at the invitation of the Russian Tsar. In Russia, Singer headed the Tsar's turning workshop

In the perception of contemporaries, the hard work of both sovereigns naturally had its own shades. Charles appeared before them primarily as a soldier-king, whose thoughts and works revolved around war. Peter's activities are more varied, and his “image” is more polyphonic. The prefix "warrior" rarely accompanies his name. He is the sovereign who is forced to do everything. Peter's versatile, vigorous activity was reflected in correspondence. For more than a hundred years now, historians and archivists have been publishing letters and papers of Peter I, and yet they are still far from being completed.

The remarkable historian M. M. Bogoslovsky, to illustrate the scale of the royal correspondence, took as an example one day from the life of Peter - July 6, 1707. The simple list of topics raised in the letters inspires respect. But the reformer king touched them from memory, demonstrating great awareness. Here is the range of these topics: payment to the Moscow City Hall of amounts from the Admiralty, Siberian and local orders; reminting of coins; recruiting the dragoon regiment and arming it; distribution of grain provisions; construction of a defensive line in the Dorpat chief commandant; transfer of Mitchel's regiment; bringing traitors and criminals to justice; new appointments; installation of tunnels; putting the Astrakhan rebels on trial; sending a clerk to the Preobrazhensky Regiment; replenishment of Sheremetev regiments with officers; indemnities; search for a translator for Sheremetev; expulsion of fugitives from the Don; sending convoys to Poland to the Russian regiments; investigation of conflicts on the Izyum line.

On this day, Peter’s thought covered the space from Dorpat to Moscow, from Polish Ukraine to the Don, the tsar instructed and admonished many close and not very close collaborators - princes Yu. V. Dolgoruky, M. P. Gagarin, F. Yu. Romodanovsky, field marshal B. P. Sheremetev, K. A. Naryshkin, A. A. Kurbatov, G. A. Plemyannikov and others.

The hard work of Peter and Karl is the flip side of their curiosity. In the history of transformations, it was the tsar’s curiosity that acted as a kind of “first impetus” and at the same time a perpetuum mobile - the perpetual engine of reforms. The king’s inexhaustible inquisitiveness, his ability to be surprised, which was not lost until his death, is surprising.

Karl's curiosity is more restrained. She is devoid of Peter's ardor. The king is prone to cold, systematic analysis. This was partly due to differences in education. It is simply incomparable - different type and focus. Charles XII's father was guided by European concepts, personally developing a plan of education and upbringing for his son. The prince's tutor is one of the most intelligent officials, royal adviser Eric Lindskiöld, teachers are the future bishop, professor of theology from Uppsala University Eric Benzelius and professor of Latin Andreas Norcopensis. Contemporaries spoke of Karl's inclination towards mathematical sciences. There was someone to develop his talent - the heir to the throne communicated with the best mathematicians.

Against this background, the modest figure of clerk Zotov, Peter’s main teacher, loses greatly. He, of course, was distinguished by his piety and for the time being was not a “hawk moth.” But this is clearly not enough from the point of view of future reforms. The paradox, however, was that neither Peter himself nor his teachers could even imagine what knowledge the future reformer needed. Peter is doomed to lack a European education: firstly, it simply did not exist; secondly, it was revered as evil. It’s good that Zotov and others like him didn’t discourage Peter’s curiosity. Peter will be engaged in self-education all his life - and his results will be impressive. However, the king clearly lacked systematic education, which would have to be made up for through common sense and great work.

Karl and Peter were deeply religious people. Karl's religious upbringing was focused. As a child, he even wrote abstracts for court sermons. Karl's faith bore a touch of zeal and even fanaticism. “In any circumstances,” contemporaries noted, “he remains faithful to his unshakable faith in God and His almighty help.” Isn’t this partly the explanation for the king’s extraordinary courage? If, by divine providence, not a single hair falls off your head ahead of time, then why take care and bow to bullets? As a devout Protestant, Karl does not abandon exercises in piety for a minute. In 1708, he re-read the Bible four times, became proud (even wrote down the days when he opened the Holy Scriptures) and immediately condemned himself. The notes went into the fire under the comment: “I boast about this.”

Exercise in piety is also a feeling of being a conductor of the divine will. The king is not just fighting with Augustus the Strong or Peter I. He acts as the punishing hand of God, punishing these named sovereigns for perjury and treachery - a motive extremely important for Charles. The extraordinary tenacity, or rather, the stubbornness of the “Gothic hero,” who did not want to go to peace under any circumstances, goes back to his conviction of being chosen. Therefore, all failures for the king are only a God-sent test, a test of strength. Here’s one small touch: Karl in Bendery drew plans for two frigates (Peter was not the only one doing this!) and unexpectedly gave them Turkish names: the first - “Yilderin”, the second - “Yaramas”, which together translates as “here I come!” The drawings were sent to Sweden with a strict order to begin construction immediately, so that everyone would know: nothing is lost, he will come again!

Peter's religiosity is devoid of Charles's fervor. She is more base, more pragmatic. The Tsar believes because he believes, but also because faith always turns to the visible benefit of the state. There is a story related to Vasily Tatishchev. The future historian, upon returning from abroad, allowed himself caustic attacks against the Holy Scriptures. The king set out to teach the freethinker a lesson. The “teaching,” in addition to physical measures, was supported by instructions that were very characteristic of the “teacher” himself. “How dare you weaken such a string, which constitutes the harmony of the whole tone? - Peter was furious. - I will teach you how to honor it (Holy Scripture - I.A.) and not break the chains that contain everything in the structure.”

While remaining a deep believer, Peter did not feel any reverence for the church and the church hierarchy. That is why, without any reflection, he began to remake the church structure in the right way. With the light hand of the tsar, a synodal period began in the history of the Russian church, when the highest administration of the church was, in fact, relegated to a simple department for spiritual and moral affairs under the emperor.

Officer of the Life Guards Semenovsky Regiment

First quarter of the 18th century

Both loved military affairs. The Tsar plunged headlong into “Mars and Neptune’s fun.” But very soon he stepped over the boundaries of the game and began to undertake radical military reforms. Karl didn't have to arrange anything like that. Instead of “amusing” regiments, he immediately received “property” of one of the best European armies. It is not surprising that, unlike Peter, he had almost no pause in discipleship. He immediately became a famous commander, demonstrating extraordinary tactical and operational skill on the battlefield. But the war, which completely captured Charles, played a cruel joke on him. The king very soon confused the goal and the means. And if war becomes the goal, the result is almost always sad, sometimes self-destruction. The French, after the endless Napoleonic wars, which knocked out a healthy part of the nation, “decreased” in height by two inches. I don’t know exactly how much the Northern War cost the tall Swedes, but it can definitely be said that Charles himself burned in the fire of war, and Sweden strained itself, unable to bear the burden of great power.

View of Arkhangelsk from the bay. Early 18th century engraving

Karl loved to take risks, usually without thinking about the consequences. Adrenaline was boiling in his blood and gave him a feeling of fullness of life. No matter what page of Charles’s biography we take, no matter how large or small the episode we examine closely, we can see everywhere the insane courage of the hero-king, the unceasing desire to test himself for strength. In his youth, he hunted a bear with one horn, and when asked: “Isn’t it scary?” - He answered without any pretense: “Not at all, if you’re not afraid.” Later, he walked under bullets without bowing. There were cases when they “stung” him, but up to a certain point he was lucky: either the bullets had run out, or the wound was non-fatal.

Karl's love of risk is both his weakness and his strength. More precisely, if we follow the chronology of events, we must say this: first - strength, then - weakness. In fact, this character trait of Karl gave him a visible advantage over his opponents, since they were almost always guided by “normal”, risk-free logic. Karl appeared there and then, when and where he was not expected, and acted as no one had ever acted. A similar thing happened near Narva in November 1700. Peter left his positions near Narva the day before the Swedes appeared (he went to rush the reserves) not because he was afraid, but because he proceeded from the situation: the Swedes should rest after the march, set up a camp, reconnoiter, and only then attack. But the king did the opposite. He didn’t give the regiments any rest, didn’t set up a camp, and at dawn, as soon as it was clear, he rushed headlong into the attack. If you think about it, all these qualities characterize a true commander. With the caveat that there is a certain condition, the fulfillment of which distinguishes a great commander from an ordinary military leader. This is a condition: the risk must be justified.

The king did not want to take this rule into account. He challenged fate. And if fate turned away from him, then, in his opinion, let it be worse... for fate. Should we be surprised at his reaction to Poltava? “Everything is fine with me. And only very recently, due to one special event, a misfortune occurred, and the army suffered damage, which, I hope, will soon be corrected,” he wrote in early August 1709 to his sister Ulrike-Eleanor. This is “everything is fine” and a small “misfortune” - about the defeat and capture of the entire Swedish army near Poltava and Perevolochnaya!

Karl's role in history is a hero. Peter did not look so brave. He is more cautious and careful. Risk is not his element. There are even known moments of the king’s weakness, when he lost his head and strength. But the closer we are to Peter, who is capable of overcoming himself. It is in this that one of the most important differences between Charles and Peter finds its manifestation. They are both people of duty. But each of them understands duty in their own way. Peter feels himself a servant of the Fatherland. This look for him is both a moral justification for everything he has accomplished, and the main motive that encourages him to overcome fatigue, fear, and indecision. Peter thinks of himself for the Fatherland, and not the Fatherland for himself: “And about Peter, know that his life is not cheap for him, if only Russia lived in bliss and glory for your well-being.” These words, spoken by the tsar on the eve of the Battle of Poltava, most accurately reflected his internal attitude. For Karl, everything is different. With all his love for Sweden, he turned the country into a means of realizing his ambitious plans.

The fate of Peter and Charles is the story of the eternal dispute about which ruler is better: an idealist who put principles and ideals above all, or a pragmatist who stood firmly on the ground and preferred real rather than illusory goals. Karl acted as an idealist in this dispute and lost, since his idea of ​​​​punishing, in spite of everything, treacherous opponents from an absolute turned into an absurdity.

Karl, in a purely Protestant way, was confident that a person is saved by faith alone. And he believed in it unshakably. It is symbolic that the earliest surviving thing written by Charles is a quotation from the Gospel of Matthew (VI, 33): “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” Karl not only followed this commandment, he “implanted” it. In the perception of his destiny, the Swedish king is a more medieval sovereign than the king of the “Muscovite barbarians” Peter. He is filled with sincere religious piety. For him, Protestant theology is completely self-sufficient in justifying his absolute power and the nature of his relationships with his subjects. For Peter, the previous “ideological equipment” of the autocracy, which was based on theocratic foundations, was completely insufficient. He justifies his power more broadly, resorting to the theory of natural law and the “common good.”

Paradoxically, Karl, in his incredible stubbornness and his talent, contributed greatly to reforms in Russia and the formation of Peter as a statesman. Under the leadership of Charles, Sweden not only did not want to part with the great power. She strained all her strength, mobilized all the potential, including the energy and intelligence of the nation, to maintain her position. In response, this required incredible efforts from Peter and Russia. Had Sweden ceded earlier, and who knows how strong the onslaught of reforms and imperial ambitions of the Russian Tsar would have been? Of course, there is no doubt about the energy of Peter, who would hardly refuse to urge and spur the country. But it is one thing to carry out reforms in a country that is waging a “three-dimensional war,” and another thing to carry out reforms in a country that is ending the war after Poltava. In a word, Karl, with all his skills in winning battles and losing wars, was a worthy rival to Peter. And although the king was not among those captured on the Poltava field, the healthy cup for the teachers, raised by the king, undoubtedly had a direct connection with him.

Bust of Peter I, created by Bartolomeo Carlo Rastrelli (Painted wax and plaster; wig from Peter's hair; eyes - glass, enamel) 1819

I wonder if Karl, if he had been present, would have agreed with his field marshal Renschild, who muttered in response to Peter’s toast: “You have thanked your teachers well!”?

Candidate of Historical Sciences I. ANDREEV

Please help Comparative characteristics of Peter 1 and Charles 12

Answers:

In the poem Poltava there are two main characters: Peter 1 and Karl 12. Pushkin is interested in the behavior of the two commanders before the battle. He compares them in his work, praising Peter and humiliating Charles. Here is a description of Peter in the moment before the battle. He is, as the poet himself puts it, “beautiful.” Peter comes out. His eyes are shining. His face is terrible. The movements are fast. He is beautiful, He is all like God's thunderstorm. The image of Peter inspires fear. Whereas Karl is weak, sick, and unable to move without the help of servants. He inspires pity in his readers. Carried by faithful servants, In a rocking chair, pale, motionless, Suffering from a wound, Charles appeared. Before the battle, Peter strives to raise the morale of the army. He gallops in front of the regiments on horseback. Infects warriors with its energy. And he rushed in front of the regiments, powerful and joyful, like battle. He devoured the field with his eyes.... While Karl was embarrassed, barely alive. He does not seek to support his warriors, and is not capable of doing so. Suddenly, with a weak wave of his hand, he moved the shelves towards the Russians