Comparative characteristics of Charles 12 and Peter 1. Comparative characteristics of Peter I and Charles XII (based on an excerpt from poem A

This battle became the decisive battle in the Northern War and one of the most striking victories of Russian weapons in history.

god of War

One of the main factors that ensured the victory of the Russian army over the enemy was artillery. Unlike the Swedish king Charles XII, Peter I did not neglect the services of the “god of war.” Against four Swedish guns brought to the field near Poltava, the Russians fielded 310 guns of various calibers. Within a few hours, four powerful artillery strikes were rained down on the advancing enemy. All of them led to serious losses on the part of the Swedes. As a result of one of them, a third of Charles’s army was captured: 6 thousand people at once.

Peter the commander

After the Poltava victory, Peter I was promoted to the rank of senior lieutenant general. This promotion is not a mere formality. For Peter, the battle of Poltava was one of the most important events in his life and - with certain reservations - he could sacrifice his life if necessary. At one of the decisive moments of the battle, when the Swedes broke through the Russian ranks, he rode forward and, despite the aimed fire that the Swedish riflemen fired at him, galloped along the infantry line, inspiring the fighters by personal example. According to legend, he miraculously escaped death: three bullets almost reached their target. One pierced the hat, the second hit the saddle, and the third hit the pectoral cross.
“O Peter, know that life is not precious to him, as long as Russia lives in bliss and glory for your well-being,” these are the famous words he said before the start of the battle.

So that the enemy does not get scared...

The fighting spirit of the soldiers matched the mood of the commander. The regiments left in reserve seemed to be asking to go to the front line, wanting to take as active part as possible in such an important battle for the country. Peter was even forced to justify himself to them: “The enemy is standing near the forest and is already in great fear; if all the regiments are withdrawn, he will not give up the fight and will leave: for this reason, it is necessary to make a reduction from the other regiments, in order to attract the enemy to the battle through his derogation.” . The advantage of our troops over the enemy was indeed great not only in artillery: 22 thousand against 8 thousand infantry and 15 thousand against 8 thousand cavalry.
In order not to frighten the enemy, Russian strategists resorted to other tricks. For example, Peter ordered experienced soldiers to be dressed as recruits so that the deceived enemy would direct his forces at them.

Surrounding the enemy and surrendering

The decisive moment in the battle: the spread of rumors about the death of Charles. It quickly became clear that the rumor was exaggerated. The wounded king ordered himself to be raised like a banner, like an idol, on crossed spears. He shouted: "Swedes! Swedes!" But it was too late: the exemplary army succumbed to panic and fled.
Three days later, demoralized, she was overtaken by cavalry under the command of Menshikov. And although the Swedes now had a numerical superiority - 16 thousand against nine - they surrendered. One of the best armies in Europe capitulated.

Sue the horse

However, some Swedes were able to find benefit in the crushing defeat. During the battle, the orderly of the Life Dragoon Karl Strokirch gave the horse to General Lagerkrun. After 22 years, the cavalryman decided that it was time to return the favor and went to court. The case was examined, the general was accused of horse theft and ordered to pay compensation of 710 dalers, which equals approximately 18 kilograms of silver.

Report about Victoria

Paradoxically, despite the fact that in the battle itself the Russian troops were doomed to victory in all respects, the report about it compiled by Peter caused a lot of noise in Europe. It was a sensation.
The Vedomosti newspaper published a letter from Peter to Tsarevich Alexei: “I announce to you a very great victory, which God deigned to bestow upon us through the indescribable courage of our soldiers, with the small blood of our troops.”

Memory of Victory

In memory of the victory and the soldiers who died for it, a temporary oak cross was erected at the battle site. Peter also planned to lay here monastery. Wooden cross was replaced by granite only a hundred years later. Even later - towards the end of the 19th century - the monument and chapel that today’s tourists see were built on the site of the mass grave. Instead of a monastery, in 1856 a temple was erected in the name of St. Sampson the Old Receiver, who was attributed to the Exaltation of the Cross convent. For the 300th anniversary of the battle, the chapel of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, standing on the mass grave, was restored, but it, like many historical monuments in Ukraine, is still in disrepair and is almost always closed to the public.

Peter I and Charles XII in Pushkin’s poem “Poltava”
(1 option)
A.S. Pushkin appreciates Peter I for his ability to accept 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
They shine. 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 whole 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.

Speech development lesson

Comparative characteristics of Peter I and Charles XII (based on an excerpt from A.S. Pushkin’s poem “Poltava”).

1. Conversation on the following issues:

2. Reading passages depicting generals during a battle:

3. Comparative portrait characteristics of two commanders. Planning.

The appearance of commanders. How does Peter appear? Charles? What verbs of “appearance” does the poet use?

Portraits of heroes. What does the poet emphasize in the appearance of Peter? (eyes, face, movements) What does Karl’s portrait draw our attention to? (paleness, embarrassment, suffering) What means of expression create portraits of heroes?

Poses. (Peter rushed by on a horse, Karl was carried out on a stretcher).

Environment. How do Peter's companions appear? What verb characterizes their swiftness? What does Pushkin write about Karl’s associates? What verb talks about their movement?

Behavior in battle. On whose side is the moral superiority? Who enjoys participating in battle?

The mood of the heroes.

Is it possible to judge from these descriptions the author’s attitude towards the characters?

4. Tell us according to plan about one of the heroes.

Homework: an oral story about one of the characters, supported by quotes from the text.

Candidate of Historical Sciences I. ANDREEV.

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.

Young Peter I. Unknown artist. Beginning of the 18th century.

Officer of the Life Guards Semenovsky Regiment. First quarter of the 18th century.

Science and life // Illustrations

Science and life // Illustrations

Science and life // Illustrations

Personal belongings of Peter I: caftan, officer's badge and officer's scarf.

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

View of Arkhangelsk from the bay. Engraving from the early 18th century.

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.

Medallion with a relief image of the Battle of Grenham in the Baltic on July 27, 1720 (work of a lathe).

Peter I in the Battle of Poltava. Drawing and engraving by M. Martin (son). First quarter of the 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 best case scenario as eccentricity, at worst - as lack of education, barbarism.

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

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 just 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. Peter appeared at the king's reception in a modest frock coat made of thick gray barakan (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 Peter’s story is not only 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.

Note, That which was condemned Orthodox Church and was called “fornication”, in Europeanized secular culture it was considered almost the norm. 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 acquired a home and a mistress who gave 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 - that means it’s necessary.

Even with very great condescension, it is difficult to call Catherine smart 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 strong point Catherine's friend, and then the Tsar's wife. She was smart in everyday life, which does not require a high intelligence at all, but only the ability to adapt, not to irritate, and to know her 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 knew 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 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. WITH 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 over 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 light hand The Moscow sovereign formed the image of a monarch 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 labor, work-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 need. 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.

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 king’s curiosity that acted as a kind of “first impetus” and at the same time a perpetuum mobile - perpetual motion machine 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's simply incomparable - different type and direction. 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 the lack of 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.

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 do not break the circuits containing everything in the device."

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.

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 endless Napoleonic wars, who knocked out a healthy part of the nation, “reduced” 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.

Unlike “brother Karl,” Peter never confused ends and means. The war and the transformations associated with it remained for him a means of elevating the country. When embarking on “peaceful” reforms after the end of the Northern War, the tsar declared his intentions as follows: zemstvo affairs must be “brought into the same order as military affairs.”

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.

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.”

Paradoxical as it may seem, Karl, in his incredible stubbornness and his talent, contributed greatly to the reforms in Russia and the formation of Peter as 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 teachers raised by the king undoubtedly had a direct connection with him.

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!”?

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

They shine. 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 whole 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, who cares only about his own benefit - Charles XII and the most important participant in the events, ready for the decisive battle, and subsequently the main winner of the Battle of Poltava - 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.

Other questions from the category "Art and Culture"

• Hello, we were assigned an essay on literature based on the work of A. S. Pushkin, The Captain's Daughter, on any topic. Podska
• Find errors in the construction of word combinations. weather forecast, describe nature, share memories, report for work