A mature 28-year-old husband, having started a war with a 17-year-old Swedish king, Peter found in him an enemy who, at first glance, was strikingly different in character, the direction of political will, and an understanding of people's needs. A more careful consideration and comparison of the circumstances of their lives, the most important personality traits, reveal much in common in them, an obvious or hidden relationship of destinies and mindsets, which gave additional drama to their struggle.
First of all, it is striking that neither one nor the other received a systematic, complete upbringing and education, although the educational and moral foundation laid in Karl by his teachers seems to be more solid. Peter, up to ten years old, that is, until the bloody events pushed him out of the Kremlin, only had time to learn the skill of Church Slavonic letters under the guidance of the deacon Nikita Zotov. The same sciences that Karl studied with experienced teachers - arithmetic, geometry, artillery, fortification, history, geography, and so on - Peter made up for himself, without any plan, with the help of Jan Timmerman's doctor (a very mediocre mathematician who more than once did mistakes, for example, in multiplication problems) and other no more knowledgeable teachers. But with a desire for learning and agility in independently acquiring knowledge, Peter far surpassed his opponent. The upbringing of the Swedish king can be called book-heroic, the upbringing of Peter - military-craft. Both sovereigns loved military amusements in their youth, but Charles treated military affairs idealistically, seeing in it a way to satisfy his ambition, and the king approached the same subject purely practically, as a means of solving state problems. 
Karl early found himself torn from the circle of children's ideas due to the loss of his parents, Peter - due to a palace coup. But if Karl firmly mastered the traditions of Swedish statehood, then Peter broke away from the traditions and traditions of the Kremlin palace, which formed the basis of the political worldview of the old Russian tsar. The concepts and inclinations of Peter in his youth took an extremely one-sided direction. According to Klyuchevsky, all his political thought was for a long time absorbed in the struggle with his sister and the Miloslavskys; his whole civil mood was formed from hatred and antipathy towards the clergy, boyars, archers, schismatics; soldiers, cannons, fortifications, ships took the place of people, political institutions, people's needs, civil relations in his mind: The area of concepts about society and public duties, civil ethics "remained an abandoned corner in the spiritual economy of Peter for a very long time." It is all the more surprising that the Swedish king soon despised public and state needs for the sake of personal inclinations and sympathies, and the Kremlin outcast put his life in the service of the Fatherland, expressing his soul in immortal words: “And about Peter, know that life is not dear to him, if only Russia would live in blessedness and glory for your well-being."
Both Charles and Peter turned out to be autocratic sovereigns of huge empires at a very early age, and both as a result of a political upheaval (in the case of Peter, however, more dramatic). Both, however, managed to subordinate events to themselves and did not become a toy in the hands of palace parties and influential families. Peter felt hesitation under his throne for a long time and after the Streltsy uprising he was wary of leaving Russia for a long time, while Charles could not visit Sweden for fifteen years without any fear for the fate of his crown. The very same desire to change places was equally characteristic of both: both the king and the king were eternal guests both abroad and at home.
In the same way, they also had a tendency to unlimited rule - neither one nor the other never doubted that they were God's anointed and were free to dispose of the life and property of their subjects at their own discretion. Both severely punished any attempt on their power, but Peter at the same time easily fell into a rage and outright butchery. The hand-made massacre of the archers and Tsarevich Alexei are textbook examples of this. True, a noticeable difference in relation to his rank can be seen in the fact that Peter was not ashamed to make his own power the subject of a joke, magnifying, for example, Prince F.Yu. Romodanovsky as the king, sovereign, “your most radiant royal majesty”, and himself as “always a slave and serf Piter” or simply in Russian Petrushka Alekseev. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact source of addiction to such buffoonery. Peter inherited from his father, “who also loved to joke, although he was wary of being a jester.” However, rather, a comparison with similar antics of Ivan the Terrible in relation toSimeon Bekbulatovich (the name adopted after baptism by the Kasimov Khan Sain-Bulat (? -1616); he became the nominal ruler of the Russian state from 1575, when Ivan the Terrible pretended to lay down the royal crown). Apparently, here we are dealing with a purely Russian phenomenon - fits of foolishness in an autocratic sovereign, to whom his power sometimes seems exorbitant. Another distinguishing feature of Peter's autocracy was the ability to heed sound advice and retreat from his decision if, on mature reflection, it is wrong or harmful - a feature completely absent from Charles with his almost maniacal mania for infallibility and fidelity to a decision once made.
In close connection with Peter's buffoonery in relation to his dignity were his obscene to the point of blasphemy parodies of church rituals and hierarchy, and these amusements were regular, dressed in clerical uniforms. The collegium of drunkenness, established earlier than others, or, according to the official definition, “the most extravagant, all-joking and all-drunk cathedral”, was chaired by the greatest jester, who bore the title of prince-pope, or the most noisy and most joking patriarch of Moscow, Kukui and all Yauza. Under him there was a conclave of 12 cardinals and other "spiritual" ranks, who bore nicknames that, according to Klyuchevsky, would not appear in the press under any censorship charter. Peter bore the rank of protodeacon in this cathedral and himself composed a charter for him. The cathedral had a special order of clergy, or, rather, drunkenness, "serving Bacchus and honest treatment with strong drinks." For example, a newly-accepted member was asked the question: “Do you drink?”, Parodying the church: “Do you believe?” At Maslenitsa in 1699, the tsar arranged a service for Bacchus: the patriarch, prince-pope Nikita Zotov, a former teacher of Peter, drank and blessed the guests kneeling before him, overshadowing them with two chibouks folded crosswise, just as bishops dodikirium and trikirium*; then, with a staff in his hand, the "master" began to dance. It is characteristic that only one of those present could not bear the foul spectacle of Orthodox jesters - a foreign ambassador who left the meeting. In general, foreign observers were ready to see in these outrages a political and even educational trend, allegedly directed against the Russian church hierarchy, prejudices, and also against the vice of drunkenness, which is presented in a ridiculous form. It is possible that Peter really vented his annoyance at the clergy, among whom there were so many opponents of his innovations, by such foolishness. But there was no serious attempt on Orthodoxy, on the hierarchy, Peter remained a pious man who knew and honored the church rite, loved to sing on the kliros with choristers; in addition, he perfectly understood the protective significance of the Church for the state. In the meetings of the most joking council, the general rudeness of the Russian customs of that time, the habit rooted in the Russian person to joke in a drunken minute over church objects, over the clergy, is rather visible; even more visible in them is the feeling of permissiveness of imperious revelers, revealing a general deep decline in church authority. Charles set a completely opposite example to his subjects; but he was brought closer to Peter by the fact that he also did not tolerate the claims of the clergy to authority in the affairs of the state.
* Dikiriy, trikiriy - two or three candles, respectively, with which believers are blessed in the church.
The instinct of arbitrariness completely determined the nature of the reign of these sovereigns. They did not recognize the historical logic of social life, their actions were not consistent with an objective assessment of the capabilities of their peoples. However, one cannot blame them too much for this; even the most outstanding minds of the century had difficulty understanding the laws of social development. Thus, Leibniz, who, at the request of Peter, developed projects for the development of education and public administration in Russia, assured the Russian tsar that the easier it was to plant science in Russia, the less it was prepared for this. All the military and state activities of the king and king were guided by the thought of the necessity and omnipotence of imperious coercion. They sincerely believed that everything was subject to force, that a hero could direct people's life in a different direction, and therefore they strained people's forces to the extreme, wasting human strength and life without any thrift. The consciousness of one's own importance and omnipotence prevented one from taking other people into account, from seeing in a person a person, a personality. Both Karl and Peter were excellent at guessing who was good for what, and used people as working tools, remaining indifferent to human suffering (which, oddly enough, did not prevent them from often showing justice and generosity). This feature of Peter was excellently captured by two of the most educated ladies of that time - Elector Sophia of Hanover and her daughter Sophia Charlotte, Elector of Brandenburg, who paradoxically described him as a sovereign“very good and very bad at the same time”. This definition applies to Karl as well.
Peter I and Charles XII. German engraving from 1728
Their appearance corresponded to their imperious natures and made a strong impression on those around them. The noble appearance of Karl bore the patrimonial imprint of the Palatinate-Zweibrücken dynasty: sparkling blue eyes, a high forehead, an aquiline nose, sharp folds around a beardless and beardless mouth with full lips. With a small stature, he was not stocky and well built. And this is how the Duke of Saint-Simon, the author of the famous Memoirs, saw Peter during his stay in Paris, carefully looking at the young king: “He was very tall, well-built, rather lean, with a roundish face, high forehead, beautiful eyebrows ; his nose is rather short, but not too thick, towards the end; the lips are rather large, the complexion reddish and swarthy, fine black eyes, large, lively, penetrating, beautifully shaped; a look majestic and welcoming when he watches himself and restrains, otherwise severe and wild, with convulsions in the face, which are not often repeated, but distort both the eyes and the whole face, frightening all present. The convulsion usually lasted for an instant, and then his glance became terrifying, as if bewildered, then everything immediately assumed its usual form. His whole appearance showed intelligence, reflection and greatness, and was not without charm.
As for the habits of everyday life and personal inclinations, here, too, a certain similarity of these people is set off by striking contrasts. The Swedish and Russian sovereigns were people of hot temperament, sworn enemies of court ceremonial. Accustomed to feeling like masters always and everywhere, they were embarrassed and lost in the solemn atmosphere, breathing heavily, blushing and sweating at audiences, listening to high-flown nonsense from some envoy who presented himself. Neither of them had delicate manners and were very fond of ease in conversation. They were characterized by simplicity of getting around and unpretentiousness in everyday life. Peter was often seen wearing worn shoes and stockings mended by his wife or daughter. At home, getting out of bed, he received visitors in a simple "Chinese" dressing gown, went out or went out in an unpretentious caftan made of coarse cloth, which he did not like to change often; in the summer, when he went out not far, he almost never wore a hat; he usually traveled in a one-wheeler or a bad pair, and in such a cabriolet, in which, according to the remark of a foreign eyewitness, not every Moscow merchant would dare to leave. In all of Europe, only the court of the Prussian king-miser Friedrich Wilhelm I could argue in simplicity with Peter's (Karl, with his personal asceticism, never counted state money). The splendor with which Peter surrounded Catherine in her last years, perhaps, was simply supposed to make those around her forget her too simple origin.
This stinginess was combined with Peter's violent intemperance in food and drink. He had a sort of invincible appetite. Contemporaries say that he could eat always and everywhere; whenever he came to visit, before or after dinner, he was now ready to sit down at the table. No less striking is his passion for drinking and, most importantly, incredible endurance in drinking wine. The first commandment of the aforesaid most drunken order was to get drunk every day and not to go to bed sober. Peter honored this commandment sacredly, giving hours of evening leisure to cheerful gatherings over a glass of Hungarian or something stronger. At solemn occasions or meetings of the cathedral they drank terribly, a contemporary notes. In the palace built on the Yauza, an honest company was locked up for three days, according to Prince Kurakin, "for drunkenness so great that it is impossible to describe, and many happened to die from it." The journal of Peter's travel abroad is full of entries like: "We were at home and had enough fun," that is, they drank all day after midnight. In Deptford (England), Peter and his entourage were assigned a room in a private house near the shipyard, having equipped it accordingly by order of the king. After the embassy left, the landlord filed a proper account of the damage caused by the departing guests. This inventory is the most disgraceful monument to drunken Russian swine. The floors and walls were spat-stained, stained with traces of fun, the furniture was broken, the curtains were torn, the paintings on the walls were used as targets for shooting, the lawns in the garden were trampled as if a whole regiment was marching there. The only, albeit weak, justification for such habits is that Peter adopted the drunken customs in the German Quarter, communicating with the dregs of the world into which he so stubbornly aspired.
As for Karl, he seemed to hold some kind of state post and in his mature years was content with a plate of millet porridge, a slice of bread and a glass of weak dark beer.
The king did not avoid female society, unlike Charles (who died a virgin), but in his youth he suffered from excessive shyness. In the town of Coppenburg, he had to see the Electors we already knew. They tell how the king at first did not want to go to them. True, later, after much persuasion, he agreed, but on the condition that there were no strangers. Peter entered, covering his face with his hand, like a shy child, and to all the courtesies of the ladies he answered only one thing:
- I can not talk!
However, at dinner he quickly recovered, talked, got everyone drunk in Moscow style, admitted that he did not like music or hunting (although he danced diligently with the ladies, having fun with all his heart, and the Moscow gentlemen mistook the corsets of German ladies for their ribs), and he loves to sail the seas, build ships and fireworks, showed his callused hands, with which he raised his ears and kissed a ten-year-old princess, the future mother of Frederick the Great, ruining her hair.
The Northern War finally determined the character and way of life of both Charles and Peter, but each of them chose a role in it that corresponded to his usual occupations and tastes. Interestingly, both of them abandoned the role of the sovereign ruler, directing the actions of subordinates from the palace. The role of the military commander-in-chief also could not fully satisfy them. Karl, with his notions of Viking prowess, will soon prefer the glory of a reckless fighter to the glory of a general. Peter, leaving his generals and admirals to conduct military operations, will take over the technical side of the war that is closer to him: recruiting, drawing up military plans, building ships and military factories, and preparing ammunition and ammunition. However, Narva and Poltava will forever remain great monuments of the military art of these crowned enemies. It is also worth noting a curious paradox: Sweden, a maritime power, brought up an excellent land commander who set foot on a ship almost twice in his life - when sailing from Sweden and when returning there; while Russia, cut off from the seas, was ruled by an unsurpassed shipbuilder and skipper.
The war, which required tireless activity and strain of all the moral forces of Peter and Charles, forged their characters one-sided, but in relief, made them national heroes, with the difference that Peter's greatness was not affirmed on the battlefields and could not be shaken by defeats.
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 put up 310 different-caliber guns. In a few hours, four powerful artillery strikes were brought 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 Karl'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 near 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 the target. One pierced the hat, the second hit the saddle, and the third hit the pectoral cross.
“Know about Peter that life is not dear to him, if only Russia would live in bliss and glory for your well-being,” these are the famous words spoken by him before the start of the battle.
So that the enemy is not afraid ...
The fighting spirit of the soldiers was to match the mood of the commander. The regiments left in reserve seemed to be asking to go to the front line, wishing to take an active part in such an important battle for the country as much as possible. 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 battle and will leave: for this reason, it is necessary to make a reduction from other regiments in order to draw the enemy into battle through his belittling" . The advantage of our troops over the enemy was indeed great not only in artillery: 22 thousand against 8 thousand infantrymen and 15 thousand against 8 thousand cavalry.
In order not to frighten the enemy, Russian strategists also resorted to other tricks. For example, Peter ordered that experienced soldiers be dressed in the uniform of recruits so that the deceived enemy would direct his forces at them.
Enemy Encirclement and Surrender
The decisive moment in the battle: the spread of the rumor 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 the 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 benefit from a crushing defeat. The batman of the Life Dragoon Karl Strokirch during the battle 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 considered, the general was accused of horse stealing and ordered to pay compensation of 710 dalers, which is approximately 18 kilograms of silver.
Relation 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, made 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 the Lord God has deigned to bestow on us through the indescribable courage of our soldiers, with a small bloodshed 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 site of the battle. Peter also planned to lay a monastery here. The wooden cross was replaced by a granite one only after a hundred years. Even later - by the end of the 19th century - on the site of the mass grave they built the monument and the chapel that today's tourists see. Instead of the monastery in 1856, a temple was erected in the name of St. Sampson the Old-Receiver, which was attributed to the Exaltation of the Cross Convent. By the 300th anniversary of the battle, the chapel of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, standing on the mass grave, was restored, but like many historical monuments in Ukraine, it is still in disrepair and is almost always closed to the public.
The uniqueness of Alexander Pushkin is in the sophistication of his style, ideological depth and, of course, the versatility of the themes of his works. In childhood, readers get acquainted with his fairy tales, and in adulthood they learn the wonderful world of deep lyrical and epic poems and poems. Pushkin was interested in the history of his state, its formation, therefore he could not pass by the great reformer tsar, Peter I. It was he who became the central character of his poem "".
The work is based on the image of the main battle near Poltava during the Russian-Swedish war. Against the backdrop of historical events, the characters of the main characters are revealed - Peter and Karl, the Swedish king. It is in the comparison of these two important historical figures that the key to understanding just such an end to the battle near Poltava is hidden.
- winner, - loser. But why did it happen this way and not otherwise? The author gradually reveals the images of the characters, providing an answer to this question.
The poet does not speak flatteringly about the Swedish ruler, portraying him as a “warlike vagabond”. In the course of the war, Karl plots a dangerous intrigue - transfers actions to Ukraine and enlists the help of the Ukrainian hetman.
"Crowned with useless glory,
Brave Karl glided over the abyss.
The glory of the king turns out to be useless, because it is not confirmed by his valor. Karl is brave, which the author does not hide, but reckless. He "glides over the abyss," that is, exposes his army to unjustified risks, plotting to destroy the Russian young state. Karl is an adventurer who dreams of military glory. For the sake of victory, he is capable of any low deed. He enters into a conspiracy with, realizing that the Russian Tsar trusts him.
Absolutely different is depicted in the poem by Peter. Pushkin idealizes the reformer tsar, endowing him with the best qualities of a ruler and a man. Unlike Charles, he acts for the benefit of the state and the people, and not for personal interests. Not wanting fame, he gets it.
In the characterization of Peter, one can find an oxymoron: "terrible - beautiful." The author emphasizes that in relation to the enemy, Peter was merciless - "his face is terrible." But for his soldiers, he served as an example, he always fought on a par with them, and therefore it seems to them wonderful. After the battle, having defeated Charles, the Russian Tsar arranges a big feast. And in this peaceful time, he already shows other positive qualities - generosity, mercy. He sincerely thanks his warriors and allies, and also shows leniency towards the prisoners.
However, the author still points out one mistake of Peter. He trusted Ivan Mazepa very much, as a representative of the new nobility, and therefore did not believe Kochubey, who was faithful to him. Having survived the betrayal, Peter becomes a wiser ruler.
Comparing these historical figures in the poem "Poltava", Pushkin emphasized the nobility of the Russian Tsar Peter and the meanness of the Swedish King Charles. For the poet, the victory of Peter I is the triumph of justice.
Please help Comparative characteristics of Peter 1 and Charles 12
Answers:
In the poem Poltava, two main characters: Peter 1 and Karl 12 Pushkin is interested in the behavior of two generals before the battle. He compares them in his work, praising Peter and humiliating Charles. Here is a description of Peter at the moment before the battle. He is, as the poet himself puts it, "beautiful." Peter comes out. His eyes Shine. 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, unable to move without the help of servants. He inspires pity in the readers. Carried by faithful servants, In a rocking chair, pale, motionless, Suffering from a wound, Karl appeared. Before the battle, Peter seeks to raise the morale of the army. He rushes in front of the shelves on a horse. Infects warriors with its energy. And he rushed before the regiments Mighty and joyful, like a battle. He devoured the field with his eyes .... While Karl is embarrassed, barely alive. He does not seek to support his warriors, and is not capable of this. Suddenly, with a weak mania of his hand, he moved regiments against the Russians.
Grigoriev Artem, student of GBOU secondary school with in-depth study of English No. 1354, Moscow
Peter1 and Karl12. Two portraits in the interior of history (presentation for a lesson in literature based on the poem by A.S. Pushkin "Poltava")
Download:
Preview:
To use the preview of presentations, create a Google account (account) and sign in: https://accounts.google.com
Slides captions:
TWO PORTRAITS IN THE INTERIOR OF HISTORY Peter I and Karl XII Grigoriev Artem, student of the secondary school with in-depth study of English No. 1354, Moscow Teacher Olga Olegovna Koroleva
In Russian history, the Swedish king Charles XII was not lucky. In the mass consciousness, he is represented as an almost caricatured, extravagant, conceited young king, who first defeated Peter, and then was beaten. "He died like a Swede near Poltava" - this, in fact, is also about Karl, although, as you know, the king did not die near Poltava, but, having escaped capture, continued to fight for almost ten more years. Having landed in the mighty shadow of Peter, Karl not only faded, but got lost, cringed.
Peter and Carl never met. But for many years they argued in absentia with each other, which means they tried on, looked closely at each other. When the king found out about the death of Charles, he was quite sincerely upset: "Ah, brother Charles! How sorry I am 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 king was so imbued with the logic of the illogical actions of his crowned opponent that it seems that with the death of Charles, Peter lost, as it were, a part of himself.
People of different cultures, temperaments, Karl and Peter were surprisingly similar at the same time. But this similarity is of a special nature - in dissimilarity to other sovereigns. But Peter and Karl overshadowed many. Their secret is simple - both did not strive for extravagance at all. They lived without fuss, building their behavior in accordance with the ideas of what should be. Therefore, much that seemed so important and necessary to others played almost no role for them. And vice versa. Their actions were perceived by the majority of contemporaries at best as eccentricity, at worst as ignorance, barbarism.
The English diplomat Thomas Wentworth and the Frenchman Aubrey de la Motre left descriptions of the "Gothic hero". Karl in them is stately and tall, "but extremely untidy and slovenly." Facial features are thin. The hair is blond and greasy and doesn't seem to meet a comb every day. The hat is crumpled - the king often sent it not on his head, but under his arm. Reiter's uniform, only cloth of the best quality. Boots are high, with spurs. As a result, everyone who did not know the king by sight took him for a Reiter officer, and not of the highest rank.
Peter was just as undemanding in dress. He wore a dress and shoes for a long time, sometimes up to holes. The habit of the French courtiers every day to appear in a new dress caused him only ridicule: "It seems that a young man cannot find a tailor who would dress him to his liking?" - he teased the Marquis of Libois, assigned to the high guest by the regent of France himself. At the reception of the king, Peter appeared in a modest frock coat made of a thick gray barakan (a kind of matter), without a tie, cuffs and lace, in - oh horror! - an unpowdered wig. The "extravagance" of the Moscow guest shocked Versailles so much that it became fashionable for a while. Court dandies for a month embarrassed court ladies with a wild (from the point of view of the French) costume, which received the official name "savage outfit".
To match the clothes were the manners of the two sovereigns - simple and even rude. Karl, according to his contemporaries, "eats like a horse," delving into his thoughts. In thoughtfulness, he can smear butter on bread with his finger. Food is the simplest and seems to be valued mainly in terms of satiety. On the day of his death, Karl, having dined, praises his cook: "You feed so well that you will have to be appointed head cook!" Peter is just as undemanding in food. His main requirement is that everything should be served piping hot: in the Summer Palace, for example, it was arranged in such a way that dishes fell on the royal table directly from the stove.
Neither Peter nor Karl were distinguished by subtlety of feelings and sophistication of manners. Dozens of cases are known when the king, by his actions, caused a slight stupor in those around him. The German princess Sophia, smart and insightful, described her impressions after the first meeting with Peter in this way: the tsar is tall, handsome, his quick and correct answers speak of quickness of mind, but "with all the virtues that nature has endowed him with, it would be desirable that in he was less rude." Grub and Carl. But this is rather the underlined rudeness of a soldier.
However, when it came to close people, both could be attentive and even gentle in their own way. Such is Peter in his letters to Catherine: "Katerinushka!", "My friend", "My friend from the heart!" and even "Lapushka!". Karl is also caring and helpful in his letters to his relatives.
So... Both loved the military. Unlike "brother Charles," Peter never confused ends and means. The war and the transformations connected with it remained for him a means of exalting the country. When embarking on "peaceful" reforms at the end of the Northern War, the tsar declares his intentions in this way: zemstvo affairs must be "brought into the same order as military affairs." The Swedish and Russian monarchs were distinguished by hard work. The industriousness 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 the perpetual engine of reforms. The inexhaustible inquisitiveness of the king is surprising, his ability to be surprised until his death is not lost.
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 else, or a pragmatist who stood firmly on the ground and preferred real rather than illusory goals. Karl in this dispute acted as an idealist and lost
The Swedish king Charles XII and Tsar Peter I in the Northern War decided the issue of dominance in the Baltic. Russia emerged victorious from the confrontation between the two countries, firmly securing the position of one of the most powerful maritime powers in Europe. Who could have imagined that the fate of two enemies would unite in their descendant Peter III? In 1724, the Russian emperor married his daughter Anna to Duke Karl Friedrich. In the marriage contract, at the request of Peter the Great, the spouses renounced their claims to the Russian throne. Emperor Peter III (husband of Catherine the Great) was Charles XII's nephew.
