Peter 1 has Georgian roots. Tsar Peter the First was not Russian. Day: why Mazepa turned his back on Peter I

I found information about the supposed Georgian origin of Peter the Great, about whom Saakashist trolls write.

Let's read and get enlightened:

Georgian, right?

There are certain reasons to believe that the great Russian emperor, Peter the Great, was a Georgian on his father’s side. According to this version, which subsequently finds some confirmation, Peter is the illegitimate son of the Georgian prince Erekle. From childhood, the Georgian prince was close to the Russian royal court, and in particular to Natalya Naryshkina. At the royal court of Alexei Mikhailovich, the Georgian prince Erekle was known as Nikolai Davidovich; he later became the king of Kakheti, Irakli the First. Thus, the state achievements of Russia during the time of Peter the Great belong to the Georgians.

Even a year before the birth of Peter, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was really seriously ill and was not able to conceive children. A representative of the royal blood, Erekle the First (Heraclius I Bagrationi), was allowed to approach the princess. Soviet history throughout her reign, she hid information about the Georgian origin of Peter I; there are the words of Stalin, who said: “Let’s leave them at least one “Russian” of whom they can be proud.

There is also some information that when A.N. Tolstoy was working on the novel Peter I, he came across some documents, which the writer immediately familiarized Stalin with, but the Soviet leader gave orders to remain silent and not dwell on this topic. Thus, there was a certain letter that indicated Peter’s Georgian origin, but it disappeared under Stalin.

Such actions of Joseph Visarionovich are, in principle, understandable; the reluctance to reveal the truth was also caused by the fact that he had already classified himself as a Russian. It is known that Stalin considered himself Russian. Whether it was from the heart or it was a forced course of history is not known. But logically speaking, it’s impossible to be the leader of the Russian people and not at the same time be, as it were, Russian in soul? Therefore, to recognize Peter as a Georgian would be extremely illogical and inconsistent on his part after the leader had already ranked himself among the Russians. Thus, Peter was not Ivan, apparently, that’s why he was great, although, apparently, the Russians also played an important role blood, it is known that “mixtures” of different bloods usually produce healthy and talented offspring. Although the most effective factor is the very appearance of Emperor Peter I, which leaves no doubt about this. Peter was the spitting image of a Georgian, very much like his father Erekle the first. There is a lot of other documentary evidence about the origin of this Russian emperor.

There is documentary evidence that Peter’s mother herself, Natalya Naryshkina, at first did not want to give her son power over the country, “He cannot be a king...”, she said. Peter seized power by rebellion. The same proof of the non-Russian origin of Peter the Great are the words of Princess Sophia, who wrote to Prince Golitsyn - “You cannot give power to an infidel.” One of the meanings of the word “infidel” is a foreigner. It seems that Princess Natalya Naryshkina shared Peter’s non-Russian roots with her daughter.

There is also a letter from the Georgian king Archil II, who wrote to Princess Naryshkina, in which there were the following words: “And how is our naughty little one doing?” To top it all off, when one day Peter was offered to marry a Georgian princess, he refused with the words: “I will not marry namesakes.” Which indicates that he himself was well aware of his origins.

there are enough interesting story that when the writer Alexei Nikolaevich Tolstoy was working on his novel “Peter the Great,” he was faced with the rather unusual fact that the greatest of Russian monarchs, the pride of the Romanov family, had nothing to do with either the family name or Russian nationality in general!

This fact greatly excited the writer, and he, taking advantage of his acquaintance with another great dictator, and remembering the fate of other, careless writers, decided to turn to him for advice, especially since the information was in some sense quite close to the leader.

The information was provocative and ambiguous, Alexey Nikolaevich brought Stalin a document, namely a certain letter, which clearly indicated that Peter I by his origin was not Russian at all, as previously thought, but Georgian!

What is noteworthy is that Stalin was not at all surprised by such an unusual incident. Moreover, after familiarizing himself with the documents, he asked Tolstoy to hide this fact, so as not to give him the opportunity to become public, arguing his desire quite simply: “Let’s leave them at least one “Russian” whom they can be proud of!”

And he recommended that the document that Tolstoy received be destroyed. The act would seem strange if we remember that Joseph Vissarionovich himself was a Georgian by origin. But if you look at it, it is absolutely logical from the point of view of the position of the leader of nations, since it is known that Stalin considered himself Russian! How else would he call himself the leader of the Russian people?

The information after this meeting, it would seem, should have been buried forever, but no offense to Alexei Nikolaevich, and he, like any writer, was an extremely sociable person, was told to a narrow circle of acquaintances, and then, according to the snowball principle, it was spread like a virus throughout to all the minds of the intelligentsia of that time.

What was this letter that was supposed to disappear? Most likely we are talking about a letter from Daria Archilovna Bagration-Mukhranskaya, daughter of Tsar Archil II of Imereti, to her cousin, daughter of the Mingrelian prince Dadiani.

The letter talks about a certain prophecy that she heard from the Georgian queen: “My mother told me about a certain Matveev, who had a prophetic dream in which Saint George the Victorious appeared to him and said to him: You have been chosen to inform the king about what is happening in Muscovy. a “KING OF KINGS” must be born who will make it a great empire. He was supposed to be born from the visiting Orthodox Tsar of Iveron from the same tribe of David as the Mother of God. And the daughter of Kirill Naryshkin, pure in heart. If you disobey this command, there will be a great pestilence. The will of God is the will.”

The prophecy clearly hinted at the urgent need for such an event, but another problem could actually contribute to such a turn of events.

The beginning of the end of the Romanov family

To understand the reasons for such a written appeal, it is necessary to turn to history and remember that the kingdom of Moscow at that time was a kingdom without a king, and the acting king, the monarch Alexei Mikhailovich, could not cope with the role assigned to him.

In fact, the country was ruled by Prince Miloslavsky, mired in palace intrigues, a swindler and an adventurer.

Alexey Mikhailovich was a weak and frail man; he was surrounded by mostly church people, to whose opinions he listened. One of these was Artamon Sergeevich Matveev, who, being not a simple person, knew how to put the necessary pressure on the tsar in order to induce him to do things that the tsar was not ready for. In fact, Matveev guided the tsar with his tips, being a sort of prototype of “Rasputin” at court.

Matveev’s plan was simple: it was necessary to help the tsar get rid of kinship with the Miloslavskys and place “his” heir on the throne...

So in March 1669, after giving birth, the wife of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Maria Ilyinichna Miloslavskaya, died.

After which it was Matveev who betrothed Alexei Mikhailovich to the Crimean Tatar princess Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, the daughter of the Crimean Tatar murza Ismail Narysh, who at that time lived in Moscow and for convenience bore the name Kirill, which was quite convenient for the local nobility to pronounce.

It remained to resolve the issue with the heir, since the children born from the first wife were as frail as the tsar himself, and were unlikely, in Matveev’s opinion, to pose a threat.

In other words, as soon as the tsar was married to Princess Naryshkina, the question of an heir arose, and since at that time the tsar was seriously ill and physically weak, and his children were frail, it was decided to find a replacement for him, and that’s where The Georgian prince fell into the hands of the conspirators...

Who is Peter's father?

There are actually two theories; Peter’s fathers include two great Georgian princes from the Bagration family, these are:

Archil II (1647-1713) - king of Imereti (1661-1663, 1678-1679, 1690-1691, 1695-1696, 1698) and Kakheti (1664-1675), lyric poet, eldest son of the king of Kartli Vakhtang V. One of founders of the Georgian colony in Moscow.

Irakli I (Nazarali Khan; 1637 or 1642 - 1709) - king of Kartli (1688-1703), king of Kakheti (1703-1709). Son of Tsarevich David (1612-1648) and Elena Diasamidze (d. 1695), grandson of the King of Kartli and Kakheti Teimuraz I.

And in fact, after conducting a little investigation, I am forced to incline that it was Heraclius who could have become the father, because it was Heraclius who was in Moscow at the time suitable for the king’s conception, and Archil moved to Moscow only in 1681.

Tsarevich Irakli was known in Russia under the name Nikolai, which was more convenient for local people, and the patronymic Davydovich. Irakli was a close associate of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and even at the wedding of the Tsar and the Tatar princess he was appointed thousand, that is, the main manager of wedding celebrations.

It is fair to note that Tysyatsky’s duties also included becoming the godfather of the wedding couple. But as fate would have it, the Georgian prince helped the Tsar of Moscow not only with the choice of a name for his first-born, but also with his conception.

At the christening of the future emperor, in 1672, Heraclius fulfilled his duty and named the baby Peter, and in 1674 he left Russia, taking the throne of the principality of Kakheti, although to receive this title he had to convert to Islam.

Version two, dubious

According to the second version, the father of the future autocrat in 1671 was the Imeretian king Archil II, who had been staying at court for several months and fled from the pressure of Persia, who was practically forced to visit the princess’s bedroom under pressure, convincing him that according to divine providence his participation was extremely necessary. a godly deed, namely, the conception of “the one they were waiting for.”

Perhaps it was the dream of the practically holy man Matveev that forced the most noble Orthodox Tsar to enter the young princess.

The relationship between Peter and Archil can be evidenced by the fact that the official heir of the Georgian monarch, Prince Alexander, became the first general of the Russian army of Georgian origin, served with Peter in amusing regiments and died for the emperor in Swedish captivity.

And Archil’s other children: Matvey, David and sister Daria (Dardgen) received such preferences from Peter as lands in Russia, and were treated kindly by him in every possible way. In particular, it is a known fact that Peter went to celebrate his victory in the village of Vsekhsvyatskoye, the area of ​​​​present-day Sokol, to visit his sister Daria!

Also associated with this period in the life of the country is a wave of mass migration of the Georgian elite to Moscow. As proof of the relationship between the Georgian king Archil II and Peter I, they also cite the fact captured in the monarch’s letter to the Russian princess Naryshkina, in which he writes: “How is our naughty boy doing?”

Although “our naughty boy” can be said about both Tsarevich Nicholas and Peter, as a representative of the Bagration family. The second version is also supported by the fact that Peter I was surprisingly similar to the Imeretian king Archil II. Both were truly gigantic for that time, with identical facial features and characters, although this same version can also be used as evidence of the first, since the Georgian princes were directly related.

Everyone knew and everyone was silent

It seems that everyone knew about the king’s relatives at that time. So Princess Sophia wrote to Prince Golitsyn: “You cannot give power to an infidel!”

Peter's mother, Natalya Naryshkina, was also terribly afraid of what she had done, and repeatedly stated: “He cannot be a king!”

And the tsar himself, at the moment when the Georgian princess was wooed for him, declared publicly: “I will not marry people of the same name!”

Visual similarity, no other evidence needed

This is a must see. Remember from history: not a single Moscow king was distinguished by either height or Slavic appearance, but Peter is the most special of them.

According to historical documents, Peter I was quite tall even by today’s standards, since his height reached two meters, but what’s strange is that he wore size 38 shoes, and his clothing size was 48! But, nevertheless, it was precisely these features that he inherited from his Georgian relatives, since this description accurately suited the Bagration family. Peter was a pure European!

But not even visually, but in character, Peter definitely did not belong to the Romanov family; in all his habits, he was a real Caucasian.

Yes, he inherited the unimaginable cruelty of the Moscow kings, but this feature could have been inherited from his mother’s side, since their entire family was more Tatar than Slavic, and it was precisely this feature that gave him the opportunity to turn a fragment of the horde into a European state.

Conclusion

Peter I was not Russian, but he was a Russian, because despite his not entirely correct origin, he was still of royal blood, but he did not ascend either to the Romanov family, much less to the Rurik family.

Perhaps it was not his Horde origin that made him a reformer and actually an emperor, who turned the district Horde principality of Muscovy into the Russian Empire, even though he had to borrow the history of one of the occupied territories, but we will talk about this in the next story.

watched this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRAx1_dFTvg&feature=player_embedded

And there I saw a portrait of Peter, shown below under No. 1. His clearly non-Slavic appearance reminded one of the versions of who Peter's real father was. I decided to check it out.

I looked for others Not ceremonial portraits of the emperor and discovered that in them, mostly painted by the court artist Ivan Nikitin, Peter had absolutely the same facial features as in drawing No. 1. thus, Peter's true appearance could be considered established.

Then I tried to find images of Heraclius I , one of his supposed parents. Two were found. They are listed under numbers 2 and 5. I am not a forensic expert, but, in my opinion, the similarities are strong.

For reference: Irakli I (cargo) ერეკლე I, in Islam - Nazarali-Khan) - King of Kartli (1688-1703), King of Kakheti (1703-1709). He lived in exile for a long time in Russia, where he was known under the name of Tsarevich Nikolai Davidovich. Irakli was a close person and friend of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. At the wedding and at the wedding of Alexei and Natalya Naryshkina (Peter’s mother I ) 25-year-old he was assigned to be the thousandth - the main manager of wedding celebrations. It should be noted that the wedding thousand was considered the godfather of the son-in-law. There were even rumors that Heraclius became the true father of Peter I . (In fairness, it must be said that other contenders for the paternity of the transformer of Russia are also known).

They also say that this was not treason on the part of Nikolai Davidovich to his friend and patron Alexei Mikhailovich, and that the act of conception took place almost on behalf of the boyar duma. The fact is that the quiet Tsar of Moscow was in poor health and all his children born from his first wife Maria Ilyinichna Miloslavskaya were also frail, and the court was very worried about the heir to the throne.

After the death of Maria Ilyinichna, Natalya Naryshkina was chosen as the tsar’s wife, a girl not noble or rich, but stately and healthy. And the future king’s father, apparently, was also chosen accordingly.

Heraclius was also a particularly honorable person at the christening of the newborn Peter (1672). And in 1674, as they write, he was suddenly rather coldly escorted out of Moscow. Maybe he talked too much, or began to claim a special role at court?

They also say that Alexei Tolstoy wanted to depict these collisions in his novel, but the “former Georgian” and the then Russian Autocrat forbade him to do so.

We will never know to what extent all of the above is true. At least for now, the science called History will be considered as a servant of Politics.

Why am I writing all this? Just because. It’s just that, as I said above, it all started with watching a film and a portrait of Peter unknown to me until now.

In his portraits, Peter I appears as a black-mustachioed brunette, in whom southern blood can be discerned. There is a version that it was really present in him, and in significant quantities: there is a version that the most progressive Russian tsar was the offspring of one of the Georgian princes.

"Our naughty boy"

Rumors that allegedly Peter the Great was not actually the son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov have always circulated. Member of the Russian Geographical Society of Armavir Sergei Frolov first heard this legend from an employee of the Stalin Museum in Gori. Allegedly, the famous writer A.N. Tolstoy, while working on the novel “Peter I,” came across a certain letter that set out very interesting facts.

Presumably, this was a letter from Daria Bagration-Mukhranskaya, the daughter of the Imeretian king Archil II, to her cousin, the daughter of the Mingrelian prince Dadiani. It said: “My mother told me about a certain Matveev, who had a prophetic dream in which Saint George the Victorious appeared to him and said to him: You have been chosen to inform the king that a king of kings is to be born in Muscovy, who will make it a great empire. He was supposed to be born from the visiting Orthodox Tsar of Iveron from the same tribe of David as the Mother of God. And the daughter of Kirill Naryshkin, pure in heart.”

“A certain Matveev” probably meant Artamon Matveev, a close boyar of Tsar Alexei and a distant relative of Natalya Naryshkina. There is evidence that a year before the birth of Peter, the tsar was already seriously ill and could hardly conceive a child.

And then Matveev specially brought his second wife Natalya Kirillovna, nee Naryshkina, together with one of the Georgian princes who was at the Russian court.

There were two candidates. The first is the eldest son of King Vakhtang V of Kartli, the future king of Imereti and Kakheti Archil II, part-time lyric poet and one of the founders of the Georgian colony in Moscow. There is a letter that Archil II sent to Natalya Naryshkina when Peter was still a child. It contains the following words: “How is our little naughty boy doing?”

The second candidate is Erekle Bagrationi, the son of the Georgian prince David and the grandson of the king of Kartli and Kakheti Teimuraz I. Subsequently, he ruled Kakheti under the name of Erekle I. In all likelihood, it was he who could become the father of the future Russian sovereign, since Archil arrived in Moscow only in 1681 year. At the court, Irakli was called Nikolai Davidovich in Russian style.

“Let’s leave them at least one Russian”

So, Tolstoy immediately reported the find to Stalin, and he ordered to keep quiet, uttering the following phrase: “Let’s leave them at least one Russian they can be proud of.” It is known that the born Dzhugashvili did not like being reminded of his Caucasian origin, and always considered himself Russian.

Of course, Tolstoy did not make the contents of the letter widely public, but a narrow circle of his acquaintances found out about it.

There is also information that Peter was very similar in appearance to Irakli Bagrationi. Although he allegedly looked just as much like Archil II, especially since both Georgian kings were related to each other.

It is also unclear why Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna initially opposed her beloved son becoming king. “He cannot be a king...” - this is what she said, according to documentary evidence.

And Peter’s eldest half-sister, who was subsequently overthrown by him, Princess Sophia, even wrote to Prince Vasily Golitsyn about her younger brother: “You cannot give power to an infidel.”

Finally, allegedly one day Peter was offered to marry a Georgian princess, to which he replied: “I won’t marry namesakes.”

And yet – a myth?

On the other hand, if you use common sense to help, the whole story still looks rather dubious. Firstly, why was it necessary to replace Tsar Alexei in his marital bed with a Georgian prince? After all, he already had male heirs, even two - the princes Fyodor and Ivan, born by his first wife Maria Miloslavskaya and subsequently both sat on the royal throne for some time.

Secondly, if you compare at least the portraits of Peter I, his “official” father Alexei Mikhailovich, grandfather Mikhail Fedorovich and even his half-brother, Tsar Ivan V, then we can agree that some family resemblance is still present.

Centuries of close ties with Byzantium and the Tatar-Mongols made their presence felt. Representatives of the Russian high nobility more than once entered into marriages with foreigners, and many of them were distinguished by the southern type of appearance. And Natalya Naryshkina, according to unconfirmed information, came from the family of the Crimean Tatar Murza Ismail Narysh.

So the Georgian origin of Peter the Great remains just one of many historical myths, not supported by any serious arguments.

Museum of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Dzhugashvili) - located in the city of Gori. An iconic landmark of Georgia and the most famous museum among many dozens of Georgian museums. Similar museums exist in Moscow, Makhachkala, Vologda, Sochi, New Athos, Ufa, Solvychegodsk, Volgograd, Irkutsk, Vladikavkaz and even Bucharest, but only the Gori one gave birth to a commercial brand on a global scale.
It was this iconic museum brand that I decided to visit the Armavir local branch of the Russian Geographical Society (RGS) on the way to the cave city of Uplistsikhe, which is located 12 kilometers from Gori, on a trip to Georgia.

The idea to create a museum in the house where I.V. Stalin was born arose back in the turbulent year of 1937. Apparently, this was an order from above, because a similar one appeared in Vologda in the same year. L.P. Beria commanded Georgia directly that year, so everything was agreed upon with him. That first museum was modest and existed on the scale of the house itself. If Stalin had visited Georgia in those years, he would have had the unique opportunity to live in a museum named after himself. By a strange coincidence, the museum appeared exactly in the year of the death of Stalin’s mother (Ekaterina Geladze), but this seems to be just a coincidence.
But Stalin did not visit Gori. He went there only once by car from Borjomi, but in the village of Osiauri he stopped, thought, and turned back.

Ten years passed, and in 1949, for Stalin’s anniversary, it was decided to add pathos. The project was entrusted to the main Stalinist from architecture - Archil Kurdiani, who developed the project in the style of the Georgian Stalinist Empire style. Construction began in 1949, but ended in 1955, after Stalin’s death.
In 1951, the museum (then on the scale of a house) was visited by Stalin’s children, Vasily and Svetlana.
Nowadays, it is still a functioning museum, the most expensive in the country, but also the most visited.

The museum has three departments, all of them are located in the central area of ​​the city. The main building is a large palazzo in Stalinist gothic style, the construction of which began in 1951 as a local history museum, but later turned into the Stalin House Museum.

The exhibition contains many things that actually or supposedly belonged to Stalin, including some furniture from his offices, and gifts. There are also a large number of illustrations, paintings, documents, photographs and newspaper articles on display. The exhibition ends with one of eight copies of Stalin's death mask. According to the guide, this is death mask number six.

In front of the main museum is the house in which Stalin was born and spent the first four years of his unconscious life from 1879-1883.

The museum displays Stalin's personal railway carriage. The carriage had been used by him since 1941, including for trips to the Tehran and Yalta conferences. It was transferred to the museum by the North Caucasus Railway in 1985.

The cost of visiting the museum is 15 lari (local Georgian currency). The museum is open daily, seven days a week, from 10:00-18:00 local time. Video filming is prohibited in the museum, but you will be allowed to take only a few photographs. There is a security guard at the entrance to the museum, and there is a police station in the building itself.
Another interesting story was told to us by one of the workers of this museum. The essence of this story is that there are certain reasons to believe that the great Russian emperor, Peter the Great, was a Georgian on his father’s side. According to this version, which subsequently finds some confirmation, Peter is the illegitimate son of the Georgian prince Erekle. From childhood, the Georgian prince was close to the Russian royal court, and in particular to Natalya Naryshkina. At the royal court of Alexei Mikhailovich, the Georgian prince Erekle was known as Nikolai Davidovich; he later became the king of Kakheti, Irakli the First. Thus, the state achievements of Russia during the time of Peter the Great belong to the Georgians.

A year before the birth of Peter, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was really seriously ill and was not able to conceive children. A representative of the royal blood, Erekle the First (Heraclius I Bagrationi), was allowed to approach the princess. Throughout its reign, Soviet history hid information about the Georgian origin of Peter I; there are the words of Stalin, who said: “Let’s leave them at least one “Russian” of whom they can be proud.”

There is also some information that when A.N. Tolstoy was working on the novel Peter I, he came across some documents, which the writer immediately familiarized Stalin with, but the Soviet leader gave orders to remain silent and not dwell on this topic. Thus, there was a certain letter that indicated Peter’s Georgian origin, but it disappeared under Stalin.

Such actions of Joseph Vissarionovich are, in principle, understandable; the reluctance to reveal the truth was also caused by the fact that he had already classified himself as a Russian. It is known that Stalin considered himself Russian. Whether it was from the heart or it was a forced course of history is not known. But logically speaking, it’s impossible to be the leader of the Russian people and not at the same time be, as it were, Russian in soul? Therefore, to recognize Peter as a Georgian would be extremely illogical and inconsistent on his part after the leader had already classified himself as a Russian. Thus, Peter was not Ivan, apparently, that’s why he was great, although, apparently, Russian blood also played an important role; it is known that “mixtures” of different bloods usually produce healthy and talented descendants. Although the most effective factor is the very appearance of Emperor Peter I, which leaves no doubt about this. Peter was the spitting image of a Georgian, very much like his father Erekle the First. There is a lot of other documentary evidence about the origin of this Russian emperor.

There is documentary evidence that Peter’s mother herself, Natalya Naryshkina, at first did not want to give her son power over the country, “He cannot be a king...”, she said. Peter seized power by rebellion. The same proof of the non-Russian origin of Peter the Great are the words of Princess Sophia, who wrote to Prince Golitsyn - “You cannot give power to an infidel.” One of the meanings of the word “infidel” is a foreigner. It seems that Princess Natalya Naryshkina shared Peter’s non-Russian roots with her daughter.

There is also a letter from the Georgian king Archil II, who wrote to Princess Naryshkina, in which there were the following words: “And how is our naughty little one doing?” To top it all off, when one day Peter was offered to marry a Georgian princess, he refused with the words: “I will not marry namesakes.” Which indicates that he himself was well aware of his origins.