Jump to content

Talk:Paul I of Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of the Ordinal Is Correct

[edit]

In answer to the issues raised below, the clarification would be that even though Paul/Pavel Petrovich was the only Emperor with such name, he used the style "Paul the First" during his reign. See e.g. the photo of the front page of one of his manifestos [1]. I have to check to be absolutely sure, but I believe, this style was also used by Peter the Great and other post-Petrine monarchs, such as Alexander I, Constantine I (who never reigned), and Nicholas I. Peter's daughter Elizabeth would be an exception, as she is commonly referred to in historiography as either Елизавета Петровна or simply Елизавета/Елизаветъ. I can find more citations for verification, if needed. ouital77 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Legacy Revisited

[edit]

I see in this talk page the consensus has been to remove the large paragraph promoting Paul as more or less normal and a great guy. I would like to further emphasize that while the POV point is valid the statements themselves don't hold up to much scrutiny. Also, there's a copyright violation claimed within that nobody seems to have resolved, strangely since 2003. Just to add clarity, I will break down parts I feel make absolutely little sense.Retran (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The reappraisal of Paul I has demonstrated his character as someone of high morals, who followed his conscience."... POV problem. Who declared this reappraisal has "demonstrated his character", and what constitutes "high morals" in a neutral historical sense?Retran (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"His infidelity is dismissed as unlikely"... but WHY was it dismissed? This assertion flies in the face of all other historical accounts, so it needs to be explained.Retran (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Paul saw in the Russian nobles an element of degeneracy...and introducing the high ideals of the Knights of Malta was his method of reform". That may have been true. But how does that make him less eccentric; an Enlightenment era monarch of a major nation-state trying to revive the ideals of medieval knighthood through force? That really smacks of eccentricity... Don Quixote?Retran (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and whilst [Paul] was eccentric and neurotic, he was not mentally unbalanced...Though an analysis of his biography reveals an obsessive-compulsive personality" Enough said. Neurotic IS mentally unbalanced (however archaic the term neurotic is these days, the statement is obviously contradictory and thus too poor quality for an encyclopedia. Similarly, if the term "mentally unbalanced" is to mean anything at all, OCD would definitely fall into this category.Retran (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...rehabilitated the character of Paul I" no, it seems to be a still damning assessment of him as a leader, which is the appropriate standard to assess him by. He was eccentric, OCD, and modified his foreign policy based his infatuation with an idealistic notion he had of Medieval knights. He was not part of the normal population, and there's no reason to think his "character" is rehabilitated because there's some guy who wrote in the 1970s that he used the Medieval Knight anachronism to try and take the nobles out of "degeneracy". That's just weird, and not really saying much of his character, it speaks to his strangeness and how it seemed to interfere with his leadership. Perhaps he didn't have sex out of wedlock... I don't know how to establish that fact or not from what information available today (historians can do that)... but character is much more than sex. I see no cause for rehabilitation in the least even with this novel assessment.Retran (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nobody seems to have disputed the purported copyright violation of this paragraph either. That alone means it should be nix'd or rewritten based on source materials. Retran (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hair

[edit]

Did this ruler actually have his natural hair curled up (as in the picture)? --Marcus2

No, it was a wig.  Wearing wigs was a common practice at that time. — Monedula 13:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mozart did not wear a wig, and his hairstyle was very similar. How do you know it was a wig? --Marcus2

It's common knowledge... ☺ — Monedula 15:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Common knowledge? What is that? Have you any sources or not? (not to be rude or abrupt) --Marcus2

Wig is mentioned here: http://www.roca.org/OA/51/51f.htm — Monedula 19:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That, is just one person's view while he/she is looking at the portrait. Thanks for showing me the source though. --Marcus2

[edit]

The passage outlined below represents a breach of copyright and has been lifted from a Manuscript I have been working on for the last five years. Sufficient copies of the Manuscript are in the hands of friends to estbalish my authorship. Dr Michael Foster. The passage was intruded into the text on 16:56, 24 Nov 2003 by 213.122.182.121

"The common popularist and unresearched view of Emperor Paul I, is that he was mad, that he had a mistress, that his fascination with, and subsequent adoption of the Order of St John and his induction into the office of Grand Master, are seen in this context as indulging further his delusions, and that these eccentricities and his unpredictability led to his assassination. Such a portrait of Paul is a gift to those who seek to discount and ridicule the reign of Paul I. Given that as histories are often written by the victorious or dominant party to any conflict, in this context, how true is that picture of Paul?

Comparatively recent research has rehabilitated the character of Paul I. The popularist view of Paul was originally generated by his assassins in justification of their actions. It would be easy for authors writing about Paul I to follow the propaganda uncritically, ignoring new research, which has been available for over two decades. It is as if the propaganda has become accepted historical fact through being venerated by age.

In the 1970s, two academic Panels provided the assessments of new research into Paul I. These were at Montreal in 1973 and St Louis in 1976. Some of the findings were presented in a book edited by Hugh Ragsdale in 1979; Paul I: A reassessment of His Life and Reign, University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 1979. The reappraisal of Paul I has demonstrated his character as someone of high morals, who followed his conscience. Dismissed as unlikely is Paul's infidelity in having a mistress, and the involvement with the Order of St John is understood against a background of his idealising their history as a lesson in high chivalric ideals, he wished the Russian Nobility would adopt. Paul saw in the Russian Nobles an element of degeneracy, and introducing the high ideals of the Knights of Malta, was Paul's method of reform. Paul suffered a lonely and strict upbringing and whilst he was eccentric and neurotic, he was not mentally unbalanced. Whilst an analysis of his biography reveals an obsessive-compulsive personality, what the evidence reveals is that he had "characteristics fairly common in the population at large". Where Paul differed, was that by 1796 he had to manage the whole of the Russian Empire."

Well, you go ahead and remove it, then; it looks highly POV anyway. Everyking 21:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was dismayed to see the above text still in this article nearly four months after it was brought to our attention. I've removed it. If these views of Paul are common, they should be included (and possibly refuted), but not until someone can provide definitive statements without violating anyone's copyright. They should also be made much less POV. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place. I would like too raise the quastion of his parantage? His mother claimed Orlov was his father, others Peter III. looking at the picture of him I see no resemblence of Peter III who strongly resembled the Phalz family on his mothers side along with Carl XII, Carl XI, and Carl Gustav X. Rytter 18 Dec. 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The section marked Legacy seems POV and is not an unbiased account of the academic debate. In 1800, for example, the British minister in St Petersburg, Sir Charles Whitworth, wrote that 'the Emperor is literally not in his senses' (http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=16841&g16841=x&g17667=x&g30028=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x&amid=16841). The issue of Paul's sanity is not as cut and dried as presented. Coricus 07:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 April 2006 revisions

[edit]

There were no deletions, the revisions and the picture moves were explained in the edit summaries. Ordre St Jean 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tis tzar's name was Pavel (not Paul)Vitoldus44 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the ordinal?

[edit]

Why is this article under "Paul I of Russia" instead of just "Paul of Russia"? There was no Paul II, right? Isn't Wikipedia's style to leave out the ordinal "I" for monarchs if there is no "II"? See for example Elizabeth of Russia. --Jfruh (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is to use the ordinal when it was used by contemporaries, which it sometimes is, and sometimes isn't. I'm not sure what the case is in this instance. john k 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul I definitely used the style "Paul the First" during his reign, hence the ordinal. ouital77 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was he not the ONLY Tsar named Paul?

[edit]

Why is he called Paul I if he was the only with such a name? Rulers dont get calle "the 1st" until a future ruler by the same name takes the throne as "the 2nd".

--Mrlopez2681 08:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was the only Tsar Paul, but I'm pretty sure that he used the "first". Some rulers I know have done this; I have a coin inscribed "Umberto I, re d'Italia". Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I recall reading an anecdote about this once. His daughter Anna Pavlovna asked him why he called himself Paul "the First", even though he was the only tsar of that name so far. "I call myself Paul the First because I'm the first tsar to be named Paul", he responded. 82.161.19.51 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

[edit]

I removed some of the photos, for example the one of his alleged mistress, which anyone can see by simply viewing the article on her. Since the layout was overly cluttered, and since some images are stuffed into small spaces for rather unnecessary reasons (an image of the child Paul does not need to be shoved into the small space that discusses his childhood). I moved some images into a gallery (the coat of arms in very unnecessary). I removed the redundant list of Paul's children by Maria Fyodorovna in the Early Life section, as this can be viewed twice on this page, and should anyone want to find out who these people married, they can view the article on the person.

Why do wikiperdia users insist on tastelessly cramming images into every article?

--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukase of 1799

[edit]

I'm doing background for a rewrite of the Alaska boundary dispute article and have come across mention of the Ukase of 1799, which was issued under Paul; see here for one reference to its terms, among which claims in Russian America were asserted to 55 degrees north; the Ukase of 1821 tried to extend that to 44-50 N or so but was quickly challenged by Britain, leading to the Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825). The 1821 Ukase had lots of other items in it, including ecclesiastical decrees, so it seems clear the Ukase of 1799 probably had a lot more in it than just territorial assertions in North America. Anyone here familiar enough with Russian history/specifics or the Ukases to help out?Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More balanced references needed for the whole article

[edit]

I just added a citation-needed tag to this reference:

  1. A reasonable and balanced picture of Paul I, can be gained from: Hugh (Ed) Paul I: A reassessment of His Life and Reign,

University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 1979[citation needed]

A Russian scholar I was just talking to suggested that this article whietwashes Paul's life a bit and may not be a reasonable and balanced picture. I have no way to judge, and can't cite this private correspondence, but it's not really appropriate for the article to describe in those terms its single modern source :-) Even if this is reasonable and balanced, please flesh out this article with cross-ref information from other reasonable and balanced works. 24.61.14.99 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity

[edit]

Although he certainly might have been Peter III's son, the article seems to be a bit slanted in that direction; most accounts I've seen tend to assume Saltykov was his father. What is the source for the claim that he resembled Peter? Why did the article say it was "fairly likely" that he was really Peter's son? The sources given in the Serge Saltykov article seem pretty weak - an American Spectator review of a biography of Catherine and an article in an Australian newspaper. This seems like a subject where we'd want to see what the most recent academic biographies say. john k (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be neat if the Russian government would exhumed both emperors and do DNA test to solve this hundred year old mystery.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DNA tests done with blood of Tsar Nicholas II show he belonged to the hablogroup R1b, the same as the Oldenburg dynasty, of which he would've been a descendant in the male line if Peter III was really Paul's father. Thus it would appear Peter really did father Paul, no? 68.172.38.134 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Robert K. Massie's 2011 biography of Catherine is more or less unambiguous in assuming Saltykov was Paul's father. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Method of assassination

[edit]

The account of Paul's death in this article (sword, trampling) is very different to that in Nikolay Zubov (snuffbox, strangulation). Could somebody with access to reference material sort them out, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Russian page and Russian sources claim he was hit on the head with a heavy golden snuffbox and strangled with an officer's scarf. I'll check their references when I have more time. BTW snuffbox is used in Russia as a synonym for a political assassination or more specifically a court coup, e.g. currently as a code for potential Putin's fate. Messlo (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul I of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul I of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A pug nose is not a symptom or side effect of typhus

[edit]

I find the claim that his pug nose was the result of typhus specious. The article does not mention who attributes this cause-effect and even if it did, there's no science to back up the claim.Probablynoteworthy (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was probably vandalism.50.111.24.158 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This allegation still remains but it dates the typhus attack. I have put a citation need tag at the end of the sentence in hope someone better read in Russian history may find an account of the illness. I am wondering if he had injuries sustained in an accident while delirious?Cloptonson (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unref'd and dubious

[edit]

"The army, then poised to attack Persia in accordance with Catherine's last design, was recalled to the capital ..." - why would the army be recalled to St. Petersburg, of all places? Some regiment(s) may have been along with some general staff, but I think the reality was that much of those forces were stationed throughout the empire for defense. Needs referencing, at the very least. 50.111.24.158 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

[edit]

It's a well know historical fact that we don't know who was the father of Paul I of Russia. This is something numerous historians have commented above, and even the mother of Paul I indicated as much. The article reflects this situation perfectly well, both pointing out the uncertainty about his parenthood and providing sources for this fact. In this situation, we of course cannot claim in the ancestry box something that is both original research and contrary to the text in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage question

[edit]

The current version of the article as of May 9 2020 shows in the infobox for father says: Father: unknown (Peter III of Russia or Sergei Saltykov)

Though it’s common knowledge among historians that there is dispute of who Paul’s father was most accept it was Peter III,

I’m considering editing it with one of three of the following ideas,

1: Keep it how it is

2: Change it to just say Peter III

3: Change it to say Peter III but add a note of the fact that it could be Sergei Saltykov

I need opinions on this. ImperatorPanda (talk 19:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImperatorPanda, the key here is sources, to make sure we represent it accurately. The opinions of biographies on Peter III, Paul I or Catherine the Great, in which historians discuss the evidence, is of course particularly relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever reliable sources state. And be free to add a note with a source as well. Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ordered destruction of Potemkin remains - NOT carried out (section Purported eccentricities)

[edit]

It needs saying that although Tsar Paul's order for Potemkin's remains to be exhumed and scattered is cited, it was not carried out. In fact they remained in situ to be exhibited by the Bolsheviks post Russian Revolution and were reputedly removed from Kherson Cathedral in the present Russia-Ukraine War by Russian forces.Cloptonson (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove claims about paternity from lead section

[edit]

Right now, the lead section states that Paul I was "officially, ... the only son of Peter III and Catherine the Great, although Catherine hinted that he was fathered by her lover Sergei Saltykov." This seems to me like WP:BIAS for the reasons stated below:

1. This is a deviation from the norm.

On other monarchs whose paternity is similarly disputed (Edward IV of England, Alfonso XII of Spain, Joanna la Beltraneja), their disputed paternity is mentioned in the "Early life" section, not in the lead section. Placing it in the lead section gives it undue weight and makes the paternity claims seem more true than they actually are.

2. Catherine's claims that Paul was not the son of Peter III were politically motivated.

As the son of Peter III, and the only living descendant of Peter I other than his own children, Paul posed an inherent threat to Catherine the Great's legitimacy. When Catherine seized power in 1762, Paul was only an 8 year old, and as such Catherine could argue that she was only serving as empress because the young Paul had not yet come of age. As Paul aged, he began to consider himself the legitimate ruler of Russia, as the only heir of Peter I. Hence by claiming that Paul was not the son of Peter III, but rather of Sergius Saltykov, Catherine could invalidate Paul's claims to the throne, and in turn secure her legitimacy.

For these reasons, the unsubstantiated and politically motivated claims about his paternity should be removed from the lead section, as they are already covered in the "Early years" section. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one only needs to look at the portraits of both men & it's obvious that Emperor Paul resembles Emperor Peter III, not Saltykov. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_I_of_Russia&oldid=1230281674"