Emperor Pavel - life and tragic end

[lori_c]

I am a little hazy on the Malta thing as well.  I do agree though that Paul had to go according to those "powers that be" simply because they would have lost their way of life.

I hope to come across the Ragsdale book. I would like to read SOMETHING more positive and maybe more accurate with less of the rumour mill thing going on about Paul.

[Robert_Hall]

There was an academic conference at the Malta chapter "palace" in Gatchina last spring, which I sadly missed by just days.  I am hoping to get a translation of their reports this year.  I was able to see the place however. It was recently reburnished, I reckon for the conference itself. There is also a Malta chapel in St.P. Actually 2 chapels- one RC the other RO.
 There are actually 2 Ragsdale books as well. Reassesment  & Question of Madness. Good luck findoing them- it took me ages  and $$s !

[Romanov_fan]

I have read one biography of Paul, but for the life of me can't remember the title. I think it said that his relationship with his mother, Catherine the Great seemed to go up and down in later years. Sometimes it was worse, but sometimes it was better. I think that's interesting, and rings true. But, after her death, he was indeed against her. Maybe if he was ever nice to her, it was because he wanted the position of heir no matter what, although Catherine would never have entertained the idea of making someone else her heir. Catherine, on her side as well, never really tried to have any sort of bond with him- she thought other things more important, although she used him to justify her taking the throne. Both of them were to blame for their less than satisfactory relationship. However, circumstances of how he was born and raised are most to blame, in my opinion.

As for his reputation, he gets over shadowed by the reign of his mother, ( naturally), and also by the reign of his son, which seemed much more normal than his. He wasn't as bad as claimed, something you are surprised to find out when you read a biography of him. Most books about his mother make him look bad. He was a complex person, and it is easier to condemn him than to attempt to understand him. He, in my opinion, doesn't deserve to be condemned. Russia was an mixed up country to rule, as much as his own behaviour was said to be to blame for the state of the country and court when he died. He seemed to try to be like his purported father, Peter III too much, because he was trying to escape his mother's shadow, and embrace what he thought of as his paternal legacy.  That did not make him popular, anymore than Peter III had been popular, and in fact most likely less so. I am of the opinion that if Paul had a different background and upbringing in particular, he would have been a good ruler. He wasn't inherently unstable, it was more the circumstances of his life that shaped his destiny in a not always good way, and made him act in ways that did not make him look good. His motivation was usually not bad.

[Robert_Hall]

I think the standard bio, in English at least, is SO DARK A STREAM by Almedingen [1959]

[lori_c]

I have read one biography of Paul, but for the life of me can't remember the title. I think it said that his relationship with his mother, Catherine the Great seemed to go up and down in later years. Sometimes it was worse, but sometimes it was better. I think that's interesting, and rings true. But, after her death, he was indeed against her. Maybe if he was ever nice to her, it was because he wanted the position of heir no matter what, although Catherine would never have entertained the idea of making someone else her heir. Catherine, on her side as well, never really tried to have any sort of bond with him- she thought other things more important, although she used him to justify her taking the throne. Both of them were to blame for their less than satisfactory relationship. However, circumstances of how he was born and raised are most to blame, in my opinion.

As for his reputation, he gets over shadowed by the reign of his mother, ( naturally), and also by the reign of his son, which seemed much more normal than his. He wasn't as bad as claimed, something you are surprised to find out when you read a biography of him. Most books about his mother make him look bad. He was a complex person, and it is easier to condemn him than to attempt to understand him. He, in my opinion, doesn't deserve to be condemned. Russia was an mixed up country to rule, as much as his own behaviour was said to be to blame for the state of the country and court when he died. He seemed to try to be like his purported father, Peter III too much, because he was trying to escape his mother's shadow, and embrace what he thought of as his paternal legacy.  That did not make him popular, anymore than Peter III had been popular, and in fact most likely less so. I am of the opinion that if Paul had a different background and upbringing in particular, he would have been a good ruler. He wasn't inherently unstable, it was more the circumstances of his life that shaped his destiny in a not always good way, and made him act in ways that did not make him look good. His motivation was usually not bad.

Indeed, Paul was notably fair minded and very devout in his religious beliefs.  He was also a much-loved father and husband. His children were truly affected by his murder.  IMO if given half of a chance in the beginning of his life, he would have given  much to Russia just as his mother before him.  But because he was so inherently against HER, he in effect was against anything that would have furthered Russia's development.  I still feel in my own opinion that he really got the short end of the deal in every way.  Except for the number of his progeny, he wasn't given an opportunity to thrive.

[Romanov_fan]

Indeed. Although Alexander I participated in his father's murder, he always felt some guilt, and this overwhelmed him in later years, perhaps causing some of the problems of his later life. I think he did it because he felt pressured by other factions, as much as he actually wanted the throne, at that point in time.The book I read said that his wife could not understand his murder, I think, and he was a pretty good husband by Romanov standards. He was perhaps better in private than in public, but then again, he wasn't given much opportunity to develop in his role as potential ruler during his mother's reign. He then just went off the deep end when he became ruler, trying to go against a past he didn't understand. I think he is much deeper than the popular perception of him, agreed. I think biographers of Catherine the Great must get past the stereotypes that seem to surround him, because more people read biographies of Catherine the Great than they do those of Paul.

[Robert_Hall]

Well, that is simply because there are not many bios of Paul and there are tons of Catherine. I have a feeling this will change soon, as so much is about Romanov history is being re-freshed and re-evaluated. However, it does remain, that his reign was brief and the most noteworthy thing about him, generally, is his death.  There is a definite interest in him in Russia, and that does not necessarily mean any anti-Catherine sentiments.
I hope he emerges from a new study as more than just a footnote in Russian history.

[Romanov_fan]

His reign was brief, although he seemed to do lots during his reign to turn back the clock, to make the past better, or justify the past. None of it was popular, so perhaps had he just been himself, and started with the future, not the past, things would have been different. He seems to have been defined by, both to himself and the world, his relationship with his mother, and even with his long dead father. But, he chose that. He was never able to move on from a past that he could not even understand in my opinion. That cost him. His death was really the end of palace conspricies with the Romanovs, so with him died the early part of the dynasty. But, Alexander I never really escaped the past either, because he too got tangled up in the past because of his role in his father's murder.

[Robert_Hall]

I am not sure I understand you, IA, as Paul was definitely not reactionary. If anything, I think he was far more liberal than his mother dared to go. Remember, she pulled back from even HER left leanings at the end of her reign. IMO Paul would have embraced Napoleon, as his son did eventually, but with more enthusiasm. Perhaps even have avoided the war with France. [this is hypothecial, of course].  But Paul did exert an attempt to re-concile with Rome.  That, also imo, was a bad move on his part.
His personal isolationism and paranoia was a detrement as it left him an enigma to those who could understand his direction for the Empire.
Paul had traveled, he had definite views on what Europe was at the time.  I think he may have been forming his policy on the future, not the past.
[ok- he did have a grudge against his mother, but that seemed to have been sated with the funeral  rites].
 It is sadly romantic to visit Pavlosk, and see what he envisaged and the the Engineer's Palace in St.P. and see what he came to. Gatchina, of course, tells yet another story about him.

[Romanov_fan]

What I meant was, was not so much his policies, but the way he seemed to want to do everything that Peter III had never done. He wanted to implement policies in Russia that were not the best, because Peter III would have liked it. He wanted to follow him in small things that did not really matter, but that caused aggravation to many. He also made changes to much of what his mother did, or he tried to. He changed the succession law dramatically, for instance to exclude female rulers because he didn't like his mother. I agree his more important policies were forward looking, it was in the petty stuff he was stuck in the past. In my opinion, this didn't make him that popular at court, because no one cared about Peter III at the time of Paul's reign, or his military fixations.

[Robert_Hall]

Well, he did not change the sucession law, he created one. It was pretty much a "free-for-all" before that.  And women were allowed to succeed, but only after all legitimate males were exhausted.
Paul's militarism was pretty much standard for the times. I do not think he was any worse or better at it than any other monarch of the era.  Paul was definitely paranoid, as it proved he had every reason to be.
 As for his  father, well, he did not have much to emulate did he?  Peter III's reign was even more brief was it not? A blessing, as it proved to be.
Paul did not have the chance to make any real changes in Russia. He is hard to figure out, I think. Would he have progressed or regressed politically?  He did have plans for  some major reforms, the sucession is an example, but land reform and  a purging of the Court as well.  That is where his downfall lay, imo. He would remove, as you said, the vested interests of the end of his mother's reign. Who, for the most part, had been "vested" for some time and were quite comfortable where they were.
 From what I have read, if I understand correctly, Paul was not so much against his mother's policies, and may have actually carried them further. Remember, Catherine was terribly shaken by the French Revolution, as was everyone, and had turned a tad reactionary at the end of her reign. I think Paul's reaction to her's may have been another nail in his coffin, so to speak.
 I am not really trying to defend the man, I just think he deserves more discussion thanm he has previously merited.
He certainly was an interesting fellow was he not?

[Romanov_fan]

That's for sure. I admit I am not that well versed in politics of his reign, as there are not that many good biographies of him. He was someone who I think you have to understand his background and personality to know his policies. But, maybe his policies were not that clear cut, and were more conceptual? After all, he did not rule long, and did not really have time to have clear cut policies. I think all monarchs of that era were shaken by the French Revolution, and that includes Paul, for sure. He wasn't liked at court for various reasons, and that's partly why it was so easy to get rid of him, including getting his own son to participate in his murder. I was wondering what your opinion was on some of the things he did at court that made him unpopular, in my opinion, or even if there were such things?

[ilyala]

Paul was definitely paranoid, as it proved he had every reason to be.

as it happens in most cases, i think in his case his paranoia created the reasons for paranoia. i don't think anyone wanted to get rid of him until he started suspecting everyone.

[lori_c]

Remember, Catherine was terribly shaken by the French Revolution, as was everyone, and had turned a tad reactionary at the end of her reign. I think Paul's reaction to her's may have been another nail in his coffin, so to speak.
 I am not really trying to defend the man, I just think he deserves more discussion thanm he has previously merited.
He certainly was an interesting fellow was he not?

Absolutely.  In fact, he merits more credit than he gets.  I find him very misunderstood and oversimplified.   As if compartmentalizing him makes him easier to dismiss.

But to comment on your take on Catherine and the French Revolution, she was EXTREMELY shaken and was not above blaming the Bourbons themselves for this upheaval.  I mentioned a quoted from the Erickson book before but it bears repeating.  Something to the effect that the Bourbons threw the hand grenade underneath their own sofa and then had the nerve to act surprised when it went off.  It also adds that this was an interesting observation on Catherine's part as a prediction of her own dynasty's downfall a little over a century later. I think this was another reason she reversed many of her "enlightened" ideas towards the end of her life.  She tried to reign in her own "grenade" and took great pains to make sure no revolutionary ideas had an opportunity to make into Russia even though they were there already to be sure. 
Most certainly the seeds were planted before.  I think that Paul saw this, to his credit.  Though purging everything at the expense of those comfortable people you mentioned wasn't the best way to counteract anything reactionary, imo.

[Robert_Hall]

For Russia, I think Paul was pretty "enlightened" himself. He did make the nobility liable to taxation [a BIG yuck from them!] as well as corporal punishment.  He also instigated  serf reform, limiting the time they were required to work for the landowners- something like only 3 days a week and no work on Sunday. A step towards the radical liberation to come. Even Catherine balked at these movements, although she did suggest them from time-to-time.
He also started the first state ministries.  Functioning bureauracy as opposed to personal appanges of favourites. I am not that well versed on his military reforms, but a quick scan shows it was in need of an update. I imagine this came just in time to be prepared, more or less, for the invasion from Napoleon.
In many ways, Paul laid the foundation for the "modern" autocracy that lasted until Nicholas II, IMO.