A Brief History
On March 23, 1801, some of the Russian nobility and military officers that had been fired expressed their discontent in the time honored tradition of killing the monarch!
Digging Deeper
Future Czar (or Tsar) Paul I grew up as the son of Catherine, Grand Duchess, and Peter, Grand Duke (and heir to the Russian throne).
Well, not really! Paul’s real father was likely one of Catherine’s lovers, a Sergei Saltykov. It seems there was something wrong with Peter (the future Czar Peter III) and advisers told Catherine (later Czarina Catherine the Great) to produce an heir from another source.
This family continued its dysfunctional ways as Catherine ruled Russia while paying little attention to Paul, whom she apparently considered unworthy of being heir to the throne. Catherine favored her grandson, Paul’s son, destined to become Czar Alexander I.
Part of the problem with Paul was his upbringing by his great aunt who seemed to have no idea how to raise a child, let alone prepare one for the throne. Aggravating the situation was a bout of typhus that apparently left Paul with a disfigured face.
While Catherine ruled Russia with dreams of conquest and power, Paul was a voice of dissent and counseled that the Russian army was best used purely to defend the country and not in foreign adventures. Being publicly critical of his mother’s policies did not endear him to Catherine, and when Paul had a son Catherine immediately presumed her grandson to be her heir rather than Paul.
In 1796, when Catherine died of a stroke, Paul became Czar and scrambled to find any paperwork Catherine may have left naming Alexander her heir. Paul also quickly declared official policy to govern succession to the throne by the first born male heir of the monarch. That policy continued until the end of the monarchy after 1917.
For the next 5 years, Paul ruled as Czar and alienated the nobility and the army, two groups it is unwise to alienate! Trying to force the army into stiff, ornate, and useless for battle uniforms instead of the new practical and comfortable style advocated prior to his ascension to the throne rankled soldiers, and his penchant for ordering soldiers that made mistakes during drill to be flogged did not help. He even ordered a regiment that had performed poorly on parade to march to Siberia as punishment! His opinion of the nobility as corrupt and lazy translated into attempts to make them more loyal and disciplined, but only drove more of a wedge between Paul and the nobility.
After initially opposing Napoleon’s France, Paul changed his mind to the displeasure of the generals and nobles. Perhaps most concerning was the plan of Paul and Napoleon to invade India. The two men envisaged joint operations of two infantry corps, one French and one Russian, each consisting of 35,000 men, plus artillery and a large contingent of Cossack cavalry. The French corps was to advance in May 1801 via the Danube River and the Black Sea through southern Russia before joining Russian forces to cross the Caspian Sea and land in Iran after a total journey of about eighty days. Paul and Napoleon estimated it would take another fifty days to reach India.
Thus, a plot was hatched to force the Czar to abdicate, or murder him if he refused. On the night of March 23, 1801, generals that had been fired burst into his bedroom and failed to get Paul to abdicate. One of the officers hit Paul with a sword and the others proceeded to choke and trample him to death! Trample? What an ignoble end to a Czar.
The Russian cavalry heading toward India had meanwhile reached as far as the Aral Sea when they received news of Paul’s death and therefore the end of their expedition.
Paul’s 23 year old son became Czar Alexander I, and the campaign to portray Paul as some sort of madman or mentally deficient person started, no doubt to justify the extreme action of assassination. Today, it is hard to say if Paul’s alleged craziness is just propaganda or was real.
Question for students (and subscribers): Which world leader(s) do you think deserves to be trampled? Also, what if Paul and Napoleon‘s army did reach India? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, see…
Rappoport, A. S. The Curse of the Romanovs, a Study of the Lives and the Reigns of Two Tsars: Paul I and Alexander I of Russia, 1754-1825 (Classic Reprint). Forgotten Books, 2012.
The featured image in this article, the murder of Tsar Paul I of Russia, March 1801, a print from La France et les Français à Travers les Siècles, Volume IV, F Roy editor, A Challamel, Saint-Antoine, 1882-1884, is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or less.
You can also watch a video version of this article on YouTube:
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="1577 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=1577">19 Comments
No one should be deliberately trampled to death.
Bashar Al-Assad for one. Oh, and how about Kim Jong un?
Even though his policies were seen as a great annoyance to the noble class, it seems extreme for his enemies to trample him to death. I am curious to what would have happened if Paul had signed the abdication document. Did the conspirators intend to kill him that night?
I think it was extreme for his enemies to trample Paul to death. I think he grew up having a sad life since even his own mother did not want him as her heir. What wonder if Paul would eventually have signed the abdication document if he was not murdered?
I think that this yet another example of what happens when revolution goes too far. I think that fighting back should happen as a last resort. I think there were probably better ways to handle this situation than the way the generals and nobility did in this circumstance.
I agree with Ellen that fighting back should of been the last resort and also probably better ways to handle the trampling of Paul’s death. It is also sad that Paul’s own mother did not want Paul to succeed her.
While he had the option to abdicate, he probably chose to die rather than face the humiliation of getting over thrown from his throne. The men out on the voyage to India had to be excited when they heard the news that Paul had been trampled and they could finally head home. Paul’s childhood was a likely factor of his craziness.
Just another reason why the monarchy was so ridiculous! The monarchy was all about blood lines but who knows how many Kings were really bastards! With all the inbreeding going on to keep the throne in the family it would be no surprise if Paul really was a little unhinged but it sounds like he was just not a smart individual. He should have gone about getting loyalty from the monarchy in a different way instead of cussing everyone to hate him.
While Paul may be seen as crazy some may just have labeled him an isolationist at the beginning of his reign, during the time he wished for troops to be for defense purposes only. This all probably changed when Paul openly switched positions on Napoleon and even started marching to India!
It was unwise of Paul to alienate both the nobles and the military. Losing favor with these two groups would make it almost impossible to be a successful leader of a country. Paul had no chance of succeeding because he had no support. The military would not fight hard for Paul, and the nobles would not help lead the country because of the split between them and Paul.
Paul definitely got back at his mom for being labeled as unworthy. I proved it when he became Czar.
Death by trampling seems to be pretty extreme. Paul was later considered to be crazy even by his son, Alexander I. Catherine did not even want Paul to become Czar, she only ever wanted Alexander I to be her heir to the throne.
Catherine seemed to be right about Paul. It is unfortunate that he was trampled to death. I wonder if anyone had ever later found any papers left behind from Catherine stating Alexander to be czar instead of Paul.
I enjoy hearing pieces of history in which groups overthrow the people in power because this typically happens when the powerful make an idiotic decision. It shows the strength of human will.
Czar Paul I seemed doom from day one. No one ever wanted him to have the throne. Then, when he did, he alienated nobility and the military. The ultimate consequence was that he was alienating himself from the people, making several decisions they did not want him to make. And, he paid the ultimate price.
How does a monarch not have the means to rear a child fit for the thrown? I can’t understand this. I am hoping that the craziness of Paul was over exaggerated, because if not it really just looks bad for Russia and their monarchy.
Paul was not fir to Czar and both Catherine and the people knew this. Sadly, rather than just being told he was not fit to be Czar, the people took matters into their own hands and trampled him to death.
It seems that Catherine was making a good decision when she wanted her grandson, Alexander, to be Czar of Russia. Paul did get what was coming to him for being a horrible leader and he should have never got the chance to be too.
I sure hope that Paul isn’t all they make him out to be. I feel in this story as well as a lot of these, they exaggerate the circumstances.