Whether we like it or not, history is doomed to create myths. Some myths replace others, and the "golden legend" of one historical figure is sometimes built on the "black legend" of another. This is exactly what happens with the creation of myths surrounding two long-term heads of the foreign policy department of imperial Russia: Count K.V. Nesselrod and Prince A. from. Gorchakova. The name of the former is associated with continuous defeats and miscalculations, while the latter is attributed exclusively with victories and achievements. What Count Nesselrod is accused of as a mistake, in the case of Prince Gurchakov, is interpreted as pragmatism or a forced measure, in any case, justified. Without detracting in any way from the advantages of Prince A. from. Gorchakov, it is necessary to understand that all his achievements are based on the Nesselrod anti-myth. They are constantly opposed, the fundamental difference between their political paths is emphasized, the mistakes of one and the advantages of the other are exaggerated. Moreover, if the anti-myth of Nesselrod has a very long historiographical tradition, then the cult of Gorchakov is very young: the attitude to the results of the activity of this foreign minister, especially after his departure, was very ambiguous. Count Nesselrod is constantly being reprimanded by "history experts" for the incident with Navalsky. Yes, Nesselrud made a mistake by relying on unreliable intelligence and then continued to insist that he was right (however, it is not clear how this relates to Nesselrud's "inconspicuous" image). Gurchakov made much bigger mistakes in his training, but only victories are associated with his name. Yes, he is the one who achieved the cancellation of the restrictive clauses of the Paris Peace Agreement related to the neutralization of the Black Sea. However, only occasionally do historians cautiously say that our diplomats paid disproportionate attention to this issue, sometimes to the detriment of other areas. In the last third of the 19th century, Europe entered a period of formation of foreign policy blocs and conflict with the blocs. in 1879.

Whether we like it or not, history is doomed to create myths. Some myths replace others, and the "golden legend" of one historical figure is sometimes built on the "black legend" of another. This is exactly what happens with the creation of myths surrounding two long-term heads of the foreign policy department of imperial Russia: Count K.V. Nesselrod and Prince A. from. Gorchakova. The name of the former is associated with continuous defeats and miscalculations, while the latter is attributed exclusively with victories and achievements. What Count Nesselrod is accused of as a mistake, in the case of Prince Gurchakov, is interpreted as pragmatism or a forced measure, in any case, justified. Without detracting in any way from the advantages of Prince A. from. Gorchakov, it is necessary to understand that all his achievements are based on the Nesselrod anti-myth. They are constantly opposed, the fundamental difference between their political paths is emphasized, the mistakes of one and the advantages of the other are exaggerated. Moreover, if the anti-myth of Nesselrod has a very long historiographical tradition, then the cult of Gorchakov is very young: the attitude to the results of the activity of this foreign minister, especially after his departure, was very ambiguous. Count Nesselrod is constantly being reprimanded by "history experts" for the incident with Navalsky. Yes, Nesselrud made a mistake by relying on unreliable intelligence and then continued to insist that he was right (however, it is not clear how this relates to Nesselrud's "inconspicuous" image). Gurchakov made much bigger mistakes in his training, but only victories are associated with his name. Yes, he is the one who achieved the cancellation of the restrictive clauses of the Paris Peace Agreement related to the neutralization of the Black Sea. However, only occasionally do historians cautiously say that our diplomats paid disproportionate attention to this issue, sometimes to the detriment of other areas. In the last third of the 19th century, Europe entered a period of formation of foreign policy blocs and conflict with the blocs. in 1879.