When the Tatar-Mongolian yoke ended in Russia. Golden Horde and the Mongol Yoke in Russia

1. In 1480, the Mongol-Tatar yoke was overthrown, which, to a large extent, was the result of the activities of Ivan III, one of the most progressive Russian princes of that time. Ivan III, the son of Vasily the Dark, ascended the throne in 1462 and ruled until 1505. During his reign, fateful changes took place in the life of Muscovite Russia:

• Russia was finally united around Moscow;
• the Mongol-Tatar yoke was overthrown;
• Russia became the political and spiritual successor of Byzantium;
• the first Sudebnik of the Moscow State was compiled;
• the construction of the modern Moscow Kremlin began;
• Moscow prince became known as the Sovereign of All Russia.

2. The decisive step in the unification of Russian lands around Moscow was the suppression of two feudal centers that had competed with Moscow for many years:

• Novgorod in 1478;
• Tver in 1485

The annexation of Novgorod, an independent trade democratic republic, to the Muscovite state took place by force. In 1478, Ivan III, worried about the desire of the Novgorodians to join Lithuania, came to Novgorod with an army and presented an ultimatum. Novgorodians, whose forces were inferior to Moscow, were forced to accept him. The Novgorod veche bell, a symbol of democracy, was removed from the bell tower and taken to Moscow, the veche was dissolved. It was during the annexation of Novgorod that Ivan III was first publicly presented as the Sovereign of All Russia.

3. After the unification of the two largest Russian centers - Moscow and Novgorod, the next step of Ivan III was the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke:

• in 1478 Ivan III refused to pay tribute to the Horde;
• Khan Akhmat, together with the Golden Horde army, marched on Russian lands;
• in October - November 1480, the Russian and Golden Horde armies became camps on the Ugra River, which was called "standing on the Ugra River";
• having stood on the Ugra for a month, on November 11, 1480, Khan Akhmat gathered his army and left for the Horde.

This event is considered the moment of the end of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which lasted 240 years.

However, standing on the Ugra River is a symbol of the overthrow of the yoke, but not its cause.

The main reason for the rather easy overthrow of the yoke is the actual death of the Golden Horde in 1480-1481.

The geopolitical situation in the world was changed by the Turks who came from Asia:

• first, in 1453, the Turks crushed the 1000-year-old Byzantium and took Constantinople;
• then came the turn of the Golden Horde (also an enemy of the Turks), which in the 1460s - 1470s. subjected to devastating raids from the south;
• in 1480, the Crimean Tatars, allies of the Turks, opened a “second front” for Russia, starting an invasion of the Golden Horde.

In addition, in the Golden Horde itself (by that time it had already changed its name several times - the White Horde, the Blue Horde, etc.) there were centrifugal processes - similar to those that led to the collapse of Kievan Rus. By 1480, the Golden Horde had actually disintegrated into small khanates. Sometimes the data of the khanate were "collected" by someone from " strong people"-warlords or khans, the last time the Golden Horde was united by Akhmat, who then tried to restore the vassalage of Muscovite Russia. However, while standing on the Ugra, news came of a new invasion of the Crimean Tatars and a new “Zamiatin” (civil strife) in the Golden Horde. As a result:

• Khan Akhmat was forced to urgently leave the Ugra in order to fight against the invaders invading from the south;
• in 1481, the army of Akhmat was defeated, Akhmat, the last khan of the Horde, was killed, and the Golden Horde ceased to exist and broke up into small khanates - Astrakhan, Kazan, Nogai, etc. That is why, having left the Ugra on November 11, 1480, the Mongol- the Tatars never returned.

The last attempt to revive the Golden Horde was made in 1492, but was thwarted by the Turks, Crimean Tatars and local separatists. The Golden Horde finally ceased to exist. 4. The Muscovite state, on the contrary, was gaining strength and international prestige. Ivan III married Sophia (Zoya) Paleolog, niece last emperor Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire, which collapsed in 1453, like the Golden Horde, under the onslaught of the Turkish invasion). The young Moscow state was declared the political and spiritual successor of Byzantium. This found its expression both in the slogan: "Moscow is the Third Rome" (after Rome and the "Second Rome" - Constantinople), and in the borrowing of Byzantine symbols and symbols of power:

• Coat of arms of the Palaiologos family - the double-headed eagle was taken as the coat of arms of the newly formed Russian (Moscow) state;
• gradually, a new name for the country was borrowed from Byzantium - Russia (Russia is the Byzantine version of the name Rus; in the Byzantine language, for ease of pronunciation, the letter “y” in the name of the countries was changed to “o” and the ending “-ia” (-ia) was added), for example, Romania sounded like Romania, Bulgar like Bulgaria, Rus like Russia).

In honor of the overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke under Ivan III, construction began on the symbol of power - the Moscow Kremlin. According to the plan of Ivan III, the Kremlin was to become the residence of future Russian sovereigns and should embody greatness and sovereignty. The project of the Italian architect Aristotle Fiorovanti was taken as the basis, according to which, instead of the old white stone, the main part of the modern Moscow Kremlin was built of red brick. Also under Ivan III in 1497, the Sudebnik was adopted - the first code of laws of an independent Russian state. This Code of Laws legalized:

• unified system of state bodies;
• unified system of government;
• the right of peasants to change landlords ("Yuryev's day").

During the reign of Ivan III, the expansion of the territory of Russia to the east began. Yes, in the 80s and 90s. 15th century vast areas were mastered up to the Urals and the Arctic Ocean, as a result of which, under Ivan III, the territory of the Moscow State increased 6 times.

Ivan III died in 1505, leaving behind a strong, prosperous and independent state.

When historians analyze the reasons for the success of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, they name the presence of a powerful khan in power among the most important and significant reasons. Often, the khan became the personification of strength and military power, and therefore he was feared by both the Russian princes and representatives of the yoke itself. What khans left their mark on history and were considered the most powerful rulers of their people.

The most powerful khans of the Mongol yoke

During the entire existence of the Mongol Empire and the Golden Horde, many khans have changed on the throne. Especially often the rulers changed during the great zamyatne, when the crisis forced the brother to go against the brother. Various internecine wars and regular military campaigns confused the family tree of the Mongol khans a lot, but the names of the most powerful rulers are still known. So, which khans of the Mongol Empire were considered the most powerful?

• Genghis Khan because of the mass of successful campaigns and the unification of lands into one state.
• Batu, who managed to completely subjugate Ancient Russia and form the Golden Horde.
• Khan Uzbek, under whom the Golden Horde reached its greatest power.
• Mamai, who managed to unite the troops during the great memorial.
• Khan Tokhtamysh, who made successful campaigns against Moscow, and returned Ancient Russia to the forced territories.

Each ruler deserves special attention, because his contribution to the history of the development of the Tatar-Mongol yoke is huge. However, it is much more interesting to tell about all the rulers of the yoke, trying to restore the family tree of the khans.

Tatar-Mongol khans and their role in the history of the yoke

As often happens, a great state falls apart due to a dynastic crisis. A few decades after the liberation of Ancient Russia from the hegemony of the Mongol yoke, the Russian rulers also had to go through their dynastic crisis, but that's a completely different story.

In the late autumn of 1480, the Great Standing on the Ugra ended. It is believed that after that in Russia there was no Mongol-Tatar yoke.

INSULT

The conflict between the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III and the Khan of the Great Horde Akhmat arose, according to one version, due to non-payment of tribute. But a number of historians believe that Akhmat received tribute, but went to Moscow because he did not wait for the personal presence of Ivan III, who was supposed to receive a label for a great reign. Thus, the prince did not recognize the authority and power of the khan.

Akhmat should have been especially offended by the fact that when he sent ambassadors to Moscow to ask for tribute and dues for past years, Grand Duke again, he did not show due respect. The Kazan History even says: “The Grand Duke was not afraid ... taking the basma, he spat, broke it, threw it to the ground and trampled it with his feet.” Of course, such behavior of the Grand Duke is hard to imagine, but the refusal to recognize the power of Akhmat followed.

Khan's pride is also confirmed in another episode. In the Ugorshchina, Akhmat, who was not in the best strategic position, demanded that Ivan III himself come to the Horde headquarters and stand at the stirrup of the lord, waiting for a decision.

WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION

But Ivan Vasilyevich was concerned about his own family. The people did not like his wife. Having panicked, the prince first of all saves his wife: “Ioann sent the Grand Duchess Sophia (a Roman, as the chroniclers say), together with the treasury, to Beloozero, giving the order to go further to the sea and ocean if the khan crosses the Oka,” wrote historian Sergey Solovyov. However, the people did not rejoice at her return from Beloozero: “ grand duchess Sofya ran from the Tatars to Beloozero, but no one drove it.

The brothers, Andrei Galitsky and Boris Volotsky, revolted, demanding to share the inheritance of their deceased brother, Prince Yuri. Only when this conflict was settled, not without the help of his mother, Ivan III could continue the fight against the Horde. In general, "women's participation" in standing on the Ugra is great. According to Tatishchev, it was Sophia who persuaded Ivan III to make a historic decision. The victory in Standing is also attributed to the intercession of the Virgin.

By the way, the size of the required tribute was relatively low - 140,000 altyns. Khan Tokhtamysh collected about 20 times more from the Vladimir principality a century before.

They did not save even when planning defense. Ivan Vasilyevich gave the order to burn the settlements. Residents were moved inside the fortress walls.

There is a version that the prince simply paid off the khan after the Standing: he paid one part of the money on the Ugra, the second - after the retreat. Beyond the Oka, Andrey Menshoi, Ivan III's brother, did not attack the Tatars, but gave the "way out".

indecisiveness

The Grand Duke refused to take action. Subsequently, posterity approved of his defensive stance. But some contemporaries had a different opinion.

At the news of Akhmat's approach, he panicked. The people, according to the chronicle, accused the prince of endangering everyone with his indecision. Fearing assassination attempts, Ivan left for Krasnoye Selo. His heir, Ivan Molodoy, was at that time with the army, ignoring the requests and letters of his father demanding to leave the army.

The Grand Duke nevertheless left in the direction of the Ugra in early October, but did not reach the main forces. In the city of Kremenets, he waited for the brothers who had reconciled with him. And at this time there were battles on the Ugra.

WHY DID THE POLISH KING NOT HELP?

Akhmat Khan's main ally, the great Lithuanian prince and Polish king Casimir IV, never came to the rescue. The question arises: why?

Some write that the king was preoccupied with the attack of the Crimean Khan Mepgli Giray. Others point to internal strife in the Lithuanian land - "a conspiracy of princes." "Russian elements", dissatisfied with the king, sought support from Moscow, wanted to reunite with the Russian principalities. There is also an opinion that the king himself did not want conflicts with Russia. The Crimean Khan was not afraid of him: the ambassador had been negotiating in Lithuania since mid-October.

And the freezing Khan Akhmat, having waited for the frosts, and not for reinforcements, wrote to Ivan III: “And now if it’s gone from the shore, because I have people without clothes, and horses without blankets. And the heart of winter will pass for ninety days, and I will again attack you, and I have muddy water to drink.

Proud, but careless, Akhmat returned to the steppe with booty, ruining the lands of his former ally, and stayed for the winter at the mouth of the Donets. There, the Siberian Khan Ivak, three months after the "Ugorshchina", personally killed the enemy in a dream. An ambassador was sent to Moscow to announce the death of the last ruler of the Great Horde. Historian Sergei Solovyov writes about it this way: “The last formidable Khan of the Golden Horde for Moscow died from one of the descendants of Genghis Khanov; he had sons who were also destined to die from Tatar weapons.

Probably, the descendants still remained: Anna Gorenko considered Akhmat her maternal ancestor and, becoming a poetess, took a pseudonym - Akhmatova.

DISPUTES ABOUT PLACE AND TIME

Historians argue about where the Standing was on the Ugra. They also name the area under the Opakovy settlement, and the village of Gorodets, and the confluence of the Ugra with the Oka. “A land road from Vyazma stretched to the mouth of the Ugra along its right, “Lithuanian” bank, along which Lithuanian help was expected and which the Horde could use for maneuvers. Even in the middle of the XIX century. The Russian General Staff recommended this road for the movement of troops from Vyazma to Kaluga,” writes historian Vadim Kargalov.

The exact date of the arrival of Akhamat to the Ugra is not known either. Books and chronicles agree on one thing: it happened no earlier than the beginning of October. The Vladimir chronicle, for example, is accurate up to the hour: “I came to the Ugra on October 8, a week, at 1 o’clock in the afternoon.” In the Vologda-Perm chronicle it is written: “the tsar went away from the Ugra on Thursday, the eve of Mikhailov’s days” (November 7).

The possession of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke in Russia began in 1237. Great Russia collapsed, and the formation of the Moscow state began.

Under the Tatar-Mongol yoke they mean a cruel period of rule in which Russia was subordinate to the Golden Horde. The Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia was able to hold out for almost two and a half millennia. When asked how long the arbitrariness of the Horde in Russia lasted, history answers 240 years.

The events that took place during this period were very strongly reflected in the formation of Russia. Therefore, this topic was and remains relevant to this day. The Mongol-Tatar yoke is associated with the cruelest events of the 13th century. These were wild extortions of the population, the destruction of entire cities and thousands and thousands of deaths.

The board of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke is formed by two peoples: the dynasty of the Mongols and the nomadic tribes of the Tartars. The vast majority, however, were precisely the Tatars. In 1206, a meeting of the upper Mongolian estates took place, at which the leader of the Mongolian tribe Temujin was elected. It was decided to begin the era of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke. They named the leader Genghis Khan (Great Khan). The ability of the reign of Genghis Khan proved to be magnificent. He managed to rally all the nomadic peoples and form the prerequisites for the development of the cultural and economic development of the country.

Military distributions of the Tatar-Mongols

Genghis Khan created a very strong, warlike and rich state. His warriors had surprisingly very hardy qualities, they could spend the winter in their yurt, in the middle of snow and winds. They had a thin build and a thin beard. They shot accurately and were excellent riders. During attacks on states, he had punishments for cowards. In the case of an escape from the battlefield of one fighter, the entire ten were subjected to execution. If a dozen leaves the battle, then the hundred to which she belonged are shot.

Mongolian feudal lords closed a tight ring around the Great Khan. By raising him to the leadership, they planned to get a lot of wealth and jewelry. Only unleashed war and uncontrolled robbery of the conquered countries could lead them to the desired goal. Soon, after the creation of the Mongolian state, aggressive campaigns began to bring the expected results. The robbery continued for about two centuries. The Mongol-Tatars longed to rule the whole world and own all the riches.

Conquest campaigns of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke

• In 1207, the Mongols enriched themselves with large volumes of metal and valuable rocks. Having attacked the tribes located to the north of the Selenga and in the Yenisei valley. This fact makes it possible to explain the emergence and expansion of weapons property.
• Also in 1207, the Tangut state from Central Asia was attacked. Tanguts began to pay tribute to the Mongols.
• 1209 year. They were in the seizure and robbery of the land of the Khigurs (Turkestan).
• 1211. There was a grandiose defeat of China. The armies of the emperors were routed in a crash. The state was plundered and left devastation.
• Date 1219-1221 the states of Central Asia were destroyed. The result of this three-year war was no different from the previous campaigns of the Tatars. The states were defeated and plundered, the Mongols took talented artisans with them. Leaving behind only burned houses and poor people.
• By 1227, vast territories in the east had passed into the possession of the Mongol feudal lords. Pacific Ocean to the west of the Caspian Sea.

The consequences of the Tatar-Mongol invasion are the same. Thousands of dead and the same number of enslaved people. Destroyed and plundered countries, which need to be restored for a very, very long time. By the time the Tatar-Mongol yoke approached the borders of Russia, its army was extremely numerous, gained experience in combat, endurance and the necessary weapons.

Mongol conquests

Mongol invasion of Russia

The beginning of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia has long been considered 1223. Then the experienced army of the Great Khan came close to the borders of the Dnieper. At that time, the Polovtsy provided assistance, since the principality in Russia was in dispute and disagreement, the defensive capabilities were significantly reduced.

• Battle on the Kalka River. May 31, 1223. The Mongol army numbering 30 thousand broke through the Polovtsy, and collided with the army of Russia. The first and only ones who took the blow were the princely troops of Mstislav the Udaly, who had every chance to break through the dense chain of the Mongols-Tatars. But he did not wait for support from other princes. As a result, Mstislav died, surrendering to the enemy. The Mongols received a lot of valuable military information from captured Russians. There were very big losses. But the onslaught of the enemy long time still held back.
• The beginning of the invasion December 16, 1237. The first on the way was Ryazan. At that time, the death of Genghis Khan occurred, and his place was taken by his grandson, Batu. The army under the command of Batu was no less fierce. They swept away and plundered everything and everyone who met them along the way. The invasion was targeted and carefully planned, so the Mongols quickly penetrated deep into the country. The city of Ryazan held out for five days under siege. Despite the fact that the city was surrounded by strong high walls, under the onslaught of enemy weapons, the walls of the city fell. The Tatar-Mongol yoke robbed and killed the people for ten days.
• Battle near Kolomna. Further, Batu's army began to move towards Kolomna. On the way, they met an army of 1,700 people, subordinate to Evpatiy Kolovrat. And despite the fact that the Mongols outnumbered the army of Evpatiy many times over, he did not chicken out and repulsed the enemy with all his might. As a result, causing significant damage to him. The army of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke continued to move and set off along the Moscow River, to the city of Moscow, which lasted five days in a siege. At the end of the battle, the city was burned, and most of the people were killed. You should know that before getting to the city of Vladimir, the Tatar-Mongols conducted defensive operations all the way against the hidden Russian squad. They had to be very attentive and always be ready for a new battle. On the road, there were many battles and skirmishes with the Russians.
• The Grand Duke of Vladimir, Yuri Vsevolodovich, did not respond to requests for help from the Ryazan prince. But then he himself was under threat of attack. The prince competently disposed of the time that was between the Ryazan battle and Vladimir. He gathered a large army and armed it. It was decided to determine the city of Kolomna as the place of the battle. On February 4, 1238, the plan of Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich began to be implemented.
• It was the most grandiose battle in terms of the number of troops and the hot battle of the Tatar-Mongols and Russians. But he was also lost. The number of Mongols still significantly exceeded. The Tatar-Mongolian invasion of this city lasted exactly a month. Ending on March 4, 1238, the Russians were defeated and also plundered. The prince fell in a heavy battle, inflicting a great deportation on the Mongols. Vladimir became the last of the fourteen cities conquered by the Mongols in North-Eastern Russia.
• In 1239 the cities of Chernihiv and Pereslavl were defeated.. A trip to Kyiv is planned.
• December 6, 1240. Captured Kyiv. This further crippled the already shattered structure of the country. The powerfully fortified Kyiv was smashed by huge battering rams and rapids. The way to Southern Russia and Eastern Europe was opened.
• 1241. Palo Galicia-Volyn principality. After that, the actions of the Mongols stopped for a while.

In the spring of 1247, the Mongol-Tatars reached the opposite border of Russia and entered Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Batu put the created "Golden Horde" on the borders of Russia. In 1243, they began to accept and approve the princes of the regions into the horde. There were also large cities that survived against the Horde like Smolensk, Pskov and Novgorod. These cities tried to express their disagreement and resist the rule of Batu. The first attempt was made by the great Andrey Yaroslavovich. But his efforts were not supported by the majority of church and secular feudal lords, who, after so many battles and attacks, finally established business with the Mongol khans.

In short, after the established order, the princes and church feudal lords did not want to get off their seats and agreed to recognize the power of the Mongol khans and the established tribute extortion from the population. The plundering of Russian lands will continue.

The country had more and more attacks of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. And it was increasingly difficult to give a fitting rebuff to the robbers. In addition to the fact that the country was already pretty tired, the people, impoverished and downtrodden, the princely showdowns did not make it possible to get up from their knees.

In 1257, the Horde started a population census in order to securely establish a yoke and impose an unbearable tribute on the people. Become the unshakable and undeniable ruler of the Russian lands. Russia managed to defend its political system and reserved the right to build a social and political stratum.

The Russian land was subjected to endless painful invasions of the Mongols, which would last until 1279.

The overthrow of the Tatar-Mongol yoke

The end of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia came in 1480. The Golden Horde began to gradually disintegrate. Many large principalities were divided and lived in constant skirmishes with each other. The liberation of Russia from the Tatar-Mongol yoke is the service of Prince Ivan III. Ruled from 1426 to 1505. The prince united the two large cities of Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod and went to the goal of overthrowing the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

In 1478, Ivan III put forward a refusal to pay tribute to the Horde. In November 1480, the famous "standing on the Ugra River" took place. The name is characterized by the fact that neither side decided to start the battle. After spending a month on the river, the deposed Khan Akhmat broke camp and went to the Horde. How many years the Tatar-Mongol rule lasted, ruining and destroying the Russian people and Russian lands can now be answered with confidence. Mongolian yoke in Russia

The traditional version of the Tatar-Mongol invasion of Russia, the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", and the liberation from it is known to the reader from school. In the presentation of most historians, events looked something like this. At the beginning of the 13th century, in the steppes of the Far East, the energetic and brave tribal leader Genghis Khan gathered a huge army of nomads, soldered by iron discipline, and rushed to conquer the world - "to the last sea."

So was there a Tatar-Mongolian yoke in Russia?

Having conquered the nearest neighbors, and then China, the mighty Tatar-Mongol horde rolled to the west. Having traveled about 5 thousand kilometers, the Mongols defeated Khorezm, then Georgia, and in 1223 reached the southern outskirts of Russia, where they defeated the army of Russian princes in a battle on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Tatar-Mongols invaded Russia already with all their countless troops, burned and devastated many Russian cities, and in 1241 tried to conquer Western Europe by invading Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, but turned back, because that they were afraid to leave Russia devastated, but still dangerous for them, in their rear. The Tatar-Mongol yoke began.

The great poet A. S. Pushkin left heartfelt lines: “Russia was assigned a high destiny ... its boundless plains absorbed the power of the Mongols and stopped their invasion at the very edge of Europe; the barbarians did not dare to leave enslaved Russia in their rear and returned to the steppes of their East. The emerging enlightenment was saved by a torn and dying Russia…”

The huge Mongol state, stretching from China to the Volga, hung over Russia like an ominous shadow. The Mongol khans issued labels to the Russian princes for reigning, attacked Russia many times in order to rob and rob, repeatedly killed Russian princes in their Golden Horde.

Having grown stronger over time, Russia began to resist. In 1380, the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Horde Khan Mamai, and a century later, in the so-called “standing on the Ugra”, the troops of Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat converged. The opponents camped for a long time on opposite sides of the Ugra River, after which Khan Akhmat, finally realizing that the Russians had become strong and had little chance of winning the battle, gave the order to retreat and led his horde to the Volga. These events are considered "the end of the Tatar-Mongol yoke."

But in recent decades, this classic version has been challenged. The geographer, ethnographer and historian Lev Gumilyov convincingly showed that relations between Russia and the Mongols were much more complicated than the usual confrontation between cruel conquerors and their unfortunate victims. Deep knowledge in the field of history and ethnography allowed the scientist to conclude that there was a certain “complimentarity” between the Mongols and the Russians, that is, compatibility, the ability to symbiosis and mutual support at the cultural and ethnic level. The writer and publicist Alexander Bushkov went even further, "twisting" Gumilyov's theory to its logical conclusion and expressing a completely original version: what is commonly called the Tatar-Mongol invasion was in fact a struggle of the descendants of Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest (son of Yaroslav and grandson of Alexander Nevsky ) with their rival princes for sole power over Russia. Khans Mamai and Akhmat were not alien raiders, but noble nobles who, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, had legally justified rights to a great reign. Thus, the Battle of Kulikovo and the “standing on the Ugra” are not episodes of the struggle against foreign aggressors, but pages of the civil war in Russia. Moreover, this author promulgated a completely “revolutionary” idea: under the names “Genghis Khan” and “Batu”, the Russian princes Yaroslav and Alexander Nevsky appear in history, and Dmitry Donskoy is Khan Mamai himself (!).

Of course, the conclusions of the publicist are filled with irony and border on postmodern "banter", but it should be noted that many facts of the history of the Tatar-Mongol invasion and the "yoke" really look too mysterious and need closer attention and unbiased research. Let's try to consider some of these mysteries.

Let's start with a general remark. Western Europe in the 13th century presented a disappointing picture. Christendom was going through a certain depression. The activity of Europeans shifted to the borders of their range. German feudal lords began to seize the border Slavic lands and turn their population into disenfranchised serfs. The Western Slavs who lived along the Elbe resisted German pressure with all their might, but the forces were unequal.

Who were the Mongols who approached the borders of the Christian world from the east? How did the powerful Mongolian state appear? Let's take a tour of its history.

At the beginning of the 13th century, in 1202-1203, the Mongols first defeated the Merkits, and then the Keraits. The fact is that the Keraites were divided into supporters of Genghis Khan and his opponents. The opponents of Genghis Khan were led by the son of Van Khan, the legitimate heir to the throne - Nilha. He had reason to hate Genghis Khan: even at the time when Van Khan was an ally of Genghis, he (the leader of the Keraites), seeing the undeniable talents of the latter, wanted to transfer the Kerait throne to him, bypassing his own son. Thus, the clash of part of the Keraites with the Mongols occurred during the lifetime of Wang Khan. And although the Keraites had a numerical superiority, the Mongols defeated them, as they showed exceptional mobility and took the enemy by surprise.

In the clash with the Keraites, the character of Genghis Khan was fully manifested. When Van Khan and his son Nilha fled from the battlefield, one of their noyons (commanders) with a small detachment detained the Mongols, saving their leaders from captivity. This noyon was seized, brought before the eyes of Genghis, and he asked: “Why, noyon, seeing the position of your troops, did not leave yourself? You had both the time and the opportunity." He replied: "I served my khan and gave him the opportunity to escape, and my head is for you, O conqueror." Genghis Khan said: “Everyone should imitate this man.

See how brave, loyal, valiant he is. I cannot kill you, noyon, I offer you a place in my army.” Noyon became a thousand-man and, of course, faithfully served Genghis Khan, because the Kerait horde disintegrated. Wang Khan himself died while trying to escape to the Naimans. Their guards on the border, seeing the Kerait, killed him, and presented the severed head of the old man to their khan.

In 1204, the Mongols of Genghis Khan and the powerful Naiman Khanate clashed. Once again, the Mongols won. The defeated were included in the horde of Genghis. There were no more tribes in the eastern steppe that could actively resist the new order, and in 1206, at the great kurultai, Genghis was again elected khan, but already of all Mongolia. Thus was born the all-Mongolian state. The only hostile tribe remained the old enemies of the Borjigins - the Merkits, but by 1208 they were forced out into the valley of the Irgiz River.

The growing power of Genghis Khan allowed his horde to assimilate different tribes and peoples quite easily. Because, in accordance with the Mongolian stereotypes of behavior, the khan could and should have demanded obedience, obedience to an order, fulfillment of duties, but it was considered immoral to force a person to abandon his faith or customs - the individual had the right to his own choice. This state of affairs was attractive to many. In 1209, the Uighur state sent ambassadors to Genghis Khan with a request to accept them as part of his ulus. The request, of course, was granted, and Genghis Khan gave the Uighurs huge trading privileges. The caravan route went through Uyghuria, and the Uyghurs, being part of the Mongolian state, got rich due to the fact that they sold water, fruits, meat and “pleasures” to hungry caravaners at high prices. The voluntary unification of Uighuria with Mongolia turned out to be useful for the Mongols as well. With the annexation of Uighuria, the Mongols went beyond the borders of their ethnic range and came into contact with other peoples of the ecumene.

In 1216, on the Irgiz River, the Mongols were attacked by the Khorezmians. Khorezm by that time was the most powerful of the states that emerged after the weakening of the power of the Seljuk Turks. The rulers of Khorezm from the governors of the ruler of Urgench turned into independent sovereigns and adopted the title of "Khorezmshahs". They proved to be energetic, enterprising and warlike. This allowed them to conquer most of Central Asia and southern Afghanistan. The Khorezmshahs created a huge state in which the main military force was the Turks from the adjacent steppes.

But the state turned out to be fragile, despite the wealth, brave warriors and experienced diplomats. The regime of military dictatorship relied on tribes alien to the local population, who had a different language, other customs and customs. The cruelty of the mercenaries caused discontent among the inhabitants of Samarkand, Bukhara, Merv and other Central Asian cities. The uprising in Samarkand led to the destruction of the Turkic garrison. Naturally, this was followed by a punitive operation of the Khorezmians, who brutally dealt with the population of Samarkand. Other large and rich cities of Central Asia also suffered.

In this situation, Khorezmshah Mohammed decided to confirm his title of "ghazi" - "victorious infidels" - and become famous for another victory over them. The opportunity presented itself to him in that very year 1216, when the Mongols, fighting with the Merkits, reached the Irgiz. Upon learning of the arrival of the Mongols, Muhammad sent an army against them on the grounds that the steppe inhabitants must be converted to Islam.

The Khorezmian army attacked the Mongols, but in the rearguard battle they themselves went on the offensive and badly beaten the Khorezmians. Only the attack of the left wing, commanded by the son of Khorezmshah, the talented commander Jalal-ad-Din, corrected the situation. After that, the Khorezmians withdrew, and the Mongols returned home: they were not going to fight with Khorezm, on the contrary, Genghis Khan wanted to establish ties with the Khorezmshah. After all, the Great Caravan Route went through Central Asia and all the owners of the lands along which it ran grew rich due to the duties paid by merchants. Merchants willingly paid duties, because they shifted their costs to consumers, while losing nothing. Wishing to preserve all the advantages associated with the existence of caravan routes, the Mongols strove for peace and quiet on their borders. The difference of faiths, in their opinion, did not give a reason for war and could not justify bloodshed. Probably, the Khorezmshah himself understood the episodic nature of the collision on the Irshz. In 1218 Muhammad sent a trade caravan to Mongolia. Peace was restored, especially since the Mongols had no time for Khorezm: shortly before this, the Naiman prince Kuchluk began new war with the Mongols.

Once again, Mongol-Khorezmian relations were violated by the Khorezmshah himself and his officials. In 1219, a rich caravan from the lands of Genghis Khan approached the Khorezm city of Otrar. The merchants went to the city to replenish their food supplies and take a bath. There, the merchants met two acquaintances, one of whom informed the ruler of the city that these merchants were spies. He immediately realized that there is a great reason to rob travelers. Merchants were killed, property was confiscated. The ruler of Otrar sent half of the loot to Khorezm, and Mohammed accepted the booty, which means he shared the responsibility for what he had done.

Genghis Khan sent envoys to find out what caused the incident. Mohammed was angry when he saw the infidels, and ordered to kill part of the ambassadors, and part, having stripped naked, drive them to certain death in the steppe. Two or three Mongols nevertheless got home and told about what had happened. Genghis Khan's anger knew no bounds. From the point of view of the Mongol, two of the most terrible crimes took place: the deceit of those who trusted and the murder of guests. According to custom, Genghis Khan could not leave unavenged either the merchants who were killed in Otrar, or the ambassadors who were insulted and killed by the Khorezmshah. The Khan had to fight, otherwise the tribesmen would simply refuse to trust him.

In Central Asia, the Khorezmshah had at his disposal a 400,000-strong regular army. And the Mongols, as the famous Russian orientalist V.V. Bartold believed, had no more than 200 thousand. Genghis Khan demanded military assistance from all allies. Warriors came from the Turks and Kara-Kitais, the Uighurs sent a detachment of 5 thousand people, only the Tangut ambassador boldly replied: "If you do not have enough troops, do not fight." Genghis Khan considered the answer an insult and said: "Only dead I could bear such an insult."

Genghis Khan threw the assembled Mongolian, Uyghur, Turkic and Kara-Chinese troops to Khorezm. Khorezmshah, having quarreled with his mother Turkan-Khatun, did not trust the military leaders related to her by kinship. He was afraid to gather them into a fist in order to repel the onslaught of the Mongols, and scattered the army among the garrisons. The best commanders of the Shah were his own unloved son Jalal-ad-Din and the commandant of the fortress Khojent Timur-Melik. The Mongols took fortresses one after another, but in Khujand, even taking the fortress, they could not capture the garrison. Timur-Melik put his soldiers on rafts and escaped pursuit along the wide Syr Darya. Scattered garrisons could not hold back the offensive of Genghis Khan's troops. Soon everyone big cities Sultanate - Samarkand, Bukhara, Merv, Herat - were captured by the Mongols.

Regarding the capture of the Central Asian cities by the Mongols, there is an established version: "Wild nomads destroyed the cultural oases of the agricultural peoples." Is it so? This version, as shown by L. N. Gumilyov, is based on the legends of Muslim court historians. For example, the fall of Herat was reported by Islamic historians as a disaster in which the entire population was exterminated in the city, except for a few men who managed to escape in the mosque. They hid there, afraid to go out into the streets littered with corpses. Only wild animals roamed the city and tormented the dead. After sitting for some time and recovering, these "heroes" went to distant lands to rob caravans in order to regain their lost wealth.

But is it possible? If the entire population of a large city was exterminated and lay on the streets, then inside the city, in particular in the mosque, the air would be full of cadaveric miasma, and those who hid there would simply die. No predators, except for jackals, live near the city, and they very rarely penetrate the city. It was simply impossible for exhausted people to move to rob caravans a few hundred kilometers from Herat, because they would have to walk, carrying burdens - water and provisions. Such a “robber”, having met a caravan, would no longer be able to rob it ...

Even more surprising is the information reported by historians about Merv. The Mongols took it in 1219 and also allegedly exterminated all the inhabitants there. But already in 1229 Merv rebelled, and the Mongols had to take the city again. And finally, two years later, Merv sent a detachment of 10 thousand people to fight the Mongols.

We see that the fruits of fantasy and religious hatred gave rise to legends of Mongol atrocities. If we take into account the degree of reliability of sources and ask simple but inevitable questions, it is easy to separate historical truth from literary fiction.

The Mongols occupied Persia almost without a fight, driving the Khorezmshah's son Jalal-ad-Din to northern India. Mohammed II Ghazi himself, broken by struggle and constant defeat, died in a leper colony on an island in the Caspian Sea (1221). The Mongols also made peace with the Shiite population of Iran, which was constantly offended by the Sunnis in power, in particular the Caliph of Baghdad and Jalal-ad-Din himself. As a result, the Shiite population of Persia suffered much less than the Sunnis of Central Asia. Be that as it may, in 1221 the state of the Khorezmshahs was finished. Under one ruler - Mohammed II Ghazi - this state reached its highest power, and died. As a result, Khorezm, Northern Iran, and Khorasan were annexed to the Mongol Empire.

In 1226, the hour of the Tangut state struck, which at the decisive moment of the war with Khorezm refused to help Genghis Khan. The Mongols rightly viewed this move as a betrayal that, according to Yasa, required vengeance. The capital of Tangut was the city of Zhongxing. It was besieged in 1227 by Genghis Khan, having defeated the Tangut troops in previous battles.

During the siege of Zhongxing, Genghis Khan died, but the Mongol noyons, on the orders of their leader, concealed his death. The fortress was taken, and the population of the "evil" city, on which the collective guilt for betrayal fell, was subjected to execution. The Tangut state disappeared, leaving behind only written evidence of its former culture, but the city survived and lived until 1405, when it was destroyed by the Ming Chinese.

From the capital of the Tanguts, the Mongols took the body of their great ruler to their native steppes. The funeral rite was as follows: the remains of Genghis Khan were lowered into the dug grave along with many valuable things and all the slaves who performed the funeral work were killed. According to custom, exactly one year later, it was required to celebrate a commemoration. In order to later find a burial place, the Mongols did the following. At the grave they sacrificed a little camel just taken from their mother. And a year later, the camel herself found in the boundless steppe the place where her cub was killed. Having slaughtered this camel, the Mongols performed the prescribed rite of commemoration and then left the grave forever. Since then, no one knows where Genghis Khan is buried.

In the last years of his life, he was extremely concerned about the fate of his state. The khan had four sons from his beloved wife Borte and many children from other wives, who, although they were considered legitimate children, did not have rights to the throne of their father. Sons from Borte differed in inclinations and in character. The eldest son, Jochi, was born shortly after the Merkit captivity of Borte, and therefore not only evil tongues, but also the younger brother Chagatai called him a "Merkit degenerate." Although Borte invariably defended Jochi, and Genghis Khan himself always recognized him as his son, the shadow of the Merkit captivity of his mother fell on Jochi as a burden of suspicion of illegitimacy. Once, in the presence of his father, Chagatai openly called Jochi illegitimate, and the matter almost ended in a fight between the brothers.

It is curious, but according to contemporaries, there were some stable stereotypes in Jochi's behavior that greatly distinguished him from Genghis. If for Genghis Khan there was no concept of "mercy" in relation to enemies (he left life only for small children who were adopted by his mother Hoelun, and valiant bagaturas who transferred to the Mongol service), then Jochi was distinguished by humanity and kindness. So, during the siege of Gurganj, the Khorezmians, completely exhausted by the war, asked to accept surrender, that is, in other words, to spare them. Jochi spoke out in favor of showing mercy, but Genghis Khan categorically rejected the request for mercy, and as a result, the Gurganj garrison was partially massacred, and the city itself was flooded by the waters of the Amu Darya. The misunderstanding between the father and the eldest son, constantly fueled by the intrigues and slander of relatives, deepened over time and turned into distrust of the sovereign to his heir. Genghis Khan suspected that Jochi wanted to gain popularity among the conquered peoples and secede from Mongolia. It is unlikely that this was the case, but the fact remains: at the beginning of 1227, Jochi, hunting in the steppe, was found dead - his spine was broken. The details of what happened were kept secret, but, without a doubt, Genghis Khan was a person interested in the death of Jochi and quite capable of ending his son's life.

In contrast to Jochi, the second son of Genghis Khan, Chaga-tai, was a strict, executive and even cruel man. Therefore, he received the position of "Guardian of Yasa" (something like the Attorney General or the Supreme Judge). Chagatai strictly observed the law and treated its violators without any mercy.

The third son of the Great Khan, Ogedei, like Jochi, was distinguished by kindness and tolerance towards people. The character of Ogedei is best illustrated by the following case: once, on a joint trip, the brothers saw a Muslim bathing by the water. According to Muslim custom, every true believer is obliged to perform prayer and ritual ablution several times a day. Mongolian tradition, on the contrary, forbade a person to bathe during the whole summer. The Mongols believed that washing in a river or lake causes a thunderstorm, and a thunderstorm in the steppe is very dangerous for travelers, and therefore "calling a thunderstorm" was seen as an attempt on people's lives. The nukers-rescuemen of the ruthless zealot of the law Chagatai seized the Muslim. Anticipating a bloody denouement - the unfortunate man was threatened with beheading - Ogedei sent his man to tell the Muslim to answer that he had dropped gold into the water and was just looking for it there. The Muslim said so to Chagatai. He ordered to look for a coin, and during this time, Ugedei's combatant threw a gold one into the water. The found coin was returned to the "rightful owner". In parting, Ugedei, taking a handful of coins from his pocket, handed them to the rescued person and said: “The next time you drop gold into the water, don’t go after it, don’t break the law.”

The youngest of the sons of Genghis, Tului, was born in 1193. Since Genghis Khan was then in captivity, this time Borte's infidelity was quite obvious, but Genghis Khan recognized Tuluya as his legitimate son, although outwardly he did not resemble his father.

Of the four sons of Genghis Khan, the youngest possessed the greatest talents and showed the greatest moral dignity. A good commander and an outstanding administrator, Tuluy was also loving husband and distinguished by nobility. He married the daughter of the deceased head of the Keraites, Wan Khan, who was a devout Christian. Tului himself did not have the right to accept the Christian faith: like Genghisides, he had to profess the Bon religion (paganism). But the Khan's son allowed his wife not only to perform all Christian rites in a luxurious "church" yurt, but also to have priests with her and receive monks. The death of Tului can be called heroic without any exaggeration. When Ogedei fell ill, Tului voluntarily took a strong shamanic potion, seeking to "attract" the disease to himself, and died saving his brother.

All four sons were eligible to succeed Genghis Khan. After the elimination of Jochi, three heirs remained, and when Genghis died, and the new khan had not yet been elected, Tului ruled the ulus. But at the kurultai of 1229, in accordance with the will of Genghis, the gentle and tolerant Ogedei was chosen as the great khan. Ogedei, as we have already mentioned, had a good soul, but the kindness of the sovereign is often not to the benefit of the state and subjects. The management of the ulus under him was carried out mainly due to the severity of Chagatai and the diplomatic and administrative skills of Tului. The great khan himself preferred roaming with hunting and feasting in Western Mongolia to state concerns.

The grandchildren of Genghis Khan were allocated various areas of the ulus or high positions. The eldest son of Jochi, Orda-Ichen, received the White Horde, located between the Irtysh and the Tarbagatai ridge (the area of ​​\u200b\u200bpresent-day Semipalatinsk). The second son, Batu, began to own the Golden (big) Horde on the Volga. The third son, Sheibani, went to the Blue Horde, which roamed from Tyumen to the Aral Sea. At the same time, the three brothers - the rulers of the uluses - were allocated only one or two thousand Mongol soldiers each, while the total number of the Mongols' army reached 130 thousand people.

The children of Chagatai also received a thousand soldiers each, and the descendants of Tului, being at the court, owned the entire grandfather and father's ulus. So the Mongols established a system of inheritance, called the minority, in which the youngest son received all the rights of his father as an inheritance, and older brothers only a share in the common inheritance.

The great Khan Ugedei also had a son - Guyuk, who claimed the inheritance. The increase in the clan during the lifetime of the children of Genghis caused the division of the inheritance and enormous difficulties in managing the ulus, which stretched over the territory from the Black to the Yellow Sea. In these difficulties and family scores, the seeds of future strife lurked that ruined the state created by Genghis Khan and his associates.

How many Tatar-Mongol came to Russia? Let's try to deal with this issue.

Russian pre-revolutionary historians mention "a half-million Mongol army". V. Yan, the author of the famous trilogy "Genghis Khan", "Batu" and "To the last sea", calls the number four hundred thousand. However, it is known that a warrior of a nomadic tribe goes on a campaign with three horses (at least two). One is carrying luggage (“dry rations”, horseshoes, spare harness, arrows, armor), and the third needs to be changed from time to time so that one horse can rest if you suddenly have to engage in battle.

Simple calculations show that for an army of half a million or four hundred thousand fighters, at least one and a half million horses are needed. Such a herd is unlikely to be able to effectively advance a long distance, since the front horses will instantly destroy the grass in a vast area, and the rear ones will die from starvation.

All the main invasions of the Tatar-Mongolians into Russia took place in winter, when the remaining grass is hidden under the snow, and you can’t take much fodder with you ... The Mongolian horse really knows how to get food from under the snow, but ancient sources do not mention the horses of the Mongolian breed that were available "in service" of the horde. Horse breeding experts prove that the Tatar-Mongolian horde rode Turkmens, and this is a completely different breed, and looks different, and is not able to feed itself in winter without human help ...

In addition, the difference between a horse released to roam in the winter without any work, and a horse forced to make long transitions under a rider, and also to participate in battles, is not taken into account. But they, in addition to the riders, also had to carry heavy prey! Wagon trains followed the troops. The cattle that pulls the carts also need to be fed ... The picture of a huge mass of people moving in the rearguard of a half-million army with carts, wives and children seems quite fantastic.

The temptation for the historian to explain the campaigns of the Mongols of the 13th century by "migrations" is great. But modern researchers show that the Mongol campaigns were not directly related to the movements of huge masses of the population. Victories were won not by hordes of nomads, but by small, well-organized mobile detachments, after campaigns returning to their native steppes. And the khans of the Jochi branch - Baty, Horde and Sheibani - received, according to the will of Genghis, only 4 thousand horsemen, that is, about 12 thousand people who settled in the territory from the Carpathians to Altai.

In the end, historians settled on thirty thousand warriors. But here, too, unanswered questions arise. And the first among them will be this: is not it enough? Despite the disunity of the Russian principalities, thirty thousand cavalrymen is too small a figure to arrange "fire and ruin" throughout Russia! After all (even the supporters of the “classical” version admit this) they did not move in a compact mass. Several detachments scattered in different directions, and this reduces the number of "innumerable Tatar hordes" to the limit beyond which elementary distrust begins: could such a number of aggressors conquer Russia?

It turns out a vicious circle: a huge army of the Tatar-Mongolians, for purely physical reasons, would hardly be able to maintain combat capability in order to move quickly and inflict the notorious "indestructible blows." A small army would hardly have been able to establish control over most of the territory of Russia. To get out of this vicious circle, one has to admit that the Tatar-Mongol invasion was in fact only an episode of the bloody civil war that was going on in Russia. The enemy forces were relatively small, they relied on their own forage stocks accumulated in the cities. And the Tatar-Mongols became an additional external factor used in the internal struggle in the same way as the troops of the Pechenegs and Polovtsy were previously used.

The annalistic information about the military campaigns of 1237-1238 that has come down to us draws a classically Russian style of these battles - the battles take place in winter, and the Mongols - the steppes - act with amazing skill in the forests (for example, the encirclement and subsequent complete destruction of the Russian detachment on the City River under the command of the great Prince Vladimir Yuri Vsevolodovich).

Having cast a general look at the history of the creation of the huge Mongol state, we must return to Russia. Let us take a closer look at the situation with the battle of the Kalka River, not fully understood by historians.

At the turn of the 11th-12th centuries, it was by no means the steppes that represented the main danger to Kievan Rus. Our ancestors were friends with the Polovtsian khans, married the “red Polovtsian girls”, accepted the baptized Polovtsians into their midst, and the descendants of the latter became Zaporozhye and Sloboda Cossacks, not without reason in their nicknames the traditional Slavic suffix belonging to “ov” (Ivanov) was replaced by a Turkic one - “ enco" (Ivanenko).

At this time, a more formidable phenomenon emerged - the decline in morals, the rejection of traditional Russian ethics and morality. In 1097, a princely congress took place in Lyubech, which laid the foundation for a new political form of the country's existence. There it was decided that "let each one keep his fatherland." Russia began to turn into a confederation of independent states. The princes swore to inviolably observe what was proclaimed and in that they kissed the cross. But after the death of Mstislav, the Kievan state began to quickly disintegrate. Polotsk was the first to be laid aside. Then the Novgorod "republic" stopped sending money to Kyiv.

A striking example of the loss of moral values ​​and patriotic feelings was the act of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. In 1169, having captured Kyiv, Andrew gave the city to his warriors for a three-day plunder. Until that moment in Russia it was customary to act in this way only with foreign cities. Under no civil strife, this practice never spread to Russian cities.

Igor Svyatoslavich, a descendant of Prince Oleg, the hero of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, who became the Prince of Chernigov in 1198, set himself the goal of cracking down on Kyiv, the city where the rivals of his dynasty were constantly strengthening. He agreed with the Smolensk prince Rurik Rostislavich and called for the help of the Polovtsy. In defense of Kyiv - "the mother of Russian cities" - Prince Roman Volynsky spoke out, relying on the troops of the Torks allied to him.

The plan of the Chernigov prince was realized after his death (1202). Rurik, Prince of Smolensk, and the Olgovichi with the Polovtsy in January 1203, in a battle that went mainly between the Polovtsy and the Torks of Roman Volynsky, prevailed. Having captured Kyiv, Rurik Rostislavich subjected the city to a terrible defeat. The Church of the Tithes and the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra were destroyed, and the city itself was burned. “They created a great evil, which was not from baptism in the Russian land,” the chronicler left a message.

After the fateful year 1203 Kyiv never recovered.

According to L. N. Gumilyov, by this time the ancient Russians had lost their passionarity, that is, their cultural and energy “charge”. Under such conditions, a collision with a strong enemy could not but become tragic for the country.

Meanwhile, the Mongol regiments were approaching the Russian borders. At that time, the main enemy of the Mongols in the west were the Cumans. Their enmity began in 1216, when the Polovtsians accepted the natural enemies of Genghis - the Merkits. The Polovtsians actively pursued the anti-Mongolian policy, constantly supporting the Finno-Ugric tribes hostile to the Mongols. At the same time, the Polovtsian steppes were as mobile as the Mongols themselves. Seeing the futility of cavalry clashes with the Polovtsy, the Mongols sent an expeditionary force behind enemy lines.

The talented generals Subetei and Jebe led a corps of three tumens through the Caucasus. The Georgian king George Lasha tried to attack them, but was destroyed along with the army. The Mongols managed to capture the guides, who showed the way through the Darial Gorge. So they went to the upper reaches of the Kuban, to the rear of the Polovtsians. Those, finding the enemy in their rear, retreated to the Russian border and asked for help from the Russian princes.

It should be noted that the relationship between Russia and the Polovtsy does not fit into the scheme of irreconcilable confrontation "sedentary - nomads". In 1223, the Russian princes became allies of the Polovtsy. The three strongest princes of Russia - Mstislav Udaloy from Galich, Mstislav of Kyiv and Mstislav of Chernigov - having gathered troops, tried to protect them.

The clash at the Kalka in 1223 is described in some detail in the annals; in addition, there is another source - "The Tale of the Battle of the Kalka, and the Russian Princes, and the Seventy Bogatyrs." However, the abundance of information does not always bring clarity ...

Historical science has long denied the fact that the events on Kalka were not an aggression of evil aliens, but an attack by the Russians. The Mongols themselves did not seek war with Russia. The ambassadors who arrived at the Russian princes rather amiably asked the Russians not to interfere in their relations with the Polovtsians. But, true to their allied obligations, the Russian princes rejected the peace proposals. In doing so, they made a fatal mistake that had bitter consequences. All the ambassadors were killed (according to some sources, they were not even just killed, but "tortured"). At all times, the murder of an ambassador, a truce was considered a serious crime; according to Mongolian law, the deceit of a person who trusted was an unforgivable crime.

Following this, the Russian army sets out on a long march. Leaving the borders of Russia, it first attacks the Tatar camp, takes booty, steals cattle, after which it moves out of its territory for another eight days. A decisive battle is taking place on the Kalka River: the eighty thousandth Russian-Polovtsian army fell on the twenty thousandth (!) Detachment of the Mongols. This battle was lost by the allies due to the inability to coordinate actions. The Polovtsy left the battlefield in panic. Mstislav Udaloy and his "younger" prince Daniel fled for the Dnieper; they were the first to reach the shore and managed to jump into the boats. At the same time, the prince cut down the rest of the boats, fearing that the Tatars would be able to cross after him, “and, filled with fear, he reached Galich on foot.” Thus, he doomed his comrades-in-arms, whose horses were worse than the prince's, to death. The enemies killed everyone they overtook.

Other princes remain one on one with the enemy, repulse his attacks for three days, after which, believing the assurances of the Tatars, they surrender. Here lies another mystery. It turns out that the princes surrendered after a certain Russian named Ploskinya, who was in the enemy’s battle formations, solemnly kissed the pectoral cross that the Russians would be spared and their blood would not be shed. The Mongols, according to their custom, kept their word: having tied the captives, they laid them on the ground, covered them with planks and sat down to feast on the bodies. Not a drop of blood was shed! And the latter, according to Mongolian views, was considered extremely important. (By the way, only “The Tale of the Battle of Kalka” reports that the captured princes were put under the boards. Other sources write that the princes were simply killed without mocking, and still others that they were “captured.” So the story of a feast on the bodies is just one of the versions.)

Different nations have different perceptions of the rule of law and the concept of honesty. The Russians believed that the Mongols, having killed the captives, violated their oath. But from the point of view of the Mongols, they kept their oath, and the execution was the highest justice, because the princes committed the terrible sin of killing the one who trusted. Therefore, the point is not in deceit (history gives a lot of evidence of how the Russian princes themselves violated the “kiss of the cross”), but in the personality of Ploskin himself - a Russian, a Christian, who somehow mysteriously found himself among the soldiers of the “unknown people”.

Why did the Russian princes surrender after listening to Ploskini's persuasion? “The Tale of the Battle of the Kalka” writes: “There were roamers along with the Tatars, and their governor was Ploskinya.” Brodniki are Russian free combatants who lived in those places, the predecessors of the Cossacks. However, the establishment of the social position of Ploskin only confuses the matter. It turns out that the roamers in a short time managed to agree with the “unknown peoples” and became close to them so much that they jointly hit their brothers in blood and faith? One thing can be stated with all certainty: part of the army with which the Russian princes fought on the Kalka was Slavic, Christian.

Russian princes in this whole story do not look like in the best way. But back to our mysteries. For some reason, the "Tale of the Battle of the Kalka" mentioned by us is not able to definitely name the enemy of the Russians! Here is a quote: “... Because of our sins, unknown peoples came, the godless Moabites [a symbolic name from the Bible], about whom no one knows exactly who they are and where they came from, and what their language is, and what tribe they are, and what faith. And they call them Tatars, while others say - Taurmen, and others - Pechenegs.

Amazing lines! They were written much later than the events described, when it seemed to be necessary to know exactly who the Russian princes fought on the Kalka. After all, part of the army (albeit small) nevertheless returned from Kalka. Moreover, the victors, pursuing the defeated Russian regiments, chased them to Novgorod-Svyatopolch (on the Dnieper), where they attacked the civilian population, so that among the townspeople there should have been witnesses who saw the enemy with their own eyes. And yet he remains "unknown"! This statement further confuses the matter. After all, by the time described, the Polovtsians were well known in Russia - they lived side by side for many years, then fought, then became related ... The Taurmens, a nomadic Turkic tribe that lived in the Northern Black Sea region, were again well known to the Russians. It is curious that in the "Tale of Igor's Campaign" among the nomadic Turks who served the Chernigov prince, some "Tatars" are mentioned.

There is an impression that the chronicler is hiding something. For some reason unknown to us, he does not want to directly name the enemy of the Russians in that battle. Perhaps the battle on the Kalka was not at all a clash with unknown peoples, but one of the episodes of the internecine war waged between Christian Russians, Christian Polovtsians and Tatars who got involved in the matter?

After the battle on the Kalka, part of the Mongols turned their horses to the east, trying to report on the completion of the task - the victory over the Polovtsians. But on the banks of the Volga, the army fell into an ambush set up by the Volga Bulgars. The Muslims, who hated the Mongols as pagans, unexpectedly attacked them during the crossing. Here the victors at Kalka were defeated and lost many people. Those who managed to cross the Volga left the steppes to the east and united with the main forces of Genghis Khan. Thus ended the first meeting of the Mongols and the Russians.

L. N. Gumilyov collected a huge amount of material, clearly indicating that the relationship between Russia and the Horde CAN be denoted by the word "symbiosis". After Gumilyov, they write especially much and often about how Russian princes and “Mongol khans” became brothers, relatives, sons-in-law and father-in-law, how they went on joint military campaigns, how (let’s call a spade a spade) they were friends. Relations of this kind are unique in their own way - in no country conquered by them, the Tatars did not behave like this. This symbiosis, brotherhood in arms leads to such an interweaving of names and events that sometimes it is even difficult to understand where the Russians end and the Tatars begin...

Therefore, the question of whether there was a Tatar-Mongolian yoke in Russia (in the classical sense of the term) remains open. This topic is waiting for its researchers.

When it comes to “standing on the Ugra”, we again encounter omissions and omissions. As those diligently studying school or university history courses remember, in 1480 the troops of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III, the first “sovereign of all Russia” (ruler of the united state) and the hordes of the Tatar Khan Akhmat stood on opposite banks of the Ugra River. After a long "standing" the Tatars fled for some reason, and this event was the end of the Horde yoke in Russia.

There are many dark places in this story. Let's start with the fact that the famous painting, which even got into school textbooks - "Ivan III tramples on the Khan's basma" - was written on the basis of a legend composed 70 years after "standing on the Ugra". In reality, the khan's ambassadors did not come to Ivan, and he did not solemnly tear any letter-basma in their presence.

But here again an enemy is coming to Russia, a non-believer, threatening, according to his contemporaries, the very existence of Russia. Well, all in a single impulse are preparing to repulse the adversary? Not! We are faced with a strange passivity and confusion of opinion. With the news of the approach of Akhmat in Russia, something happens that still has no explanation. It is possible to reconstruct these events only on the basis of meager, fragmentary data.

It turns out that Ivan III does not at all seek to fight the enemy. Khan Akhmat is far away, hundreds of kilometers away, and Ivan's wife, Grand Duchess Sophia, flees from Moscow, for which she receives accusatory epithets from the chronicler. Moreover, at the same time, certain strange events. “The Tale of Standing on the Ugra” tells about it this way: “In the same winter, the Grand Duchess Sophia returned from her escape, for she ran to Beloozero from the Tatars, although no one was chasing her.” And then - even more mysterious words about these events, in fact, the only mention of them: “And the lands where she wandered became worse than from the Tatars, from boyar serfs, from Christian bloodsuckers. Reward them, Lord, according to the treachery of their deeds, according to the deeds of their hands, give them, for they loved more women than the Orthodox Christian faith and holy churches, and they agreed to betray Christianity, for malice blinded them.

About what in question? What happened in the country? What actions of the boyars brought on them accusations of "blood drinking" and apostasy from the faith? We practically don't know what it was about. A little light is shed by reports about the "evil advisers" of the Grand Duke, who advised not to fight the Tatars, but "run away" (?!). Even the names of "advisors" are known - Ivan Vasilievich Oshchera Sorokoumov-Glebov and Grigory Andreevich Mamon. The most curious thing is that the Grand Duke himself does not see anything reprehensible in the behavior of the near boyars, and subsequently no shadow of disfavor falls on them: after “standing on the Ugra”, both remain in favor until their death, receiving new awards and positions.

What's the matter? It is completely dull, vaguely reported that Oshchera and Mamon, defending their point of view, mentioned the need to observe some kind of “old times”. In other words, the Grand Duke must give up resistance to Akhmat in order to observe some ancient traditions! It turns out that Ivan violates certain traditions, deciding to resist, and Akhmat, accordingly, acts in his own right? Otherwise, this riddle cannot be explained.

Some scholars have suggested: maybe we have a purely dynastic dispute? Once again, two people claim the throne of Moscow - representatives of the relatively young North and the more ancient South, and Akhmat, it seems, has no less rights than his rival!

And here Bishop of Rostov Vassian Rylo intervenes in the situation. It is his efforts that break the situation, it is he who pushes the Grand Duke on a campaign. Bishop Vassian pleads, insists, appeals to the conscience of the prince, gives historical examples, hints that Orthodox Church can turn away from Ivan. This wave of eloquence, logic and emotion is aimed at convincing the Grand Duke to come to the defense of his country! What the Grand Duke for some reason stubbornly does not want to do ...

The Russian army, to the triumph of Bishop Vassian, leaves for the Ugra. Ahead - a long, for several months, "standing". And again something strange happens. First, negotiations begin between the Russians and Akhmat. The negotiations are quite unusual. Akhmat wants to do business with the Grand Duke himself - the Russians refuse. Akhmat makes a concession: he asks for the brother or son of the Grand Duke to arrive - the Russians refuse. Akhmat again concedes: now he agrees to speak with a "simple" ambassador, but for some reason Nikifor Fedorovich Basenkov must certainly become this ambassador. (Why him? A riddle.) The Russians again refuse.

It turns out that for some reason they are not interested in negotiations. Akhmat makes concessions, for some reason he needs to agree, but the Russians reject all his proposals. Modern historians explain it this way: Akhmat "intended to demand tribute." But if Akhmat was only interested in tribute, why such long negotiations? It was enough to send some Baskak. No, everything indicates that we have before us some big and gloomy secret that does not fit into the usual schemes.

Finally, about the mystery of the retreat of the "Tatars" from the Ugra. Today in historical science there are three versions of not even a retreat - Akhmat's hasty flight from the Ugra.

1. A series of "fierce battles" undermined the morale of the Tatars.

(Most historians reject this, rightly stating that there were no battles. There were only minor skirmishes, clashes of small detachments "in no man's land.")

2. The Russians used firearms, which led the Tatars into panic.

(It is unlikely: by this time the Tatars already had firearms. The Russian chronicler, describing the capture of the city of Bulgar by the Moscow army in 1378, mentions that the inhabitants “let thunder from the walls.”)

3. Akhmat was “afraid” of a decisive battle.

But here is another version. It is taken from a historical work of the 17th century, written by Andrey Lyzlov.

“The lawless tsar [Akhmat], unable to endure his shame, in the summer of the 1480s gathered a considerable force: princes, and lancers, and murzas, and princes, and quickly came to the Russian borders. In his Horde, he left only those who could not wield weapons. The Grand Duke, after consulting with the boyars, decided to do a good deed. Knowing that in the Great Horde, where the tsar came from, there was no army left at all, he secretly sent his numerous army to the Great Horde, to the dwellings of the filthy. At the head were the service tsar Urodovlet Gorodetsky and Prince Gvozdev, governor of Zvenigorod. The king did not know about it.

They, sailing in boats along the Volga to the Horde, saw that there were no military people there, but only women, old men and youths. And they undertook to captivate and devastate, mercilessly betraying the wives and children of the filthy to death, setting fire to their dwellings. And, of course, they could kill every single one.

But Murza Oblyaz the Strong, a servant of Gorodetsky, whispered to his king, saying: “O king! It would be absurd to devastate and ruin this great kingdom to the end, because you yourself come from here, and we all, and here is our homeland. Let’s get out of here, we’ve already caused enough ruin, and God can be angry with us.”

So the glorious Orthodox army returned from the Horde and came to Moscow with great victory, having with him a lot of booty and no small full. The king, having learned about all this, at the same hour retreated from the Ugra and fled to the Horde.

Doesn’t it follow from this that the Russian side deliberately dragged out the negotiations - while Akhmat tried for a long time to achieve his unclear goals, making concessions after concessions, Russian troops sailed along the Volga to the capital of Akhmat and cut down women, children and the elderly there, until the commanders woke up that something like conscience! Please note: it is not said that the voivode Gvozdev opposed the decision of Urodovlet and Oblyaz to stop the massacre. Apparently, he was also fed up with blood. Naturally, Akhmat, having learned about the defeat of his capital, retreated from the Ugra, hurrying home with all possible speed. What next?

A year later, the “Horde” is attacked with an army by a “Nogai Khan” named ... Ivan! Akhmat is killed, his troops are defeated. Another evidence of a deep symbiosis and fusion of Russians and Tatars ... There is another version of the death of Akhmat in the sources. According to him, a certain close associate of Akhmat named Temir, having received rich gifts from the Grand Duke of Moscow, killed Akhmat. This version is of Russian origin.

Interestingly, the army of Tsar Urodovlet, who staged a pogrom in the Horde, is called "Orthodox" by the historian. It seems that before us is another argument in favor of the version that the Horde soldiers who served the Moscow princes were by no means Muslims, but Orthodox.

There is another aspect that is of interest. Akhmat, according to Lyzlov, and Urodovlet are "kings." And Ivan III is only a “Grand Duke”. Writer inaccuracy? But at the time when Lyzlov was writing his history, the title "tsar" was already firmly entrenched in Russian autocrats, had a specific "binding" and exact value. Further, in all other cases, Lyzlov does not allow himself such "liberties". Western European kings he has "kings", Turkish sultans - "sultans", padishah - "padishah", cardinal - "cardinal". Is that the title of Archduke is given by Lyzlov in the translation "artsy prince". But this is a translation, not a mistake.

Thus, in the late Middle Ages there was a system of titles that reflected certain political realities, and today we are well aware of this system. But it is not clear why two seemingly identical Horde nobles are called one "prince" and the other "murza", why "Tatar prince" and "Tatar khan" are by no means the same thing. Why are there so many holders of the title "Tsar" among the Tatars, and the Moscow sovereigns are stubbornly called "Grand Dukes". Only in 1547 Ivan the Terrible for the first time in Russia takes the title of "tsar" - and, as the Russian chronicles report at length, he did this only after much persuasion from the patriarch.

Are the campaigns of Mamai and Akhmat against Moscow explained by the fact that, according to some perfectly understandable contemporaries, the rules of the “tsar” were higher than the “grand prince” and had more rights to the throne? That some dynastic system, now forgotten, declared itself here?

It is interesting that in 1501 the Crimean king Chess, having been defeated in internecine war somehow expected that Kyiv prince Dmitry Putyatich will take his side, probably due to some special political and dynastic relations between the Russians and the Tatars. Which one is not exactly known.

And finally, one of the mysteries of Russian history. In 1574 Ivan the Terrible divides the Russian kingdom into two halves; He rules one himself, and transfers the other to the Kasimov Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich - along with the titles of "Tsar and Grand Duke of Moscow"!

Historians still do not have a generally accepted convincing explanation for this fact. Some say that Grozny, as usual, mocked the people and those close to him, others believe that Ivan IV thus “transferred” his own debts, mistakes and obligations to the new king. But can we not talk about joint rule, which had to be resorted to due to the same intricate ancient dynastic relations? Perhaps for the last time in Russian history, these systems declared themselves.

Simeon was not, as many historians previously believed, Grozny's "weak-willed puppet" - on the contrary, he was one of the largest statesmen and military figures of that time. And after the two kingdoms were again united into one, Grozny by no means “exiled” Simeon to Tver. Simeon was granted the Grand Dukes of Tver. But Tver in the time of Ivan the Terrible was a recently pacified center of separatism, which required special supervision, and the one who ruled Tver, by all means, had to be a confidant of the Terrible.

And finally, strange troubles fell upon Simeon after the death of Ivan the Terrible. With the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich, Simeon is “reduced” from the reign of Tver, blinded (a measure that in Russia from time immemorial was applied exclusively to sovereign persons who had the right to the table!), Forcibly tonsured monks of the Kirillov Monastery (also a traditional way to eliminate a competitor to the secular throne! ). But even this is not enough: I. V. Shuisky sends a blind, elderly monk to Solovki. One gets the impression that the Muscovite tsar in this way got rid of a dangerous competitor who had significant rights. A contender for the throne? Really the rights of Simeon to the throne were not inferior to the rights of the Rurikovich? (It is interesting that Elder Simeon survived his tormentors. Returned from Solovki exile by decree of Prince Pozharsky, he died only in 1616, when neither Fyodor Ivanovich, nor False Dmitry I, nor Shuisky were alive.)

So, all these stories - Mamai, Akhmat and Simeon - are more like episodes of the struggle for the throne, and not like a war with foreign conquerors, and in this respect resemble similar intrigues around one or another throne in Western Europe. And those whom we have been accustomed to consider from childhood as the “deliverers of the Russian land”, perhaps, in fact, solved their dynastic problems and eliminated rivals?

Many members of the editorial board are personally acquainted with the inhabitants of Mongolia, who were surprised to learn about their supposedly 300-year-old dominion over Russia. Of course, this news filled the Mongols with a sense of national pride, but at the same time they asked: “Who is Genghis Khan?”

from the magazine "Vedic Culture No. 2"

In the annals of the Orthodox Old Believers about the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" it is said unambiguously: "There was Fedot, but not that one." Let's turn to the ancient Slovene language. Having adapted the runic images to modern perception, we get: thief - enemy, robber; mogul-powerful; yoke - order. It turns out that "tati Aria" (from the point of view of the Christian flock) with light hand chroniclers were called "Tatars"1, (There is another meaning: "Tata" - father. Tatar - Tata Aryans, i.e. Fathers (Ancestors or older) Aryans) powerful - the Mongols, and the yoke - a 300-year order in The power that stopped the bloody civil war that broke out on the basis of the forced baptism of Russia - "martyrdom". Horde is a derivative of the word Order, where “Or” is strength, and day is daylight hours or simply “light”. Accordingly, the “Order” is the Force of Light, and the “Horde” is the Light Forces. So these Light Forces of the Slavs and Aryans, led by our Gods and Ancestors: Rod, Svarog, Sventovit, Perun, stopped the civil war in Russia on the basis of forced Christianization and maintained order in the State for 300 years. Were there dark-haired, stocky, dark-faced, hook-nosed, narrow-eyed, bow-legged and very evil warriors in the Horde? Were. Detachments of mercenaries of different nationalities, who, like in any other army, were driven in the forefront, saving the main Slavic-Aryan Troops from losses on the front line.

It's hard to believe? Take a look at the "Map of Russia 1594" in Gerhard Mercator's Atlas of the Country. All the countries of Scandinavia and Denmark were part of Russia, which extended only to the mountains, and the Principality of Muscovy is shown as an independent state that is not part of Russia. In the east, beyond the Urals, the principalities of Obdora, Siberia, Yugoria, Grustina, Lukomorye, Belovodie are depicted, which were part of the Ancient Power of the Slavs and Aryans - the Great (Grand) Tartaria (Tartaria - lands under the auspices of the God Tarkh Perunovich and the Goddess Tara Perunovna - Son and Daughter of the Supreme God Perun - Ancestor of the Slavs and Aryans).

Do you need a lot of intelligence to draw an analogy: Great (Grand) Tartaria = Mogolo + Tartaria = "Mongol-Tataria"? We do not have a high-quality image of the named picture, there is only "Map of Asia 1754". But it's even better! See for yourself. Not only in the 13th, but until the 18th century, Grand (Mogolo) Tartaria existed as realistically as the now faceless Russian Federation.

"Pisarchuks from history" not all were able to pervert and hide from the people. Their repeatedly darned and patched "Trishkin's caftan", which covers the Truth, now and then bursts at the seams. Through the gaps, the truth bit by bit reaches the consciousness of our contemporaries. They do not have truthful information, therefore they are often mistaken in the interpretation of certain factors, but they draw the correct general conclusion: what school teachers taught to several dozen generations of Russians is deceit, slander, falsehood.

Published article from S.M.I. "There was no Tatar-Mongol invasion" - a vivid example of the above. Commentary to it by a member of our editorial board Gladilin E.A. will help you, dear readers, to dot the "i".
Violetta Basha,
All-Russian newspaper "My family",
No. 3, January 2003. p.26

The main source by which we can judge the history of Ancient Russia is considered to be the Radzivilov manuscript: "The Tale of Bygone Years". The story about the calling of the Varangians to rule in Russia is taken from her. But can she be trusted? Its copy was brought at the beginning of the 18th century by Peter 1 from Koenigsberg, then its original turned out to be in Russia. This manuscript has now been proven to be a forgery. Thus, it is not known for certain what happened in Russia before the beginning of the 17th century, that is, before the accession to the throne of the Romanov dynasty. But why did the House of Romanov need to rewrite our history? Is it not then to prove to the Russians that for a long time they were subordinate to the Horde and were not capable of independence, that their lot was drunkenness and humility?

The strange behavior of princes

The classic version of the “Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia” has been known to many since school. She looks like this. At the beginning of the 13th century, in the Mongolian steppes, Genghis Khan gathered a huge army of nomads, subject to iron discipline, and planned to conquer the whole world. Having defeated China, the army of Genghis Khan rushed to the west, and in 1223 went to the south of Russia, where they defeated the squads of Russian princes on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Tatar-Mongols invaded Russia, burned many cities, then invaded Poland, the Czech Republic and reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, but suddenly turned back, because they were afraid to leave behind the ruined, but still dangerous for them Russia. In Russia, the Tatar-Mongol yoke began. The huge Golden Horde had borders from Beijing to the Volga and collected tribute from the Russian princes. The khans gave the Russian princes labels for reigning and terrorized the population with atrocities and robberies.

Even the official version says that there were many Christians among the Mongols and individual Russian princes established very warm relations with the Horde khans. Another oddity: with the help of the Horde troops, some princes were kept on the throne. The princes were very close people to the khans. And in some cases, the Russians fought on the side of the Horde. Are there many strange things? Is this how the Russians should have treated the occupiers?

Having grown stronger, Russia began to resist, and in 1380 Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Horde Khan Mamai on the Kulikovo field, and a century later the troops of Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat converged. The opponents camped for a long time on opposite sides of the Ugra River, after which the khan realized that he had no chance, gave the order to retreat and went to the Volga. These events are considered the end of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke".

Secrets of the disappeared chronicles

When studying the chronicles of the times of the Horde, scientists had many questions. Why did dozens of chronicles disappear without a trace during the reign of the Romanov dynasty? For example, "The Word about the destruction of the Russian land", according to historians, resembles a document from which everything that would testify to the yoke was carefully removed. They left only fragments telling about a certain "trouble" that befell Russia. But there is not a word about the "invasion of the Mongols."

There are many more oddities. In the story “About the Evil Tatars”, a Khan from the Golden Horde orders the execution of a Russian Christian prince ... for refusing to bow “ pagan god Slavs! And some chronicles contain amazing phrases, for example, such: “Well, with God!” - said the Khan and, crossing himself, galloped at the enemy.

Why are there suspiciously many Christians among the Tatar-Mongols? Yes, and the descriptions of princes and warriors look unusual: the chronicles claim that most of them were of the Caucasoid type, had not narrow, but large gray or blue eyes and blond hair.

Another paradox: why did the Russian princes suddenly surrender in the battle on the Kalka "under honestly»to a representative of foreigners named Ploskinya, and he ... kisses pectoral cross?! So, Ploskinya was his own, Orthodox and Russian, and besides, of a noble family!

Not to mention the fact that the number of “war horses”, and hence the soldiers of the Horde troops, at first, with the light hand of the historians of the Romanov dynasty, was estimated at three hundred to four hundred thousand. Such a number of horses could not hide in the copses, nor feed themselves in the conditions of a long winter! Over the past century, historians have constantly reduced the size of the Mongol army and reached thirty thousand. But such an army could not keep all the peoples from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean in subjection! But it could easily perform the functions of collecting taxes and restoring order, that is, serving as something like a police force.

There was no invasion!

A number of scientists, including Academician Anatoly Fomenko, made a sensational conclusion based on the mathematical analysis of manuscripts: there was no invasion from the territory of modern Mongolia! And there was a civil war in Russia, the princes fought with each other. No representatives of the Mongoloid race who came to Russia existed at all. Yes, there were some Tatars in the army, but not aliens, but residents of the Volga region, who lived in the neighborhood with the Russians long before the notorious "invasion".

What is commonly called the “Tatar-Mongol invasion” was in fact a struggle between the descendants of Prince Vsevolod the “Big Nest” and their rivals for sole power over Russia. The fact of the war between the princes is generally recognized, unfortunately, Russia did not unite immediately, and rather strong rulers fought among themselves.

But with whom did Dmitry Donskoy fight? In other words, who is Mamai?

Horde - the name of the Russian army

The era of the Golden Horde was distinguished by the fact that, along with secular power, there was a strong military power. There were two rulers: a secular one, who was called a prince, and a military one, they called him a khan, i.e. "warlord". In the annals you can find the following entry: “There were roamers along with the Tatars, and they had such and such a governor,” that is, the troops of the Horde were led by governors! And wanderers are Russian free combatants, the predecessors of the Cossacks.

Authoritative scientists have concluded that the Horde is the name of the Russian regular army (like the "Red Army"). And Tatar-Mongolia is Great Russia itself. It turns out that it was not the “Mongols”, but the Russians who conquered a vast territory from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean and from the Arctic to the Indian. It was our troops that made Europe tremble. Most likely, it was the fear of powerful Russians that caused the Germans to rewrite Russian history and turn their national humiliation into ours.

By the way, german word"ordnung" ("order"), most likely, comes from the word "horde". The word "Mongol" probably came from the Latin "megalion", that is, "great." Tataria from the word "tartar" ("hell, horror"). And Mongol-Tataria (or "Megalion-Tartaria") can be translated as "Great Horror".

A few more words about names. Most people of that time had two names: one in the world, and the other received at baptism or a battle nickname. According to the scientists who proposed this version, Prince Yaroslav and his son Alexander Nevsky act under the names of Genghis Khan and Batu. Ancient sources depict Genghis Khan as tall, with a luxurious long beard, with “lynx”, green-yellow eyes. Note that people of the Mongoloid race do not have a beard at all. The Persian historian of the times of the Horde, Rashid adDin, writes that in the family of Genghis Khan, children "were born mostly with gray eyes and blond."

Genghis Khan, according to scientists, is Prince Yaroslav. He just had a middle name - Genghis with the prefix "khan", which meant "commander". Batu - his son Alexander (Nevsky). The following phrase can be found in the manuscripts: "Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, nicknamed Batu." By the way, according to the description of contemporaries, Batu was fair-haired, light-bearded and light-eyed! It turns out that it was the Khan of the Horde who defeated the Crusaders on Lake Peipsi!

Having studied the chronicles, scientists found that Mamai and Akhmat were also noble nobles, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, who had the right to a great reign. Accordingly, "Mamaev's battle" and "standing on the Ugra" are episodes of the civil war in Russia, the struggle of princely families for power.

What Russia was the Horde going to?

The chronicles do say; "The Horde went to Russia." But in the XII-XIII centuries, Rus was called a relatively small area around Kyiv, Chernigov, Kursk, the area near the Ros River, Seversk land. But Muscovites or, say, Novgorodians were already northern residents, who, according to the same ancient chronicles, often “went to Russia” from Novgorod or Vladimir! That is, for example, in Kyiv.

Therefore, when the Moscow prince was about to go on a campaign against his southern neighbor, this could be called an “invasion of Russia” by his “horde” (troops). Not in vain, on Western European maps, for a very long time, Russian lands were divided into “Muscovy” (north) and “Russia” (south).

A grand fabrication

At the beginning of the 18th century, Peter 1 founded the Russian Academy of Sciences. During the 120 years of its existence, there were 33 academicians-historians at the historical department of the Academy of Sciences. Of these, only three are Russians, including M.V. Lomonosov, the rest are Germans. The history of Ancient Russia until the beginning of the 17th century was written by the Germans, and some of them did not even know the Russian language! This fact is well known to professional historians, but they make no effort to carefully review what history the Germans wrote.

It is known that M.V. Lomonosov wrote the history of Russia and that he had constant disputes with German academics. After Lomonosov's death, his archives disappeared without a trace. However, his works on the history of Russia were published, but edited by Miller. Meanwhile, it was Miller who persecuted M.V. Lomonosov during his lifetime! Lomonosov's works on the history of Russia published by Miller are a falsification, this was shown by computer analysis. There is little left of Lomonosov in them.

As a result, we do not know our history. The Germans of the Romanov family have hammered into our heads that the Russian peasant is good for nothing. That “he does not know how to work, that he is a drunkard and an eternal slave.