Controversy continues over how the Mongols ruled Russia. Some believe that the Horde tortured the Russian land, destroying its population and depleting its resources. Others believe that the Mongols were not as tyrannical as they are described, but on the contrary, they very soon moved away and delegated all powers to the Russian princes. Our experts argued about who the Mongol-Tatars were, how they ruled Russia and influenced the formation of statehood in the country.
Questions:
Who were the Mongol-Tatars?
Konstantin Kuksin
Mongol-Tatars are a collective name for the nomads who came to Rus' in the 13th century. The few Mongols (800,000 people) were the dominant people in the horde, which included many other tribes. The Mongols called all Turkic-speaking tribes “Tatars,” since the Turkic languages were similar to the language of the Tatars, longtime opponents and blood enemies of the Mongols, conquered by Genghis Khan. After the formation of the state in 1206, the Mongols began their campaigns of conquest. Almost all of these campaigns were either preventive strikes (China) or revenge for killed ambassadors (Khorezm, Rus'). The fact that a handful of Mongols managed to conquer a fifth of the planet’s inhabited landmass and hold these territories for many years speaks not only of the weakness of all the conquered countries, but also of the brilliant organizational abilities of the Mongols.
Alexander Golubev
The core of Genghis Khan's army was the Mongols. This is a collection of nomadic tribes, similar in language, culture, and way of life, who roamed the steppes north of China. Another thing is that while this army was moving across Southern Siberia, across the southern Russian steppes, across the North Caucasus and so on, it absorbed, of course, local nomads. So a conglomerate had already reached Rus', in which the command staff and the most combat-ready units were then still Mongolian. Besides them there were Cumans, Bulgars, and many other nomadic tribes. As for the Tatars, there is a very, very interesting historical anecdote. Tatars were one of the Mongol tribes that lived on the very border with China. And since the Chinese mainly communicated with them, they called all the Mongols Tatars. When Genghis Khan united the Mongol tribes, he physically destroyed the Tatar tribe. He cut it out because they once poisoned his father. But by such irony, the name of the destroyed tribe was assigned to all Mongols. Why did it take root in Rus'? Because it was associated with tartarus - with hell. That is, people from hell came.
Was there an occupation of Rus'?
Konstantin Kuksin
There was no occupation of Rus' (unlike China, Central Asia and other territories). There was a raid by Batu Khan (Batu), after which the Russian principalities became part of the Great Mongol Ulus as vassals. Subsequently, even the Russian princes themselves were entrusted with collecting tribute; the Mongols practically did not appear in Rus'.
Alexander Golubev
There was no occupation in the modern sense. In fact, the Horde regime was changing. In the first years it was one thing, then he gradually became less and less rigid. At first, tax collectors - Baskaks, and tax farmers - Besermens - acted in Rus'. They were supported and guarded by small detachments. But gradually it was possible to ensure that the collection of tribute - and this was almost the main form of dependence - passed into the hands of the Russian princes. In addition, the Tatars, as you know, issued labels for reigning, that is, each prince had to receive confirmation of his throne. At first, they paid the tax in blood - that is, just like from other territories, the Tatars demanded that the Russians participate in their further campaigns. But gradually the princes managed to buy their way out of it. Archaeologists have calculated that out of 75 Russian cities known at that time, the Tatars burned 45, and 25 of them were never restored. If this is not a physical seizure, then I don’t know what is. And there was one more nuance - you see, although the Tatars were not present on Russian territory, at the first opportunity they sent a punitive army. Let's say, over the last quarter of the 13th century there were 15 large punitive campaigns against North-Eastern Rus', which were accompanied by the burning of cities, massacres, thefts into slavery, and so on. That is, Rus' was completely defenseless.
Was there oppression from the Horde?
Konstantin Kuksin
Of course. The first years after Batu's raid: baskaks (tax collectors), military service (for the Horde), deprivation of real power to the princes (the label for reign was issued by the khan).
Alexander Golubev
The word oppression is not a scientific term, but an emotional one. What do you mean by this? Firstly, the Horde output, that is, tribute, that is, they pumped out quite a large part of the surplus product that was produced in Rus'. Blood tax - but it was for several decades, then it stopped. They constantly interfered in princely strife. It’s one thing when two princes fight with each other - this, of course, is not good, but this is on a small scale. And when each of these princes or one of them leads the Tatar army behind him, then this petty princely strife turns into a disaster.
How did the population of Rus' relate to the Horde?
Konstantin Kuksin
Twofold. On the one hand, the Horde saw the Tsar in the Khan, as before in the Byzantine Emperor. The Khan was the last, highest authority where one could complain even about one’s own prince. On the other hand, the Horde was perceived as an additional burden, since the burden of taxes fell on the shoulders of ordinary people.
Alexander Golubev
If you read the chronicles specifically from the time of the Horde, it is striking that it was perceived as something incredible. Something monstrous. Raids by nomads were commonplace, but Rus' had never experienced such a defeat. And there was no explanation for this, other than that it was God’s punishment. Of course, over several centuries people somehow gradually got used to it. It was an established order in which some died, others were born and lived their lives. It was something familiar, despite all the disadvantages and suffering.
How did the Horde influence the development of Rus', did it leave any imprint?
Konstantin Kuksin
The entry of Russian principalities into the most developed state of the 13th century certainly influenced the development of Russian statehood. After the collapse of the Horde, the Russian tsars became “gatherers of lands”, which had previously led to the Horde. Modern Russia is the heir not of the fragmented Russian principalities, but of the Great Mongolian ulus. A clear vertical of power, a huge apparatus of officials, total control over the population - this is the legacy of the Horde. When the Mongolian system of government was superimposed on Orthodox culture, where the ruler is deified as “God’s anointed,” the largest state on the planet emerged. “The sixth part of the Earth with the short name Rus”
Alexander Golubev
It is known that the Horde were the first to use the population census. The Yamskaya service is considered the legacy of the Horde. Perhaps that's all. But they greatly influenced the development of Rus'. Firstly, in my opinion, this is the only explanation for the lag of Rus' from Europe, which became apparent already by the 15th century. Before the Horde yoke there was no such gap. And secondly, the need to somehow protect itself from the Horde and from other neighbors who took advantage of the opportunity led to the state turning into a huge military machine that begins to live according to the laws of war. This is the specificity of the Russian state, it was preserved in the 16th and 17th centuries. The Russian Empire was also primarily a military state. This tradition was consolidated precisely as a result of the Horde invasion.
“now let’s move on, the so-called Tatar-Mongol yoke, I don’t remember where I read it, but there was no yoke, these were all the consequences of the baptism of Rus', the bearer of the faith of Christ fought with those who did not want, well, as usual, with sword and blood, remember the Crusades hiking, can you tell us more about this period?”Controversy over the history of the invasion Tatar-Mongol and the consequences of their invasion, the so-called yoke, do not disappear, probably will never disappear. Under the influence of numerous critics, including Gumilyov’s supporters, new, interesting facts began to be woven into the traditional version of Russian history Mongol yoke that I would like to develop. As we all remember from our school history course, the prevailing point of view is still the following:
In the first half of the 13th century, Russia was invaded by the Tatars, who came to Europe from Central Asia, in particular China and Central Asia, which they had already conquered by this time. The dates are precisely known to our Russian historians: 1223 - Battle of Kalka, 1237 - fall of Ryazan, 1238 - defeat of the united forces of the Russian princes on the banks of the City River, 1240 - fall of Kyiv. Tatar-Mongol troops destroyed individual squads of the princes of Kievan Rus and subjected it to a monstrous defeat. The military power of the Tatars was so irresistible that their dominance continued for two and a half centuries - until the “Standing on the Ugra” in 1480, when the consequences of the yoke were eventually completely eliminated, the end came.
For 250 years, that’s how many years, Russia paid tribute to the Horde in money and blood. In 1380, Rus' for the first time since the invasion of Batu Khan gathered forces and gave battle to the Tatar Horde on the Kulikovo field, in which Dmitry Donskoy defeated the temnik Mamai, but from this defeat all the Tatar-Mongols did not happen at all, this was, so to speak, a won battle in lost war. Although even the traditional version of Russian history says that there were practically no Tatar-Mongols in Mamai’s army, only local nomads from the Don and Genoese mercenaries. By the way, the participation of the Genoese suggests the participation of the Vatican in this issue. Today, new data, as it were, has begun to be added to the known version of Russian history, but intended to add credibility and reliability to the already existing version. In particular, there are extensive discussions about the number of nomadic Tatars - Mongols, the specifics of their martial art and weapons.
Let's evaluate the versions that exist today:
I suggest starting with a very interesting fact. Such a nationality as Mongol-Tatars does not exist, and did not exist at all. Mongols And Tatar The only thing they have in common is that they roamed the Central Asian steppe, which, as we know, is large enough to accommodate any nomadic people, and at the same time give them the opportunity not to intersect on the same territory at all.
The Mongol tribes lived at the southern tip of the Asian steppe and often raided China and its provinces, as the history of China often confirms to us. While other nomadic Turkic tribes, called from time immemorial in Rus' Bulgars (Volga Bulgaria), settled in the lower reaches of the Volga River. In those days in Europe they were called Tatars, or TatAriev(the strongest of the nomadic tribes, unbending and invincible). And the Tatars, the closest neighbors of the Mongols, lived in the northeastern part of modern Mongolia, mainly in the area of Lake Buir Nor and up to the borders of China. There were 70 thousand families, making up 6 tribes: Tutukulyut Tatars, Alchi Tatars, Chagan Tatars, Queen Tatars, Terat Tatars, Barkuy Tatars. The second parts of the names are apparently the self-names of these tribes. There is not a single word among them that sounds close to the Turkic language - they are more consonant with Mongolian names.
Two related peoples - the Tatars and the Mongols - waged a war of mutual destruction for a long time with varying success, until Genghis Khan did not seize power throughout Mongolia. The fate of the Tatars was predetermined. Since the Tatars were the killers of Genghis Khan’s father, destroyed many tribes and clans close to him, and constantly supported the tribes opposing him, “then Genghis Khan (Tei-mu-Chin) ordered the general massacre of the Tatars and not leave even one alive until the limit determined by law (Yasak); so that women and small children should also be killed, and the wombs of pregnant women should be cut open in order to completely destroy them. …”.
That is why such a nationality could not threaten the freedom of Rus'. Moreover, many historians and cartographers of that time, especially Eastern European ones, “sinned” to call all indestructible (from the point of view of Europeans) and invincible peoples TatAriev or simply in Latin TatArie.
This can be easily seen from ancient maps, for example, Map of Russia 1594 in the Atlas of Gerhard Mercator, or Maps of Russia and TarTaria Ortelius.
One of the fundamental axioms of Russian historiography is the assertion that for almost 250 years, the so-called “Mongol-Tatar yoke” existed on the lands inhabited by the ancestors of the modern East Slavic peoples - Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. Allegedly, in the 30s - 40s of the 13th century, the ancient Russian principalities were subjected to a Mongol-Tatar invasion under the leadership of the legendary Batu Khan.
The fact is that there are numerous historical facts that contradict the historical version of the “Mongol-Tatar yoke.”
First of all, even the canonical version does not directly confirm the fact of the conquest of the northeastern ancient Russian principalities by the Mongol-Tatar invaders - supposedly these principalities became vassals of the Golden Horde (a state formation that occupied a large territory in the southeast of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia, founded Mongol prince Batu). They say that the army of Khan Batu made several bloody predatory raids on these very northeastern ancient Russian principalities, as a result of which our distant ancestors decided to go “under the arm” of Batu and his Golden Horde.
However, historical information is known that the personal guard of Khan Batu consisted exclusively of Russian soldiers. A very strange circumstance for the lackey vassals of the great Mongol conquerors, especially for the newly conquered people.
There is indirect evidence of the existence of Batu’s letter to the legendary Russian prince Alexander Nevsky, in which the all-powerful khan of the Golden Horde asks the Russian prince to take in his son and make him a real warrior and commander.
Some sources also claim that Tatar mothers in the Golden Horde frightened their naughty children with the name of Alexander Nevsky.
As a result of all these inconsistencies, the author of these lines in his book “2013. Memories of the Future” (“Olma-Press”) puts forward a completely different version of the events of the first half and mid-13th century on the territory of the European part of the future Russian Empire.
According to this version, when the Mongols, at the head of nomadic tribes (later called Tatars), reached the northeastern ancient Russian principalities, they actually entered into quite bloody military clashes with them. But Khan Batu did not achieve a crushing victory; most likely, the matter ended in a kind of “battle draw.” And then Batu proposed an equal military alliance to the Russian princes. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why his guard consisted of Russian knights, and why Tatar mothers frightened their children with the name of Alexander Nevsky.
All these terrible stories about the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” were invented much later, when the Moscow kings had to create myths about their exclusivity and superiority over the conquered peoples (the same Tatars, for example).
Even in the modern school curriculum, this historical moment is briefly described as follows: “At the beginning of the 13th century, Genghis Khan gathered a large army of nomadic peoples, and, subordinating them to strict discipline, decided to conquer the whole world. Having defeated China, he sent his army to Rus'. In the winter of 1237, the army of “Mongol-Tatars” invaded the territory of Rus', and subsequently defeating the Russian army on the Kalka River, went further, through Poland and the Czech Republic. As a result, having reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, the army suddenly stops and, without completing its task, turns back. From this period the so-called “ Mongol-Tatar yoke"over Russia.
But wait, they were going to conquer the whole world... so why didn't they go further? Historians answered that they were afraid of an attack from behind, defeated and plundered, but still strong Rus'. But this is just funny. Will the plundered state run to defend other people's cities and villages? Rather, they will rebuild their borders and wait for the return of the enemy troops in order to fight back fully armed.
But the weirdness doesn't end there. For some unimaginable reason, during the reign of the House of Romanov, dozens of chronicles describing the events of the “time of the Horde” disappear. For example, “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land,” historians believe that this is a document from which everything that would indicate the Ige was carefully removed. They left only fragments telling about some kind of “trouble” that befell Rus'. But there is not a word about the “invasion of the Mongols.”
There are many more strange things. In the story “about the evil Tatars” the khan from Golden Horde orders the execution of a Russian Christian prince... for refusing to worship the “pagan god of the Slavs!” And some chronicles contain amazing phrases, for example: “ Well, with God! - said the khan and, crossing himself, galloped towards the enemy.
So, what really happened?
At that time, the “new faith” was already flourishing in Europe, namely Faith in Christ. Catholicism was widespread everywhere, and governed everything, from the way of life and the system, to the state system and legislation. At that time, crusades against infidels were still relevant, but along with military methods, “tactical tricks” were often used, akin to bribing authorities and inducing them to their faith. And after receiving power through the purchased person, the conversion of all his “subordinates” to the faith. It was precisely such a secret crusade that was carried out against Rus' at that time. Through bribery and other promises, church ministers were able to seize power over Kiev and nearby regions. Just relatively recently, by the standards of history, the baptism of Rus' took place, but history is silent about the civil war that arose on this basis immediately after the forced baptism. And the ancient Slavic chronicle describes this moment as follows:
« And the Vorogs came from overseas, and they brought faith in alien gods. With fire and sword they began to implant in us an alien faith, shower the Russian princes with gold and silver, bribe their will, and lead them astray from the true path. They promised them an idle life, full of wealth and happiness, and remission of any sins for their dashing deeds.
And then Ros broke up into different states. The Russian clans retreated north to the great Asgard, and named their empire after the names of their patron gods, Tarkh Dazhdbog the Great and Tara, his Sister the Light-Wise. (They called her the Great TarTaria). Leaving the foreigners with the princes purchased in the Principality of Kiev and its environs. Volga Bulgaria also did not bow to its enemies, and did not accept their alien faith as its own.
But the Principality of Kiev did not live in peace with TarTaria. They began to conquer the Russian lands with fire and sword and impose their alien faith. And then the military army rose up for a fierce battle. In order to preserve their faith and reclaim their lands. Both old and young then joined the Ratniki in order to restore order to the Russian Lands.”
And so began the war, in which the Russian army, the lands Great Aria (motherArias) defeated the enemy and drove him out of the original Slavic lands. It drove away the alien army, with their fierce faith, from its stately lands.
By the way, the word Horde translated by initial letters ancient Slavic alphabet, means Order. That is, the Golden Horde is not a separate state, it is a system. "Political" system of the Golden Order. Under which Princes reigned locally, planted with the approval of the Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Army, or in one word they called him HAN(our defender).
This means that there was not more than two hundred years of oppression, but there was a time of peace and prosperity Great Aria or TarTaria. By the way, modern history also has confirmation of this, but for some reason no one pays attention to it. But we will definitely pay attention, and very closely:
The Mongol-Tatar yoke is a system of political and tributary dependence of the Russian principalities on the Mongol-Tatar khans (until the early 60s of the 13th century, the Mongol khans, after the khans of the Golden Horde) in the 13th-15th centuries. The establishment of the yoke became possible as a result of the Mongol invasion of Rus' in 1237-1241 and occurred for two decades after it, including in lands that were not devastated. In North-Eastern Rus' it lasted until 1480. (Wikipedia)
Battle of the Neva (July 15, 1240) - a battle on the Neva River between the Novgorod militia under the command of Prince Alexander Yaroslavich and the Swedish army. After the victory of the Novgorodians, Alexander Yaroslavich received the honorary nickname “Nevsky” for his skillful management of the campaign and courage in battle. (Wikipedia)
Don’t you think it’s strange that the battle with the Swedes is taking place right in the middle of the invasion? Mongol-Tatars"to Rus'? Burning in fires and plundered " Mongols"Rus is attacked by the Swedish army, which safely drowns in the waters of the Neva, and at the same time the Swedish crusaders do not encounter the Mongols even once. And those who win are strong Swedish army Are the Russians losing to the Mongols? In my opinion, this is just nonsense. Two huge armies are fighting on the same territory at the same time and never intersect. But if you turn to the ancient Slavic chronicles, then everything becomes clear.
Since 1237 Rat Great TarTaria began to win back their ancestral lands, and when the war was coming to an end, the losing representatives of the church asked for help, and the Swedish crusaders were sent into battle. Since it was not possible to take the country by bribery, then they will take it by force. Just in 1240 the army Hordes(that is, the army of Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich, one of the princes of the ancient Slavic family) clashed in battle with the army of the Crusaders, who came to the rescue of their minions. Having won the Battle of the Neva, Alexander received the title of Prince of the Neva and remained to rule Novgorod, and the Horde Army went further to drive the adversary out of the Russian lands completely. So she persecuted “the church and the alien faith” until she reached the Adriatic Sea, thereby restoring her original ancient borders. And having reached them, the army turned around and went north again. Having installed 300 year period of peace.
Again, confirmation of this is the so-called end of Yig « Battle of Kulikovo"before which 2 knights took part in the match Peresvet And Chelubey. Two Russian knights, Andrei Peresvet (superior light) and Chelubey (beating the forehead, Telling, narrating, asking) Information about which was cruelly cut out from the pages of history. It was Chelubey’s loss that foreshadowed the victory of the army of Kievan Rus, restored with the money of the same “Churchmen” who nevertheless penetrated Rus' from the dark, albeit more than 150 years later. It will be later, when all of Rus' is plunged into the abyss of chaos, all sources confirming the events of the past will be burned. And after the Romanov family came to power, many documents will take on the form we know.
By the way, this is not the first time that the Slavic army defends its lands and expels infidels from its territories. Another extremely interesting and confusing moment in History tells us about this.
Army of Alexander the Great, consisting of many professional warriors, was defeated by a small army of some nomads in the mountains north of India (Alexander’s last campaign). And for some reason, no one is surprised by the fact that a large trained army that crossed half the world and redrew the world map was so easily broken by an army of simple and uneducated nomads.
But everything becomes clear if you look at the maps of that time and just even think about who the nomads who came from the north (from India) could have been. These are precisely our territories, which originally belonged to the Slavs, and where to this day the remains of civilization are found EtRusskov.
The Macedonian army was pushed back by the army Slavyan-Ariev who defended their territories. It was at that time that the Slavs “for the first time” walked to the Adriatic Sea, and left a huge mark on the territories of Europe. Thus, it turns out that we are not the first to conquer “half the globe.”
So how did it happen that even now we don’t know our history? Everything is very simple. The Europeans, trembling with fear and horror, never ceased to be afraid of the Rusichs, even when their plans were crowned with success and they enslaved the Slavic peoples, they were still afraid that one day Rus' would rise up and shine again with its former strength.
At the beginning of the 18th century, Peter the Great founded the Russian Academy of Sciences. Over the 120 years of its existence, there were 33 academic historians in the historical department of the Academy. Of these, only three were Russians (including M.V. Lomonosov), the rest were Germans. It turns out that the history of Ancient Rus' was written by the Germans, and many of them did not know not only the way of life and traditions, they did not even know the Russian language. This fact is well known to many historians, but they do not make any effort to carefully study the history that the Germans wrote and get to the bottom of the truth.
Lomonosov wrote a work on the history of Rus', and in this field he often had disputes with his German colleagues. After his death, the archives disappeared without a trace, but somehow his works on the history of Rus' were published, but under the editorship of Miller. At the same time, it was Miller who oppressed Lomonosov in every possible way during his lifetime. Computer analysis confirmed that Lomonosov’s works on the history of Rus' published by Miller are falsifications. Little remains of Lomonosov's works.
This concept can be found on the website of Omsk State University:
We will formulate our concept, hypothesis immediately, without
preliminary preparation of the reader.
Let's pay attention to the following strange and very interesting
data. However, their strangeness is based only on generally accepted
chronology and the version of ancient Russian instilled in us from childhood
stories. It turns out that changing the chronology removes many oddities and
<>.
One of the main moments in the history of ancient Rus' is this:
called the Tatar-Mongol conquest by the Horde. Traditionally
it is believed that the Horde came from the East (China? Mongolia?),
captured many countries, conquered Rus', swept to the West and
even reached Egypt.
But if Rus' had been conquered in the 13th century with any
was on the sides - or from the east, as modern ones claim
historians, or from the West, as Morozov believed, then they should
remain information about the clashes between the conquerors and
Cossacks who lived both on the western borders of Rus' and in the lower reaches
Don and Volga. That is, exactly where they were supposed to pass
conquerors.
Of course, in school courses on Russian history we are intensively
they convince that the Cossack troops allegedly arose only in the 17th century,
allegedly due to the fact that the slaves fled from the power of the landowners to
Don. However, it is known, although this is usually not mentioned in textbooks,
- that, for example, the Don Cossack state existed STILL IN
XVI century, had its own laws and history.
Moreover, it turns out that the beginning of the history of the Cossacks dates back to
to the XII-XIII centuries. See, for example, the work of Sukhorukov<>in DON magazine, 1989.
Thus,<>, - no matter where she came from, -
moving along the natural path of colonization and conquest,
would inevitably have to come into conflict with the Cossacks
regions.
This is not noted.
What's the matter?
A natural hypothesis arises:
NO FOREIGN
THERE WAS NO CONQUEST OF Rus'. THE HORDE DIDN'T FIGHT WITH THE COSSACKS BECAUSE
THE COSSACKS WERE AN COMPONENT PART OF THE HORDE. This hypothesis was
not formulated by us. It is substantiated very convincingly,
for example, A. A. Gordeev in his<>.
BUT WE ARE SAYING SOMETHING MORE.
One of our main hypotheses is that the Cossacks
the troops not only formed part of the Horde - they were regular
troops of the Russian state. Thus, THE HORDE WAS
JUST A REGULAR RUSSIAN ARMY.
According to our hypothesis, the modern terms ARMY and WARRIOR,
- Church Slavonic in origin, - were not Old Russian
terms. They came into constant use in Rus' only with
XVII century. And the old Russian terminology was: Horde,
Cossack, khan
Then the terminology changed. By the way, back in the 19th century
Russian folk proverbs words<>And<>were
interchangeable. This can be seen from the numerous examples given
in Dahl's dictionary. For example:<>and so on.
On the Don there is still the famous city of Semikarakorum, and on
Kuban - Hanskaya village. Let us remember that Karakorum is considered
THE CAPITAL OF GENGIZ KHAN. At the same time, as is well known, in those
places where archaeologists are still persistently searching for Karakorum, there is no
For some reason there is no Karakorum.
In desperation, they hypothesized that<>. This monastery, which existed back in the 19th century, was surrounded
an earthen rampart only about one English mile long. Historians
believe that the famous capital Karakorum was located entirely on
territory subsequently occupied by this monastery.
According to our hypothesis, the Horde is not a foreign entity,
captured Rus' from the outside, but there is simply an Eastern Russian regular
army, which was an integral part of the ancient Russian
state.
Our hypothesis is this.
1) <>IT WAS JUST A WAR PERIOD
MANAGEMENT IN THE RUSSIAN STATE. NO ALIENS Rus'
CONQUERED.
2) THE SUPREME RULER WAS THE COMMANDER-KHAN = TSAR, AND B
IN THE CITIES WERE SITTING CIVIL GOVERNORS - PRINCE WHO WERE DUTY
WERE COLLECTING TRIBUTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RUSSIAN ARMY, FOR ITS
CONTENT.
3) THUS, THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE IS REPRESENTED
A UNITED EMPIRE, IN WHICH THERE WAS A STANDING ARMY CONSISTED OF
PROFESSIONAL MILITARY (HORDE) AND CIVILIAN UNITS THAT DID NOT HAVE
ITS REGULAR TROOPS. SINCE SUCH TROOPS WERE ALREADY PART OF THE
COMPOSITION OF THE HORDE.
4) THIS RUSSIAN-HORDE EMPIRE EXISTED SINCE THE XIV CENTURY
UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF THE 17TH CENTURY. HER STORY ENDED WITH A FAMOUS GREAT
THE TROUBLES IN Rus' AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 17TH CENTURY. AS A RESULT OF THE CIVIL WAR
RUSSIAN HORDA KINGS, THE LAST OF WHICH WAS BORIS
<>, — WERE PHYSICALLY EXTERMINED. AND THE FORMER RUSSIAN
THE ARMY-HORDE ACTUALLY SUFFERED DEFEAT IN THE FIGHT WITH<>. AS A RESULT, POWER IN Rus' CAME TO PRINCIPALLY
NEW PRO-WESTERN ROMANOV DYNASTY. SHE SEIZED POWER AND
IN THE RUSSIAN CHURCH (FILARET).
5) A NEW DYNASTY WAS NEEDED<>,
IDEOLOGICALLY JUSTIFYING ITS POWER. THIS NEW POWER FROM THE POINT
THE VIEW OF THE PREVIOUS RUSSIAN-HORDA HISTORY WAS ILLEGAL. THAT'S WHY
ROMANOV NEEDED TO RADICALLY CHANGE THE COVERAGE OF THE PREVIOUS
RUSSIAN HISTORY. WE NEED TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEM ARE DONE - IT WAS DONE
COMPETENTLY. WITHOUT CHANGING MOST OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEY COULD BEFORE
UNRECOGNITION WILL DISTORT ENTIRE RUSSIAN HISTORY. SO, PREVIOUS
HISTORY OF Rus'-HORDE WITH ITS CLASS OF FARMERS AND MILITARY
THE CLASS - THE HORDE, WAS DECLARED BY THEM AN ERA<>. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS OWN RUSSIAN HORDE-ARMY
TURNED, UNDER THE PENS OF ROMANOV HISTORIANS, INTO MYTHICAL
ALIENS FROM A DISTANT UNKNOWN COUNTRY.
Notorious<>, familiar to us from Romanovsky
history, was simply a GOVERNMENT TAX inside
Rus' for the maintenance of the Cossack army - the Horde. Famous<>, - every tenth person taken into the Horde is simply
state MILITARY RECRUITMENT. It’s like conscription into the army, but only
from childhood - and for life.
Next, the so-called<>, in our opinion,
were simply punitive expeditions to those Russian regions
who for some reason refused to pay tribute =
state filing. Then the regular troops punished
civilian rioters.
These facts are known to historians and are not secret, they are publicly available, and anyone can easily find them on the Internet. Skipping scientific research and justifications, which have already been described quite widely, let us summarize the main facts that refute the big lie about the “Tatar-Mongol yoke.”
1. Genghis Khan
Previously, in Rus', 2 people were responsible for governing the state: Prince And Khan. The prince was responsible for governing the state in peacetime. The khan or “war prince” took the reins of control during war; in peacetime, the responsibility for forming a horde (army) and maintaining it in combat readiness rested on his shoulders.
Genghis Khan is not a name, but a title of “military prince,” which, in the modern world, is close to the position of Commander-in-Chief of the army. And there were several people who bore such a title. The most outstanding of them was Timur, it is he who is usually discussed when they talk about Genghis Khan.
In surviving historical documents, this man is described as a tall warrior with blue eyes, very white skin, powerful reddish hair and a thick beard. Which clearly does not correspond to the signs of a representative of the Mongoloid race, but completely fits the description of the Slavic appearance (L.N. Gumilyov - “Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe.”).
In modern “Mongolia” there is not a single folk epic that would say that this country once in ancient times conquered almost all of Eurasia, just as there is nothing about the great conqueror Genghis Khan... (N.V. Levashov “Visible and invisible genocide").
2. Mongolia
The state of Mongolia appeared only in the 1930s, when the Bolsheviks came to the nomads living in the Gobi Desert and told them that they were the descendants of the great Mongols, and their “compatriot” had created the Great Empire in his time, which they were very surprised and happy about. . The word "Mughal" is of Greek origin and means "Great". The Greeks used this word to call our ancestors – the Slavs. It has nothing to do with the name of any people (N.V. Levashov “Visible and Invisible Genocide”).
3. Composition of the “Tatar-Mongol” army
70-80% of the army of the “Tatar-Mongols” were Russians, the remaining 20-30% were made up of other small peoples of Rus', in fact, the same as now. This fact is clearly confirmed by a fragment of the icon of Sergius of Radonezh “Battle of Kulikovo”. It clearly shows that the same warriors are fighting on both sides. And this battle is more like a civil war than a war with a foreign conqueror.
4. What did the “Tatar-Mongols” look like?
Note the drawing of the tomb of Henry II the Pious, who was killed on the Legnica field. The inscription is as follows: “The figure of a Tatar under the feet of Henry II, Duke of Silesia, Cracow and Poland, placed on the grave in Breslau of this prince, killed in the battle with the Tatars at Liegnitz on April 9, 1241.” As we see, this “Tatar” has a completely Russian appearance, clothes and weapons. The next image shows “the Khan’s palace in the capital of the Mongol Empire, Khanbalyk” (it is believed that Khanbalyk is supposedly Beijing). What is “Mongolian” and what is “Chinese” here? Once again, as in the case of the tomb of Henry II, before us are people of a clearly Slavic appearance. Russian caftans, Streltsy caps, the same thick beards, the same characteristic blades of sabers called “Yelman”. The roof on the left is an almost exact copy of the roofs of old Russian towers... (A. Bushkov, “Russia that never existed”).
5. Genetic examination
According to the latest data obtained as a result of genetic research, it turned out that Tatars and Russians have very close genetics. Whereas the differences between the genetics of Russians and Tatars from the genetics of the Mongols are colossal: “The differences between the Russian gene pool (almost entirely European) and the Mongolian (almost entirely Central Asian) are really great - it’s like two different worlds...” (oagb.ru).
6. Documents during the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke
During the period of existence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, not a single document in the Tatar or Mongolian language has been preserved. But there are many documents from this time in Russian.
7. Lack of objective evidence confirming the hypothesis of the Tatar-Mongol yoke
At the moment, there are no originals of any historical documents that would objectively prove that there was a Tatar-Mongol yoke. But there are many fakes designed to convince us of the existence of a fiction called the “Tatar-Mongol yoke.” Here is one of these fakes. This text is called “The Word about the Destruction of the Russian Land” and in each publication it is declared “an excerpt from a poetic work that has not reached us intact... About the Tatar-Mongol invasion”:
“Oh, bright and beautifully decorated Russian land! You are famous for many beauties: you are famous for many lakes, locally revered rivers and springs, mountains, steep hills, high oak forests, clean fields, marvelous animals, various birds, countless great cities, glorious villages, monastery gardens, temples of God and formidable princes, honest boyars and many nobles. You are filled with everything, Russian land, O Orthodox Christian faith!..»
There is not even a hint of the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” in this text. But this “ancient” document contains the following line: “You are filled with everything, Russian land, O Orthodox Christian faith!”
More opinions:
The plenipotentiary representative of Tatarstan in Moscow (1999 - 2010), Doctor of Political Sciences Nazif Mirikhanov, spoke in the same spirit: “The term “yoke” appeared in general only in the 18th century,” he is sure. “Before that, the Slavs did not even suspect that they were living under oppression, under the yoke of certain conquerors.”
“In fact, the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation are the heirs of the Golden Horde, that is, the Turkic empire created by Genghis Khan, whom we need to rehabilitate, as we have already done in China,” Mirikhanov continued. And he concluded his reasoning with the following thesis: “The Tatars at one time frightened Europe so much that the rulers of Rus', who chose the European path of development, in every possible way dissociated themselves from their Horde predecessors. Today it is time to restore historical justice.”
The result was summed up by Izmailov:
“The historical period, which is commonly called the time of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, was not a period of terror, ruin and slavery. Yes, the Russian princes paid tribute to the rulers from Sarai and received labels for reign from them, but this is ordinary feudal rent. At the same time, the Church flourished in those centuries, and beautiful white stone churches were built everywhere. What was quite natural: scattered principalities could not afford such construction, but only a de facto confederation united under the rule of the Khan of the Golden Horde or Ulus Jochi, as it would be more correct to call our common state with the Tatars.”
Historian Lev Gumilyov, from the book “From Rus' to Russia”, 2008:
“Thus, for the tax that Alexander Nevsky undertook to pay to Sarai, Rus' received a reliable, strong army that defended not only Novgorod and Pskov. Moreover, the Russian principalities that accepted the alliance with the Horde completely retained their ideological independence and political independence. This alone shows that Rus' was not
a province of the Mongol ulus, but a country allied with the Great Khan, which paid a certain tax for the maintenance of the army, which it itself needed.”
The reign of the first Romanovs (Mikhail, Alexey, Fyodor Alekseevich) was characterized by the massive burning of books, destruction of archives, church schism, and the fight against the Cossacks. More or less well-covered, documented Russian history begins, unfortunately, only with Peter I Romanov; during his reign, an unprecedented invasion of foreigners began, who were invited as “teachers.”
It was not beneficial for the Romanovs to have an objective history of our Fatherland, since there was no place in it for their rootless family. The theory of the incapacity and disorganization of the Slavs was artificially introduced by the Germans in the person of Miller, Bayer, Schlozer and others like them, in order to prove and show the whole world the superiority of the West and European royal houses over homespun Russia.
It was from these roots and shoots that Hitler and Goebbels, already in the twentieth century, substantiated the theory of the racial superiority of the Germans over the Slavs and other peoples.
At a young age, I often asked myself the question: how could it happen that a Russian man, whom neither the Polish conquerors, nor Napoleon, nor the Nazis could conquer for three hundred years, endured captivity for more than three centuries and dutifully paid tribute to the unknown Mongol-Tatars?
In order to answer this question, I had to read a great many historical works, discover the names of famous domestic historians, scientists from near and far abroad. The final conclusion, in my research on this issue, was helped by such thinkers as: Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov, Yuri Dmitrievich Petukhov, Oleg Mikhailovich Rapov, Valery Alekseevich Chudinov, Andrey Aleksandrovich Tyunyaev, Boris Aleksandrovich Rybakov, Valery Nikitich Demin, Vladimir Alekseevich Chivilikhin. This list could go on and on, but the format of this article does not allow me to do this.
Here is what the falsifiers of history write on the pages of Wikipedia on the issue that interests me: “The Mongol-Tatar yoke is a system of political and tributary dependence of the Russian principalities on the Mongol Empire until the 60s of the 13th century, later, after the collapse of the Mongol Empire, on the Ulus of Jochi (Golden Horde) ), until the end of the 15th century. The establishment of the yoke became possible as a result of the Mongol invasion of Rus' in 1237-1242; the yoke was established for two decades after the invasion, including in lands that were not devastated.
In North-Eastern Rus' it lasted until 1480. In other Russian lands it was eliminated in the 14th century as they were annexed to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.” Here is the information from the World Wide Web.
A person who is even slightly familiar with the history of Russia always has a lot of questions when studying it. And, probably, one of the most important is why at all times, under different political and economic formations in Russia, one thing remained unchanged - it always had mortal enemies! For some reason, there has always been a group of countries that fiercely hate Rus' - the Russian Empire - the USSR - democratic Russia.
So what is the reason for this centuries-old hatred of our Motherland - is it only its endless territory, or only its bottomless reserves of natural resources?
Since the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium), under the blows of the Turkic tribes, the entire Orthodox world believes that Russia began to be under the invisible and powerful Heavenly Cover of the Mother of God! Russia is the Home of the Mother of God and it is She who arranges the life of Her people on the great Russian Plain!
From the words of the Apostle John the Theologian we know “that the whole world lies in evil” (1 John 5:19). Let me clarify - the earthly, material world. Having deviated into destructive heresies, having abandoned the faith altogether, the West has long been defeated by the forces of darkness and has become their easy prey. We know that the forces of darkness are led by the former bright archangel Dennitsa, and now the prince of this world, the enemy and adversary of God - Satan, the slanderer of Him - i.e. devil
He has already crushed almost the entire world, except Russia! With all its wounds and civil strife, with all its sorrows and troubles, for the second millennium it has stood as an insurmountable bastion for the world's forces of evil. And they can't do anything about it. Since Russia is not even a country, Russia is Civilization, Noah's Ark of world spirituality! Sometimes we, people, do not understand this, but the devil, as a spiritual being, perfectly sees the mortal danger for him emanating from Orthodox Russia.
This is precisely what explains the manic persistence of various conquerors who went on campaigns against Rus' at different times.
Satanic hatred of Russia will continue as long as the core of Russia's spirituality is the Holy Orthodox Faith. That is why the fallen West equally hated princely Rus' and the Russian Empire, and the socialist USSR and democratic Russia - in all these social formations the common thing was that the Orthodox faith was present in all of them and was the “backbone” - a little more or a little less, but appeared. Pull out this rod - and Russia, limp, will fall to the boots of the conqueror like a shapeless bag.
Therefore, despairing of defeating Rus' in an open struggle, our enemies took a different, more sophisticated path, they decided to destroy our history, and what was impossible to erase was rewritten, distorted beyond recognition, exposing Rus' as conquered for many centuries by unknown Mongol-Tatars.
According to historian Yu. D. Petukhov: “The myth of “Mongols from Mongolia in Rus'” is the most grandiose and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia.” Upon careful study of the issue, too many inconsistencies and facts emerge that contradict the “classical” version:
How were semi-wild shepherds able to crush such developed powers as China, Khorezm, the Tangut kingdom, fight through the Caucasus mountains, where warlike tribes lived, scatter and subjugate dozens of tribes, crush the rich Volga Bulgaria and Russian principalities and almost capture Europe, easily defeating the troops Hungarians, Poles and German knights. And this is after heavy battles with the Rus, Alans, Polovtsians and Bulgars!
It is known from history that any conqueror in his campaigns relies on a developed economy. Rome was the foremost power in Europe. Alexander the Great conquered half the world thanks to the powerful state created by his father Philip, which included conquered Greece. With all his talents, he could not have accomplished even half of his accomplishments if his father had not created the mining and metallurgical industries, strengthened finances, and carried out a number of military reforms.
Napoleon and Hitler subjugated the powerful and developed states of Europe (France and Germany) and practically the resources of all of Europe, the most technologically developed part of the world. Before the creation of the British Empire, on which the sun never set, the Industrial Revolution took place in England, turning it into the “workshop of the world.” The current “world gendarme” - the United States has the most powerful economy on the planet.
And the Mongols at that time were poor nomads, primitive pastoralists and hunters, standing at a low level of primitive communal development, who did not even create a pre-state formation, let alone a Eurasian empire. They had no written language and did not know how to mine or process metals. They simply could not crush, and even relatively easily, the developed powers of that time. This required a production and military base, and cultural traditions that are created by many generations of people.
The Mongols of that time did not have the necessary demographic potential to create a large and strong army. And at present, Mongolia is a sparsely populated, predominantly agricultural country. It is obvious that almost a thousand years ago it was even poorer, with small families of shepherds and hunters. There was simply nowhere to find tens of thousands of well-armed and organized warriors who would go to conquer almost the entire continent.
Thus, wild nomads and hunters had no opportunity to instantly become an invincible people-army, which in the shortest possible time (by historical standards) crushed the advanced powers of Asia and Europe.
But a myth was created about the “invincible” Mongols warriors. They were described in the wonderful historical novels of V. Yan. However, from the point of view of historical reality, this is a myth. There were no “invincible” Mongol warriors. Everything that was attributed to them in the novels: clear organization of the army, iron discipline, excellent command of the bow and bladed weapons, actually belonged to the Scythians, the ancestors of the Slavs. They had cavalry squads, which were divided into tens, hundreds, thousands and tumens-darkness (a corps of 10 thousand), headed by foremen, centurions, thousanders and temniks. This is not an invention of the “Mongols”. For thousands of years, Russian troops were divided in a similar way, according to the decimal system. There was iron discipline in the Russian squads.
The Rus knew siege technology long before the so-called “Mongol” invasion. The same Russian prince Svyatoslav stormed enemy strongholds with the help of rams, battering rams and throwing machines, assault ladders, etc.
The wild nomadic Mongols had no military tradition. This tradition has been created for more than one generation, for example, the legions of Rome, the phalanx of Sparta and Alexander the Great, the indestructible army of Svyatoslav, the iron tread of the Wehrmacht. Only the descendants of Great Scythia - the Rus of the Scythian-Siberian world - had such a tradition.
We are told about “Tatar-Mongols,” but from biology courses we know that the genes of Negroids and Mongoloids are dominant. And if hundreds of thousands of “Mongol” warriors, destroying enemy troops, passed through Rus' and half of Europe, then the current population of Russia and Eastern and Central Europe would be very similar to modern Mongols. Let me remind you that during all wars, women were prey and subjected to massive violence. Mongoloid characteristics include: short stature, dark eyes, coarse black hair, dark, yellowish skin, high cheekbones, epicanthus, flat face, poorly developed tertiary hair (the beard and mustache practically do not grow, or are very thin), etc. What is described is similar on modern Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Germans?
Archaeologists, for example, see the data of S. Alekseev, when excavating places of fierce battles, find mainly the remains of Caucasians, representatives of the white race.
There really was a war, but it was not a war between the Rus and the Mongols. In the burial grounds of the Golden Horde, only the skeletons of Caucasians are found. This is confirmed by written sources, as well as drawings: they describe “Mongol” warriors of European appearance - blond hair, light eyes (gray, blue), tall stature. Sources depict Genghis Khan as tall, with a luxurious long beard, and “lynx-like” green-yellow eyes. The Persian historian of the Golden Horde, Rashid ad Din, writes that in the family of Genghis Khan, children “were mostly born with gray eyes and blond hair.” In the miniatures of Russian chronicles there are no racial differences, and there are no serious differences in clothing and weapons between the “Mongols” and the Russians. In Western Europe, in engravings, “Mongols” are depicted as Russian boyars, archers and Cossacks.
Thus, the “Mongols” who came to Rus' were typical representatives of the Caucasian race, the white race. There were no anthropological differences between the Cumans, “Mongols” and Russians of Kyiv and Ryazan.
The notorious “Mongols” did not leave a single (!) Mongolian word in Rus'. Words familiar from historical novels: “Horde” is the Russian word Rod, Rada (Golden Horde - Golden Rod, i.e. royal, of divine origin); "tumen" - Russian word for "darkness" (10000); “khan-kagan”, the Russian word “kokhan, kokhany” - beloved, respected, this word has been known since the times of Ancient Rus', this is how the first Rurikovichs were sometimes called (for example, Kagan Vladimir). The word “Bytyy” is “father”, a respectful name for the leader, which is how the president is still called in Belarus.
There are no traces of the Turkic and Mongoloid population of the Horde in Rus'! Kazan Tatars are considered descendants of the Volgar Bulgars, that is, Caucasians. The Crimean Tatars are not related to the core population of the Horde; they are a mixture of the indigenous population of Crimea and many external migration waves. It is obvious that the Polovtsy and Horde simply disappeared into the related Russian people, leaving neither anthropological nor linguistic traces. How the Pechenegs dissolved before, etc. Everyone became Russian. If these were “Mongols”, then traces would remain. Such a huge population cannot simply dissolve.
The term “Tatar-Mongols” is not in Russian chronicles. The Mongolian peoples themselves called themselves “Khalkha”, “Oirats”. This is a completely artificial term, which was introduced by P. Naumov in 1823 in the article “On the attitude of Russian princes to the Mongol and Tatar khans from 1224 to 1480.” The word "Mongols", in the original version "Moguls" comes from the root word "mog, mozh" - "husband, mighty, mighty, mighty." From this root comes the word “Mughals” - “great, powerful”. It was a nickname, not the self-name of the people.
Anthropological Mongoloids "Khalhu" never reached Rus' and Europe. The Mongols in Mongolia only learned from Europeans in the 20th century that they had captured half the world and they had a “Shaker of the Universe” - “Genghis Khan”.
Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky acted very much in concert with Batu’s “Horde-Rod”. Batu struck Central and Southern Europe, almost repeating the campaign of the “scourge of God” Attila. Alexander crushed the Western troops on the northern flank - defeating the Swedish and German knights. The West received a strong blow and temporarily abandoned its onslaught on the East. Rus' got time to restore unity.
The “Mongolian” names Bayan (conqueror of Southern China), Temuchin-Chemuchin, Batu, Berke, Sebedai, Ogedey-Ugadai, Mamai, Chagatai-Chagadai, Borodai-Borondai, etc. are not “Mongolian” names. They clearly belong to the Scythian tradition. For a long time, Russia was designated on European maps as Great Tartaria, and Russian people were called White Tatars. In the eyes of Western Europe, the concepts of “Russia” and “Tartaria” (“Tataria”) were united for a long time. Moreover, the territory of Tartaria coincides with the territory of the Russian Empire and the USSR - from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to the Pacific Ocean and to the borders of China and India.
Most history textbooks say that in the 13th-15th centuries Rus' suffered from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. However, recently the voices of those who doubt that the invasion even took place have been increasingly heard. Did huge hordes of nomads really surge into peaceful principalities, enslaving their inhabitants? Let's analyze historical facts, many of which may be shocking.
The yoke was invented by the Poles
The term “Mongol-Tatar yoke” itself was coined by Polish authors. The chronicler and diplomat Jan Dlugosz in 1479 called the time of existence of the Golden Horde this way. He was followed in 1517 by the historian Matvey Miechowski, who worked at the University of Krakow. This interpretation of the relationship between Rus' and the Mongol conquerors was quickly picked up in Western Europe, and from there it was borrowed by domestic historians.
Moreover, there were practically no Tatars themselves in the Horde troops. It’s just that in Europe the name of this Asian people was well known, and therefore it spread to the Mongols. Meanwhile, Genghis Khan tried to exterminate the entire Tatar tribe, defeating their army in 1202.
The first census of Rus'
The first population census in the history of Rus' was carried out by representatives of the Horde. They had to collect accurate information about the inhabitants of each principality and their class affiliation. The main reason for such interest in statistics on the part of the Mongols was the need to calculate the amount of taxes imposed on their subjects.
In 1246, a census took place in Kyiv and Chernigov, the Ryazan principality was subjected to statistical analysis in 1257, the Novgorodians were counted two years later, and the population of the Smolensk region - in 1275.
Moreover, the inhabitants of Rus' raised popular uprisings and drove out the so-called “besermen” who were collecting tribute for the khans of Mongolia from their land. But the governors of the rulers of the Golden Horde, called Baskaks, lived and worked for a long time in the Russian principalities, sending collected taxes to Sarai-Batu, and later to Sarai-Berke.
Joint hikes
Princely squads and Horde warriors often carried out joint military campaigns, both against other Russians and against residents of Eastern Europe. Thus, in the period 1258-1287, the troops of the Mongols and Galician princes regularly attacked Poland, Hungary and Lithuania. And in 1277, the Russians took part in the Mongol military campaign in the North Caucasus, helping their allies conquer Alanya.
In 1333, Muscovites stormed Novgorod, and the next year the Bryansk squad marched on Smolensk. Each time, Horde troops also took part in these internecine battles. In addition, they regularly helped the great princes of Tver, considered at that time the main rulers of Rus', to pacify the rebellious neighboring lands.
The basis of the horde were Russians
The Arab traveler Ibn Battuta, who visited the city of Saray-Berke in 1334, wrote in his essay “A Gift to Those Contemplating the Wonders of Cities and the Wonders of Travel” that there are many Russians in the capital of the Golden Horde. Moreover, they make up the bulk of the population: both working and armed.
This fact was also mentioned by the White émigré author Andrei Gordeev in the book “History of the Cossacks,” which was published in France in the late 20s of the 20th century. According to the researcher, most of the Horde troops were the so-called Brodniks - ethnic Slavs who inhabited the Azov region and the Don steppes. These predecessors of the Cossacks did not want to obey the princes, so they moved to the south for the sake of a free life. The name of this ethnosocial group probably comes from the Russian word “wander” (wander).
As is known from chronicle sources, in the Battle of Kalka in 1223, the Brodniks, led by the governor Ploskyna, fought on the side of the Mongol troops. Perhaps his knowledge of the tactics and strategy of the princely squads was of great importance for the victory over the united Russian-Polovtsian forces.
In addition, it was Ploskynya who, by cunning, lured out the ruler of Kyiv, Mstislav Romanovich, along with two Turov-Pinsk princes and handed them over to the Mongols for execution.
However, most historians believe that the Mongols forced Russians to serve in their army, i.e. the invaders forcibly armed representatives of the enslaved people. Although this seems implausible.
And a senior researcher at the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Marina Poluboyarinova, in the book “Russian People in the Golden Horde” (Moscow, 1978) suggested: “Probably, the forced participation of Russian soldiers in the Tatar army later ceased. There were mercenaries left who had already voluntarily joined the Tatar troops.”
Caucasian invaders
Yesugei-Baghatur, the father of Genghis Khan, was a representative of the Borjigin clan of the Mongolian Kiyat tribe. According to the descriptions of many eyewitnesses, both he and his legendary son were tall, fair-skinned people with reddish hair.
The Persian scientist Rashid ad-Din wrote in his work “Collection of Chronicles” (beginning of the 14th century) that all the descendants of the great conqueror were mostly blond and gray-eyed.
This means that the elite of the Golden Horde belonged to Caucasians. It is likely that representatives of this race predominated among other invaders.
There weren't many of them
We are accustomed to believe that in the 13th century Rus' was invaded by countless hordes of Mongol-Tatars. Some historians talk about 500,000 troops. However, it is not. After all, even the population of modern Mongolia barely exceeds 3 million people, and if we take into account the brutal genocide of fellow tribesmen committed by Genghis Khan on his way to power, the size of his army could not be so impressive.
It is difficult to imagine how to feed an army of half a million, moreover, traveling on horses. The animals simply would not have enough pasture. But each Mongolian horseman brought with him at least three horses. Now imagine a herd of 1.5 million. The horses of the warriors riding at the forefront of the army would eat and trample everything they could. The remaining horses would have starved to death.
According to the most daring estimates, the army of Genghis Khan and Batu could not have exceeded 30 thousand horsemen. While the population of Ancient Rus', according to historian Georgy Vernadsky (1887-1973), before the invasion was about 7.5 million people.
Bloodless executions
The Mongols, like most peoples of that time, executed people who were not noble or disrespected by cutting off their heads. However, if the condemned person enjoyed authority, then his spine was broken and left to slowly die.
The Mongols were sure that blood was the seat of the soul. To shed it means to complicate the afterlife path of the deceased to other worlds. Bloodless execution was applied to rulers, political and military figures, and shamans.
The reason for a death sentence in the Golden Horde could be any crime: from desertion from the battlefield to petty theft.
The bodies of the dead were thrown into the steppe
The method of burial of a Mongol also directly depended on his social status. Rich and influential people found peace in special burials, in which valuables, gold and silver jewelry, and household items were buried along with the bodies of the dead. And the poor and ordinary soldiers killed in battle were often simply left in the steppe, where their life’s journey ended.
In the alarming conditions of nomadic life, consisting of regular skirmishes with enemies, it was difficult to organize funeral rites. The Mongols often had to move on quickly, without delay.
It was believed that the corpse of a worthy person would be quickly eaten by scavengers and vultures. But if birds and animals did not touch the body for a long time, according to popular beliefs, this meant that the soul of the deceased had a grave sin.
The traditional version of the Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus', the “Tatar-Mongol yoke,” and liberation from it is known to the reader from school. As presented by most historians, the 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, welded together by iron discipline, and rushed to conquer the world - “to the last sea.”
Having conquered their closest neighbors, and then China, the mighty Tatar-Mongol horde rolled west. Having traveled about 5 thousand kilometers, the Mongols defeated Khorezm, then Georgia, and in 1223 they reached the southern outskirts of Rus', where they defeated the army of Russian princes in the battle on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Tatar-Mongols invaded Rus' with all their countless troops, burned and destroyed many Russian cities, and in 1241 they tried to conquer Western Europe, invading Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, but turned back because that they were afraid to leave Rus' in their rear, devastated, but still dangerous for them. The Tatar-Mongol yoke began.
The huge Mongol power, stretching from China to the Volga, hung like an ominous shadow over Russia. The Mongol khans gave the Russian princes labels to reign, attacked Rus' many times to plunder and plunder, and repeatedly killed Russian princes in their Golden Horde.
Having strengthened over time, Rus' 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 “stand on the Ugra” the troops of the Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat met. 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 he 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 called into question. Geographer, ethnographer and historian Lev Gumilev convincingly showed that relations between Russia and the Mongols were much more complex 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 “complementarity” between the Mongols and Russians, that is, compatibility, the ability for 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 valid rights to the great reign. Thus, the Battle of Kulikovo and the “stand on the Ugra” are not episodes of the struggle against foreign aggressors, but pages of the civil war in Rus'. 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 publicist’s conclusions are full of irony and border on postmodern “banter,” but it should be noted that many facts of the history of the Tatar-Mongol invasion and “yoke” really look too mysterious and need closer attention and unbiased research. Let's try to look at some of these mysteries.
Who were the Mongols who approached the borders of the Christian world from the east? How did the powerful Mongol state appear? Let's make an excursion into its history, relying mainly on the works of Gumilyov.
At the beginning of the 13th century, in 1202–1203, the Mongols defeated first the Merkits and then the Keraits. The fact is that the Keraits were divided into supporters of Genghis Khan and his opponents. The opponents of Genghis Khan were led by the son of Van Khan, the legal heir to the throne - Nilha. He had reasons to hate Genghis Khan: even at the time when Van Khan was an ally of Genghis, he (the leader of the Keraits), seeing the undeniable talents of the latter, wanted to transfer the Kerait throne to him, bypassing his own son. Thus, the clash between some of the Keraits and the Mongols occurred during Wang Khan’s lifetime. And although the Keraits had a numerical superiority, the Mongols defeated them, as they showed exceptional mobility and took the enemy by surprise.
In the clash with the Keraits, the character of Genghis Khan was fully revealed. When Wang Khan and his son Nilha fled from the battlefield, one of their noyons (military leaders) 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 you leave? You had both time and 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 must imitate this man.
Look how brave, faithful, valiant he is. I can’t kill you, noyon, I’m offering you a place in my army.” Noyon became a thousand-man and, of course, served Genghis Khan faithfully, because the Kerait horde disintegrated. Van Khan himself died while trying to escape to the Naiman. Their guards at the border, seeing Kerait, killed him, and presented the old man’s severed head to their khan.
In 1204, there was a clash between the Mongols of Genghis Khan and the powerful Naiman Khanate. And again the Mongols won. The vanquished were included in the horde of Genghis. In the eastern steppe there were no longer any tribes capable of actively resisting the new order, and in 1206, at the great kurultai, Chinggis was again elected khan, but of all Mongolia. This is how the pan-Mongolian state was born. The only tribe hostile to him remained the ancient 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 Mongolian stereotypes of behavior, the khan could and should have demanded humility, obedience to orders, and fulfillment of duties, but forcing a person to renounce his faith or customs was considered immoral - the individual had the right to his own choice. This state of affairs was attractive to many. In 1209, the Uighur state sent envoys to Genghis Khan with a request to accept them into his ulus. The request was naturally granted, and Genghis Khan gave the Uyghurs enormous trading privileges. A caravan route passed through Uyghuria, and the Uyghurs, once part of the Mongol state, became rich by selling water, fruit, meat and “pleasures” to hungry caravan riders at high prices. The voluntary union of Uighuria with Mongolia turned out to be useful for the Mongols. With the annexation of Uyghuria, the Mongols went beyond the boundaries of their ethnic area 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 arose after the weakening of the power of the Seljuk Turks. The rulers of Khorezm turned from governors of the ruler of Urgench into independent sovereigns and adopted the title of “Khorezmshahs”. They turned out to be energetic, enterprising and militant. This allowed them to conquer most of Central Asia and southern Afghanistan. The Khorezmshahs created a huge state in which the main military force were Turks from the adjacent steppes.
But the state turned out to be fragile, despite the wealth, brave warriors and experienced diplomats. The regime of the military dictatorship relied on tribes alien to the local population, who had a different language, different morals and customs. The cruelty of the mercenaries caused discontent among the residents 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 wealthy cities in Central Asia were also affected.
In this situation, Khorezmshah Muhammad decided to confirm his title of “ghazi” - “victor of the infidels” - and become famous for another victory over them. The opportunity presented itself to him in the same year 1216, when the Mongols, fighting with the Merkits, reached Irgiz. Having learned about the arrival of the Mongols, Muhammad sent an army against them on the grounds that the steppe inhabitants needed to be converted to Islam.
The Khorezmian army attacked the Mongols, but in a rearguard battle they themselves went on the offensive and severely battered the Khorezmians. Only the attack of the left wing, commanded by the son of the Khorezmshah, the talented commander Jalal ad-Din, straightened the situation. After this, the Khorezmians retreated, and the Mongols returned home: they did not intend 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 passed on their costs to consumers without losing anything. Wanting 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 faith, 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 clash on the Irgiz. 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 a new war with the Mongols.
Once again, Mongol-Khorezm relations were disrupted by the Khorezm Shah 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 food supplies and wash themselves in the bathhouse. There the merchants met two acquaintances, one of whom reported to the ruler of the city that these merchants were spies. He immediately realized that there was an excellent reason to rob travelers. The merchants were killed and their property was confiscated. The ruler of Otrar sent half of the loot to Khorezm, and Muhammad accepted the loot, which means he shared responsibility for what he had done.
Genghis Khan sent envoys to find out what caused the incident. Muhammad became angry when he saw the infidels, and ordered some of the ambassadors to be killed, and some, stripped naked, to be driven out to certain death in the steppe. Two or three Mongols finally made it home and told about what had happened. Genghis Khan's anger knew no bounds. From the Mongolian point of view, two of the most terrible crimes occurred: the deception 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 whom the Khorezmshah insulted and killed. Khan had to fight, otherwise his fellow tribesmen would simply refuse to trust him.
In Central Asia, the Khorezmshah had at his disposal a regular army of four hundred thousand. 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-Kitai, the Uighurs sent a detachment of 5 thousand people, only the Tangut ambassador boldly replied: “If you don’t have enough troops, don’t fight.” Genghis Khan considered the answer an insult and said: “Only the dead could I bear such an insult.”
Genghis Khan sent assembled Mongolian, Uighur, Turkic and Kara-Chinese troops to Khorezm. Khorezmshah, having quarreled with his mother Turkan Khatun, did not trust the military leaders related to her. He was afraid to gather them into a fist in order to repel the onslaught of the Mongols, and scattered the army into garrisons. The best commanders of the Shah were his own unloved son Jalal ad-Din and the commandant of the Khojent fortress Timur-Melik. The Mongols took the fortresses one after another, but in Khojent, even after taking the fortress, they were unable to capture the garrison. Timur-Melik put his soldiers on rafts and escaped pursuit along the wide Syr Darya. The scattered garrisons could not hold back the advance of Genghis Khan's troops. Soon all the major cities of the sultanate - Samarkand, Bukhara, Merv, Herat - were captured by the Mongols.
Regarding the capture of Central Asian cities by the Mongols, there is an established version: “Wild nomads destroyed the cultural oases of agricultural peoples.” Is it so? This version, as L.N. Gumilev showed, is based on the legends of court Muslim historians. For example, the fall of Herat was reported by Islamic historians as a disaster in which the entire population of the city was exterminated, 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 coming to their senses, these “heroes” went to distant lands to rob caravans in order to regain their lost wealth.
But is this 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 corpse miasma, and those hiding there would simply die. No predators, except jackals, live near the city, and they very rarely penetrate into the city. It was simply impossible for exhausted people to move to rob caravans several hundred kilometers from Herat, because they would have to walk, carrying heavy loads - 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 you 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 fighting, pushing the Khorezmshah's son Jalal ad-Din into northern India. Muhammad II Ghazi himself, broken by the struggle and constant defeats, died in a leper colony on an island in the Caspian Sea (1221). The Mongols made peace with the Shiite population of Iran, which was constantly offended by the Sunnis in power, in particular the Baghdad Caliph and Jalal ad-Din himself. As a result, the Shia population of Persia suffered significantly less than the Sunnis of Central Asia. Be that as it may, in 1221 the state of the Khorezmshahs was ended. Under one ruler - Muhammad II Ghazi - this state achieved both its greatest power and its destruction. As a result, Khorezm, Northern Iran, and Khorasan were annexed to the Mongol Empire.
In 1226, the hour struck for the Tangut state, 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 by Genghis Khan in 1227, having defeated the Tangut troops in previous battles.
During the siege of Zhongxing, Genghis Khan died, but the Mongol noyons, by order of their leader, hid his death. The fortress was taken, and the population of the “evil” city, which suffered the collective guilt of betrayal, was executed. 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 Chinese of the Ming Dynasty.
From the capital of the Tanguts, the Mongols took the body of their great ruler to their native steppes. The funeral ritual was as follows: the remains of Genghis Khan were lowered into a dug grave, along with many valuable things, and all the slaves who performed funeral work were killed. According to custom, exactly one year later it was necessary to celebrate the wake. In order to later find the burial place, the Mongols did the following. At the grave they sacrificed a little camel that had just been taken from its mother. And a year later, the camel herself found in the vast steppe the place where her cub was killed. Having slaughtered this camel, the Mongols performed the required funeral ritual 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, had no rights to their father’s throne. The sons from Borte differed in inclinations and character. The eldest son, Jochi, was born shortly after the Merkit captivity of Borte, and therefore not only evil tongues, but also his 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 his mother’s Merkit captivity fell on Jochi with the 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 the testimony of contemporaries, Jochi’s behavior contained some stable stereotypes that greatly distinguished him from Chinggis. If for Genghis Khan there was no concept of “mercy” in relation to enemies (he left life only for small children adopted by his mother Hoelun, and valiant warriors who went into Mongol service), then Jochi was distinguished by his 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 garrison of Gurganj was partially slaughtered, 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 the sovereign's mistrust of 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, who was 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 was quite capable of ending his son’s life.
In contrast to Jochi, Genghis Khan's second son, Chaga-tai, was a strict, efficient and even cruel man. Therefore, he received the position of "guardian of the Yasa" (something like an attorney general or chief 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 his kindness and tolerance towards people. The character of Ogedei is best illustrated by this incident: one day, on a joint trip, the brothers saw a Muslim washing himself by the water. According to Muslim custom, every believer is obliged to perform prayer and ritual ablution several times a day. Mongolian tradition, on the contrary, forbade a person to wash throughout the 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 considered an attempt on people’s lives. Nuker vigilantes of the ruthless zealot of the law Chagatai captured the Muslim. Anticipating a bloody outcome - the unfortunate man was in danger of having his head cut off - Ogedei sent his man to tell the Muslim to answer that he had dropped a gold piece into the water and was just looking for it there. The Muslim said so to Chagatay. He ordered to look for the coin, and during this time Ogedei’s warrior threw the gold into the water. The found coin was returned to the “rightful owner.” In parting, Ogedei, 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 Genghis' sons, Tului, was born in 1193. Since Genghis Khan was in captivity at that time, this time Borte’s infidelity was quite obvious, but Genghis Khan recognized Tuluya as his legitimate son, although he did not outwardly resemble his father.
Of Genghis Khan's four sons, the youngest had the greatest talents and showed the greatest moral dignity. A good commander and an outstanding administrator, Tuluy was also a loving husband and distinguished by his nobility. He married the daughter of the deceased head of the Keraits, Van Khan, who was a devout Christian. Tuluy himself did not have the right to accept the Christian faith: like Genghisid, he had to profess the Bon religion (paganism). But the khan’s son allowed his wife not only to perform all Christian rituals in a luxurious “church” yurt, but also to have priests with her and receive monks. The death of Tuluy can be called heroic without any exaggeration. When Ogedei fell ill, Tuluy voluntarily took a powerful shamanic potion in an effort to “attract” the disease to himself, and died saving his brother.
All four sons had the right to succeed Genghis Khan. After Jochi was eliminated, there were three heirs left, and when Genghis died and a new khan had not yet been elected, Tului ruled the ulus. But at the kurultai of 1229, the gentle and tolerant Ogedei was chosen as the Great Khan, in accordance with the will of Genghis. Ogedei, as we have already mentioned, had a kind soul, but the kindness of a sovereign is often not to the benefit of the state and his subjects. The administration of the ulus under him was carried out mainly thanks to the severity of Chagatai and the diplomatic and administrative skills of Tuluy. The Great Khan himself preferred wanderings with hunts and feasts in Western Mongolia to state concerns.
The grandchildren of Genghis Khan were allocated various areas of the ulus or high positions. Jochi's eldest son, Orda-Ichen, received the White Horde, located between the Irtysh and the Tarbagatai ridge (the area of present-day Semipalatinsk). The second son, Batu, began to own the Golden (Great) Horde on the Volga. The third son, Sheibani, received 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, while the total number of the Mongol army reached 130 thousand people.
The children of Chagatai also received a thousand soldiers, and the descendants of Tului, being at court, owned the entire grandfather’s and father’s ulus. So the Mongols established a system of inheritance called minorat, in which the youngest son received all the rights of his father as an inheritance, and older brothers received only a share in the common inheritance.
The Great Khan Ogedei also had a son, Guyuk, who claimed the inheritance. The expansion of the clan during the lifetime of Chingis’s children caused the division of the inheritance and enormous difficulties in managing the ulus, which stretched across the territory from the Black to the Yellow Sea. In these difficulties and family scores were hidden the seeds of future strife that destroyed the state created by Genghis Khan and his comrades.
How many Tatar-Mongols came to Rus'? Let's try to sort this issue out.
Russian pre-revolutionary historians mention a “half-million-strong Mongol army.” V. Yang, author of the famous trilogy “Genghis Khan”, “Batu” and “To the Last Sea”, names the number four hundred thousand. However, it is known that a warrior of a nomadic tribe goes on a campaign with three horses (minimum two). One carries luggage (packed rations, horseshoes, spare harness, arrows, armor), and the third needs to be changed from time to time so that one horse can rest if it suddenly has to go into battle.
Simple calculations show that for an army of half a million or four hundred thousand soldiers, at least one and a half million horses are needed. Such a herd is unlikely to be able to effectively move a long distance, since the leading horses will instantly destroy the grass over a vast area, and the rear ones will die from lack of food.
All the main invasions of the Tatar-Mongols into Rus' took place in winter, when the remaining grass was hidden under the snow, and you couldn’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 existed “in service” with the horde. Horse breeding experts prove that the Tatar-Mongol horde rode Turkmens, and this is a completely different breed, looks different, and is not capable of feeding itself in the winter without human help...
In addition, the difference between a horse allowed to wander in winter without any work and a horse forced to make long journeys under a rider and also participate in battles is not taken into account. But in addition to the horsemen, they also had to carry heavy booty! The convoys followed the troops. The cattle that pull the carts also need to be fed... The picture of a huge mass of people moving in the rearguard of an army of half a million with convoys, wives and children seems quite fantastic.
The temptation for a historian to explain the Mongol campaigns 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 returning to their native steppes after campaigns. And the khans of the Jochi branch - Batu, Horde and Sheybani - received, according to the will of Genghis, only 4 thousand horsemen, i.e. about 12 thousand people 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: isn’t it enough? Despite the disunity of the Russian principalities, thirty thousand cavalry is too small a figure to cause “fire and ruin” throughout Rus'! After all, they (even supporters of the “classical” version admit this) 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 mistrust begins: could such a number of aggressors conquer Rus'?
It turns out to be a vicious circle: a huge Tatar-Mongol army, for purely physical reasons, would hardly be able to maintain combat capability in order to move quickly and deliver the notorious “indestructible blows.” A small army would hardly have been able to establish control over most of the territory of Rus'. To get out of this vicious circle, we have to admit: the Tatar-Mongol invasion was in fact only an episode of the bloody civil war that was going on in Rus'. The enemy forces were relatively small; they relied on their own forage reserves 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 Polovtsians had previously been used.
The chronicle information that has reached us about the military campaigns of 1237–1238 depicts the classically Russian style of these battles - the battles take place in winter, and the Mongols - the steppe inhabitants - act with amazing skill in the forests (for example, the encirclement and subsequent complete destruction on the City River of a Russian detachment under the command of the great Prince of Vladimir Yuri Vsevolodovich).
Having taken a general look at the history of the creation of the huge Mongol power, we must return to Rus'. Let us take a closer look at the situation with the Battle of the Kalka River, which is not fully understood by historians.
It was not the steppe people who represented the main danger to Kievan Rus at the turn of the 11th–12th centuries. Our ancestors were friends with the Polovtsian khans, married “red Polovtsian girls”, accepted baptized Polovtsians into their midst, and the descendants of the latter became Zaporozhye and Sloboda Cossacks, it is not for nothing that in their nicknames the traditional Slavic suffix of affiliation “ov” (Ivanov) was replaced by the Turkic one - “ enko" (Ivanenko).
At this time, a more formidable phenomenon emerged - a decline in morals, a rejection of traditional Russian ethics and morality. In 1097, a princely congress took place in Lyubech, marking the beginning of a new political form of existence of the country. There it was decided that “let everyone keep his fatherland.” Rus' began to turn into a confederation of independent states. The princes swore to inviolably observe what was proclaimed and kissed the cross in this. But after the death of Mstislav, the Kiev state began to quickly disintegrate. Polotsk was the first to settle down. 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, Andrei gave the city to his warriors for three days of plunder. Until that moment, in Rus' it was customary to do this only with foreign cities. During any civil strife, such a practice was never extended 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 dealing with Kiev, a city where the rivals of his dynasty were constantly strengthening. He agreed with the Smolensk prince Rurik Rostislavich and called on the Polovtsians for help. Prince Roman Volynsky spoke in defense of Kyiv, the “mother of Russian cities,” relying on the Torcan troops allied to him.
The plan of the Chernigov prince was implemented after his death (1202). Rurik, Prince of Smolensk, and the Olgovichi with the Polovtsy in January 1203, in a battle that was fought mainly between the Polovtsy and the Torks of Roman Volynsky, gained the upper hand. Having captured Kyiv, Rurik Rostislavich subjected the city to a terrible defeat. The Tithe Church and the Kiev Pechersk Lavra were destroyed, and the city itself was burned. “They have created a great evil that has not existed since baptism in the Russian land,” the chronicler left a message.
After the fateful year of 1203, Kyiv never recovered.
According to L.N. Gumilyov, by this time the ancient Russians had lost their passionarity, that is, their cultural and energetic “charge”. In such conditions, a clash 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 was the Cumans. Their enmity began in 1216, when the Cumans accepted the blood enemies of Genghis - the Merkits. The Polovtsians actively pursued their anti-Mongol policy, constantly supporting the Finno-Ugric tribes hostile to the Mongols. At the same time, the Cumans of the steppe were as mobile as the Mongols themselves. Seeing the futility of cavalry clashes with the Cumans, the Mongols sent an expeditionary force behind enemy lines.
Talented commanders Subetei and Jebe led a corps of three tumens across the Caucasus. The Georgian king George Lasha tried to attack them, but was destroyed along with his army. The Mongols managed to capture the guides who showed the way through the Daryal Gorge. So they went to the upper reaches of the Kuban, to the rear of the Polovtsians. They, having discovered the enemy in their rear, retreated to the Russian border and asked for help from the Russian princes.
It should be noted that the relations between Rus' and the Polovtsians do not fit into the scheme of irreconcilable confrontation “sedentary - nomadic”. In 1223, the Russian princes became allies of the Polovtsians. The three strongest princes of Rus' - Mstislav the Udaloy from Galich, Mstislav of Kiev and Mstislav of Chernigov - gathered troops and tried to protect them.
The clash on Kalka in 1223 is described in some detail in the chronicles; In addition, there is another source - “The Tale of the Battle of Kalka, and of the Russian Princes, and of the Seventy Heroes.” However, the abundance of information does not always bring clarity...
Historical science has long not denied the fact that the events on Kalka were not the aggression of evil aliens, but an attack by the Russians. The Mongols themselves did not seek war with Russia. The ambassadors who arrived to the Russian princes quite friendly asked the Russians not to interfere in their relations with the Polovtsians. But, true to their allied obligations, the Russian princes rejected 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 just killed, but “tortured”). At all times, the murder of an ambassador or envoy was considered a serious crime; According to Mongolian law, deceiving someone who trusted was an unforgivable crime.
Following this, the Russian army sets out on a long march. Having left the borders of Rus', it first attacks the Tatar camp, takes booty, steals cattle, after which it moves outside its territory for another eight days. A decisive battle takes place on the Kalka River: the eighty-thousandth Russian-Polovtsian army attacked the twenty-thousandth (!) detachment of the Mongols. This battle was lost by the Allies due to their inability to coordinate their actions. The Polovtsy left the battlefield in panic. Mstislav Udaloy and his “younger” prince Daniil fled across the Dnieper; They were the first to reach the shore and managed to jump into the boats. At the same time, the prince chopped up the rest of the boats, fearing that the Tatars would be able to cross after him, “and, filled with fear, I reached Galich on foot.” Thus, he doomed his comrades, whose horses were worse than princely ones, to death. The enemies killed everyone they overtook.
The other princes are left alone with the enemy, fight off 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 Ploskinia, 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 up 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 actually 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 planks. Other sources write that the princes were simply killed without mockery, and still others that they were “captured.” So the story with a feast on the bodies is just one version.)
Different peoples perceive the rule of law and the concept of honesty differently. The Russians believed that the Mongols, by killing the captives, broke 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 someone who trusted them. Therefore, the point is not in deceit (history provides a lot of evidence of how the Russian princes themselves violated the “kiss of the cross”), but in the personality of Ploskini himself - a Russian, a Christian, who somehow mysteriously found himself among the warriors of the “unknown people”.
Why did the Russian princes surrender after listening to Ploskini’s entreaties? “The Tale of the Battle of Kalka” writes: “There were also wanderers along with the Tatars, and their commander was Ploskinya.” Brodniks are Russian free warriors who lived in those places, the predecessors of the Cossacks. However, establishing Ploschini's social status only confuses the matter. It turns out that the wanderers in a short time managed to come to an agreement with the “unknown peoples” and became so close to them that they jointly struck at their brothers in blood and faith? One thing can be stated with certainty: part of the army with which the Russian princes fought on Kalka was Slavic, Christian.
The Russian princes do not look their best in this whole story. But let's return to our riddles. For some reason, the “Tale of the Battle of Kalka” that we mentioned is not able to definitely name the enemy of the Russians! Here is the quote: “...Because of our sins, unknown peoples came, the godless Moabites [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 say Pechenegs.”
Amazing lines! They were written much later than the events described, when it was supposed to be known exactly who the Russian princes fought on 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 Rus' - they lived nearby for many years, then fought, then became related... The Taurmen - 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” certain “Tatars” are mentioned among the nomadic Turks who served the Chernigov prince.
One gets the impression that the chronicler is hiding something. For some reason unknown to us, he does not want to directly name the Russian enemy in that battle. Maybe the battle on Kalka is not a clash with unknown peoples at all, but one of the episodes of the internecine war waged among themselves by Russian Christians, Polovtsian Christians and the Tatars who got involved in the matter?
After the Battle of Kalka, some of the Mongols turned their horses to the east, trying to report on the completion of the assigned task - the victory over the Cumans. But on the banks of the Volga, the army was ambushed 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 Russians.
L.N. Gumilyov collected a huge amount of material, clearly demonstrating that the relationship between Russia and the Horde CAN be described by the word “symbiosis”. After Gumilev, they write especially a lot and often about how Russian princes and “Mongol khans” became brothers-in-law, relatives, sons-in-law and fathers-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 - the Tatars did not behave this way in any country they conquered. 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-Mongol yoke in Rus' (in the classical sense of the term) remains open. This topic awaits its researchers.
When it comes to “standing on the Ugra”, we are again faced with omissions and omissions. As those who diligently studied a school or university history course will remember, in 1480 the troops of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III, the first “sovereign of all Rus'” (ruler of the united state) and the hordes of the Tatar Khan Akhmat stood on the opposite banks of the Ugra River. After a long “standing”, the Tatars fled for some reason, and this event marked the end of the Horde yoke in Rus'.
There are many dark places in this story. Let's start with the fact that the famous painting, which even found its way into school textbooks, “Ivan III tramples the Khan’s basma,” was written based on 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 up any basma letter in their presence.
But here again an enemy is coming to Rus', an infidel who, according to contemporaries, threatens the very existence of Rus'. Well, everyone is preparing to fight back the adversary in a single impulse? No! We are faced with a strange passivity and confusion of opinions. With the news of Akhmat's approach, something happens in Rus' that still has no explanation. These events can be reconstructed only from scanty, 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, is fleeing Moscow, for which she receives accusatory epithets from the chronicler. Moreover, at the same time some strange events are unfolding in the principality. “The Tale of Standing on the Ugra” tells about it this way: “That same winter, Grand Duchess Sophia returned from her escape, for she fled 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 those lands through which she wandered became worse than from the Tatars, from the boyar slaves, from the Christian bloodsuckers. Reward them, Lord, according to the deceit of their actions, give them according to the works of their hands, for they loved wives more than the Orthodox Christian faith and the holy churches, and they agreed to betray Christianity, for their malice blinded them.”
What is it about? What was happening in the country? What actions of the boyars brought upon them accusations of “blood drinking” and apostasy from the faith? We practically do not know what was discussed. Some light is shed by reports about the “evil advisers” of the Grand Duke, who advised not to fight the Tatars, but to “run away” (?!). Even the names of the “advisers” are known - Ivan Vasilyevich Oshera 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 his fellow boyars, and subsequently not a 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 and vague that it is reported that Oshera and Mamon, defending their point of view, mentioned the need to preserve a certain “antiquity”. 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 by deciding to resist, and Akhmat, accordingly, acts in his own right? There is no other way to explain this mystery.
Some scientists have suggested: maybe we are facing a purely dynastic dispute? Once again, two people are vying for the Moscow throne - representatives of the relatively young North and the more ancient South, and Akhmat, it seems, has no less rights than his rival!
And here the Rostov Bishop Vassian Rylo intervenes in the situation. It is his efforts that turn the situation around, it is he who pushes the Grand Duke to go on a campaign. Bishop Vassian begs, insists, appeals to the prince’s conscience, gives historical examples, and hints that the Orthodox Church may turn away from Ivan. This wave of eloquence, logic and emotion is aimed at convincing the Grand Duke to come out to defend his country! What the Grand Duke for some reason stubbornly refuses to do...
The Russian army, to the triumph of Bishop Vassian, leaves for the Ugra. Ahead lies a long, several-month standstill. 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, but the Russians refuse. Akhmat makes a concession: he asks that the brother or son of the Grand Duke arrive - the Russians refuse. Akhmat concedes again: now he agrees to speak with a “simple” ambassador, but for some reason this ambassador must certainly become Nikifor Fedorovich Basenkov. (Why him? A mystery.) The Russians refuse again.
It turns out that for some reason they are not interested in negotiations. Akhmat makes concessions, for some reason he needs to come to an agreement, 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 are faced with some big and dark secret that does not fit into the usual patterns.
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 sent the Tatars into panic.
(Hardly: 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 residents “let thunder from the walls.”)
3. Akhmat was “afraid” of a decisive battle.
But here's another version. It is extracted from a historical work of the 17th century, written by Andrei 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, from where the king came, there was no army left at all, he secretly sent his numerous army to the Great Horde, to the dwellings of the filthy. At their head were the service Tsar Urodovlet Gorodetsky and Prince Gvozdev, the governor of Zvenigorod. The king did not know about this.
They, in boats along the Volga, sailed to the Horde, saw that there were no military people there, but only women, old men and youths. And they began to captivate and devastate, mercilessly putting the filthy wives and children to death, setting their homes on fire. And, of course, they could kill every single one of them.
But Murza Oblyaz the Strong, Gorodetsky’s servant, whispered to his king, saying: “O king! It would be absurd to completely devastate and devastate this great kingdom, because this is where you yourself come from, and all of us, and here is our homeland. Let’s leave here, we’ve already caused enough destruction, and God may be angry with us.”
So the glorious Orthodox army returned from the Horde and came to Moscow with a great victory, having with them a lot of booty and a considerable amount of food. The king, having learned about all this, immediately retreated from Ugra and fled to the Horde.”
Doesn’t it follow from this that the Russian side deliberately delayed the negotiations - while Akhmat was trying for a long time to achieve his unclear goals, making concession after concession, Russian troops sailed along the Volga to the capital of Akhmat and cut down women, children and old people there, until the commanders woke up - like a conscience! Please note: it is not said that 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 Ugra, hurrying home with all possible speed. So what is next?
A year later, the “Horde” is attacked with an army by the “Nogai Khan” named... Ivan! Akhmat was killed, his troops were defeated. Another evidence of the deep symbiosis and fusion of Russians and Tatars... The sources also contain another option for the death of Akhmat. 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.
It is interesting that the army of Tsar Urodovlet, who carried out a pogrom in the Horde, is called “Orthodox” by the historian. It seems that we have before us another argument in favor of the version that the Horde members who served the Moscow princes were not Muslims at all, but Orthodox.
And one more aspect is of interest. Akhmat, according to Lyzlov, and Urodovlet are “kings”. And Ivan III is only a “Grand Duke”. Writer's inaccuracy? But at the time Lyzlov wrote his history, the title “tsar” was already firmly attached to the Russian autocrats, had a specific “binding” and precise meaning. Further, in all other cases Lyzlov does not allow himself such “liberties.” Western European kings are “kings”, Turkish sultans are “sultans”, padishahs are “padishahs”, cardinals are “cardinals”. Is it possible that the title of Archduke was given by Lyzlov in the translation “Artsyknyaz”. But this is a translation, not an error.
Thus, in the late Middle Ages there was a system of titles that reflected certain political realities, and today we are quite 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 why are Moscow sovereigns persistently called “grand princes?” Only in 1547, Ivan the Terrible for the first time in Rus' took the title “tsar” - and, as Russian chronicles extensively report, he did this only after much persuasion from the patriarch.
Couldn’t the campaigns of Mamai and Akhmat against Moscow be explained by the fact that, according to certain rules that were perfectly understood by contemporaries, the “tsar” was superior to the “grand duke” and had more rights to the throne? What did some dynastic system, now forgotten, declare itself to be here?
It is interesting that in 1501, the Crimean Tsar Chess, having been defeated in an internecine war, for some reason expected that the Kiev prince Dmitry Putyatich would come out on his side, probably due to some special political and dynastic relations between the Russians and Tatars. It is not known exactly which ones.
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 Kasimov’s 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 tsar. Could we not be talking about joint rule, which had to be resorted to due to the same complicated ancient dynastic relations? Perhaps this is the last time in Russian history that these systems made themselves known.
Simeon was not, as many historians previously believed, a “weak-willed puppet” of Ivan the Terrible - on the contrary, he was one of the largest state and military figures of that time. And after the two kingdoms again united into one, Grozny by no means “exiled” Simeon to Tver. Simeon was granted the title of Grand Duke of Tver. But Tver in the time of Ivan the Terrible was a recently pacified hotbed of separatism, which required special supervision, and the one who ruled Tver certainly had to be Ivan the Terrible’s confidant.
And finally, strange troubles befell Simeon after the death of Ivan the Terrible. With the accession of Fyodor Ioannovich, Simeon was “removed” from the reign of Tver, blinded (a measure that in Rus' from time immemorial was applied exclusively to rulers who had rights to the table!), and was forcibly tonsured a monk of the Kirillov Monastery (also a traditional way to eliminate a competitor to the secular throne! ). But this turns out to be not enough: I.V. Shuisky sends a blind elderly monk to Solovki. One gets the impression that the Moscow Tsar was in this way getting rid of a dangerous competitor who had significant rights. A contender for the throne? Are Simeon's rights to the throne really not inferior to the rights of the Rurikovichs? (It is interesting that Elder Simeon survived his tormentors. Returned from Solovetsky exile by decree of Prince Pozharsky, he died only in 1616, when neither Fyodor Ioannovich, nor False Dmitry I, nor Shuisky were alive.)
So, all these stories - Mamai, Akhmat and Simeon - are more like episodes of a struggle for the throne, rather than a war with foreign conquerors, and in this respect they resemble similar intrigues around one or another throne in Western Europe. And those whom we have become accustomed to considering since childhood as “the deliverers of the Russian land”, perhaps, actually solved their dynastic problems and eliminated their rivals?
Many members of the editorial board are personally acquainted with the inhabitants of Mongolia, who were surprised to learn about their supposed 300-year rule 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 chronicles of the Orthodox Old Believers it is said unequivocally about the “Tatar-Mongol yoke”: “There was Fedot, but not the same one.” Let's turn to the Old Slovenian language. Having adapted runic images to modern perception, we get: thief - enemy, robber; Mughal - powerful; yoke - order. It turns out that the “Tata of the Aryans” (from the point of view of the Christian flock), with the light hand of the chroniclers, were called “Tatars”1, (There is another meaning: “Tata” is the father. Tatar - Tata of the Aryans, i.e. Fathers (Ancestors or older) Aryans) powerful - by the Mongols, and the yoke - the 300-year-old order in the State, which stopped the bloody civil war that broke out on the basis of the forced baptism of Rus' - “holy martyrdom”. Horde is a derivative of the word Order, where “Or” is strength, and day is the daylight hours or simply “light.” Accordingly, the “Order” is the Power 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-skinned, hook-nosed, narrow-eyed, bow-legged and very angry warriors in the Horde? Were. Detachments of mercenaries of different nationalities, who, as in any other army, were driven in the front ranks, preserving the main Slavic-Aryan Troops from losses on the front line.
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 not part of Rus'. In the east, beyond the Urals, the principalities of Obdora, Siberia, Yugoria, Grustina, Lukomorye, Belovodye are depicted, which were part of the Ancient Power of the Slavs and Aryans - Great (Grand) Tartaria (Tartaria - lands under the patronage 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 painting, we only have the “Map of Asia 1754.” But this is even better! See for yourself. Not only in the 13th, but until the 18th century, Grand (Mogolo) Tartary existed as real as the faceless Russian Federation now.
The “history scribblers” were not able to distort and hide everything from the people. Their repeatedly darned and patched “Trishka caftan”, covering the Truth, is constantly bursting at the seams. Through the gaps, the Truth reaches the consciousness of our contemporaries bit by bit. They do not have truthful information, so they are often mistaken in the interpretation of certain factors, but the general conclusion they draw is correct: what school teachers taught to several dozen generations of Russians is deception, slander, falsehood.
Published article from S.M.I. “There was no Tatar-Mongol invasion” is a striking example of the above. Commentary on it from a member of our editorial board, Gladilin E.A. will help you, dear readers, dot the i's.
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 Rus' is considered to be the Radzivilov manuscript: “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The story about the calling of the Varangians to rule in Rus' is taken from it. But can she be trusted? Its copy was brought at the beginning of the 18th century by Peter 1 from Konigsberg, then its original ended up in Russia. It has now been proven that this manuscript is forged. Thus, it is not known for certain what happened in Rus' 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 Romanovs need to rewrite our history? Is it not to prove to the Russians that they have been subordinate to the Horde for a long time and are not capable of independence, that their destiny is drunkenness and obedience?
Strange behavior of princes
The classic version of the “Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'” 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, Genghis Khan's army rushed to the west, and in 1223 it reached the south of Rus', where it defeated the squads of Russian princes on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Tatar-Mongols invaded Rus', 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 devastated, but still dangerous Rus' in their rear. The Tatar-Mongol yoke began in Rus'. 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 to reign and terrorized the population with atrocities and robberies.
Even the official version says that there were many Christians among the Mongols and some Russian princes established very warm relations with the Horde khans. Another oddity: with the help of the Horde troops, some princes remained 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. Aren't there a lot of strange things? Is this how the Russians should have treated the occupiers?
Having strengthened, Rus' 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 met. 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 Horde times, scientists had many questions. Why did dozens of chronicles disappear without a trace during the reign of the Romanov dynasty? For example, “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land,” according to historians, resembles a document from which everything that would indicate the yoke was carefully removed. They left only fragments telling about a certain “trouble” that befell Rus'. But there is not a word about the “invasion of the Mongols.”
There are many more strange things. In the story “about the evil Tatars,” the khan from the Golden Horde orders the execution of a Russian Christian prince... for refusing to worship the “pagan god of the Slavs!” And some chronicles contain amazing phrases, for example: “Well, with God!” - said the khan and, crossing himself, galloped towards the enemy.
Why are there suspiciously many Christians among the Tatar-Mongols? And the descriptions of princes and warriors look unusual: the chronicles claim that most of them were of the Caucasian type, had not narrow, but large gray or blue eyes and light brown hair.
Another paradox: why suddenly the Russian princes in the Battle of Kalka surrender “on parole” to a representative of foreigners named Ploskinia, and he... kisses the pectoral cross?! This means that Ploskinya was one of his own, Orthodox and Russian, and, moreover, of a noble family!
Not to mention the fact that the number of “war horses”, and therefore the warriors of the Horde army, was initially, with the light hand of historians of the House of Romanov, estimated at three hundred to four hundred thousand. Such a number of horses could neither hide in the copses nor feed themselves in the conditions of a long winter! Over the last century, historians have continually reduced the number 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 establishing 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 a mathematical analysis of the manuscripts: there was no invasion from the territory of modern Mongolia! And there was a civil war in Rus', the princes fought with each other. There were no traces of any representatives of the Mongoloid race who came to Rus'. Yes, there were individual Tatars in the army, but not aliens, but residents of the Volga region, who lived in the neighborhood of 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 war between princes is generally recognized; unfortunately, Rus' did not unite immediately, and quite strong rulers fought among themselves.
But who did Dmitry Donskoy fight with? 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, called the prince, and a military one, he was called the khan, i.e. "military leader" In the chronicles you can find the following entry: “There were wanderers along with the Tatars, and their governor was so-and-so,” that is, the Horde troops were led by governors! And the Brodniks are Russian free warriors, 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 Rus' 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 who made Europe tremble. Most likely, it was fear of the powerful Russians that became the reason that the Germans rewrote Russian history and turned their national humiliation into ours.
By the way, the German word “Ordnung” (“order”) most likely comes from the word “horde.” The word "Mongol" probably comes 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 military 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, and “lynx-like” green-yellow eyes. Note that people of the Mongoloid race do not have a beard at all. The Persian historian of the Horde, Rashid al-Din, writes that in the family of Genghis Khan, children “were mostly born with gray eyes and blond hair.”
Genghis Khan, according to scientists, is Prince Yaroslav. He just had a middle name - Genghis with the prefix “khan”, which meant “warlord”. Batu is his son Alexander (Nevsky). In the manuscripts you can find the following phrase: “Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, nicknamed Batu.” By the way, according to the description of his contemporaries, Batu had fair hair, a light beard and light eyes! It turns out that it was the Horde khan who defeated the crusaders on Lake Peipsi!
Having studied the chronicles, scientists discovered that Mamai and Akhmat were also noble nobles, who, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, had the right to a great reign. Accordingly, “Mamaevo’s Massacre” and “Standing on the Ugra” are episodes of the civil war in Rus', the struggle of princely families for power.
Which Rus' did the Horde go to?
The records do say; "The Horde went to Rus'." But in the 12th-13th centuries, Russia was the name given to a relatively small territory around Kyiv, Chernigov, Kursk, the area near the Ros River, and Seversk land. But Muscovites or, say, Novgorodians were already northern inhabitants who, according to the same ancient chronicles, often “traveled to Rus'” from Novgorod or Vladimir! That is, for example, to Kyiv.
Therefore, when the Moscow prince was about to go on a campaign against his southern neighbor, this could be called an “invasion of Rus'” by his “horde” (troops). It is not for nothing that on Western European maps for a very long time Russian lands were divided into “Muscovy” (north) and “Russia” (south).
Grand falsification
At the beginning of the 18th century, Peter 1 founded the Russian Academy of Sciences. Over the 120 years of its existence, there have been 33 academic historians in 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 Rus' until the beginning of the 17th century was written by the Germans, and some of them did not even know Russian! This fact is well known to professional historians, but they make no effort to carefully review what kind of history the Germans wrote.
It is known that M.V. Lomonosov wrote the history of Rus' 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 Rus' were published, but under the editorship of Miller. Meanwhile, it was Miller who persecuted M.V. Lomonosov during his lifetime! The works of Lomonosov on the history of Rus' published by Miller are falsifications, 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 House of Romanov hammered into our heads that the Russian peasant was good for nothing. That “he doesn’t know how to work, that he’s a drunkard and an eternal slave.