In what year did the Tatar-Mongol yoke end. Mongol-Tatar yoke: shocking facts

Most history textbooks say that in the XIII-XV centuries Russia suffered from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. However, in recent times more and more often there are voices of those who doubt that the invasion took place at all? Did the huge hordes of nomads really flood the 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 Dlugosh in 1479 called the time of the existence of the Golden Horde so. He was followed in 1517 by the historian Matvey Mekhovsky, who worked at the University of Krakow. This interpretation of the relationship between Russia 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 in the Horde troops themselves. It’s just that in Europe they knew the name of this Asian people well, and therefore it spread to the Mongols. Meanwhile, Genghis Khan tried to exterminate the entire Tatar tribe by defeating their army in 1202.

The first census of the population of Russia

The first census in the history of Russia was carried out by representatives of the Horde. They had to collect accurate information about the inhabitants of each principality, about their class affiliation. The main reason for such an interest in statistics on the part of the Mongols was the need to calculate the amount of taxes that were levied on subjects.

In 1246, the 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 Russia raised popular uprisings and drove out from their land the so-called "besermen", who collected tribute for the khans of Mongolia. But the governors of the rulers of the Golden Horde, called Baskaks, lived and worked in the Russian principalities for a long time, sending the collected taxes to Saray-Batu, and later to Saray-Berka.

Joint trips

The princely squads and the Horde warriors often made joint military campaigns, both against other Russians and against the inhabitants of Eastern Europe. So, in the period 1258-1287, the troops of the Mongols and Galician princes regularly attacked Poland, Hungary and Lithuania. And in 1277, the Russians participated in the military campaign of the Mongols in the North Caucasus, helping their allies conquer Alania.

In 1333 Muscovites stormed Novgorod, and the following year the Bryansk squad went to Smolensk. Each time, the Horde troops also participated in these internecine wars. In addition, they regularly helped the great princes of Tver, who were considered at that time the main rulers of Russia, to pacify the recalcitrant neighboring lands.

The basis of the horde was the Russians

The Arab traveler Ibn Battuta, who visited the city of Saray-Berke in 1334, wrote in his essay “A Gift to those who contemplate the wonders of cities and the wonders of wanderings” 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 twentieth century. According to the researcher, most of the Horde troops were the so-called wanderers - ethnic Slavs who inhabited the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and the Don steppes. These predecessors of the Cossacks did not want to obey the princes, so they moved south for the sake of a free life. The name of this ethno-social group probably comes from the Russian word "roam" (to wander).

As is known from chronicles, in the Battle of Kalka in 1223, roamers fought on the side of the Mongol troops, led by the voivode Ploskynya. Perhaps his knowledge of the tactics and strategy of the princely squads was of great importance for defeating the combined Russian-Polovtsian forces.

In addition, it was Ploskinya who lured the ruler of Kyiv, Mstislav Romanovich, along with two Turov-Pinsk princes, by cunning, and handed them over to the Mongols for execution.

However, most historians believe that the Mongols forced the Russians to serve in their army, i.e. the invaders forcibly armed the representatives of the enslaved people. Although this seems unlikely.

And Marina Poluboyarinova, a senior researcher at the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in her book “Russian people in the Golden Horde” (Moscow, 1978) suggested: “Probably, the forced participation of Russian soldiers in the Tatar army stopped later. There were mercenaries who had already voluntarily joined the Tatar troops.”

Caucasian Invaders

Yesugei-bagatur, the father of Genghis Khan, was a representative of the Borjigin clan of the Mongolian tribe Kiyat. According to the descriptions of many eyewitnesses, both he himself and his legendary son were tall fair-skinned people with reddish hair.

The Persian scholar Rashid-ad-Din in his work "Collection of Chronicles" (beginning of the 14th century) wrote 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 the Caucasians. Probably, representatives of this race also predominated among other invaders.

There were few

We are accustomed to believe that in the XIII century, Russia was filled with countless hordes of Mongol-Tatars. Some historians speak of a 500,000-strong army. However, it is not. After all, even the population of modern Mongolia barely exceeds 3 million people, and given the brutal genocide of fellow tribesmen committed by Genghis Khan on the way to power, the size of his army could not be so impressive.

It is difficult to imagine how to feed the half-million army, which also traveled on horseback. Animals simply would not have enough pasture. But each Mongolian horseman led at least three horses with him. Now imagine a herd of 1.5 million. The horses of the warriors riding in the vanguard of the army would have eaten and trampled everything they could. The rest of the horses would die of starvation.

According to the most daring estimates, the army of Genghis Khan and Batu could not exceed 30 thousand horsemen. While the population Ancient Russia, according to the historian Georgy Vernadsky (1887-1973), before the start of 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 respected by cutting off their heads. However, if the sentenced person enjoyed authority, then his spine was broken and left to die slowly.

The Mongols were sure that blood is the seat of the soul. Shedding it means complicating the afterlife of the deceased to other worlds. Bloodless execution was applied to rulers, political and military figures, shamans.

The reason for the 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 steppes

The method of burial of the 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 who died in battle were often simply left in the steppe, where their life path ended.

In the disturbing conditions of a nomadic life, consisting of regular skirmishes with enemies, it was difficult to arrange 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 the birds and animals did not touch the body for a long time, according to popular beliefs, this meant that a serious sin was registered behind the soul of the deceased.

Mongol-Tatar yoke - the period of the capture of Russia by the Mongol-Tatars in the 13-15 centuries. The Mongol-Tatar yoke lasted for 243 years.

The truth about the Mongol-Tatar yoke

The Russian princes at that time were in a state of enmity, so they could not give a fitting rebuff to the invaders. Despite the fact that the Cumans came to the rescue, the Tatar-Mongol army quickly seized the advantage.

The first direct clash between the troops took place on the Kalka River, on May 31, 1223, and was quickly lost. Even then it became clear that our army would not be able to defeat the Tatar-Mongols, but the onslaught of the enemy was held back for quite a long time.

In the winter of 1237, a targeted invasion of the main troops of the Tatar-Mongols into the territory of Russia began. This time, the enemy army was commanded by the grandson of Genghis Khan - Batu. The army of nomads managed to move quickly enough inland, plundering the principalities in turn and killing everyone who tried to resist on their way.

The main dates of the capture of Russia by the Tatar-Mongols

• 1223. The Tatar-Mongols approached the border of Russia;
• May 31, 1223. First battle;
• Winter 1237. The beginning of a targeted invasion of Russia;
• 1237. Ryazan and Kolomna were captured. Palo Ryazan principality;
• March 4, 1238. Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich was killed. The city of Vladimir is captured;
• Autumn 1239. Captured Chernigov. Palo Chernihiv Principality;
• 1240 year. Kyiv captured. The Kiev principality fell;
• 1241. Palo Galicia-Volyn principality;
• 1480. The overthrow of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

Causes of the fall of Russia under the onslaught of the Mongol-Tatars

• the absence of a unified organization in the ranks of Russian soldiers;
• numerical superiority of the enemy;
• the weakness of the command of the Russian army;
• poorly organized mutual assistance from scattered princes;
• underestimation of the strength and number of the enemy.

Features of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia

In Russia, the establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke with new laws and orders began.

Vladimir became the actual center of political life, it was from there that the Tatar-Mongol Khan exercised his control.

The essence of the management of the Tatar-Mongol yoke was that the Khan handed the label to reign at his own discretion and completely controlled all the territories of the country. This increased the enmity between the princes.

The feudal fragmentation of the territories was strongly encouraged, as it reduced the likelihood of a centralized rebellion.

Tribute was regularly levied from the population, the “Horde output”. The money was collected by special officials - Baskaks, who showed extreme cruelty and did not shy away from kidnappings and murders.

Consequences of the Mongol-Tatar conquest

The consequences of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia were terrible.

• Many cities and villages were destroyed, people were killed;
• Agriculture, handicrafts, and the arts declined;
• Feudal fragmentation increased significantly;
• Significantly reduced population;
• Russia began to noticeably lag behind Europe in development.

The end of the Mongol-Tatar yoke

Complete liberation from the Mongol-Tatar yoke occurred only in 1480, when the Grand Duke Ivan III refused to pay money to the horde and declared the independence of Russia.

Golden Horde- one of the saddest pages in Russian history. Some time after the victory in battle on Kalka, the Mongols began to prepare a new invasion of Russian lands, having studied the tactics and characteristics of the future enemy.

Golden Horde.

The Golden Horde (Ulus Juni) was formed in 1224 as a result of the division Mongol Empire Genghis Khan between his sons into the western and eastern parts. The Golden Horde became the western part of the empire from 1224 to 1266. Under the new Khan, Mengu-Timur became independent in fact (though not formally) from the Mongol Empire.

Like many states of that era, in the 15th century it experienced feudal fragmentation and as a result (and there were a lot of enemies offended by the Mongols) by the 16th century it finally ceased to exist.

Islam became the state religion of the Mongol Empire in the 14th century. It is noteworthy that on controlled territories Horde khans (including in Russia) did not particularly impose their religion. The concept of "Gold" among the Horde was fixed only in the 16th century because of the golden tents of its khans.

Tatar-Mongol yoke.

Tatar-Mongol yoke, as well as Mongol-Tatar yoke, - not quite true from the point of view of history. Genghis Khan considered the Tatars to be his main enemies, and destroyed most of them (almost all) of the tribes, while the rest submitted to the Mongol Empire. The number of Tatars in the Mongol troops was scanty, but due to the fact that the empire occupied all the former lands of the Tatars, the troops of Genghis Khan began to be called Tatar-Mongolian or Mongolian-Tatar conquerors. In reality, it was Mongol yoke.

So, the Mongol, or Horde, yoke is a system of political dependence of Ancient Russia on the Mongol Empire, and a little later on the Golden Horde, as a separate state. The complete elimination of the Mongol yoke occurred only by the beginning of the 15th century, although the actual one was somewhat earlier.

The Mongol invasion began after the death of Genghis Khan Batu Khan(or Batu Khan) in 1237. The main troops of the Mongols were drawn to the territories near the present Voronezh, which had previously been controlled by the Volga Bulgars, until they were almost destroyed by the Mongols.

In 1237, the Golden Horde captured Ryazan and destroyed the entire Ryazan principality, including small villages and towns.

In January-March 1238, the same fate befell the Vladimir-Suzdal principality and Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. Tver and Torzhok were taken last. There was a threat of taking the principality of Novgorod, but after the capture of Torzhok on March 5, 1238, having not reached Novgorod less than 100 km, the Mongols turned around and returned to the steppes.

Until the end of 38, the Mongols only made periodic raids, and in 1239 they moved to South Russia and on October 18, 1239 they took Chernigov. Putivl (the scene of the “Lament of Yaroslavna”), Glukhov, Rylsk and other cities on the territory of the present Sumy, Kharkov and Belgorod regions were destroyed.

This year Ogedei(the next ruler of the Mongol Empire after Genghis Khan) sent additional troops to Batu from Transcaucasia and in the fall of 1240, Batu Khan laid siege to Kyiv, having previously plundered all the surrounding lands. Kyiv, Volyn and Galician principalities at that time ruled Danila Galitsky, the son of Roman Mstislavovich, who at that moment was in Hungary, unsuccessfully trying to conclude an alliance with the king of Hungary. Perhaps later, the Hungarians regretted their refusal to Prince Danil when the Batu Horde captured all of Poland and Hungary. Kyiv was taken by the beginning of December 1240 after several weeks of siege. The Mongols began to control most of Russia, including even those areas (on an economic and political level) that they did not capture.

Kyiv, Vladimir, Suzdal, Tver, Chernigov, Ryazan, Pereyaslavl and many other cities were completely or partially destroyed.

There was an economic and cultural decline in Russia - this explains the almost complete absence of chronicles of contemporaries, and as a result - the lack of information for today's historians.

For some time, the Mongols were distracted from Russia due to raids and invasions of Polish, Lithuanian, Hungarian and other European lands.

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

So was there a Tatar-Mongolian yoke in Russia?

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, the conclusions of the publicist are 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 the "yoke" really look too mysterious and need closer attention and unbiased research. Let's try to consider some of these mysteries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the fateful year 1203 Kyiv never recovered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The lawless tsar [Akhmat], unable to endure his shame, in the summer of the 1480s gathered a considerable force: princes, and lancers, and murzas, and princes, and quickly came to the Russian borders. In his Horde, he left only those who could not wield weapons. The Grand Duke, after consulting with the boyars, decided to do a good deed. Knowing that in the Great Horde, from where the tsar 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 the head were the service tsar Urodovlet Gorodetsky and Prince Gvozdev, governor of Zvenigorod. The king did not know about it.

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

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

So the glorious Orthodox army returned from the Horde and came to Moscow with a great victory, having with them a lot of booty and a lot of food. The king, having learned about all this, at the same hour retreated from the Ugra and fled to the Horde.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the magazine "Vedic Culture No. 2"

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

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

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

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

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

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

The strange behavior of princes

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

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

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

Secrets of the disappeared chronicles

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

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

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

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

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

There was no invasion!

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

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

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

Horde - the name of the Russian army

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Russia was the Horde going to?

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

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

A grand fabrication

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

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

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

The Tatar-Mongol Yoke is a concept that is truly the most grandiose falsification of our past with you, and besides, this concept is so ignorant in relation to the entire Slavic-Aryan people as a whole that, having understood all the aspects and nuances of this RELATION, I want to say ENOUGH! Stop feeding us these stupid and delusional stories, which, as if in unison, tell us about how wild and uneducated our ancestors were.

So, let's start in order. To begin with, let's refresh our memory of what the official history of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and those times tells us. Around the beginning of the XIII century from R.Kh. in the Mongolian steppes, one very outstanding character was drawn, nicknamed Genghis Khan, who stirred up almost all the wild Mongolian nomads and created the most a strong army that time. After that, they set off, which means they conquer the whole world, crushing and smashing everything in their path. To begin with, they conquered and conquered all of China, and then, having gained strength and courage, they moved west. Having traveled about 5000 kilometers, the Mongols defeated the state of Khorezm, then in 1223 Georgia reached the southern borders of Russia, where they defeated the army of Russian princes in the battle on the Kalka River. And already in 1237, having gathered their courage, they simply fell with an avalanche of horses, arrows and spears on the defenseless cities and villages of the wild Slavs, burning and conquering them one by one, more and more oppressing the already backward Rusichs, and besides, even without encountering serious resistance along the way. After that, in 1241 they already invade Poland and the Czech Republic - a truly Great Army. But being afraid to leave devastated Russia in their rear, their entire numerous horde turns back and imposes tribute on all the occupied territories. It is from this moment that the Tatar-Mongol yoke and the peak of the greatness of the Golden Horde begin.

After some time, Russia got stronger (interestingly, under the yoke of the Golden Horde) and began to be insolent to the Tatar-Mongol representatives, some principalities even stopped paying tribute. Khan Mamai could not forgive them for this, and in 1380 he went to war against Russia, where he was defeated by the army of Dmitry Donskoy. After that, a century later, the Horde Khan Akhmat decided to take revenge, but after the so-called "Standing on the Ugra" Khan Akhmat was afraid of Ivan III's superior army and turned back, ordering to retreat to the Volga. This event is considered the decline of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and the decline of the Golden Horde as a whole.

Today, this crazy theory about the Tatar-Mongol yoke does not stand up to criticism, since a huge amount of evidence of this falsification has accumulated in our history. The main misconception of our official historians is that they consider the Tatar-Mongol to be exclusively representatives of the Mongoloid race, which is fundamentally wrong. After all, a lot of evidence indicates that the Golden Horde, or as it is more correct to call it Tartaria, consisted mainly of the Slavic-Aryan peoples and there was no smell of any Mongoloids there. Indeed, until the 17th century, no one could even imagine such a thing that everything would turn upside down and such a time would come that the greatest empire that existed during the time of our era would be called the Tatar-Mongolian. Moreover, this theory will become official and taught in schools and universities as the truth. Yes, we must pay tribute to Peter I and his Western historians, it was necessary to distort and defile our past in such a way - just trample the memory of our ancestors and everything connected with them into the dirt.

By the way, if you still doubt that the "Tatar-Mongols" were precisely representatives of the Slavic-Aryan people, then we have prepared quite a few proofs for you. So let's go...

PROOF FIRST

The appearance of the representatives of the Golden Horde

This topic can even be covered in a separate article, since there is a great deal of evidence that some "Tatar-Mongols" had a Slavic appearance. Take, for example, the appearance of Genghis Khan himself, whose portrait is kept in Taiwan. He is presented as tall, long-bearded, with green-yellow eyes and blond hair. In addition, this is not a purely individual opinion of the artist. This fact is also mentioned by the historian Rashidad-Did, who found the "Golden Horde" in his lifetime. So, he claims that in the family of Genghis Khan, all children were born white-skinned with light blond hair. And that's not all, G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo preserved one ancient legend about the Mongolian people, in which there is a mention that the ancestor of Genghis Khan in the ninth tribe of Boduanchar was fair-haired and blue-eyed. Another not unimportant character of that time also looked like Batu Khan, who was a descendant of Genghis Khan.

And the Tatar-Mongol army itself, outwardly, was no different from the troops of Ancient Russia and Europe, as evidenced by the paintings and icons painted by contemporaries of those events:

A strange picture is obtained, the leaders of the Tatar-Mongol, throughout the entire existence of the Golden Horde were the Slavs. Yes, and the Tatar-Mongol army consisted exclusively of the Slavic-Aryan people. No, what are you talking about, they were then wild barbarians! Where are they there, they crushed half the world under themselves? No, this cannot be. It is not sad, but this is exactly what modern historians argue.

PROOF TWO

The concept of "Tatar-Mongols"

Let's start with the fact that the very concept of "Tatar-Mongols" - DOES NOT MEET in more than one Russian chronicle, and everything that was found about the "suffering" of the Rus from the Mongols is described in just one entry from the collection of all Russian chronicles:

"Oh, bright and beautifully decorated Russian land! You are glorified by many beauties: you are famous for many lakes, locally revered rivers and springs, mountains, steep hills, high oak forests, clear fields, marvelous animals, various birds, countless great cities, glorious villages, gardens monasteries, temples of God and formidable princes, honest boyars and many nobles. You are filled with everything, the Russian land, O Orthodox Christian faith! From here to the Ugrians and to the Poles, to the Czechs, Germans to Karelians, from Karelians to Ustyug, where the filthy Toymichi live, and beyond the Breathing Sea; from the sea to the Bulgarians, from the Bulgarians to the Burtases, from the Burtases to the Cheremis, from the Cheremis to the Mordtsy - everything, with the help of God, was conquered by the Christian people, these filthy countries obeyed the Grand Duke Vsevolod, his father Yuri, Prince of Kyiv, his grandfather Vladimir Monomakh, with whom the Polovtsy frightened their small children. were not born, and the Hungarians fortified the stone walls of their cities with iron gates so that the great Vladimir would not conquer them, and the Germans were glad that they were far away - beyond the blue sea. Burtases, Cheremis, Vyads and Mordovians were beekeeping for Grand Duke Vladimir. And the emperor of Constantinople Manuel, out of fear, sent great gifts to him, so that the Grand Duke Vladimir Constantinople would not take from him.

There is one more mention, but it is not very significant, because. contains a very meager passage that does not mention any invasion, and it is very difficult to judge any events from it. This text was called as "The Word about the death of the Russian Land":

"... And in those days - from the great Yaroslav, and to Vladimir, and to the present Yaroslav, and to his brother Yuri, Prince of Vladimir, disaster befell the Christians and the filthy ones set fire to the Monastery of the Caves of the Most Holy Theotokos."

PROOF THREE

The number of troops of the Golden Horde

All official historical sources of the 19th century claimed that the number of troops invading our territory at that time was about 500,000 people. Can you imagine HALF A MILLION PEOPLE who came to conquer us, but they didn’t come on foot?! Apparently it was an incredible amount of carts and horses. Since feeding such a number of people and animals required simply titanic efforts. But after all, this theory, yes precisely THEORY, and not historical fact, does not stand up to criticism, since not one horse will reach from Mongolia to Europe, and it was not possible to feed such a number of horses.

If we take a sensible look at this situation, then the following picture emerges:

For each "Tatar-Mongol" war, there were about 2-3 horses, plus you need to count the horses (mules, bulls, donkeys) that were in the carts. So, no grass would be enough to feed the Tatar-Mongolian cavalry stretched for tens of kilometers, since the animals that were at the forefront of this horde had to devour all the fields and leave nothing for those who follow behind. Since it was not possible to stretch a lot or go different routes, because. from this, the numerical advantage would be lost and it would be unlikely that the nomads would have even reached that same Georgia, not to mention Kievan Rus and Europe.

PROOF FOUR

The invasion of the Golden Horde into Europe

According to modern historians who adhere to the official version of events, in March 1241 from R.Kh. "Tatar-Mongols" invade Europe and capture part of the territory of Poland, namely the cities of Krakow, Sandomierz and Wroclaw, bringing with them destruction, robbery and murder.

I would also like to note a very interesting aspect of this event. Approximately in April of the same year, the road to the "Tatar-Mongolian" army was blocked by Henry II with his ten thousandth army, for which he paid with a crushing defeat. The Tatars used strange military tricks for that time against the troops of Henry II, thanks to which they won, namely, some kind of smoke and fire - "Greek fire":

"And when they saw a Tatar running out with a banner - and this banner looked like an "X", and on top of it was a head with a long beard shaking, filthy and stinking smoke from the mouth of the Poles - everyone was amazed and horrified, and rushed to run in all directions could, and so they were defeated ... "

After that, the "Tatar-Mongols" sharply deploy their offensive to the South and invade the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia and finally break through to the Adriatic Sea. But in none of these countries the "Tatar-Mongols" try to resort to subjugation and taxation of the population. Somehow it makes no sense - why was it then to capture ?! And the answer is very simple, because. before us is a pure deceit, or rather a falsification of events. Strange as it may seem, these events coincide with the military campaign of Frederick II, Emperor of the Roman Empire. So the absurdity does not end there, then a much more interesting turn takes place. As it turns out later, the "Tatar-Mongols" turned out to be also allies with Frederick II, when he fought with the Pope - Gregory X, and Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary - defeated by wild nomads, were on the side of Pope Gregory X in that conflict. And on the departure of the "Tatar-Mongol" from Europe in 1242 AD. for some reason, the crusader troops went to war against Russia, as well as against Frederick II, whom they successfully defeated and stormed the capital Aachen to crown their emperor there. Coincidence? I don't think.

This version of events is far from believable. But if instead of the "Tatar-Mongol" Rus invaded Europe, then everything falls into place ...

And there are far from four such proofs, as we have presented to you above - there are many more of them, just if you mention each one, then this will not turn out to be an article, but a whole book.

As a result, it turns out that no Tatar-Mongols from Central Asia have ever captured or enslaved us, and the Golden Horde - Tartaria, was a huge Slavic-Aryan Empire of that time. In fact, we are the same TATARS who kept the whole of Europe in fear and horror.