Project calendar of historical events Kulikovo battle. Memorable Dates Project: Battle of Kulikovo

The Russians, led by the Grand Duke of Moscow and Vladimir Dmitry Donskoy, defeated the Mongol-Tatar army under the command of Mamai.

COURSE OF EVENTS

The result of the reign of Ivan Kalita (1325-1340) was a significant strengthening of Moscow's position in northeastern Russia. Attempts to transfer the collection of tribute to the Grand Duke of Vladimir were made earlier, but such an order was fixed only from the reign of Ivan Kalita. The Tver uprising of 1327 drew a line under the activities of the Baskaks in Russia. The collection of tribute by the Russian prince was not accompanied by such violence as the Horde did. The population sighed more calmly. The Khan, receiving a regular exit from the Horde, was also pleased and did not send punitive detachments to Russia. Forty years (1328-1367), as the chronicler noted, "prestasha the Tatars to fight the Russian land." During this time, a generation of new Russian people grew up: they did not see the horror of the Horde pogrom and were not afraid of the Tatars. These people could already take up the sword to defend their right to freedom.

In 1359, during the plague epidemic, the throne of Moscow, by the will of fate, went to a nine-year-old boy, Dmitry Ivanovich. Never before has a child been given a golden label for the great reign of Vladimir in Russia subject to the Horde. Therefore, the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich went to the Horde and begged for a golden label. However, even his own relatives did not support Dmitry Konstantinovich in this matter, and the Moscow boyars and Metropolitan Alexei in 1362 achieved the return of the golden label to Moscow. Obviously, at the same time, the young Moscow prince Dmitry visited the Golden Horde.

The rivalry between the Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod rulers ended in 1367 with peace and even an alliance. Moscow Prince Dmitry promised to help Dmitry of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod suppress the speech of his rebellious brother. The Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince gave his daughter to Dmitry of Moscow and recognized him as "the elder brother." The alliance with the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality was very important, for Moscow was preparing for a war with Tver.

On the eve of the war, a stone Kremlin was erected in Moscow in 2 years (1367). It was built after the “All Saints” fire (it happened on the day of memory of all Saints, hence its name) from white limestone and large bricks. Limestone was transported in winter on sledges, and in summer along the river from quarries located near the village of Myachkova, 30 km from the capital. Some researchers believe that the new Kremlin was not entirely made of stone; it partially retained wooden structures. However, in Nizovaya Rus it was the first stone fortress. She spoke about the power and wealth of the Moscow rulers.

In turn, from the end of the 1350s. in the Golden Horde there was a big civil strife. Sources call it the "great zamyatne". The Horde has split. In the Volga part of it, the khans changed almost every year. In the southern - Black Sea Horde, the shadow ruler Mamai strengthened. He was a temnik and ruled on behalf of the minor Chingizid khans. During the years of the "great commemoration" the Horde was very weakened. In 1362, at the battle of Blue Waters, Olgerd defeated her and took South Russia. But worse than external defeats were internal conspiracies and unrest. They tormented the country, deprived it of its former strength. For two decades, more than 20 Genghisides have been on the throne of the Volga Horde. The central government has weakened. Many princes and murzas are accustomed to live by robbery. Taking advantage of the "zamyatnee" in the Horde, Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tver decided to ask for a golden label. Michael also counted on military aid his relative - the Grand Duke of Lithuania and Russia Olgerd (Olgerd was married to a Tver princess.)

In the course of the struggle for the golden label, Prince Mikhail of Tver ended up in a Moscow dungeon for a while. Mikhail arrived in Moscow in 1368 for negotiations under the "guarantees" of his security given by Metropolitan Alexei, but was arrested. Of course, Mikhail had to be released soon, and the struggle continued with the participation of Lithuania in it. Various Horde khans also turned out to be participants in Russian strife. Some of them supported Tver, while others supported Moscow.

Olgerd made two trips to Moscow. The Moscow chronicles called Olgerd's invasions the first and second Lithuanian regions. In both cases, Olgerd burned the outskirts of Moscow and besieged the city. But he failed to take the new Kremlin. Meanwhile, Mikhail of Tverskoy received a golden label (1371), but the inhabitants of Vladimir did not let him into their city. And the Moscow prince Dmitry said: “I’m not going to the label, but I don’t let go to the land to reign for the great.”

In 1371, Prince Dmitry of Moscow traveled to the south of the Horde to visit Temnik Mamai. Mamai retreated from Mikhail Tverskoy. And already in 1375, the Moscow regiments, with the blessing of Metropolitan Alexei, besieged Tver. The Yaroslavl, Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov principalities and a number of other destinies acted in alliance with Moscow. He supported Dmitry of Moscow and one of the specific princes of Tver - Kashinsky. As a result, according to the agreement of 1375, the golden label remained with the Moscow prince. The great princedom of Vladimir was recognized as the "patrimony" of the Moscow princes. Prince Mikhail of Tver called himself a vassal - "young brother" of Dmitry of Moscow.

Was in the Moscow-Tver Treaty of 1375 and one more significant moment. “If God changes the Horde” and the Moscow prince begins to fight with it, then the Tver monarch should also oppose the Horde. So Moscow took the first step not only towards gathering Russian lands around itself, but also in preparing the struggle for their liberation from the Horde. In general, in the course of the rivalry for the golden label with Tver, Moscow strengthened its position. The authority and strength of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich grew.

However, the main event of Russian history of the XIV century. was the Battle of Kulikovo. It was preceded by two clashes with the Horde. In 1377, Prince Arapsha (Khan Arab Shah) was preparing for an attack on the Nizhny Novgorod lands. Information about this leaked to Russia. A united army of Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir, Muscovites, Murom, Yaroslavl came out to meet Arapsha. Arapsha did not appear. The soldiers took off their armor. They began to hunt in the surrounding forests, had fun and feasted in the camp near the Pyana River. Prince Dmitry of Moscow decided that the Arapsha raid would not take place, and left for his capital. As a result, the unexpected attack of the Tatars led the Russians to defeat. Nizhny Novgorod, left without protection, was plundered. Other cities were also affected.

The next year, 1378, Mamai sent a new army to Russia under the command of Murza Begich. A battle broke out on the Vozha River. This time, the Moscow troops, led by Dmitry, acted in a coordinated and decisive manner. The Horde were defeated and fled. The defeat of the Tatars on the Vozha did not contribute to strengthening the authority of Mamai. Temnik was going to take revenge. He was used to power and did not want to lose it, and meanwhile, Khan Tokhtamysh, a protege of the mighty Central Asian Emir Timur, had already begun to gather the Horde uluses into his fist. Only a resounding victory gave Mamai a chance to resist in the fight against Tokhtamysh for the Horde.

Tokhtamysh was a descendant of Batu's brother - the Horde of Ichen. Expelled from the Zayaitskaya Horde, he regained its throne, and also seized the throne in the Volga ulus with the help of the powerful Central Asian ruler Timur Lang (Khromts), known in Europe as Tamerlane. The vassal of Tamerlane Tokhtamysh hoped to restore the unity and strength of the Golden Horde.

The decisive confrontation was approaching. In the fall, Mamai led a 150,000-strong army to Russia. In Cafe, a Genoese colony in the Crimea (modern Feodosia), Mamai hired a detachment of armored Western European infantry. Temnik also secured an alliance with the great Lithuanian prince Jagiello Olgerdovich and the Ryazan prince Oleg. But the allies were in no hurry to connect with Mamai, they waited. Jagiello did not benefit from either the strengthening of Moscow or the victory of the Horde. Oleg was forced to play the role of an ally in order to save his land from plunder. Ryazan was closest to the Horde. Oleg told the Tatars the fords on the Oka, and Dmitry Moskovsky about the Tatars' advancement path.

Numerous - up to 150 thousand - Russian army came out to meet the Horde. (True, many historians believe that the number of both Tatars and Russians is overestimated by the chroniclers). Never before has Russia led such a number of warriors to fight. Vigilantes and militias from many Russian lands went to the Don. There were no Tver, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod and Novgorod regiments among them, although it is possible that some residents of these lands participated in the battle on the Kulikovo field. From Lithuania, two brothers Jogaila came with regiments to support Dmitry - the eldest sons of Olgerd, Orthodox princes Dmitry and Andrei, who were sitting in Bryansk and Polotsk.

Dmitry of Moscow and his cousin Vladimir Serpukhovsky were blessed to fight the Tatars by the Russian ascetic monk, founder of the Trinity Monastery Sergius of Radonezh . Through his lips, the Russian Church for the first time called for the fight against the Horde. Perhaps that is why the memory of St. Sergius. Two monks of the Trinity Monastery in the past boyars - Peresvet and Oslyabya went along with the Russian army towards the Horde. The blessing of Sergius was very important for Prince Dmitry of Moscow. He had a conflict with the new Russian Metropolitan Cyprian. The prince expelled the metropolitan from Moscow, and he imposed an anathema (curse) on Dmitry.

The bloody battle happened on September 8, 1380 (By the way, some modern historians doubt that the battle took place on the Kulikovo field near the Don. This must be mentioned, since so far, despite all the efforts of archaeologists, no material has been found on the Kulikovo field " confirmation of the "battle: no burial grounds, no weapons - only one chain mail and a helmet. Some historians (for example, V.A. Kuchkin) suggest that the battle may have been in Moscow on Kulishy). In addition to Dmitry, his cousin Vladimir Serpukhovskoy and the governor from the Galicia-Volyn land Dmitry Bobrok directly led the battle. The Russian regiments lined up in their traditional formation - the eagle. But at the same time, about a third of the troops were left in ambush and in reserve. The Russians burned the bridges over the Don at the suggestion of the Lithuanian princes, so that the weak in spirit would not be tempted to flee from the battlefield.

The battle began with a duel of heroes: the monk Alexander from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (formerly a resident of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, the Bryansk boyar - Peresvet) and the Horde hero Chelubey. The knights hit each other with spears, Chelubey fell to the ground, the horse of the Russian hero brought the dead rider to his camp.

Tatar horsemen went on the attack. They crushed the Russian Guard Regiment. Grand Duke Dmitry fought in armor simple war in the Advance Regiment. The soldiers of this regiment almost all fell. Dmitry was hardly found after the battle: the prince lay unconscious, crushed by a tree cut down in the battle. The Horde initially managed to break through the Russian left flank. They rushed to the rear of the Big Regiment. However, here the reorganized Bolshoi Regiment and reserve detachments blocked their path.

Then, unexpectedly, a numerous Ambush Regiment led by Vladimir Serpukhovsky and Dmitry Bobrok fell upon the Tatars. Mamai's nukers fled, sweeping away their own reinforcements. Neither the eastern cavalry nor the Genoese mercenary infantrymen saved Mamai. Mamai was defeated and fled.

The Russians stood up, as they said then, “on the bones”, that is, they left the battlefield behind them. They have won. Dmitry, nicknamed Donskoy since then, did not pursue Mamai.

Near the Kalka River, the remnants of Mamaev's troops were defeated for the second time by Khan Tokhtamysh. Mamai tried to hide in the Genoese colony of Cafe, but the townspeople killed the temnik, wanting to take possession of his treasury.

Prince Dmitry Donskoy safely returned with his army to Russia. True, the Russian regiments suffered considerable losses. The chronicler wrote: "Oskuda bo the whole Russian land from the Mamaev battle beyond the Don."

The victory on the Kulikovo field did not bring liberation from the yoke of North-Eastern Russia. Khan Tokhtamysh, who united the Golden Horde under his rule, demanded obedience from Russia. In 1382, he took Moscow by deceit, burned it and killed the inhabitants.

Dmitry Donskoy, confident in the fortress stone Kremlin left the capital. Muscovites were going to fight, despite the fact that Metropolitan Cyprian, the grand ducal family and individual boyars fled the city. The townspeople chose as their leader the 18-year-old Lithuanian prince Ostei, who happened to be in Moscow. Ostei organized the defense, put “mattresses” on the walls (they were either stone-throwing machines, or already guns). Tokhtamysh's attempt to storm Moscow was repulsed. Then the Khan went to the trick. The Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod princes (brothers of the Moscow princess) who came with Tokhtamysh swore that the Tatars wanted to punish only the "disobedient" Prince Dmitry. And since he is not in the city, then the Horde will not touch anyone if the Muscovites voluntarily let the khan into the capital and bring gifts. Perhaps the Nizhny Novgorod princes themselves believed the words of Tokhtamysh. Muscovites believed and paid for it with their lives. The delegation with gifts led by Ostey was hacked to death, the Horde broke into the city through the open gates, killed people, and burned the city.

Other Russian lands also suffered from the invasion of Tokhtamysh. The cousin of Dmitry Donskoy, Vladimir Serpukhovskoy, came out to meet the Khan with an army. After the Battle of Kulikovo, he was nicknamed Vladimir the Brave. Without waiting for the battle with him, Khan Tokhtamysh went to the steppe, but the Russian principalities were forced to recognize again their dependence on the Horde.

However, over time (in the first half of the 15th century), the payment of tribute became irregular, and the khans almost did not control the fate of the golden yarlyk: the yarlyk was in the hands of the Moscow princes. The Golden Horde itself failed to restore its former unity and power. The horde was weakening and splitting. She was consumed by internal internecine strife. In the end, by the middle of the XV century. The Golden Horde broke up into the Crimean Khanate, the Kazan Khanate, the Great Horde, the Nogai Horde and the Siberian Khanate. The Great Horde claimed the legacy of the Golden, sought to rally the Tatar khanates again. From Russia, the Great Horde demanded tribute, but the Grand Dukes of Moscow and Vladimir rarely paid her a real Horde output. More often limited to the so-called "commemoration" (gifts). The question of the fall of the yoke has already become a matter of time.

Soon after the invasion of Tokhtamysh, Dmitry Ivanovich sent his son Vasily to the Horde to receive a label for him. After fulfilling the condition for the resumption of payment of tribute, the label remained with Dmitry. Before his death, he bequeathed the great reign to his son Vasily as a "fatherland". Vasily continued the policy aimed at expanding the Moscow principality. In 1390, he went to the Horde and bought a label for the Nizhny Novgorod principality there, in addition, Murom became part of Moscow. Ryazan was gradually drawn into the orbit of Moscow politics. The son of Oleg of Ryazan, Fedor, was married to Vasily's sister.

Nevertheless, with constant strife in the Horde, it was difficult for the Moscow prince to keep a good relationship with the Tatars. After the invasion of Moscow in 1382, Tokhtamysh ruled the Horde for a short time. He quarreled with his benefactor - the Samarkand ruler Timur (Timur Lang (lame) - Tamerlane). Having strengthened himself in the Horde, Tokhtamysh decided not to be Timur's vassal anymore. He moved his regiments to the Horde. The alliance with the powerful Grand Duke of Lithuania Vitovt did not help Tokhtamysh either. Decisive battle on the river. Vorskla (1399) Vitovt and Tokhtamysh lost. In that battle, by the way, many heroes of the Battle of Kulikovo fell, for example, governor Dmitry Bobrok died.

During the struggle between Timur and Tokhtamysh, Russia was exposed to terrible dangers. In 1395, Tamerlane invaded its borders and burned Yelets. Everyone was terrified ... An army led by the Moscow prince came out to meet the enemy, but they hoped not so much for weapons as for prayer and a miracle. The battle did not happen: Tamerlane returned to the East, the Asian conqueror was attracted by wealth Asian countries. The Russians attributed good luck to a miracle created by the icon of the Mother of God. The forces of Russia were exhausted not by chance, the emerging union of Moscow and the Lithuanian prince Vitovt did not take place. The misfortunes did not end there. Timur's henchman, the Golden Horde Khan Edigey, ruined Russia in 1408. Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov, Dmitrov, Serpukhov were taken. Around Moscow, the khan burned everything and captured thousands of people. But this time the white-stone Kremlin resisted and, having received a tribute, Edigey went to the Horde ...

For the most part, foreign researchers evaluate the results of Dmitry's reign modestly: the attempt to liberate Russia failed.

The majority of domestic scientists consider the time of Dmitry Donskoy a turning point in Russian history: the issue of a center uniting the North-Eastern Russian lands was resolved - Moscow finally became it. The nature of Russia's dependence after the Battle of Kulikovo began to change - the yoke was steadily weakening. However, even among Russian historians There are opponents of this view. Below are arguments for both approaches.

N.I. Kostomarov about Prince Dmitry Donskoy and his time:

“The reign of Dmitry Donskoy belongs to the most unfortunate and sad eras in the history of the long-suffering Russian people. Incessant devastation and devastation, either from external enemies, or from internal strife, followed one after another on an enormous scale. Moscow land, apart from minor ruins, was twice devastated by the Lithuanians, and then suffered an invasion of the Horde of Tokhtamysh; Ryazan land - suffered twice from the Tatars, twice from the Muscovites and was brought to extreme ruin; Tverskaya - several times ruined by Muscovites; Smolenskaya - suffered from both Muscovites and Lithuanians; Novgorod land - suffered ruin from the Tverites and Muscovites. This was joined by physical disasters (plague epidemic, droughts in 1365, 1371, 1373 and famine, fires) ...

Dmitry himself was not a prince capable of alleviating the plight of the people with the wisdom of government; whether he acted on his own behalf or at the suggestion of his boyars, a number of blunders are visible in his actions. Following the task of subordinating the Russian lands to Moscow, he not only did not know how to achieve his goals, but even let slip what circumstances brought him; he did not destroy the strength and independence of Tver and Ryazan, he did not know how to get along with them ...; Dmitry only irritated them and subjected the innocent inhabitants of these lands to needless ruin; irritated the Horde, but did not take advantage of its temporary ruin ... did not take measures to defend against danger (in 1382); and the consequence of all his activities was that the devastated Russia again had to crawl and humiliate itself before the dying Horde.

CM. Solovyov about Prince Dmitry and his time:

“In 1389, the Grand Duke of Moscow Dimitri died, still only 39 years old. Dimitri's grandfather, uncle, and father, in silence, prepared rich resources for an open, decisive struggle. The merit of Demetrius was that he knew how to use these means, knew how to deploy the prepared forces and put them to good use in time. The best evidence of the particular importance attached to the activities of Demetrius by his contemporaries is the existence of a special legend about the exploits of this prince, a special, decorated written life of him ...

Important consequences of Demetrius' activities are found in his spiritual testament; in it we meet a previously unheard of order: the Moscow prince blesses his eldest son Vasily with the great princedom of Vladimir, which he calls his fatherland. Donskoy is no longer afraid of rivals for his son either from Tver or from Suzdal ...

Speaking about the importance of the reign of Dimitriev in the history of North-Eastern Russia, we should not forget about the activities of the boyars of Moscow: they, taking advantage of the circumstances, defended the rights of their young prince and their principality ... The latter did not remain ungrateful to people who so much wanted him well ... "

Almost all graduates of Russian schools know: before going to the Kulikovo field, Dmitry Ivanovich Moskovsky went north, to the Trinity Monastery. The purpose of such a maneuver, it seems, is clear to everyone: the prince went to receive the blessing of Sergius of Radonezh for his feat. And even those who do not remember other details of the battle will undoubtedly tell that before this battle, the duel of the monk Peresvet, sent by the holy elder to support the Moscow prince, took place with a certain Chelubey.

At the same time, as a rule, few people think why Dmitry Donskoy, in a hurry to meet the enemy in order to prevent the unification of Mamai's detachments with the army of the Lithuanian prince Jagiello, headed in the diametrically opposite direction. The illogicality of such actions of Dmitry Ivanovich is obvious: from Moscow to Kolomna (where a meeting was scheduled for the detachments that marched on the Kulikovo field) in a straight line 103 kilometers; from Moscow to the Trinity Monastery - 70 kilometers, and from the Trinity to Kolomna - another 140 kilometers. Thus, the "hurrying" Grand Duke of Moscow decided to more than double his journey, which now, by the standards of that time, should have been at least two weeks! It is difficult to explain this logically. Of course, one can accept the point of view of Viktor Fyodorovich Shatalov, the famous innovator of his time, who once convinced schoolchildren that by doing so Dmitry wanted to mislead the enemy. But then it is necessary, at least, to come up with a way by which, in the XIV century, Mamai and Jagiello could receive news of the strange movements of the Moscow prince in a timely manner. And it's really hard...

The oddities, however, don't end there. It remains unclear what made Dmitry Ivanovich strive to receive the blessing of Sergius, and not his nephew Theodore, rector of the Simonov Monastery, which was located very close (next to modern station metro station "Avtozavodskaya" Yes, and how could one hope for the blessing of Sergius or Theodore, if only two years before that, apparently, they supported Metropolitan Alexei, who was in conflict with Dmitry because of the latter’s desire to appoint his approximate Mityai to the metropolis at all costs - Michael? After all, it was to them, to Sergius and Theodore, that the next, "legitimate" Metropolitan Cyprian also addressed: the earth has become. I, by the will of God and the election of a great and holy council and the appointment of an ecumenical patriarch, have been appointed metropolitan to the whole Russian land, about which the whole universe knows. And now I went with all sincerity and goodwill to the great prince (Dmitry Ivanovich. - I. D.). And he sent your ambassadors so as not to let me through, and also forced outposts, gathering detachments and placing the governor in front of them; and what evil I should do, and moreover, betray us to death without mercy, he taught and ordered them. But I, more worried about his dishonor and soul, went a different way, hoping for my sincerity and for my love, which I had for the great prince, and for his princess, and for his children. And is there such evil left as whom he did not inflict on me! Blasphemy and abuse, ridicule, robbery, hunger! He imprisoned me naked and hungry at night. And after that cold night, I still suffer. My servants - in addition to much and evil that they were inflicted by releasing them on nags broken without saddles, in clothes made of bast - the robbed were taken out of the city and to the shirt, and to the pants, and to the underpants; neither boots nor hats were left on them!

This message, dated June 23, 1378, concludes with a curse: “But since I and my hierarchship have been subjected to such dishonor, by the power of grace given to me from the Most Holy and Life-Giving Trinity, according to the rules of the holy fathers and divine apostles, those who are involved in my detention, imprisonment, dishonor and reproach, and those who gave advice on this, may they be excommunicated and unblessed by me, Cyprian, the Metropolitan of All Russia, and cursed, according to the rules of the holy fathers! 1 In other words, according to most researchers, Dmitry Ivanovich was then excommunicated and cursed 2 . True, neither Sergius nor Theodore Cyprian was supported at that moment. As V. A. Kuchkin notes, “at the moment of a decisive clash between the Grand Duke of Moscow and the metropolitan appointed in Constantinople, they did not have the courage to intercede for their spiritual master and condemn the secular ruler, but Sergius (unlike Fedor) did not change his principled line , a few months later vouching for Dionysius" 3 . Nevertheless, all this makes the blessing of Dmitry by Abbot Sergius problematic.

What actually happened at the end of the summer of 1380? Can we install it? And, most importantly, to understand whether Sergius of Radonezh really played an almost decisive role in the speech of Dmitry of Moscow against Mamai?

To answer these questions, we must turn to historical sources that brought us information about those events.

For many decades, ancient Russian scribes have repeatedly referred to the battle that took place in 1380 on the Kulikovo field. His descriptions over time acquired more and more details, so that approximately by the middle of the 15th century they would acquire the form that fully corresponds to the current "average" ideas about the Mamaev battle. The sources united in the so-called monuments of the Kulikovo cycle include chronicle stories, "Zadonshchina", "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev", as well as "The Tale of the Life and Repose of Dmitry Ivanovich".

The history of these monuments is built, for the most part, on the basis of textual observations. However, the relationships between the texts of these sources are so complex that they do not allow one to draw unambiguous conclusions. Therefore, the dating of individual works of this cycle are approximate.

The earliest are the texts of the annalistic story about the Battle of Kulikovo. They were preserved in two editions: short (as part of the Simeon Chronicle, Rogozhsky Chronicle and the Moscow Academic List of the Suzdal Chronicle) and lengthy (as part of the Sofia First and Novgorod Fourth Chronicles). Nowadays, it is generally accepted that the short edition, which appeared approximately at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century, preceded all other stories about the Battle of Kulikovo. The lengthy edition of the chronicle narrative, which, according to most researchers, could have appeared no earlier than the 1440s 4, was clearly influenced by later texts. Among them is, in particular, "Zadonshchina". The arguments cited by researchers who are trying to determine the time of the appearance of this poetic description of the Mamaev battle include all conceivable arguments, up to the recognition of the “emotional perception of events” as evidence in favor of its creation by a “contemporary, and possibly participant” of the battle 5 . On the other hand, the most recent dates refer its text to the middle - second half of the 15th century.

The latest and at the same time the most extensive monument of the Kulikovo cycle is, by all accounts, "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev". It is known in approximately one and a half hundred lists, none of which has preserved the original text. The dates of the "Tale" have a "scatter" from the end of the XIV - the first half of the XV century 6 to the 1530-1540s 7 . Apparently, the dating proposed by V. A. Kuchkin and refined by B. M. Kloss is the most conclusive. According to her, the "Tale" appeared no earlier than 1485, most likely in the second decade of the 16th century 8 . Accordingly, the reliability of the information given in the "Tale" causes serious controversy.

An appeal to these sources gives a fairly complete picture of when and why the ancient Russian scribes "remembered" that it was Sergius of Radonezh who inspired Dmitry Donskoy to fight the "godless, wicked Orda prince" Mamai.

In the earliest narrative "about the warrior and about the massacre on the Don" we do not find any mention of the name of Sergius.<…>At the same time, "Alexander PeresvҌt" is mentioned among those who fell on the battlefield, although there is no indication yet that he was a monk. And it is unlikely that the monk would be mentioned with the non-calendar name Peresvet.

The text of the poetic story about the Battle of Mamaev, usually referred to as "Zadonshchina", is much less often used to reconstruct the circumstances of the battle at the mouth of the Nepryadva. But it was here that for the first time Peresvet was called "dark" and "old man" - however, only in the later lists of the 17th century, obviously influenced by the "Tale of the Mamaev Battle"; before that, he was just a "Bryansk boyar". Oslyabya appears next to him - and also with a pagan, non-calendar name, which the monk could not be called.<…>According to the fair remark of the publishers, Oslyaby's appeal to Peresvet as a brother emphasizes that both of them are monks. However, the monastery, of which they were allegedly tonsured, is not named here.

The first mention of Sergius of Radonezh in connection with the Battle of Kulikovo is found in a lengthy annalistic story: two days before the battle, Dmitry Ivanovich allegedly "received a letter from the venerable hegumen Sergius and from the holy elder a blessing; the blessing is written in this, telling him to fight from Totary:" So that Thou shalt go, sir, and God and the Holy Mother of God help you." 11. We find in this story the name of Alexander Peresvet with a new clarification: "the former boyarin Bryansky" 12. But the name Oslyaby is not here, just as there is no mention of that Peresvet is now a monk.

One can only guess how the message of Sergius, which is being discussed here, fell into the hands of Dmitry Donskoy. A prime example such conjectures, obviously based only on the "intuition of the heart", which is resorted to by some authors who are trying to "guess what reason does not give an answer to" 13, are the reasoning of A. L. Nikitin. In his opinion, the only envoy who could deliver Sergius' letter to the Grand Duke was Alexander Peresvet. The basis for such a conjecture is a number of assumptions and assumptions, none of which is based on sources known to us: here is the assumption that the Dmitrievsky Ryazhsky Monastery could be founded exactly at the place where the message of Sergius of Radonezh caught up with the Moscow prince, and the fact that Dmitry Ivanovich himself could have ended up in this place, since he “followed the initial report of the scouts that the Horde were in the upper reaches of the Tsna”, and the fact that Prince Dmitry Olgerdovich could send Peresvet, and Peresvet himself could travel from Pereslavl, and on the way he "could not help but spend the night" in the Trinity Monastery, where he - "quite naturally" - the hegumen "could give ... a" letter "to the Moscow prince" ... However, the author of these speculative constructions himself concludes, "I do not insist that that this is exactly what happened, but this is the only possible explanation for the fact that Peresvet turned out to be so closely connected by tradition with St. Sergius, and the feat of arms of the Bryansk boyar acquired truly epic proportions." Only in this way, in the opinion of this author, “the fluctuations of the authors and editors of the narratives about the Battle of Kulikovo between the “monk”, “dark” and “boyar” become clear, since - following the logic - who, if not his monk, Sergius could send to the Grand Duke " fourteen . However, such constructions are unlikely to have anything to do with science: the number of "possibilities" here is inversely proportional to the degree of reliability of the results obtained.

The detailed story familiar to us about the visit of Dmitry Ivanovich to the Trinity Abbot appears only in the "Tale of the Battle of Mamaev", more than a hundred years after the famous battle<…>In this story, Sergius also justifies Dmitry's delay related to his arrival at the monastery, and predicts a quick victory over the enemy, who - unexpectedly - turns out to be some "Polovtsy". And Peresvet and Oslyabya are no longer just monks, but hermits who have taken the "third tonsure" - the great schema (which, by the way, forbade them to take up arms). Dmitry Ivanovich, according to the "Tale", does not immediately go to Kolomna, but first calls in Moscow to inform Metropolitan Cyprian (who in fact could not be in Moscow at that time) about the blessing of Sergius of Radonezh - which further delays his speech on approaching enemy. Moreover, from the further narration it follows that already on the Kulikovo field, a certain "ambassador with books" from Sergius of Radonezh caught up with the prince. What made the author of the "Tale" depart from what we call a reliable story, and assign such a large role to Sergius of Radonezh (and at the same time to Metropolitan Cyprian)?

Apparently, all these additions are connected primarily with the time when the Tale was written - when, after the liquidation of the independence of Novgorod in 1478, Ivan III annexed not only the lands of the Novgorod boyars, but also part of the land holdings of the Novgorod church. These actions of the Moscow prince alerted the representatives of the church. In the same year, a conflict arose between Ivan III and Metropolitan Gerontius over the management of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. In 1479, the Grand Duke accused the Metropolitan of having wrongly committed procession during the consecration of the Assumption Cathedral (he went against the movement of the sun), but the metropolitan did not admit his mistake. Then Ivan III forbade him to consecrate new churches in Moscow. Gerontius left for the Simonov Monastery and threatened that he would not return if the Grand Duke did not "finish him with his forehead." The Grand Duke, who had just with difficulty liquidated the rebellion of the brothers - specific princes, had to maneuver. He needed the support of the church, and therefore was forced to send his son to negotiate with the metropolitan. Gerontius, however, was firm in his position. Ivan III I had to retreat: he promised to continue to listen to the metropolitan and not interfere in the affairs of the church.

The ideological basis for building new relations with the state for the church was the precedent with an attempt by Dmitry Donskoy to put his protege, Mityai-Michael, on the metropolitan throne, because of which there was a conflict with Cyprian, which we mentioned at the very beginning of the article. For this purpose, the "Tale of Mityai" was included in the annals of the 1470-1480s, in which the intervention of secular authorities in matters that were the prerogative of the church was condemned. At the same time, the church made every effort to emphasize its role in the fight against the Horde in the eyes of contemporaries and descendants. That is why the legendary episodes about the blessing of Dmitry Donskoy by Sergius of Radonezh and about sending two "monks" to battle: Oslyabi and Peresvet were inserted into the "Legend of the Mamaev Battle" and. So Sergius of Radonezh became not only the organizer of the monastic reform, which played a huge role in raising the authority of the church in general and the monasteries in particular, but also the inspirer of the victory of the Moscow prince on the Kulikovo field.

Notes
1. Epistle of Metropolitan Cyprian to Abbots Sergius and Theodore // Library of Literature of Ancient Russia. T. b. XIV - the middle of the XV century. SPb. 1999, pp. 413, 423.
2. In addition, according to T. R. Galimov, the issue of excommunication by Metropolitan Cyprian Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy requires additional study.
See: Galimov T. R. The question of the excommunication of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy from the second epistle of Metropolitan Cyprian.
3. Kuchkin V. A. Sergius of Radonezh // Questions of history. 1992. No. 10. S. 85.
4. Sometimes its dating is "rejuvenated" to the middle of the 15th century. See: Orlov A.S. Literary sources of the Tale of the Mamaev Battle / / Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. T. 2. M.; L. 1935. S. 157-162; cf.: Dictionary of scribes and
literacy of ancient Russia. Part 2. Issue. 2. The second half of the XIV-XVI centuries. L. 1989. S. 245.
5. Dmitriev L. A. Literary history of the monuments of the Kulikovo cycle // Legends and stories about the Battle of Kulikovo. L. 1982. S. 311, 327-330.
6. Grekov I. B. On the original version of the "Tale of the Mamaev Battle" // Soviet Slavic Studies. 1970. No. b.
pp. 27-36; He is. Eastern Europe and the decline of the Golden Horde. M. 1975. S. 316-317, 330-332,431-442; Azbelev S. N. The Tale of the Battle of Kulikovo in the Novgorod Annals of Dubrovsky // Chronicles and Chronicles: Sat. articles. 1973. M. 1974. S. 164-172; He is. 06 Oral sources of chronicle texts: On the material of the Kulikovo cycle / / Chronicles and Chronicles: Sat. articles. 1976. M. 1976. S. 78-101; He is. 06 Oral sources of chronicle texts: Based on the Kulikovo cycle // Chronicles and Chronicles. Sat. articles. 1980. M. 1981. S. 129-146 and others.
7. Mingalev V. S. "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev" and its sources / / Avtoref. dis.... cand. ist. Sciences. M.; Vilnius. 1971. S. 12-13.
8. V. A. Kuchkin proceeds from the mention in the "Tale" of the Constantino-Eleninsky gates of the Moscow Kremlin, which until 1490 were called Timofeevsky. See: V. A. Kuchkin. Victory on the Kulikovo field//Voprosy istorii. 1980. No. 8.
S. 7; He is. Dmitry Donskoy and Sergius of Radonezh on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo // Church, Society and State in Feudal Russia: Sat. articles. M. 1990. S. 109-114. B. M. Kloss, on the other hand, attributes the "Tale" to the Kolomna Bishop Mitrofan and dates the monument to 1513-1518. See: Kloss B. M. 06 author and time of creation of "The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev" / / 1p memoriam: Collection of memory of Y. S. Lurie. SPb. 1997. S. 259-262.
9. Rogozhsky chronicler//PSRL. T. 15. M. 2000. Stlb. 139.
10. Zadonshchina // Library of Literature of Ancient Russia. T. 6. S. 112.
11. Novgorod fourth chronicle//PSRL. T. 4. 4.1. M. 2000. S. 316; cf .: Sofia first chronicle of the senior version / / PSRL.
T. 6. Issue. 1. M. 2000. Stlb. 461.
12. Novgorod fourth chronicle. S. 321; cf .: Sofia First Chronicle. Stb. 467.
13. Khitrov M. Foreword//Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. SPb. 1992, p. 10.
14. Nikitin A. L. The feat of Alexander Peresvet / Dermeneutics of Old Russian literature of the X-XVI centuries. Sat. 3. M. 1992.
pp. 265-269. Italics are mine throughout. - I.D.
15. That is, it was hard.
16. "This delay of yours will turn into a double help for you. For it is not yet, my lord, that you should wear a crown of death, but in a few years, and for many others crowns are now being woven."
17. That is, more than one attack was met.
18. The legend of the Mamaev battle / / Library of Literature of Ancient Russia. T. 6. S. 150, 152.
19. Ibid. S. 174.

Battle of Kulikovo briefly

Russian man harnesses for a long time, but drives fast

Russian folk proverb

The Battle of Kulikovo took place on September 8, 1380, but this was preceded by a number of important events. Beginning in 1374, relations between Russia and the Horde began to noticeably become more complicated. If earlier the issues of paying tribute and the primacy of the Tatars over all the lands of Russia did not cause discussion, now a situation began to develop when the princes began to feel their own strength, in which they saw an opportunity to repulse the formidable enemy, who long years destroys their lands. It was in 1374 that Dmitry Donskoy actually broke off relations with the Horde, not recognizing Mamai's power over himself. Such free-thinking could not be ignored. The Mongols did not leave.

Background of the Battle of Kulikovo, briefly

Along with the events described above, the death of the Lithuanian king Olgerd occurred. His place was taken by Jagiello, who first of all decided to establish relations with the powerful Horde. As a result, the Mongol-Tatars received a powerful ally, and Russia was squeezed between enemies: from the east by the Tatars, from the west by the Lithuanians. This in no way shook the determination of the Russians to repulse the enemy. Moreover, an army was assembled, headed by Dmitry Bobrok-Valintsev. He made a trip to the lands on the Volga and captured several cities. Which belonged to the Horde.

The next major events that created the prerequisites for the Battle of Kulikovo took place in 1378. It was then that a rumor spread throughout Russia that the Horde had sent a large army in order to punish the recalcitrant Russians. The previous lessons showed that the Mongol-Tatars burn everything in their path, which means that they cannot be allowed into fertile lands. Grand Duke Dmitry gathered a squad and went to meet the enemy. Their meeting took place near the Vozha River. The Russian maneuver had a surprise factor. Never before had the prince's squad descended so deep into the south of the country to fight the enemy. But the fight was inevitable. The Tatars turned out to be unprepared for it. The Russian army won quite easily. This further instilled confidence that the Mongols ordinary people and you can fight them.

Preparation for the battle - the battle of Kulikovo briefly

The events near the Vozha River were the last straw. Mom wanted revenge. He was haunted by the laurels of Batu and new khan dreamed of repeating his feat and walking with fire throughout Russia. Recent events showed that the Russians were not as weak as before, which means that the Mughals needed an ally. He was found fairly quickly. The role of Mamai's allies was:

• King of Lithuania - Jagiello.
• Prince of Ryazan - Oleg.

Historical documents indicate that the prince of Ryazan took a controversial position, trying to guess the winner. To do this, he entered into an alliance with the Horde, but at the same time regularly reported to other principalities information about the movement of the Mongol army. Mamai himself gathered a strong army, which included regiments from all the lands that were controlled by the Horde, including the Crimean Tatars.

Training of Russian troops

The impending events demanded decisive action from the Grand Duke. It was at this moment that it was necessary to assemble a strong army that would be able to repulse the enemy and show the whole world that Russia was not completely conquered. About 30 cities expressed their readiness to provide their squad to the united army. Many thousands of soldiers entered the detachment, commanded by Dmitry himself, as well as other princes:

• Dmitry Bobrok-Volynits
• Vladimir Serpukhovsky
• Andrey Olgerdovich
• Dmitry Olgerdovich

At the same time, the whole country rose to fight. Literally everyone who could hold a sword in their hands was recorded in the squad. Hatred of the enemy became the factor that united the divided Russian lands. Let it be just for a while. The united army advanced to the Don, where it was decided to repulse Mamai.

Battle of Kulikovo - briefly about the course of the battle

On September 7, 1380, the Russian army approached the Don. The position was quite dangerous, since holding the raki had both advantages and disadvantages. Advantage - it was easier to fight against the Mongol-Tatars, since they would have to force the river. The disadvantage is that at any moment Jagiello and Oleg Ryazansky could arrive at the battlefield. In this case, the rear of the Russian army would be completely open. The decision was made the only correct one: the Russian army crossed the Don and burned all the bridges behind them. This managed to secure the rear.

Prince Dmitry resorted to cunning. The main forces of the Russian army lined up in a classical manner. Ahead was a "large regiment", which was supposed to hold back the main onslaught of the enemy, along the edges were a regiment of the right and left hands. At the same time, it was decided to use the Ambush Regiment, which was hidden in the thicket of the forest. This regiment was led by the best princes Dmitry Bobrok and Vladimir Serpukhovsky.

The Battle of Kulikovo began in the early morning of September 8, 1380, as soon as the fog cleared over the Kulikovo field. According to chronicle sources, the battle began with the battle of the heroes. The Russian monk Peresvet fought with the Horde Chelubey. The blow of the spears of the heroes was so strong that both of them died on the spot. After that, the battle began.

Dmitry, despite his status, put on the armor of a simple warrior and stood at the head of the Big Regiment. With his courage, the prince infected the soldiers for the feat that they were to accomplish. The starting onslaught of the Horde was terrible. They threw all the force of their blow onto the regiment of the left hand, where the Russian troops began to noticeably lose ground. At the moment when the army of Mamai broke through the defenses in this place, and also when it began to make a maneuver in order to go into the rear of the main forces of the Russians, the Ambush Regiment entered the battle, which with terrible force and unexpectedly hit the attacking Horde themselves in the rear. The panic began. The Tatars were sure that God himself was against them. Convinced that they killed everyone behind them, they said it was dead russians rise up to fight. In this state, the battle was lost by them quickly enough and Mamai and his horde were forced to hastily retreat. Thus ended the Battle of Kulikovo.

Many people were killed in the battle on both sides. Dmitry himself could not be found for a very long time. Toward evening, when they were dismantling the pipes of the dead from the field, they found the body of the prince. He was alive!

The historical significance of the Battle of Kulikovo

Historical meaning Kulikovo battle cannot be overestimated. For the first time, the myth of the invincibility of the Horde army was broken. If previously it was possible for various armies to succeed in minor battles, then no one has yet managed to defeat the main forces of the Horde.

Important point for the Russian people was that the Battle of Kulikovo, briefly described by us, allowed them to feel faith in themselves. For more than a hundred years, the Mongols forced them to consider themselves second-class citizens. Now this was over, and for the first time, talk began that the power of Mamai and his yoke could be thrown off. These events found expression literally in everything. And it is precisely with this that those cultural transformations that affected all aspects of the life of Russia are largely connected.

The significance of the Battle of Kulikovo also lies in the fact that this victory was perceived by everyone as a sign that Moscow should become the center new country. After all, only after Dmitry Donskoy began to collect land around Moscow, there was a major victory over the Mongols.

For the horde itself, the significance of the defeat on the Kulikovo field was also extremely important. Mamaia lost most of his army, and was soon completely defeated by Khan Takhtomysh. This allowed the Horde to join forces again and feel their own strength and significance in those spaces that had not even thought of resisting it before.

(historiographic notes)

From the annals it is well known that the famous victory on the Kulikovo field was won by the Russians on September 8, 1380, on Saturday, on the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin, beyond the Don, at the “mouth of the Nepryadva”. This river, being the right tributary of the Don, then flowed out of Volovo Lake, located in the central part of the Kulikovo field. The length of Nepryadva is more than fifty kilometers. The battle was at the head of this river, and not near its confluence with the Don, as for a long time it was erroneously believed. I substantiated this circumstance in detail in the reports that were read in Moscow and St. published in the scientific journal Ancient Russia. Questions of Medieval Studies.

This allows, without retelling once again the entire argumentation of the mentioned work, to consider the problems associated with it. topical issues historiography. It is important to find out how the incorrect definition of the place of the battle was established - contrary to the data of the Russian chronicles. The fact is that N. M. Karamzin primarily relied on the annals in his “History of the Russian State”, from which his most educated contemporaries drew information about the details of the Battle of Kulikovo. Nepryadva is mentioned repeatedly when citing sources in the notes of N. M. Karamzin and once even in his main text. There, this river is named after the message about the crossing of the Russian troops across the Don. But it is not said whether the upper or lower reaches of the Nepryadva are meant [Karamzin, p. 69]. Among the readers of N. M. Karamzin were the landowners of the south-east of the Tula province, whose possessions were located at the lower reaches of the Nepryadva, near its confluence with the Don. Local peasants have repeatedly brought to their masters artifacts found during plowing in these places. In addition to pectoral crosses, icons and other antiques, arrowheads and spears came across. The landowners quite reasonably regarded this as an indicator of the hostilities that once took place here.

However, among the military relics, reeds and flintlock pistols still dominated, equally replenishing the home museums of local lovers of antiquity. Their owners did not yet have professional knowledge that would allow them to distinguish in the finds what could really be attributed to the relics of the battle of 1380. On the same Kulikovo field, Russian governors defeated the Crimean Tatars in 1542 [Soloviev, p. 455]. During the Livonian War, Epifansky Uyezd was subjected to Tatar raids more than twenty times. Here there were major battles with the Crimean Tatars in 1571 and 1659 [Fomin, p. 138-133]. In addition, during the Time of Troubles, there were clashes with detachments of Poles and Cossacks. But the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 was the most outstanding event in local history, which is described in detail in the annals. Therefore, local landowners considered the area where ancient weapons were found on their lands to be the arena of the great battle of 1380, interpreting chronicle information in a suitable sense, from which it followed that the battle took place near the “mouth of the Nepryadva”. Although the concept of "mouth of the river" even then had several meanings in Russian, only the place where the Nepryadva flows into the Don seemed suitable. The owners of these lands wanted to consider themselves the heirs of the Field of Russian Glory. Since they were the main interpreters of the chronicle references to the “mouth of the Nepryadva”, their opinion was fixed. This was facilitated by the evolution of the Russian language, where the corresponding meaning of the word "mouth" itself became predominant over time. Academician Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky during his lifetime did not have time to publish the dictionary of the Old Russian language compiled by him. Only at the beginning of the last century, in its last volume, one could read the necessary explanation: "The mouth is the mouth of the river ... the source of the river: to the mouth - at the source." Specifically, the source of the Neva from Lake Ladoga was meant and a reference was made to the monument of the XIV century - the Synodal list of the Novgorod First Chronicle.

But the word "mouth" when designating the source of the river from the lake in medieval texts was fixed not only for the Neva, but also for much longer rivers. Such, for example, are the mouth of the Sheksna or the mouth of the Sukhona. The story about the Ust-Shekhon monastery reported about the transfer of the "city of Belaozero" to a new place "up the Bel ezer from the Shekhon mouth ten fields" 3 . The legend of Paisiy Yaroslavov about the Stone Monastery told about “the great river Sukhona, which flows from the Kubensky Lake to the Icy Sea-Okiyan with its mouth from the beginning of the world”4 (Sukhona is a tributary of the Northern Dvina).

Subsequently, the compilers of dictionaries fixed the traditional meaning of “mouth” - “source of the river”, which became obsolete over time. Suffice it to recall the famous dictionary of Vladimir Ivanovich Dahl: "mouth of the river, source". Or point to a recent dictionary of folk geographical terms: “The mouth ... In old sources it is used in the meanings“ the source of the river from the lake ”...“ the narrow exit from the reservoir ”“. But for more than a hundred years, in almost any textbook of Russian history, one can see a hypothetical map of the battle on the Kulikovo field near the confluence of the Nepryadva into the Don. Variations of this scheme were published both in the works of military historians and in the works of popularizers of the 19th and 20th centuries. [Afremov]7 . The Tula landowner laid the foundation for this, in his youth he was a Decembrist and a writer, and in his old age - a privy councilor and senator, Stepan Dmitrievich Nechaev (1792-1860). From 1817 to 1823, he served as the director of schools in the Tula province and acquired from local peasants curious antiquities found in the ground during plowing. As a landowner, S. D. Nechaev was the hereditary owner of land near the lower reaches of the Nepryadva, in particular, the village of Kulikovka (Shakhovskoye identity), which was one of the many settlements of a similar name located on the Kulikovo field.

For more than five years, he appeared in the most widely read literary and historical magazines in Moscow with a number of articles in which the idea was consistently carried out, which received the final formulation in an article in 1825, published in Nikolai Polevoy's Moscow Telegraph. It is already directly stated there that “in the very center of the battlefield” there was “a village ... belonging to the writer of this article” [Nechaev, 1825, p. 379]. The Nechaev village of Kulikovka was located near Nepryadva, south of the proposed battle site depicted on his diagram. The same name, as I already mentioned, had others settlements Kulikovo fields (there are ten of them in total). One of them was located at an even less significant distance from a noticeable increase in the local relief, four kilometers south of Nepryadva. Nechaev considered it to be the "Red Hill", on which, according to legend, Mamai's headquarters was located on the very day of the Battle of Kulikovo. However, there are no chronicles or other written indications of this. But there is still the village of Red Hill, located on a more significant hill, from which, indeed, a wide view of the central part of the Kulikovo field was opened.

This Red Hill is quite far from the territories that belonged to the mentioned Tula landowners. It is at the headwaters of the Nepryadva, just two kilometers from the left bank of the famous river. As the prominent Tula local historian and archaeologist Nikolai Ivanovich Troitsky (1851-1920) reported in his time, Red Hill was not in the possession of the landowners. It is located "near the upper reaches of the Nepryadva on the land of state-owned peasants in the village of Nikitsky." With this hill, according to the information of N. I. Troitsky, “traditions are connected local residents about Kudeyar, Mamai, etc.” [Troitsky, p. 82]. As you know, not here, but forty kilometers to the east - on the land of the Nechaevs' neighbors on the estate, the Olsufievs - a memorial column was erected in honor of the Kulikovo victory. It was erected there out of respect for the urgent request of the large Tula landowner Dmitry Stepanovich Nechaev (1742-1820), who had died by that time. This is quite clearly evidenced by the text addressed to the governor-general of the Ryazan, Tula, Orel, Voronezh and Tambov provinces A.D. Balashov and dated July 9, 1820, the address of the then civil governor of Tula, Count V.F. Vasiliev.

He wrote that he received “from Mr. Nechaev, a respectable old man, who, according to all historical probabilities, should be the real owner of the very place where the battle and the center of it took place, a notice, in the original presented by this one, that he would consider him the happiest occasion in his life , if this monument, precious to every Russian, according to historical legends, will be built in the dachas of his estate, which preferably retains the probable name of the battle itself over others, it is in the village of Kulikov, in Epifansky district, between the rivers Don and Nepryadva" [Karpova, p. 254]. Shortly before that, the already mentioned son of this venerable elder, a member of the Union of Welfare and one of the Masonic lodges of Moscow, Stepan Dmitrievich Nechaev, published his letter in the journal Vestnik Evropy founded by N. M. Karamzin, which said: “The current governor Count Vladimir Fedorovich Vasiliev was the first to propose the idea of ​​building a decent monument to Dimitry Donskoy on the very site of the famous victory over Mamai on the glorious field of Kulikovo, which lies beyond the rivers Don and Nepryadva ... This patriotic desire was brought to the attention of Mr. Governor-General A. D. Balashev Sovereign Emperor and was awarded the highest approval ...

The famous artist I.P. Martos is now working on the project of this monument, precious to all Russians” [Nechaev, 1820, p. 149]. In the following 1821, the same son of the venerable old man published in the same journal Vestnik Evropy his specific assumptions regarding the exact location of the Battle of Kulikovo9. Later that year, he reproduced on the pages of the same magazine the drawings of eight antique objects found, according to him, on the Kulikovo field. In fact, only one of them is an arrowhead from the 14th century. - indeed, could be associated with the Battle of Kulikovo [Nechaev, 1821b, p. 348-351]. But S. D. Nechaev already then organizes the collection of donations for the erection of the monument. And in 1823, he publishes in this journal descriptions and images found "on the Kulikovo field" and located in the collection of antiquities of the collector V. A. Levshin " ancient weapons"- although it was just a pistol and a reed, which, of course, had nothing to do with the events of 1380 [Nechaev, 1823, p. 307-312]. After the Decembrists were exposed, S.D. Nechaev, who was not directly involved in the investigation, briefly found himself outside the Tula province, and since 1828, under the patronage of Prince P.S. Meshchersky, has been serving in the Synod10. The baton of the main guardians and sponsors of the "memorialization" of the Kulikovo field eventually passes from the Nechaevs to their close neighbors on the estates in the lower reaches of the Nepryadva - the Olsufievs.

The fact is that Alexander and Vasily Dmitrievich Olsufievs received estates on the Kulikovo field in 1843, after the death of their aunt, the childless princess E. A. Dolgoruky. In 1850, on the so-called “Red Hill”, three kilometers from the village of Kulikovka (Shakhovskoye identity), located on the Nechaev estate, and one kilometer from another village Kulikovka (Telyatinka identity), located on the Olsufiev estate, a memorial column was solemnly opened in commemoration of the victory of Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy over Mamai. This monument, the construction of which, due to the deeds of the Decembrists and other reasons, was repeatedly postponed, was finally erected, but not according to the project of I.P. Martos, but according to the project of the architect A.P. Bryullov approved by Emperor Nicholas I.

A few years later, in connection with the coronation of Emperor Alexander II, the eldest of the owners of the land provided by them for the construction of this monument, Vasily Dmitrievich Olsufiev (1796-1858), was awarded the title of count11. In 1880, official celebrations organized by the Tula provincial authorities on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the great battle took place near the memorial column. Finally, in 1913, by the concerns of the Olsufyevs, on a plot of their land, once specially intended for this purpose by Count Alexander Vasilyevich (1843-1907), who died shortly before, in the immediate vicinity of the memorial column, a temple was laid, which was built with the approval of Emperor Nicholas II designed by the famous architect A. V. Shchusev. The son of the count I have just mentioned, Yuri Alexandrovich Olsufiev (1878-1938), participated in the laying ceremony. The temple was dedicated to the inspirer of the Kulikovo victory, St. Sergius of Radonezh.

The construction of the temple slowed down due to the outbreak of the war with Germany, and its consecration took place only in 1918 (but due to the outbreak of the revolution, the decoration of the temple remained unfinished) [Ashurkov; Gritsenko, Naumov; Naumov, Naumova]. Thus, the memorials of the famous victory of Russian weapons in 1380, erected in their possessions, turned out to be a positive result of the persistent concerns of lovers of Russian history (but amateurs!), the landowners of the south-east of the Tula province of the Nechaevs and Olsufyevs. The victory was won off the coast of Nepryadva. But this happened to the west of the territory that later belonged to the Nechaevs and Olsufevs. In the 80s of the XX century. archaeological reconnaissance was deployed on it, the place of which was determined by the erroneous localization of the battle, which had already become customary by that time, precisely at the confluence of the Nepryadva into the Don. Localization based on a long-established, first in society, and then among scientists, coming from the landowners Nechaevs and Olsufievs, a tendentious interpretation of N.M. Karamzin's information. As I already mentioned, N.M. Karamzin wrote that the famous battle of 1380, according to the chronicles he used, took place near Nepryadva - but without indicating its lower reaches. Despite many years of efforts by Tula archaeologists, they never managed to find the burial places of the participants in the Battle of Kulikovo (or any mass burials at all near the lower reaches of the Nepryadva). It was not possible to find any significant remnants of weapons of that time. Historians should be more qualified to refer to the annalistic news about the famous battle near the “mouth of the Nepryadva”, taking into account the Russian language to the necessary extent.

Accordingly, archaeologists who have been unsuccessfully looking for traces of the graves of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers mentioned in the chronicles who died in 1380 on the Kulikovo field, it is advisable to move to westbound kilometers for 40 or 50 main field reconnaissance area. The flight of the remnants of the defeated army of Mamai hardly occurred only in southbound. Part of the Horde probably rushed to the west and joined the detachments of Jogail. The other part fled in the direction from which Mamai's army arrived at Kulikovo Field, that is, back to the east, along the shortest way to cross the Don. Having overcome Nepryadva, the fugitives fired from bows on its right bank, but were probably overtaken by the Russians off the banks of the Smolka - not far from the confluence of this river with the Don. The traces of the pursuit of fleeing enemies and the clashes with them that took place here are those finds of fragments of weapons of the XIV century. - mainly arrowheads and spears - which in the 19th century fed the "museum" enthusiasm of local landowners. The data of Russian chronicles are important not only for the correct determination of the place of the battle that took place on the Kulikovo field in 1380, but also for its correct dating.

A two-volume work by A. V. Zhuravel, published four years ago by the Moscow publishing house Russkaya Panorama, is formally devoted to the Battle of Kulikovo and related events [Zhuravel]12. At times this connection is vanishingly small, but the author's copious discussions cover a wide range of topics and include many valuable observations and details worthy of attention. However, written somewhat cheekily, sometimes arrogantly self-confident, the subjective works of A. V. Zhuravel contain a number of controversial, doubtful or unprovable conclusions. Basically, this author still follows the “traditional” interpretation of the battle of 1380 (including, of course, the erroneous interpretation of the words “mouth of the Nepryadva”). But a conspicuous dissonance is the statement often repeated by A. V. Zhuravel that the Battle of Kulikovo was not in 1380, but in 1379. He categorically advised his readers to “say goodbye” to the usual dating of the Battle of Kulikovo “and get used to the new one - by September 8 1379" (p.168). This sensational thesis, the propaganda of which is devoted to a special chapter, is undoubtedly the most remarkable “achievement” of his two-volume work compared to the works of all those who wrote seriously about this battle earlier by A. V. Zhuravel.

His work itself was prepared professionally: it included about 1250 bibliographic notes, provided with a qualified list of sources and literature, and two indexes. Among the special works on the battle on the Kulikovo field, it stands out noticeably for its volume and circulation (contains about 750 pages, published in two thousand copies). This edition is actively advertised on the Internet. Therefore, it is inappropriate to pass over in silence in the scientific press the insistent demand of A. V. Zhuravel to revise one of the most important dates in the history of Russia. I must say that it is in this case that the assertive subjectivism of this author is especially impressive, since it is based, first of all, on the neglect of direct evidence from our chronicles. As is known, all the surviving annalistic monuments unequivocally date the battle on the Kulikovo field on Saturday, September 8, 1380. A. V. Zhuravel does not have indications of real sources that the battle took place in 1379. He enthusiastically uses only his own conclusions, derived from his erroneous interpretation of some side circumstances.

At the same time, we are not talking about the battle on the Kulikovo field itself, but only about what could have happened earlier or later than this epoch-making historical event. Chronicles reported on what happened after the Battle of Kulikovo: “Then Mamai didn’t run away in a lot ... and, having gathered her residual strength, still want to go out of the pack to Russia.” But he found out that Tokhtamysh was coming against him. They met "at Kalkah". Mamai was defeated, fled to Kafu, where he was killed. Tokhtamysh “taking the horde of Mamayev… And then let his ambassadors go to Prince Dmitriy… tell… how to reign… The princes of Rustia… for that winter and for the spring… letting go to the Horde… Kilichiev with many gifts”13. As A. V. Zhuravel writes, “with the traditional version” (that is, if we assume that the battle on the Kulikovo field took place in 1380), “it turns out a lot of inconsistencies. 1) Tokhtamysh went on a campaign against Mamai in the spring of 1380 and for some reason then he hesitated until autumn, and the Russians did not know anything about it ... 2) Mamai in 1379 gathered the Genoese militia, but for some reason did not use them and kept them in his “yurt” for a whole year ... 3) Mamai could not help but know about the appearance Tokhtamysh on the left bank of the Volga, however, as if nothing had happened, roamed all summer near the Russian lands, that is, left the Tatar uluses proper under attack. 4) Tokhtamysh, who has been idle all summer for some unknown reason, begins active operations only in the middle of autumn, giving his enemy the opportunity to gather new troops ... 5) After this, events develop extremely rapidly - to meet until November 28, when the Genoese recognized Tokhtamysh as their “emperor ”” [Crane, p. 151]. In fact, just “with the traditional version” there are no inconsistencies. But they inevitably arise if you try to date the battle of 1379. Tokhtamysh, who prepared in the spring of 1380 to fight against Mamai, naturally decided to wait for the outcome of the war between him and the army of Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow. For the Russians, Mamai was then the actual enemy, and not Tokhtamysh.

A detachment (and not a militia) of the Genoese hired by Mamai was intended for them to use against the Russians. Mamai's own uluses in the Crimea could not be "under attack" by Tokhtamysh, who was then on the left bank of the Volga. Summer 1380. Tokhtamysh did not “idle”, but expected the result of the war between Mamai and the Grand Duke of Moscow. Mamai, after his defeat on the Kulikovo field, could not quickly prepare a new army for a new war, but only gathered his "residual" strength - for an "exile" raid. It is not surprising that the Genoese of Crimea, having learned about the defeat of Mamai on the Kulikovo field, no longer began to help him and recognized his opponent Tokhtamysh as their "emperor". A. V. Zhuravel believes in vain that Mamai, allegedly defeated by the Russians in the fall of 1379, in the same autumn and winter of the following year, “prepares new troops for a second campaign” [Zhuravel, p. 152].

There is no indication of this in the sources. In fact, Tokhtamysh, taking advantage of the defeat of Mamai in early September 1380 on the Kulikovo field, defeated not Mamai's "new troops", but his "residual" force, hastily assembled to attack Russia by "exile" in the late autumn or winter of the same 1380 AV Zhuravel operates not only with theses derived from his own conjectures and his own chronological errors, but also with conclusions based on the results of his careless reference to sources. For example, he refers to the work of M. G. Safargaliev, from which the conclusion allegedly follows that Tokhtamysh defeated Mamai “already in the spring of 1380.” [Crane, p. 150].

In fact, M. G. Safargaliev wrote how “it is possible to explain the flight of Mamai after the Battle of Kulikovo to the Crimea, and not to the Volga. Being in the Crimea after the Battle of Kulikovo, Mamai gathered the remnants of his army "to go" drive out "to the Russian land, but, having learned that Tokhtamysh was going against him, Mamai went to Tokhtamysh and was defeated on Kalka [Safargaliev, p. 402-403]. It is clear that we are talking about the autumn or winter of 1380. However, according to A. V. Zhuravel, “numismatic data” indicate that Tokhtamysh defeated Mamai “already in the spring of 1380”, because “Tokhtamysh coins were found, minted in 781 the city of the Hijri in Azak (Azov) and in the Crimea” [Zhuravel, p.150].

In fact, the only coin that can be implied here is dated not 781, but 881 [Fedorov-Davydov, p. 196]. As A. V. Zhuravel emphasizes, “the chronicles report that Tokhtamysh began his campaign against Moscow in the 3rd summer of his reign. This means that between the battle on the Don (September) and the ruin of Moscow (August), almost three years passed, and not two, as is now customary in historiography" [Zhuravel, p. 152]. But the reign of Tokhtamysh did not begin with the Battle of Kulikovo. A. V. Zhuravel himself stated two pages earlier that Tokhtamysh "sat on the throne for the first time in 1378, and established himself on it only in the spring of 1379." [Crane, p. 150].

Forgetting this own statement, A. V. Zhuravel in vain wants to reproach historians who quite correctly dated the Kulikovo victory as September 1380, and the ruin of Moscow by Tokhtamysh's army - two years later - August 1382. coverage of many heterogeneous facts and an abundance of various sources in a wide geographical and chronological range, A. V. Zhuravel suffers a fiasco in the central link of the construction he invented. Attentive readers do not need to "get used" to the false date of the battle on the Kulikovo field - a date opposed to chronicle information. But it would be worth getting used to the correct understanding of the annalistic localization of the great battle of 1380.

• Collection of material on the topic: work in the library, compiling a list of books that can be used; search for information on the Internet and encyclopedias.

  Meeting of Dmitry Donskoy and Sergius of Radonezh.

  Peresvet and Oslyabya - monks of the Holy Trinity Monastery.
  Participants of the Battle of Kulikovo.
  

On March 13, 1995, Federal Law No. 32-FZ “On the Days military glory(Victorious Days of Russia)”, according to which one of these days was the day of the Nativity of the Virgin (September 21) - the Day of the victory of the Russian regiments led by Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy over the Mongol-Tatar troops in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380).

The battle of Russian troops on the Kulikovo field led by Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy with the army of Khan Mamai is not just a glorious page in our history. This is an important milestone in the formation of a single Russian nation.

On September 8, 1380, on the Kulikovo field, in the upper reaches of the Don River, a battle took place between Russian troops led by Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy of Vladimir and Moscow and the Tatar army led by Temnik Mamai. The battle ended with the defeat of the Tatar army and marked the beginning of the liberation of the Russian people from the Golden Horde yoke.

Promotion and formation of troops before the battle.
Troops of Dmitry Donskoy:
1 - guard regiment,
2 - advanced regiment,
3 - large regiment,
4 - the rate of Dmitry Donskoy,
5 - regiment right hand,
6 - regiment of the left hand,
7 - reserve,
8 - ambush regiment,
9 - crossing point,
10 - camp.
Mamai troops:
1 - guard detachments,
2 - hired infantry,
3 - regiment of the left hand,
4 - regiment of the right hand (2,3,4 - 1st echelon of construction),
5 - large regiment,
6 - 2nd echelon of the regiment of the left hand,
7 - 2nd echelon of the regiment of the right hand,
8 - 2nd echelon of a large regiment,
9 - Mamai's rate,
10 - rate reserve,
11 - camp

In 1373, the Horde invaded the Ryazan principality, but did not dare to cross the Moscow borders, since Dmitry and his army went to the banks of the Oka. In 1377, the Moscow rati came to the aid of the Nizhny Novgorod principality, which was attacked on the orders of Mamai by Tsarevich Arapsha (Arab Shah). However, the battle on the Pyana River ended in the defeat of the Russians, who did not expect a sudden attack by the Horde. But in 1378, in the battle on the Vozha River, Moscow troops defeated the Horde troops under the command of Murza Begich. The Battle of the Vozha is the first victory of the Russians over the Horde in a battle in an open field.
The defeat on the Vozha forced Mamai to seriously prepare for a new campaign. It took two years to prepare. Mamai gathered a huge army, hired heavy Fryazh (Italian) infantry in the Genoese colonies in the Crimea, entered into an alliance with the Lithuanian prince Jagiello and the Ryazan prince Oleg. Oleg's entry into an alliance with the Horde was caused by a hopeless situation: Moscow, as a rule, met the Horde at the turn of the Oka River, and the Ryazan lands remained defenseless. Mamai intended to plunder North-Eastern Russia and force it to pay heavy tribute again.
Moscow was also preparing for a fight: the standing army increased - the princely "court", the number of infantry recruited from the townspeople increased, agreements were concluded with other Russian princes.
Under the leadership of Dmitry, all the princes of the North-East gathered, except for Tver and Suzdal. Novgorod the Great, Smolensk and, of course, Ryazan did not send troops.
The number of Russian troops gathered by Dmitry, historians estimate at 50 - 150 thousand. The number of Mamai's troops is also vaguely estimated. It is traditionally believed that there were more Horde than Russians.

The collection of Russian troops took place in Kolomna. From here, at the end of August, the army set out on a campaign, bypassed the Ryazan possessions and approached the Don near the confluence of the Nepryadva River into it. Ryazan remained behind the backs of the Russian troops, which made it impossible for the joint performance of the Horde and Ryazan troops.

The image of the Battle of Kulikovo remains incomplete without a legend-history about the meeting of Dmitry Donskoy with Sergius of Radonezh and the blessing received for the feat of arms. The debate about whether this meeting took place just before this battle, and whether it was at all ... From it, by the way, the legend of Peresvet and Oslyable also grows.

Dmitry Donskoy at Sergius of Radonezh. Miniature of the front "Life of Sergius of Radonezh". 16th century

Sergius of Radonezh (in the world Bartholomew) is a saint, reverend, the greatest ascetic of the Russian land, a reformer of monasticism in Northern Russia. According to one contemporary, Sergius "with quiet and meek words" could act on the most hardened and hardened hearts; very often he reconciled the warring princes, persuading them to obey the Grand Duke of Moscow, thanks to which, by the time of the Battle of Kulikovo, almost all Russian princes recognized the supremacy of Dmitry Ioannovich. Departing for this battle, the latter, accompanied by princes, boyars and governor, went to Sergius to pray with him and receive his blessing.

Father Sergius of Radonezh played an important role in the outcome of the Battle of Kulikovo. He convinced the Russian princes, united, to submit to the Grand Duke of Moscow. Sergius of Radonezh helped Prince Dmitry Ivanovich with his advice and prayer. When, setting off for the Battle of Kulikovo, the prince stopped by Sergius so that the monk would pray with him and give him a blessing, he predicted Dmitry victory and salvation from death. Approaching the Don, Dmitry Ivanovich hesitated whether to cross the river or not, and only after receiving an encouraging letter from St. Sergius admonishing him to attack the Tatars as soon as possible, he began to take decisive action. In 1389, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich invited Father Sergius to seal a spiritual testament that legitimized new order succession to the throne - from father to eldest son. The merits of Sergius of Radonezh were highly appreciated by the Russian Orthodox Church: in 1452 he was canonized.

Saint Sergius not only blessed the prince, but also sent with him two monks of the princely family, who were well versed in weapons. These monks were Alexander Peresvet and Andrei (name in monastic vows) Oslyabya, whom Reverend Sergius before that, he was tonsured into the Great Schema (the highest angelic rank).

They were very middle-aged, but strong, mature and wise spiritually and in martial arts. This pair was known as the great and famous horsemen in military times: Andrei drove a hundred, and Alexander drove two hundred when they fought. They were famous heroes in battles in the world.

Sergius sent two warrior monks to the battle: Alexander Peresvet and Andrey Oslyabya. The battle of Peresvet with the Horde hero Chelubey began, according to legend, the Battle of Kulikovo.

Many thousands of soldiers entered the detachment, commanded by Dmitry himself, as well as other princes: Dmitry Bobrok-Volynits, Vladimir Serpukhovsky, Andrey Olgerdovich, Dmitry Olgerdovich ...

According to the most common version, before the start of the battle, Peresvet participated in the traditional "duel of heroes". On the part of the Tatars, he was opposed by the hero Chelubey (according to other versions - Temir-Mirza or Tavrul). Both opponents were on horseback, the weapons were spears. After the first collision, the spears of both broke, after which both combatants collapsed to the ground and died.

There is also another version of the duel, according to which Peresvet and Chelubey pierced each other with spears. In accordance with this version, the spear of the master of equestrian fights Chelubey was a meter longer than usual. Entering into battle with him on spears, the enemy could not even strike, as he was already defeated and fell out of the saddle.

Alexander Peresvet went against the logic of the duel - having taken off his armor, he remained only in one Great Schema (a monastic cape with the image of a cross, worn over monastic clothes). He did this so that the enemy's spear, passing through the soft tissues of the body to high speed, did not have time to knock him out of the saddle and then he could strike himself, which happened in battle. Having received a mortal wound, he continued to remain in the saddle, he was able to drive himself to the building and only died there.