Russia under the Tatar Mongol yoke. The establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia

WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS

The classical, that is, the version of the "Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia", "Mongol-Tatar yoke" and "liberation from the Horde tyranny" recognized by modern science is quite well known, but it would be useful to refresh it in memory once again. So... At the beginning of the 13th century, in the Mongolian steppes, a brave and devilishly energetic tribal leader named Genghis Khan put together a huge army of nomads, soldered by iron discipline, and set out to conquer the whole world, "to the last sea." Having conquered the nearest neighbors, and then seized China, the mighty Tatar-Mongol horde rolled to the west. After passing about five thousand kilometers, the Mongols defeated the state of Khorezm, then Georgia, in 1223 they reached the southern outskirts of Russia, where they defeated the army of Russian princes in the battle on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Mongol-Tatars invaded Russia already with all their innumerable troops, burned and devastated many Russian cities, and in 1241, in fulfillment of the precepts of Genghis Khan, they tried to conquer Western Europe- invaded Poland, the Czech Republic, in the south-west reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, but turned back, because they were afraid to leave Russia devastated, but still dangerous for them, in their rear. And the Tatar-Mongol yoke began. The huge Mongol empire, stretching from Beijing to the Volga, hung like an ominous shadow over Russia. 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. It should be clarified that there were many Christians among the Mongols, and therefore individual Russian princes established rather close, friendly relations with the Horde rulers, even becoming their sworn brothers. With the help of the Tatar-Mongol detachments, other princes kept on the "table" (ie on the throne), solved their purely internal problems, and even collected tribute for the Golden Horde on their own.

Having grown stronger over time, Russia began to show its teeth. In 1380, the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Horde Khan Mamai with his Tatars, and a century later, in the so-called "standing on the Ugra", the troops of the Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat met. The opponents camped for a long time on opposite sides of the Ugra River, after which Khan Akhmat, finally realizing that the Russians had become strong and he had every chance of losing 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."

VERSION
All of the above is a brief summary or, speaking in a foreign manner, a digest. The minimum of what "every intelligent person" should know.

... I like the method that Conan Doyle gave to Sherlock Holmes' impeccable logic: first, the true version of what happened is presented, and then the chain of reasoning that led Holmes to the discovery of the truth.

That is exactly what I intend to do. First, to state your own version of the "Horde" period of Russian history, and then, over a couple of hundred pages, methodically substantiate your hypothesis, referring not so much to your own feelings and "insights", but to the annals, the works of historians of the past, which turned out to be undeservedly forgotten.

I intend to prove to the reader that the classical hypothesis briefly outlined above is completely wrong, that what happened actually fits into the following theses:

1. No "Mongols" came to Russia from their steppes.

2. The Tatars are not aliens, but residents of the Volga region, who lived in the neighborhood with the Russians long before the notorious invasion.

3. What is commonly called the Tatar-Mongol invasion was in fact a struggle between the descendants of Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest (son of Yaroslav and grandson of Alexander) with their rival princes for sole power over Russia. Accordingly, Yaroslav and Alexander Nevsky act under the names of Genghis Khan and Batu.

4. Mamai and Akhmat were not alien raiders, but noble nobles, who, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, had the right to a great reign. Accordingly, "Mamay's Battle" and "standing on the Ugra" are episodes not of the struggle against foreign aggressors, but of another civil war in Russia.

5. To prove the truth of all of the above, there is no need to turn on its head the historical sources we have today. It is enough to re-read many Russian chronicles and works of early historians thoughtfully. Weed out frankly fabulous moments and draw logical conclusions instead of mindlessly taking on faith the official theory, whose weight lies mainly not in evidence, but in the fact that " classical theory“It has simply settled down for many centuries. Having reached the stage at which any objections are interrupted by an iron argument: “Forgive me, but EVERYONE KNOWS this!”

Alas, the argument only looks ironclad... Only five hundred years ago "everyone knew" that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Two hundred years ago, the French Academy of Sciences in an official paper ridiculed those who believed in stones falling from the sky. Academicians, in general, should not be judged too harshly: in fact, “everyone knew” that the sky is not a firmament, but air, where stones have nowhere to come from. One important clarification: no one knew that it was stones flying outside the atmosphere that could often fall to the ground ...

We should not forget that many of our ancestors (more precisely, all of them) had several names. Even simple peasants had at least two names: one - worldly, under which everyone knew the person, the second - baptismal.

One of the most famous statesmen ancient Russia, Kyiv prince Vladimir Vsevolodich Monomakh, it turns out, is familiar to us under worldly, pagan names. In baptism, he was Vasily, and his father was Andrei, so his name was Vasily Andreevich Monomakh. And his grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich, according to his and his father's baptismal names, should be called - Panteleimon Fedorovich!) The baptismal name sometimes remained a secret even for loved ones - there were cases when in the first half of the 19th (!) Century, inconsolable relatives and friends only after the death of the head of the family recognized that a completely different name should be written on the tombstone, with which the deceased, it turns out, was baptized ... In church books, for example, he was listed as Ilya - meanwhile, he was known all his life as Nikita ...

WHERE MONGOLS?
Indeed, where is the "better half" of the expression "Mongol-Tatar" horde that has stuck in the teeth? Where are the Mongols proper, according to other zealous authors, who constituted a kind of aristocracy, cementing the core of the army that rolled into Russia?

So, the most interesting and mysterious thing is that not a single contemporary of those events (or who lived in fairly close times) is unable to find the Mongols!

They simply do not exist - black-haired, slanted-eyed people, those whom anthropologists, without further ado, call "Mongoloids". No, even if you crack!

It was possible to trace only the traces of two Mongoloid tribes that certainly came from Central Asia - the Jalairs and the Barlases. But they did not come to Russia as part of the army of Genghis, but to ... Semirechie (a region of present-day Kazakhstan). From there, in the second half of the 13th century, the Jalairs migrated to the area of ​​\u200b\u200bpresent Khujand, and the Barlases to the valley of the Kashkadarya River. From Semirechye they ... came to some extent Turkified in the sense of the language. In the new place, they were already so Turkicized that in the 14th century, in any case, in the second half of it, they considered the Turkic language their native language "(from the fundamental work of B.D. Grekov and A.Yu. Yakubovsky" Russia and Golden Horde" (1950).

All. No matter how they struggle, historians are unable to detect any other Mongols. The Russian chronicler among the peoples who came to Russia in the Batu Horde puts in the first place the "Kumans" - that is, the Kipchaks-Polovtsy! Who did not live in present-day Mongolia, but practically next door to the Russians, who (as I will prove later) had their own fortresses, cities and villages!

Arab historian Elomari: "In ancient times, this state (the Golden Horde of the 14th century - A. Bushkov) was the country of the Kipchaks, but when the Tatars took possession of it, the Kipchaks became their subjects. Then they, that is, the Tatars, mixed up and intermarried with them, and they all definitely became Kipchaks, as if they were of the same genus."

The fact that the Tatars did not come from anywhere, but from time immemorial lived close to the Russians, I will tell a little later, when I detonate, honestly, a serious bomb. In the meantime, let's pay attention to an extremely important circumstance: there are no Mongols. The Golden Horde is represented by Tatars and Kipchaks-Polovtsy, who are not Mongoloids, but normal Caucasian types, fair-haired, light-eyed, not at all slanted... (And their language is similar to Slavic.)

Like Genghis Khan with Batu. Ancient sources depict Genghis as tall, long-bearded, with "lynx", green-yellow eyes. Persian historian Rashid
ad-Din (a contemporary of the "Mongolian" wars) writes that in the family of Genghis Khan, children "were born for the most part with gray eyes and blond". G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo mentions the "Mongolian" (Mongolian whether ?!) legend, according to which the ancestor of Genghis in the ninth knee of Boduanchar is blond and blue-eyed! And the same Rashid ad-Din also writes that this generic name Borjigin, assigned to the descendants of Boduanchar, just means ... Gray-eyed!

By the way, the image of Batu is drawn in exactly the same way - fair-haired, light-bearded, light-eyed... The author of these lines has lived all his adult life not so far from those places where allegedly "created his innumerable army of Genghis Khan." I have seen enough of someone, but the primordially Mongoloid people - Khakasses, Tuvans, Altaians, and the Mongols themselves. There are no fair-haired and light-eyed among them, a completely different anthropological type ...

By the way, there are no names "Batu" or "Batu" in any language of the Mongolian group. But "Batu" is available in Bashkir, and "Basty", as already mentioned, in Polovtsian. So the very name of Genghis's son definitely did not come from Mongolia.

I wonder what his fellow tribesmen wrote about their glorious ancestor Genghis Khan in the "real", present-day Mongolia?

The answer is disappointing: in the 13th century, the Mongolian alphabet did not yet exist. Absolutely all the chronicles of the Mongols were written no earlier than the 17th century. And consequently, any mention that Genghis Khan really came out of Mongolia will be no more than a retelling of ancient legends recorded three hundred years later ... Which, presumably, the "real" Mongols really liked - no doubt, it was very pleasant to suddenly find out that your ancestors, it turns out, once went with fire and sword to the very Adriatic ...

So, we have already found out a rather important circumstance: there were no Mongols in the "Mongol-Tatar" horde, i.e. dark-haired and narrow-eyed inhabitants of Central Asia, who in the XIII century, presumably, peacefully roamed their steppes. Someone else "came" to Russia - fair-haired, gray-eyed, blue-eyed people of European appearance. And in fact, they came and not so far away - from the Polovtsian steppes, no further.

HOW MUCH WAS "MONGOLO-TATARS"?
In fact, how many of them came to Russia? Let's start to find out. Russian pre-revolutionary sources mention "a half-million Mongol army".

Sorry for the harshness, but both the first and second figures are bullshit. Since they were invented by the townspeople, cabinet figures who saw the horse only from afar and had absolutely no idea what cares it takes to keep a fighting, as well as pack and marching horse in working condition.

Any warrior of a nomadic tribe goes on a campaign, having three horses (as a minimum, two). One is carrying luggage (a small "dry ration", horseshoes, spare bridle straps, every little thing like spare arrows, armor that is not necessary to wear on the march, etc.). From the second to the third, you need to change from time to time so that one horse is a little rested all the time - you never know what will happen, sometimes you have to engage in battle "from the wheels", i.e. with hooves.

A primitive calculation shows: for an army of half a million or four hundred thousand fighters, about one and a half million horses are needed, in extreme cases - a million. Such a herd will be able to advance at most fifty kilometers, but it will not be able to go further - the advanced ones will instantly exterminate the grass over a vast area, so that the rear ones will die of starvation very quickly. No matter how much oats you store for them in toroki (and how much can you store?).

Let me remind you that the invasion of the "Mongol-Tatars" into the borders of Russia, all the main invasions unfolded in winter. When the remaining grass is hidden under the snow, and grain has yet to be taken away from the population - besides, a lot of fodder perishes in burning cities and villages ...

They may object: the Mongolian horse is perfectly able to get food for itself from under the snow. Everything is correct. "Mongols" are hardy creatures that can live all winter on "self-sufficiency". I saw them myself, I once rode a little on one, although there was no rider. Magnificent creatures, I am forever fascinated by Mongolian horses and with great pleasure would exchange my car for such a horse, if it were possible to keep it in the city (and, alas, there is no opportunity).

However, in our case, the above argument does not work. Firstly, ancient sources do not mention horses of the Mongolian breed, which were "in service" with the horde. On the contrary, experts in horse breeding unanimously prove that the "Tatar-Mongolian" horde rode Turkmens - and this is a completely different breed, and looks different, and it is not always able to soak in winter without human help ...

Secondly, the difference between a horse allowed 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. Even Mongols, if there were a million of them, with all their fantastic ability to soak in the middle of a snow-covered plain, would die of hunger, interfering with each other, beating off rare blades of grass from each other ...

But they, in addition to the riders, were also forced to carry heavy prey!

But the “Mongols” also had rather big carts with them. The cattle that pulls the wagons must also be fed, otherwise they won't pull the wagon...

In a word, throughout the twentieth century, the number of "Mongol-Tatars" who attacked Russia dwindled like the famous shagreen leather. In the end, historians with gnashing of teeth stopped at thirty thousand - the remnants of professional pride simply do not allow them to go lower.

And one more thing... The fear of admitting heretical theories like mine into Great Historiography. Because, even if we take the number of "invading Mongols" to be thirty thousand, a series of sarcastic questions arises ...

And the first among them will be this: isn’t it enough? No matter how you refer to the "disunity" of the Russian principalities, thirty thousand cavalrymen is too meager a figure in order to arrange "fire and ruin" throughout Russia! After all, they (even the supporters of the "classical" version admit this) did not move in a compact mass, leaning en masse one by one on Russian cities. Several detachments scattered in different directions - and this reduces the number of "innumerable Tatar hordes" to the limit beyond which elementary distrust begins: well, such a number of aggressors could not, no matter what discipline their regiments were soldered (torn off from the supply bases, as if a group of saboteurs behind enemy lines), "capture" Russia!

It turns out a vicious circle: for purely physical reasons, a huge army of "Mongol-Tatars" could not maintain combat readiness, move quickly, and inflict those very notorious "indestructible blows". A small army would never have been able to establish control over most of the territory of Russia.

Only our hypothesis can save us from this vicious circle - that there were no aliens. There was a civil war, the enemy forces were relatively small - and they relied on their own forage stocks accumulated in the cities.

By the way, it is completely unusual for nomads to fight in winter. But winter is a favorite time for Russian military campaigns. From time immemorial, they went on a campaign, using frozen rivers as “roadways” - the most optimal way of waging war on a territory almost completely overgrown with dense forests, where it’s damned difficult for a more or less large military detachment, especially cavalry.

All chronicle information about the military campaigns of 1237-1238 that has come down to us. they draw the classic Russian style of these battles - the battles take place in winter, and the "Mongols", who seem to be supposed to be classic steppe dwellers, act with amazing skill in the forests. First of all, I mean the encirclement and subsequent complete destruction of the Russian detachment on the City River under the command of the Grand Duke of Vladimir Yuri Vsevolodovich ... Such a brilliant operation could not have been carried out by the inhabitants of the steppes, who simply had no time, and no place to learn to fight in the thicket .

So, our piggy bank is gradually replenished with weighty evidence. We found out that no "Mongols", i.e. for some reason there were no Mongoloids among the "horde". They found out that there could not be many “aliens”, that even the meager number of thirty thousand, on which historians entrenched themselves, like the Swedes near Poltava, could in no way provide the “Mongols” with establishing control over all of Russia. We found out that the horses under the "Mongols" were by no means Mongolian, but these "Mongols" fought for some reason according to Russian rules. And they were, curiously, fair-haired and blue-eyed.

Not much to start with. And we, I warn you, are just entering the taste ...

WHERE DID THE "MONGOLS" COME TO RUSSIA?
That's right, I didn't mess anything up. And very quickly the reader learns that the question put in the headline only at first glance seems to be nonsense ...

We have already talked about the second Moscow and the second Krakow. There is also a second Samara - "Samara Grad", a fortress on the site of the present city of Novomoskovsk, 29 kilometers north of Dnepropetrovsk...

In a word, the geographical names of the Middle Ages did not always coincide with what we understand today as some kind of name. Today, for us, Russia means all the then land inhabited by Russians.

But the then people thought a little differently ... Every time, as soon as you read about the events of the 12th-13th centuries, you must remember: then "Rus" was called part of the regions inhabited by Russians - Kiev, Pereyaslav and Chernigov principalities. More precisely: Kyiv, Chernihiv, the river Ros, Porosye, Pereyaslavl-Russian, Seversk land, Kursk. Quite often in the ancient chronicles it is written that from Novgorod or Vladimir ... "were going to Russia"! That is - to Kyiv. Chernihiv cities are "Russian", but Smolensk cities are already "non-Russian".

Historian of the 17th century: "...Slavs, our ancestors - Moscow, Russians and Others..."

Exactly. Not for nothing on Western European maps for a very long time Russian lands were divided into "Muscovy" (north) and "Russia" (south). last name
lasted an extremely long time - as we remember, the inhabitants of those lands where "Ukraine" is now located, being Russians by blood, Catholics by religion and subjects of the Commonwealth (as the author calls the Commonwealth, which is more familiar to us - Sapfir_t), called themselves "Russian gentry."

Thus, chronicle reports like "such and such a year the horde attacked Russia" should be treated taking into account what was said above. Remember: this mention does not mean aggression against all of Russia, but an attack on a specific area, strictly localized.

Kalka - a ball of mysteries
The first clash of the Russians with the "Mongol-Tatars" on the Kalka River in 1223 is described in some detail and in detail in the ancient domestic chronicles - however, not only in them, there is also the so-called "Tale of the Battle of the Kalka, and of the Russian princes, and about seventy heroes".

However, the abundance of information does not always bring clarity ... In general, historical science has long been no longer denying the obvious fact that the events on the Kalka River are not an attack by evil aliens on Russia, but Russian aggression against their neighbors. Judge for yourself. The Tatars (the Mongols are never, never mentioned in the descriptions of the battle on the Kalka) fought with the Polovtsians. And they sent ambassadors to Russia, who quite friendly asked the Russians not to interfere in this war. The Russian princes ... killed these ambassadors, and according to some old texts, not just killed - "tortured". The act, to put it mildly, is not the most decent - at all times the murder of an ambassador was considered one of the most serious crimes. Following that, the Russian army sets out on a long march.

Leaving the borders of Russia, it first of all attacks the Tatar camp, takes prey, steals cattle, after which it moves into the depths of foreign territory for another eight days. There, on Kalka, a decisive battle takes place, the Polovtsian allies flee in panic, the princes remain alone, fight back for three days, after which, believing the assurances of the Tatars, they surrender. However, the Tatars, angry with the Russians (that's strange, why would that be?! They didn't do any special harm to the Tatars, except that they killed their ambassadors, attacked them first ...) kill the captured princes. According to some sources, they kill simply, without any fuss, according to others, they pile on tied boards and sit down to feast on top, scoundrels.

It is significant that one of the most ardent "Tatarophobes", the writer V. Chivilikhin, in his almost eight hundred-page book "Memory", oversaturated with abuse against the "Horde", somewhat embarrassingly bypasses the events on Kalka. He mentions briefly - yes, there was something like that ... It seems that they fought a little there ...

You can understand him: the Russian princes in this story do not look the most in the best way. I’ll add on my own: the Galician prince Mstislav Udaloy is not just an aggressor, but also a uniformed bastard - however, more on that later ...

Let's get back to the riddles. For some reason, the same "Tale of the Battle of the Kalka" is not able ... to name the enemy of the Russians! Judge for yourself: "... because of our sins, unknown peoples, godless Moabites came, 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.

Extremely strange lines! I remind you that they were written much later than the events described, when it seemed to be necessary to know exactly who the Russian princes fought on Kalka. After all, part of the army (albeit small, according to some sources - one tenth) nevertheless returned from Kalka. Moreover, the winners, in turn chasing the defeated Russian regiments, chased them to Novgorod-Svyatopolch (not to be confused with Veliky Novgorod! - A. Bushkov), where they attacked the civilian population - (Novgorod-Svyatopolch stood on the banks of the Dnieper) so and among the townspeople there should be witnesses who saw the enemy with their own eyes.

However, this adversary remains "unknown". Those who came from it is not known from what places, speaking God knows what language. Your will, it turns out a certain inconsistency ...

Either Polovtsy, or Taurmen, or Tatars... This statement further confuses the matter. By the time described, the Polovtsy were well known in Russia - for so many years they lived side by side, then fought with them, then went on campaigns together, became related ... Is it a conceivable thing not to identify the Polovtsy?

The Taurmens are a nomadic Turkic tribe that lived in the Black Sea region in those years. Again, they were well known to the Russians by that time.

Tatars (as I will soon prove) by 1223 had already lived in the same Black Sea region for at least several decades.

In short, the chronicler is definitely disingenuous. The full impression is that for some extremely good reasons he does not want to directly name the enemy of the Russians in that battle. And this assumption is not far-fetched. Firstly, the expression "either Polovtsy, or Tatars, or Taurmens" is in no way consistent with life experience Russians of that time. And those, and others, and the third in Russia were well known - everyone except the author of the "Tale" ...

Secondly, if the Russians had fought on the Kalka with the "unknown" people, seen for the first time, the subsequent picture of events would have looked completely different - I mean the surrender of the princes and the pursuit of the defeated Russian regiments.

It turns out that the princes, who had settled in the fortification of "tyna and carts", where they repelled enemy attacks for three days, surrendered after ... a certain Russian named Ploskinya, who was in the enemy's battle formations, solemnly kissed his pectoral cross on what the prisoners won't do any harm.

I cheated, you bastard. But the point is not in his cunning (after all, history gives a lot of evidence of how the Russian princes themselves violated the "kissing of the cross" with the same cunning), but in the personality of Ploskin himself, a Russian, a Christian, who somehow mysteriously turned out to be among the warriors of the "unknown people". I wonder what fate brought him there?

V. Yan, a supporter of the "classical" version, portrayed Ploskinya as a sort of steppe tramp, who was caught on the road by the "Mongol-Tatars" and with a chain around his neck was led to the Russian fortification in order to persuade them to surrender to the mercy of the winner.

This is not even a version - this is, excuse me, schizophrenia. Put yourself in the place of a Russian prince - a professional soldier, who in his life fought to his heart's content with both Slavic neighbors and nomadic steppe dwellers, who went through fires and waters ...

You are surrounded in a distant land by warriors of a completely unknown tribe. For three days you repel the attacks of this adversary, whose language you do not understand, whose appearance is strange and disgusting to you. Suddenly, this mysterious adversary drives some ragamuffin with a chain around his neck to your fortification, and he, kissing the cross, swears that the besiegers (I emphasize again and again: hitherto unknown to you, strangers in language and faith!) will spare you if you surrender. ..

What, will you give up under these conditions?

Yes, completeness! Not a single normal person with a little bit of military experience will give up (besides, I’ll clarify, you recently killed the ambassadors of this very people and plundered the camp of his fellow tribesmen to their heart’s content).

But the Russian princes for some reason surrendered ...

However, why "for some reason"? The same "Tale" writes quite unambiguously: "There were roamers along with the Tatars, and their governor was Ploskinya."

Brodniki are Russian free combatants who lived in those places. The forerunners of the Cossacks. Well, this somewhat changes the matter: it was not a bound captive who persuaded to surrender, but a voivode, almost an equal, such a Slav and a Christian ... One can believe this - that the princes did.

However, the establishment of the true 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 got close to them so much that they hit the Russians together? Your brothers in blood and faith?

Again, something doesn't add up. It is clear that the wanderers were outcasts who fought only for themselves, but anyway, somehow very quickly found a common language with the "godless Moabites", about whom no one knows where they came from, and what language they are, and what faith .. .

Strictly speaking, one thing can be stated with all certainty: part of the army with which the Russian princes fought on the Kalka was Slavic, Christian.

Maybe not a part? Maybe there were no "Moabites"? Maybe the battle on the Kalka is a "showdown" between the Orthodox? On the one hand, several allied Russian princes (it must be emphasized that for some reason many Russian princes did not go to Kalka to rescue the Polovtsy), on the other, wanderers and Orthodox Tatars, neighbors of the Russians?

It is worth accepting this version, everything falls into place. And the hitherto mysterious surrender of princes - they surrendered not to some unknown strangers, but to well-known neighbors (the neighbors, however, broke their word, but how lucky ...) - (That the captured princes were "thrown under the boards" , reports only "The Tale". Other sources write that the princes were simply killed without mocking, and still others that the princes were "captured". So the story of the "feast on the bodies" is just one of the options). And the behavior of those residents of Novgorod-Svyatopolch, who, for some unknown reason, came out to meet the Tatars pursuing the Russians fleeing from Kalka ... procession!

Such behavior, again, does not fit into the version with the unknown "godless Moabites." Our ancestors can be reproached for many sins, but there was no excessive gullibility among those. In fact, what normal person would come out to appease some unknown stranger, whose language, faith and nationality remain a mystery?!

However, as soon as we assume that the fleeing remnants of the prince's armies were being chased by some of their own, long known, and that, most importantly, the same Christians, the behavior of the city's inhabitants instantly loses all signs of madness or absurdity. From their own, long known, from the same Christians, there really was a chance to defend themselves with a procession.

The chance, however, did not work this time - apparently, the horsemen, excited by the chase, were too angry (which is quite understandable - their ambassadors were killed, they themselves were attacked first, cut down and robbed) and immediately flogged those who came out to meet with the cross. I will especially note that this also happened during purely Russian internecine wars, when the enraged winners chopped right and left, and the raised cross did not stop them ...

Thus, the battle on the Kalka is not at all a clash with unknown peoples, but one of the episodes of the internecine war waged between Christian Russians, Christian Polovtsians (it is curious that the chronicles of that time mention the Polovtsian Khan Basty who converted to Christianity) and Christians- Tatars. The Russian historian of the 17th century summarizes the results of this war as follows: “After this victory, the Tatars completely ruined the Polovtsian fortresses and cities and villages. today it is called Perekop), and around Pontus Evkhsinsky, that is, the Black Sea, the Tatars took it by their hand, and settled there.

As you can see, the war was for specific territories, between specific peoples. By the way, the mention of "cities, and fortresses, and Polovtsian villages" is extremely curious. We were told for a long time that the Polovtsians are nomadic steppe peoples, but nomadic peoples have neither fortresses nor cities ...

And finally - about the Galician prince Mstislav Udal, or rather, about why he deserves the definition of "scum". A word to the same historian: "... The brave Prince Mstislav Mstislavich of Galicia ... when he ran to the river to his boats (immediately after the defeat from the "Tatars" - A. Bushkov), having crossed the river, ordered all the boats to be sunk and chopped , and burn, fearing the Tatar chase, and, filled with fear, on foot reached Galich.Most of the Russian regiments, running, reached their boats and, seeing them to a single sunk and burned, from sadness and need and hunger could not swim across the river , there they died and perished, except for some princes and warriors, who swam across the river on wicker meadowsweet sheaves.

Like this. By the way, this scum - I'm talking about Mstislav - is still called Udaly in history and literature. True, not all historians and writers are delighted with this figure - a hundred years ago, D. Ilovaisky listed in detail all the mistakes and absurdities committed by Mstislav as the prince of Galicia, using the remarkable phrase: "Obviously, in old age Mstislav completely lost his common sense." On the contrary, N. Kostomarov, without hesitation, considered Mstislav's act with the boats as a matter of course - Mstislav, they say, by this "did not allow the Tatars to cross." However, excuse me, they still somehow crossed over, if "on the shoulders" of the retreating Russians they rushed to Novgorod-Svyatopolch?!

The complacency of Kostomarov in relation to Mstislav, who, in fact, killed most of the Russian troops with his act, however, is understandable: Kostomarov had only the “Tale of the Battle of the Kalka” at his disposal, where the death of soldiers who had nothing to cross was not mentioned at all . The historian I have just quoted is definitely unknown to Kostomarov. Nothing strange - I will reveal this secret a little later.

SUPERMEN FROM THE MONGOLIAN STEPPE
Having accepted the classical version of the "Mongol-Tatar" invasion, we ourselves do not notice what a bunch of illogicalities, or even outright stupidity, we are dealing with.

To begin with, I will quote an extensive piece from the work of the famous scientist N.A. Morozov (1854-1946):

“Nomadic peoples, by the very nature of their life, should be widely scattered over a large uncultivated area by separate patriarchal groups, incapable of general disciplined action that requires economic centralization, i.e. a tax that could support an army of adult single people. peoples, like clusters of molecules, each of their patriarchal groups is repulsed by the other, thanks to the search for more and more grass to feed their herds.

Having united together in the number of at least several thousand people, they must also unite with each other several thousand cows and horses and even more sheep and rams belonging to different patriarchs. As a result of this, all the nearest grass would be quickly eaten up and the whole company would have to be scattered again by the former patriarchal small groups in different directions in order to be able to live longer without moving their tents to another place every day.

That is why, a priori, the very idea of ​​the possibility of organized collective action and a victorious invasion of settled peoples by some widely scattered nomadic people feeding on herds, such as the Mongols, Samoyeds, Bedouins, etc., must be discarded a priori, as a pure fantasy. except in the case when some gigantic, natural catastrophe, threatening general destruction, drives such a people from the perishing steppe entirely to a settled country, like a hurricane drives dust from a desert to an adjacent oasis.

But after all, even in the Sahara itself, not a single large oasis was forever covered with surrounding sand, and after the end of the hurricane it was again reborn to its former life. Similarly, and throughout our reliable historical horizon, we do not see a single victorious invasion of wild nomadic peoples on sedentary cultured countries, but just the opposite. This means that this could not have happened in the prehistoric past. All these migrations of peoples back and forth on the eve of their appearance in the field of view of history should be reduced only to the migration of their names or, at best, rulers, and even then from more cultural countries to the less cultured, and not vice versa."

Gold words. There are indeed no cases in history when nomads scattered over vast expanses would suddenly create, if not a powerful state, then a powerful army capable of conquering entire countries.

With one single exception - when it comes to the "Mongol-Tatars". We are offered to believe that Genghis Khan, who allegedly lived in present-day Mongolia, by some miracle, in a matter of years created an army from scattered uluses that surpassed any European army in discipline and organization ...

Curious to know how he did it? Despite the fact that the nomad has one undoubted advantage that keeps him from any whims of the settled power, the power that he did not like at all: mobility. That's why he's a nomad. The self-styled khan did not like it - he assembled a yurt, loaded horses, seated his wife, children and an old grandmother, waved his whip - and moved to distant lands, from where it is extremely difficult to get him. Especially when it comes to the boundless Siberian expanses.

Here is a suitable example: when in 1916 the tsarist officials did something especially torturing the nomadic Kazakhs, they calmly took off and migrated from Russian Empire to neighboring China. The authorities (and we are talking about the beginning of the twentieth century!) simply could not stop them and prevent them!

Meanwhile, we are invited to believe in the following picture: the steppe nomads, free as the wind, for some reason dutifully agree to follow Genghis "to the last sea." With the complete, we emphasize and repeat, Genghis Khan's lack of means of influencing the "refuseniks" - it would be unthinkable to chase them along the steppes and thickets stretching for thousands of kilometers (certain clans of the Mongols did not live in the steppe, but in the taiga).

Five thousand kilometers - approximately this distance was covered by the detachments of Genghis to Russia according to the "classical" version. The armchair theorists who wrote such things simply never thought about what it would cost in reality to overcome such routes (and if we recall that the "Mongols" reached the shores of the Adriatic, the route increases by another one and a half thousand kilometers). What force, what miracle could compel the steppes to set off into such a distance?

Would you believe that Bedouin nomads from the Arabian steppes would one day set out to conquer South Africa reaching the Cape of Good Hope? And the Indians of Alaska one fine day showed up in Mexico, where, for unknown reasons, they decided to migrate?

Of course, all this is pure nonsense. However, if we compare the distances, it turns out that from Mongolia to the Adriatic, the "Mongols" would have to go about the same distance as the Arabian Bedouins - to Cape Town or the Indians of Alaska - to the Gulf of Mexico. Not just pass, let's clarify - along the way, also capture a few largest states of that time: China, Khorezm, devastate Georgia, Russia, invade Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary ...

Are historians asking us to believe this? Well, so much the worse for historians... If you don't want to be called an idiot, don't do idiotic things - an old worldly truth. So the supporters of the "classic" version themselves run into insults ...

Not only that, the nomadic tribes, which were not even at the stage of feudalism - the tribal system - for some reason suddenly realized the need for iron discipline and dutifully dragged after Genghis Khan for six and a half thousand kilometers. Even in a short (damn tight!) time, the nomads suddenly learned how to use the best military equipment of that time - wall-beating machines, stone throwers ...

Judge for yourself. According to reliable data, the first major campaign outside the "historical homeland" Genghis Khan makes in 1209. Already in 1215, he allegedly
captures Beijing, in 1219, with the use of siege weapons, takes the cities of Central Asia - Merv, Samarkand, Gurganzh, Khiva, Khojent, Bukhara - and twenty years later destroys the walls of Russian cities with the same wall-beating machines and stone-throwers.

Mark Twain was right: well, ganders do not spawn! Well, swede does not grow on a tree!

Well, a steppe nomad is not capable of mastering the art of capturing cities using wall-beating machines in a couple of years! Create an army superior to the armies of any states of that time!

First of all, because he does not need it. As Morozov rightly noted, there are no examples in world history of the creation of states by nomads or the defeat of foreign states. Especially in such a utopian timeframe, as the official history slips us, uttering pearls like: "After the invasion of China, the army of Genghis Khan adopted Chinese military equipment - wall-beating machines, stone-throwing and flame-throwing guns."

That's nothing, there are pearls and cleaner. I happened to read an article in an extremely serious, academic journal: it described how the Mongol (!) Navy in the 13th century. fired at the ships of the ancient Japanese ... with combat missiles! (The Japanese, presumably, responded with laser-guided torpedoes.) In a word, navigation must also be included among the arts mastered by the Mongols in a year or two. Well, at least not flying on devices heavier than air ...

There are situations when common sense stronger than all scientific constructions. Especially if scientists are led into such labyrinths of fantasy that any science fiction writer will open his mouth admiringly.

By the way, an important question: how did the wives of the Mongols let their husbands go to the end of the world? The vast majority of medieval sources describe
"Tatar-Mongol horde" as an army, and not a resettling people. No wives and little kids. It turns out that the Mongols wandered in foreign lands until their death, and their wives, never seeing their husbands, managed the herds?

Not bookish, but real nomads always behave in a completely different way: they quietly roam for many hundreds of years (attacking occasionally on their neighbors, not without it), it never occurs to them to conquer some nearby country or go halfway around the world to look for the "last sea". It simply would not occur to a Pashtun or Bedouin tribal leader to build a city or create a state. How does not come to his mind a whim about the "last sea". There are enough purely earthly, practical things: you need to survive, prevent the loss of livestock, look for new pastures, exchange fabrics and knives for cheese and milk ... Where can one dream of an "empire for half the world"?

Meanwhile, we are seriously assured that the steppe nomad for some reason suddenly became imbued with the idea of ​​a state, or at least a grandiose one. aggressive campaign to the limits of the world. And in a short period of time, by some miracle, he united his fellow tribesmen into a powerful organized army. And in a few years I learned how to handle rather complex machines by the standards of that time. And he created a navy that fired missiles at the Japanese. And he compiled a code of laws for his vast empire. And he corresponded with the pope, kings and dukes, teaching them how to live.

The late L.N. Gumilyov (not the last historian, but sometimes overly fond of poetic ideas) seriously believed that he had created a hypothesis that could explain such miracles. We are talking about the "theory of passionarity". According to Gumilyov, this or that nation at a certain moment receives a certain mysterious and semi-mystical energy blow from the Cosmos - after which they calmly turn mountains and achieve unprecedented achievements.

There is a significant flaw in this beautiful theory, which benefits Gumilyov himself, but his opponents, on the contrary, complicates the discussion to the limit. The fact is that any military or other success of any nation can easily be explained by a "manifestation of passionarity". But to prove the absence of a "passionate blow" is almost impossible. This automatically puts Gumilyov's supporters in better conditions than their opponents - since there are no reliable scientific methods, as well as equipment capable of fixing the "flow of passionarity" on paper or pleg.

In a word - frolic, soul ... Let's say, the Ryazan governor Baldokha, at the head of a valiant rati, attacked the Suzdalians, instantly and brutally defeated their army, after which the Ryazanians arrogantly abused the Suzdal women and girls, robbed all the stocks of salted mushrooms, squirrel skins and honey , finally, at the neck of an inopportunely turned up monk, and the winners returned home. All. You can, narrowing your eyes meaningfully, say: "The people of Ryazan received a passionary impetus, but the Suzdal people lost their passionarity by that time."

Six months have passed and now Suzdal prince Timonya Gunyavy, burning with a thirst for revenge, attacked the people of Ryazan. Fortune turned out to be fickle - and this time the "Ryazan skewbald" broke on the first number and took away all the goods, and the women with the girls were cut off the hem, which was before the voivode Baldokha, they mocked him to their heart's content, shoving a hedgehog that turned up inopportunely with his bare backside. The picture for the historian of the Gumilyov school is clear through and through: "The people of Ryazan have lost their former passionarity."

Perhaps they didn’t lose anything - it’s just that the hungover blacksmith didn’t shoe Baidokhin’s horse in time, he lost the horseshoe, and then everything went according to the English song in Marshak’s translation: there was no nail, the horseshoe was gone, there was no horseshoe, the horse limped. .. And the main part of Baldokhin's rati did not take part in the battle at all, since they were chasing the Polovtsians a hundred miles from Ryazan.

But try to prove to the orthodox Gumilyov that the problem is in the nail, and not in the "loss of passionarity"! No, really, take a chance for the sake of curiosity, only I'm not your friend here ...

In a word, the "passionary" theory is not suitable for explaining the "phenomenon of Genghis Khan" because of the complete impossibility of both proving it and refuting it. Let's leave mysticism behind the scenes.

There is one more piquant moment here: the same monk, whom the Ryazanians so imprudently hit on the neck, will compile the Suzdal chronicle. If he is especially vindictive, he will present the Ryazans ... and not the Ryazans at all. And some "nasty", insidious Antichrist horde. No one knows where the Moabites emerged, eating foxes and gophers. Subsequently, I will give some quotations showing that in the Middle Ages this was sometimes the case ...

Let's return to the reverse side of the medal of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke". Unique relations between the "Horde" and the Russians. Here it is already worth paying tribute to Gumilyov, in this area he is not worthy of scoffing, but respect: he has collected a huge amount of material, clearly indicating that the relationship between "Rus" and "Horde" cannot be described in any other word than symbiosis.

To be honest, I don't want to enumerate these proofs. They wrote too 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) friends. If desired, the reader himself can easily get acquainted with the details of Russian-Tatar friendship. I will focus on one aspect: that this kind of relationship is unique. For some reason, in no country defeated or captured by them, the Tatars did not behave like this. However, in Russia it reached an incomprehensible absurdity: for example, the subjects of Alexander Nevsky one day beat the Horde tribute collectors to death, but the "Horde Khan" reacted to this in a strange way: when news of this sad event did not
only does not take punitive measures, but gives Nevsky additional privileges, allows him to collect tribute himself, and in addition, frees him from the need to supply recruits for the Horde army ...

I'm not fantasizing, but just retelling Russian chronicles. Reflecting (probably contrary to the "creative intent" of their authors) very strange relations that existed between Russia and the Horde: a uniform symbiosis, brotherhood in arms, leading to such an interweaving of names and events that you simply stop understanding where the Russians end and the Tatars begin. ..

And nowhere. Russia is the Golden Horde, have you forgotten? Or, to be more precise, the Golden Horde is a part of Russia, the one that is under the rule of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes, descendants of Vsevolod the Big Nest. And the notorious symbiosis is just a reflection of events that is not completely distorted.

Gumilyov did not dare to take the next step. And I'm sorry, I'll take the risk. If we have established that, firstly, no "Mongoloids" came from nowhere, that, secondly, the Russians and Tatars were in uniquely friendly relations, logic dictates to go further and say: Russia and the Horde are simply one and the same. And the tales of the "evil Tatars" were composed much later.

Have you ever wondered what the word "horde" itself means? In search of an answer, I first dug into the depths of the Polish language. For a very simple reason: it was in Polish that quite a lot of words that disappeared from Russian in the 17th-18th centuries were preserved (once both languages ​​were much closer).

In Polish "Horda" means "horde". Not a "crowd of nomads", but rather a "big army". Numerous army.

We move on. Sigismund Herberstein, the "Caesar" ambassador, who visited Muscovy in the 16th century and left the most interesting "Notes", testifies that in the "Tatar" language "horde" meant "multitude" or "collection". In Russian chronicles, when talking about military campaigns, the phrases "Swedish horde" or "German horde" in the same meaning - "army" are calmly inserted.

At the same time, Academician Fomenko points to the Latin word "ordo", meaning "order", to the German "ordnung" - "order".

To this we can add the Anglo-Saxon "order", meaning again "order" in the sense of "law", and in addition - the military system. In the navy, the expression "marching order" still exists. That is - the construction of ships on a campaign.

In modern Turkish, the word "ordu" has meanings, again corresponding to the words "order", "sample", and not so long ago (from a historical point of view) in Turkey there was a military term "orta", meaning a Janissary unit, something in between between battalion and regiment...

At the end of the XVII century. on the basis of written reports of explorers, the Tobolsk serviceman S.U. Remezov, together with his three sons, compiled a "Drawing Book" - a grandiose geographical atlas, covering the territory of the entire Moscow kingdom. Cossack lands adjacent to North Caucasus, are called ... "Land of the Cossack Horde"! (Like on many other old Russian maps.)

In a word, all the meanings of the word "horde" revolve around the terms "army", "order", "legislation" (in modern Kazakh "Red Army" sounds like Kzyl-Orda!). And this, I am sure, is not without reason. The picture of the "horde" as a state that at some stage united Russians and Tatars (or simply the armies of this state) fits into reality much more successfully than the Mongol nomads, who surprisingly inflamed with a passion for wall-beating machines, the navy and campaigns for five or six thousand kilometers.

Simply, once Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and his son Alexander began a fierce struggle for dominance over all Russian lands. It was their army-horde (in which there were really enough Tatars) that served the later falsifiers to create a terrible picture of the "foreign invasion".

There are a few more similar examples when, with a superficial knowledge of history, a person is quite capable of drawing false conclusions - in the event that he is only familiar with the name and does not suspect what is behind it.

In the 17th century in Polish army there were cavalry units called "Cossack banners" ("horugv" - a military unit). There were no real Cossacks there - in this case, the name meant only that these regiments were armed according to the Cossack model.

During Crimean War the Turkish troops that landed on the peninsula included a unit called "Ottoman Cossacks". Again, not a single Cossack - only Polish emigrants and Turks under the command of Mehmed Sadyk Pasha, who is also a former cavalry lieutenant Michal Tchaikovsky.

And finally, we can recall the French Zouaves. These parts got their name from the Algerian Zuazua tribe. Gradually, not a single Algerian remained in them, only purebred French, but the name was preserved for subsequent times, until these units, a kind of special forces, ceased to exist.

This is where I stop. If you're interested, read on here

The Tatar-Mongol yoke is a period of time when Ancient Russia was dependent on the Golden Horde. The young state, due to its nomadic lifestyle, conquered many European territories. It seemed that it would keep in suspense even more for a long time the population of different countries, but disagreements within the Horde led to its complete collapse.

Tatar-Mongol yoke: reasons

Feudal fragmentation and constant princely strife turned the country into an unprotected state. The weakening of the defense, openness and inconstancy of borders - all this contributed to the frequent raids of nomads. The unstable ties between the regions of Ancient Russia and the tense relations of the princes allowed the Tatars to destroy Russian cities. Here are the first raids that "smashed" the northeastern lands of Russia and plunged the country into the power of the Mongols.

Tatar-Mongol yoke: development of events

Of course, Russia was not in a position to immediately wage an open struggle against the invaders: there was no regular army, there was no support from the princes, there was a clear backwardness in technical equipment lacked practical experience. That is why Russia could not resist the Golden Horde until the 14th century. This century has become a turning point: Moscow rises, begins to take shape single state, the Russian army wins the first victory in the difficult Battle of Kulikovo. As you know, in order to reign, it was necessary to get a label from the Khan of the Horde. That is why the Tatars pursued a policy of pitting: they quarreled with the princes who argued for this label. The Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia also led to the fact that some princes specifically took the side of the Mongols in order to achieve the elevation of their own territory. For example, the uprising in Tver, when Ivan Kalita helped defeat his rival. Thus, Ivan Kalita achieved not only a label, but also the right to collect tribute from all his lands. Actively continues to fight the invaders and Dmitry Donskoy. It is with his name that the first victory of the Russians on the Kulikovo field is associated. As you know, the blessing was given by Sergius of Radonezh. The battle began with a duel between two heroes and ended with the death of both. The new tactics helped to defeat the army of the Tatars, exhausted by civil strife, but did not completely get rid of their influence. But he liberated the state, and already a single and centralized one, Ivan 3. It happened in 1480. So, with a difference of a hundred years, two of the most significant events in military history took place. Standing on the Ugra River helped to get rid of the invaders and freed the country from their influence. After that, the Horde ceased to exist.

Lessons and consequences

Economic devastation, backwardness in all spheres of life, the grave condition of the population - these are all the consequences of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. This difficult period in the history of Russia showed that the country is slowing down in its development, especially in the military. The Tatar-Mongol yoke taught our princes, first of all, tactical warfare, as well as the policy of compromises and concessions.

Exists a large number of facts that not only unequivocally refute the hypothesis of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, but also indicate that history was deliberately distorted, and that this was done with a very specific purpose ... But who deliberately distorted history and why? What real events did they want to hide and why?

If we analyze the historical facts, it becomes obvious that the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" was invented in order to hide the consequences of "baptism". After all, this religion was imposed in a far from peaceful way ... In the process of "baptism" most of the population of the Kyiv principality was destroyed! It definitely becomes clear that those forces that were behind the imposition of this religion, in the future, fabricated history, juggling historical facts for themselves and their goals ...

These facts are known to historians and are not secret, they are publicly available, and anyone can easily find them on the Internet. Omitting scientific research and justifications, which have already been described quite widely, let's summarize the main facts that refute the big lie about the "Tatar-Mongol yoke".

1. Genghis Khan

Previously, in Russia, 2 people were responsible for governing the state: Prince and Khan. responsible for the administration of the state Peaceful time. Khan or "war prince" took over the reins of government during the war, in peacetime he was responsible for the formation of the horde (army) and maintaining it in combat readiness.

Genghis Khan is not a name, but the title of a "war prince", which, in modern world, close to the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And there were several people who bore such a title. The most prominent of them was Timur, it is about him that they usually talk about when they talk about Genghis Khan.

In the surviving historical documents, this man is described as a tall warrior with blue eyes, very white skin, powerful reddish hair and a thick beard. Which clearly does not correspond to the signs of a representative of the Mongoloid race, but fully fits the description of the Slavic appearance (L.N. Gumilyov - "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe".).

French engraving by Pierre Duflos (1742-1816)

In modern "Mongolia" there is not a single folk epic, which would say that this country once conquered almost all of Eurasia in ancient times, just like there is nothing about the great conqueror Genghis Khan ... (N.V. Levashov "Visible and invisible genocide").

Reconstruction of the throne of Genghis Khan with a family tamga with a swastika.

2. Mongolia

The state of Mongolia appeared only in the 1930s, when the Bolsheviks came to the nomads living in the Gobi desert and informed them that they were the descendants of the great Mongols, and their “compatriot” had created in due time Great Empire to which they were very surprised and delighted. The word "Mogul" is of Greek origin and means "Great". This word the Greeks called our ancestors - the Slavs. It has nothing to do with the name of any people (N.V. Levashov "Visible and invisible genocide").

3. The composition of the army "Tatar-Mongols"

70-80% of the army of the "Tatar-Mongols" were Russians, the remaining 20-30% were other small peoples of Russia, in fact, as now. This fact is clearly confirmed by a fragment of the icon of Sergius of Radonezh "The Battle of Kulikovo". It clearly shows that the same warriors are fighting on both sides. And this battle is more like a civil war than a war with a foreign conqueror.

4. What did the "Tatar-Mongols" look like?

Pay attention to the drawing of the tomb of Henry II the Pious, who was killed on the Legnica field.

The inscription is as follows: “The figure of a Tatar under the feet of Henry II, Duke of Silesia, Krakow and placed on the grave in Breslau of this prince, who was killed in the battle with the Tatars at Liegnitz on April 9, 1241.” As we can see, this "Tatar" has a completely Russian appearance, clothes and weapons. In the next image - "Khan's palace in the capital of the Mongol Empire, Khanbalik" (it is believed that Khanbalik is allegedly Beijing).

What is "Mongolian" and what is "Chinese" here? Again, as in the case of the tomb of Henry II, before us are people of a clearly Slavic appearance. Russian caftans, archer caps, the same broad beards, the same characteristic blades of sabers called "elman". Roof on the left - practically exact copy roofs of old Russian towers ... (A. Bushkov, "Russia, which was not").

5. Genetic expertise

According to the latest data obtained as a result of genetic research, it turned out that Tatars and Russians have very similar genetics. Whereas the differences between the genetics of Russians and Tatars from the genetics of the Mongols are colossal: “The differences between the Russian gene pool (almost completely European) and the Mongolian (almost completely Central Asian) are really great - it’s like two different worlds ...” (oagb.ru).

6. Documents during the Tatar-Mongol yoke

During the existence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, not a single document in the Tatar or Mongolian language has been preserved. But there are many documents of this time in Russian.

7. Lack of objective evidence supporting the hypothesis of the Tatar-Mongol yoke

At the moment, there are no originals of any historical documents that would objectively prove that there was a Tatar-Mongol yoke. But on the other hand, there are many fakes designed to convince us of the existence of a fiction called the "Tatar-Mongol yoke." Here is one of those fakes. This text is called "The Word about the Destruction of the Russian Land" and in each publication it is announced as "an excerpt from a poetic work that has not come down to us in its entirety ... About the Tatar-Mongol invasion":

“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, monastery gardens, God's and formidable temples, honest boyars and nobles. many. You are full of everything, Russian land, O Christian Orthodox Faith!..»

There is not even a hint of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" in this text. But in this "ancient" document there is such a line: “You are full of everything, Russian land, O Orthodox Christian faith!”

Before Nikon's church reform, which was carried out in the middle of the 17th century, Christianity in Russia was called "orthodox". It began to be called Orthodox only after this reform... Therefore, this document could have been written no earlier than the middle of the 17th century and has nothing to do with the era of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke"...

On all maps that were published before 1772 and were not corrected in the future, you can see the following.

The western part of Russia is called Muscovy, or Moscow Tartaria ... In this small part of Russia, the Romanov dynasty ruled. Until the end of the 18th century, the Moscow Tsar was called the ruler of Moscow Tartaria or the Duke (Prince) of Moscow. The rest of Russia, which occupied almost the entire continent of Eurasia in the east and south of Muscovy at that time, is called the Russian Empire (see map).

In the 1st edition of the British Encyclopedia of 1771, the following is written about this part of Russia:

“Tartaria, a huge country in the northern part of Asia, bordering Siberia in the north and west: which is called Great Tartaria. Those Tartars living south of Muscovy and Siberia are called Astrakhan, Cherkasy and Dagestan, living in the north-west of the Caspian Sea are called Kalmyk Tartars and which occupy the territory between Siberia and the Caspian Sea; Uzbek Tartars and Mongols, who live north of Persia and India, and, finally, Tibetan, living northwest of China ... "(see the Food of the Republic of Armenia website)…

Where did the name Tartaria come from

Our ancestors knew the laws of nature and the real structure of the world, life, and man. But, as now, the level of development of each person was not the same in those days. People who in their development went much further than others, and who could control space and matter (control the weather, heal diseases, see the future, etc.), were called Magi. Those of the Magi who knew how to control space at the planetary level and above were called Gods.

That is, the meaning of the word God, among our ancestors, was not at all the same as it is now. The gods were people who had gone much further in their development than the vast majority of people. For ordinary person their abilities seemed incredible, however, the gods were also people, and the possibilities of each god had their own limit.

Our ancestors had patrons - God, he was also called Dazhdbog (giving God) and his sister - Goddess Tara. These Gods helped people in solving such problems that our ancestors could not solve on their own. So, the gods Tarkh and Tara taught our ancestors how to build houses, cultivate the land, write and much more, which was necessary in order to survive after the catastrophe and eventually restore civilization.

Therefore, more recently, our ancestors told strangers "We are Tarha and Tara ...". They said this because in their development, they really were children in relation to Tarkh and Tara, who had significantly departed in development. And the inhabitants of other countries called our ancestors "Tarkhtars", and later, because of the difficulty in pronunciation - "Tartars". Hence the name of the country - Tartaria ...

Baptism of Russia

And here the baptism of Russia? some may ask. As it turned out, very much so. After all, baptism did not take place in a peaceful way ... Before baptism, people in Russia were educated, almost everyone knew how to read, write, count (see article). Recall from school curriculum according to history, at least, the same "Birch bark letters" - letters that peasants wrote to each other on birch bark from one village to another.

Our ancestors had a Vedic worldview, as I wrote above, it was not a religion. Since the essence of any religion comes down to the blind acceptance of any dogmas and rules, without a deep understanding of why it is necessary to do it this way and not otherwise. The Vedic worldview, on the other hand, gave people an understanding of real nature, an understanding of how the world works, what is good and what is bad.

People saw what happened after the "baptism" in neighboring countries, when, under the influence of religion, a successful, highly developed country with an educated population, in a matter of years, plunged into ignorance and chaos, where only representatives of the aristocracy could read and write, and then not all of them. ..

Everyone understood perfectly well what the “Greek religion” carried in itself, into which the Bloody and those who stood behind him were going to baptize Kievan Rus. Therefore, none of the inhabitants of the then Kyiv principality (a province that broke away from Great Tartary) accepted this religion. But there were large forces behind Vladimir, and they were not going to retreat.

In the process of "baptism" for 12 years of forced Christianization, with rare exceptions, almost the entire adult population of Kievan Rus was destroyed. Because such a “teaching” could only be imposed on unreasonable people, who, due to their youth, could not yet understand that such a religion turned them into slaves both in the physical and spiritual sense of the word. All those who refused to accept the new "faith" were killed. This is confirmed by the facts that have come down to us. If before the "baptism" on the territory of Kievan Rus there were 300 cities and 12 million inhabitants, then after the "baptism" there were only 30 cities and 3 million people! 270 cities were destroyed! 9 million people were killed! (Diy Vladimir, "Orthodox Russia before the adoption of Christianity and after").

But despite the fact that almost the entire adult population of Kievan Rus was destroyed by the "holy" baptists, the Vedic tradition did not disappear. On the lands of Kievan Rus, the so-called dual faith was established. Most of the population purely formally recognized the imposed religion of slaves, while they themselves continued to live according to the Vedic tradition, though without showing it off. And this phenomenon was observed not only among the masses, but also among part of the ruling elite. And this state of affairs continued until the reform of Patriarch Nikon, who figured out how to deceive everyone.

conclusions

In fact, after baptism in the principality of Kiev, only children and a very small part of the adult population survived, who adopted the Greek religion - 3 million people out of a population of 12 million before baptism. The principality was completely devastated, most of the cities, villages and villages were looted and burned. But exactly the same picture is drawn to us by the authors of the version of the “Tatar-Mongol yoke”, the only difference is that the same cruel actions were allegedly carried out there by the “Tatar-Mongols”!

As always, the winner writes history. And it becomes obvious that in order to hide all the cruelty with which it was baptized Kiev principality, and in order to stop all possible questions, and the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" was subsequently invented. Children were brought up in the traditions of the Greek religion (the cult of Dionysius, and later Christianity) and history was rewritten, where all the cruelty was blamed on the “wild nomads”…

The famous statement of President V.V. Putin about, in which the Russians allegedly fought against the Tatars with the Mongols ...

The Tatar-Mongol yoke is the biggest myth of history.

Like it or not, the story was, is, and also remains quite ghostly and unreliable, and those facts that we are used to taking at face value often turn out to be vague and vague upon closer examination. Who exactly, and most importantly, why rewrites that very objective information is often simply not possible to identify, for lack of eyewitnesses who can either confirm or refute it. However, it should be said that there are inconsistencies, outright nonsense, as well as blunders that are striking and worth discussing in more detail, because among huge amount chaff, it is quite possible that the truth will be found. Moreover, in the history of our country there is also enough such goodness, for example, you can discuss the Tatar-Mongolian yoke briefly, without wandering into the dark jungle of a windy girl named Clio.

Official version: when the Mongol yoke was formed and who might need it

First of all, you need to find out what the official version of history says about the Mongol-Tatar yoke of 1237-1480, which we very successfully studied at school. It is this version that is considered correct, therefore it is necessary to proceed from this. Fans of this version believe, based on available sources, that in the early spring of 1237, that is, at the very beginning of the thirteenth century, Genghis Khan suddenly appeared at the helm of the nomadic tribes that at that time lived communally and scattered. In just a couple of years, this really talented leader, and roughly speaking, a real, brilliant leader, gathered such a colossal army that he was immediately able to set out on his own, which turned out to be actually victorious, campaign to the northwest.

Although no, everything was somewhat not so fast, because at first, on hastily a well-knit state, which previously consisted of completely disparate tribes and communities, conquered China, which was quite strong at that time, and at the same time its closest neighbors. Only after all this, the Golden Horde, like an endless sea, rushed in our direction, jingling with spears and playing with long beards, riding dashing horses, intending to plant the Tatar-Mongol yoke on Mother Russia, which is what we are talking about.

Tatar-Mongol yoke: start and end date, according to the official version, dates and numbers

Horror, fear, horror gripped all of ancient Russia, from edge to edge, when millions of troops entered our lands. Burning everything in its path, killing and also maiming the population, leaving behind only ashes, the "Horde" marched through the steppes and plains, capturing more and more territories, horrifying everyone who met them on the way.

Absolutely no one could prevent this incredible avalanche, fragrant with fat and soot, and our epic good fellows and heroes, apparently, were just lying on the stoves, maturing their prescribed thirty-three years. Having reached the Czech Republic and Poland itself, the victorious campaign, for completely unknown reasons, suddenly choked and stood up as if rooted to the spot, and the Tatar-Mongolian yoke stopped, splashed in place, like a real sea, establishing its own rules, as well as its rather tough regime on the conquered from amazing lightness of the territories.

It was then that the Russian princes received special letters, as well as labels from the khan for administration. That is, the country, in fact, simply continued to live its usual, everyday life. To make it clearer, it is worth saying that the yoke is in Ancient Russia the so-called yoke worn on powerful animals, oxen, pulling an unbearable burden, for example, a cart loaded with salt. True, the Mongols and Tatars, at times, apparently for greater fear and to prevent indignation with the regime, ravaged several small villages or towns.

Tribute to the Khan had to be paid regularly and very carefully, in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and the establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia went off with a bang. The Mongols are eastern people - quick-tempered and hot-tempered, why tempt fate? This went on for about three hundred years, until Dmitry Donskoy finally showed the Horde handsome, Khan Mamai, where these domestic crayfish hibernate, which mortally frightened the invaders, who seemed completely fearless and invincible.

At about the same time, in the middle of the fourteenth century AD, on the Ugra River, Prince Ivan the Third and the Tatar Akhmat, after standing against each other for several days, for some reason simply dispersed without even entering into battle. Moreover, the Horde "peepers" clearly lost these. This time is considered the official end of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. These events are dated around 1380.

The period of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia: years and key dates

However, the invaders raged and raged for several more decades, and the consequences for the country turned out to be simply catastrophic, the horde managed to embroil the Russian princes, so much so that they were ready to tear each other's throats for labels and petitions from the Khan. At that time, the son of the notorious Genghis Khan, the elderly young man Batu, stood at the head of the Horde, and he surrendered to the enemy.

Thus, it turns out that the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which lasted about two or three hundred years, ended in nothing. Moreover, the official version of history also offers the dates of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, which are key. How long did the Tatar-Mongol yoke last in Russia? Think for yourself, it's not at all difficult, because specific numbers are given, and then pure mathematics.

• The Mongol-Tatar yoke, which we are briefly talking about, began in 1223, when an innumerable horde approached the borders of Russia.
• Even the date of the first battle is known, which marked the beginning of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. : May 31 of the same year.
• Tatar-Mongol yoke: the date of the massive attack on Russia is the winter of 1237.
• In the same year, the Mongol yoke in Russia, in short, reigned, Kolomna and Ryazan were captured, and after them the entire Palo-Ryazan principality.
• In the early spring of 1238, at the very beginning of March, the city of Vladimir was captured, which later became the center from which the Tatar-Mongols ruled, and Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich was also killed.
• A year later, the horde also captured Chernigov.
• Kyiv fell in 1240, and it was a complete collapse for Russia at that time.
• Palo was captured by 1241 Galicia-Volyn principality, after which the activity of the Horde clearly stopped.

However, the Tatar-Mongol yoke did not end there, and for another forty years the Russians paid tribute to the Horde Khan, because official history says that it ended only in 1280. To get a clearer idea of ​​​​the events taking place, it is worth considering the map of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, everything is quite transparent and simple there, if you take everything on faith.

Tatar-Mongol yoke: historical fact or fiction

What do alternative sources say, so to speak, was the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia really, or was it specially invented for some specific purpose? Let's start with Genghis Khan himself, an extremely interesting and even, one might say, entertaining personality. Who was this "leader of the Comanches", the most talented of all existing rulers, leaders and organizers, who probably outdid Adolf Hitler himself? A mysterious phenomenon, but the Mongol by birth and tribe, it turns out, was quite European in appearance! A Persian historian, a contemporary of the Mongol-Tatar campaigns, named Rashidad-Din, frankly writes in his chronicles:

“All children from the clan of Genghis Khan were born with blond hair, and besides, they also had gray eyes. The Great One himself had the yellow-green eyes of a wild cougar.”

It turns out that he is not a Mongol at all, a great Mongol! For a snack, there is more information, and quite reliable: In the twelfth-thirteenth centuries, when the invasion took place, the Mongolian and Tatar peoples simply did not have a written language! That's why own sources they definitely could not write purely physically. Well, they didn't know how to write, and that's it! It is a pity, because their words would be useful to us in establishing the truth.

These peoples learned to write after as many as five centuries, that is, much later than the Tatar-Mongol yoke allegedly existed in Russia, and even that is far from all. If you thoroughly delve into the historical reports of other peoples, then nothing is written about the black-eyed and black-haired invaders of vast territories, from China to the Czech Republic and Poland. The trace is lost and it is impossible to find it.

The Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia lasted a long time, but left no traces behind

When Russian travelers, exploring more and more new lands, turned their feet to the east, to the Urals and Siberia, then on their way, they would certainly have met at least some traces of the presence of the once multi-million army. After all, the Tatar-Mongols, according to legend, were supposed to “keep” these territories too. Moreover, no burials were found that more or less resemble Turkic ones. It turns out that no one has died in them for three hundred years? Cossack travelers did not find even a hint of the city or any infrastructure "decent" for their time. But it was here that the very tract was supposed to pass, along which tribute was brought from all over Russia. A strange forgetfulness was observed among the people who occupied these lands for centuries - they did not know about any yoke either in sleep or in spirit.

In addition to the complete "lack of presence", as everyone's favorite humorist Mikhail Zadornov would say, one can also note the elementary impossibility of existence, and even more so the victorious march of an army of half a million people in those dense times! According to the same evidence on which official history relies, it turns out that every nomad had at his disposal at least two horses, and sometimes even three or four. It is difficult to imagine this herd of several million horses, and even more difficult to figure out how to feed such a host of hungry animals. In one day, these countless hordes of ungulates were supposed to gobble up all the greenery within a radius of several hundred kilometers and leave behind a landscape that most of all resembles the consequences of a nuclear attack or a zombie invasion.

Perhaps, under the attack and rule of the Mongols, someone skillfully disguised something else, completely unrelated to the poor nomadic peoples? It is hard to imagine that they, accustomed to living in a rather warm steppe, felt calm in the severe Russian frosts, and even the more persistent and hardy Germans could not stand them, although they were equipped with the latest technology and weapons. And the very fact of such a well-coordinated and well-functioning control mechanism is rather strange to expect from nomads. The most interesting thing is that completely wild people, at times, were depicted in early paintings dressed in armor and chain mail, and during hostilities they could calmly roll out a ram to the gates of the city. With the idea of ​​​​the Tatar-Mongols of that time, these facts somehow do not fit at all.

Such inconsistencies, large and small, can be found, if you dig, not on one volume scientific work. Who and why needed to falsify history, "sinning" the poor Mongols and Tatars, who were not even aware of something like that? To be honest, it should be admitted that these peoples learned about their heroic past much later, and most likely already from the words of Europeans. It's funny, isn't it? What did they want to hide from their descendants, laying responsibility for the destruction and years of unbearable tribute on Genghis Khan? So far, all this is just theory and conjecture, and it is not at all a fact that the objective truth will ever be clarified.