Causes of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia. Capitals of the Golden Horde. The meaning of the yoke in the history of Russia

How are historiographies written?

Unfortunately, there is no analytical review on the history of historiographies yet. It's a pity! Then we would understand the difference between historiography for the health of the state and historiography for its repose. If we want to glorify the beginning of the state, we will write that it was founded by a hardworking and independent people, who enjoy the well-deserved respect of their neighbors.
If we want to sing a requiem to him, then let's say that it was founded by a wild people living in dense forests and impassable swamps, and the state was created by representatives of a different ethnic group, who came here just because of the inability of local residents to equip a distinctive and independent power. Then, if we sing the eulogy, we will say that the title of this ancient education was clear to everyone, and has not changed to this day. On the contrary, if we bury our state, we will say that it was named unknown how, and then changed its name. Finally, in favor of the state in the first phase of its development will be the assertion of its strength. And vice versa, if we want to show that the state was so-so, we must show not only that it was weak, but also that it was able to conquer an unknown in antiquity, and a very peaceful and small people. It is on this last statement that I would like to dwell.

- This is the name of a chapter from the book of Kungurov (KUN). He writes: “The official version of ancient Russian history, composed by Germans discharged from abroad to St. Kievan Rus, then from somewhere in the East, evil wild nomads come, destroy the Russian state and establish an occupation regime called the “yoke”. After two and a half centuries, the Moscow princes throw off the yoke, collect Russian lands under their rule and create a powerful Muscovite kingdom, which is the successor of Kievan Rus and save the Russians from the "yoke"; for several centuries in Eastern Europe there has been an ethnically Russian Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but politically it is dependent on the Poles, and therefore cannot be considered a Russian state, therefore, the war between Lithuania and Muscovy should be considered not as a civil strife of Russian princes, but as a struggle between Moscow and Poland for the reunification of Russian lands.

Despite the fact that this version of history is still recognized as official, only "professional" scientists can consider it reliable. A person who is used to thinking with his head will doubt this very much, if only because the story of the Mongol invasion is completely sucked out of his finger. Until the 19th century, Russians did not suspect at all that they had allegedly once been conquered by Transbaikalian savages. Indeed, the version that a highly developed state was completely defeated by some wild steppes who were not able to create an army in accordance with the technical and cultural achievements of that time looks delusional. Moreover, such a people as the Mongols were not known to science. True, historians did not lose their heads and announced that the Mongols are a small nomadic Khalkha people living in Central Asia ”(KUN: 162).

Indeed, all the great conquerors are well known. When Spain had a powerful fleet, the great armada, Spain captured a number of lands of Northern and South America, and today there are two dozen Latin American states. Britain, as mistress of the seas, also has or had a lot of colonies. But today we do not know a single colony of Mongolia or a state dependent on it. Moreover, except for the Buryats or Kalmyks, who are the same Mongols, not a single ethnic group in Russia speaks Mongolian.

“The Khalkhas themselves learned that they were the heirs of the great Genghis Khan only in the 19th century, but they did not object - everyone wants to have great, albeit mythical, ancestors. And in order to explain the disappearance of the Mongols after they successfully conquered half of the world, a completely artificial term “Mongol-Tatars” is introduced into use, which means other nomadic peoples allegedly conquered by the Mongols, who joined the conquerors and formed a certain community in them. In China, foreign-speaking conquerors turn into Manchus, in India - into Mughals, and in both cases form the ruling dynasties. In the future, however, we do not observe any nomadic Tatars, but this is because, as the same historians explain, that the Mongol-Tatars settled on the lands they conquered, and partially took them back to the steppe and evaporated there completely without a trace ”(KUN: 162- 163).

Wikipedia about the yoke.

This is how Wikipedia interprets the Tatar-Mongol yoke: “The Mongol-Tatar yoke is a system of political and tributary dependence of the Russian principalities on the Mongol-Tatar khans (until the beginning of the 60s of the XIII century, the Mongol khans, after the khans of the Golden Horde) in the XIII-XV centuries. The establishment of the yoke became possible as a result of the Mongol invasion of Russia in 1237-1241 and took place for two decades after it, including in the unravaged lands. In North-Eastern Russia it lasted until 1480. In other Russian lands, it was liquidated in the XIV century as they were absorbed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.

The term "yoke", meaning the power of the Golden Horde over Russia, is not found in Russian chronicles. It appeared at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries in Polish historical literature. The first to use it was the chronicler Jan Dlugosh (“iugum barbarum”, “iugum servitutis”) in 1479 and the professor of the University of Krakow Matvey Mechovsky in 1517. Literature: 1. The Golden Horde // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: In 86 volumes (82 volumes). and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg: 1890-1907.2. Malov N. M., Malyshev A. B., Rakushin A. I. “Religion in the Golden Horde”. The word formation “Mongol-Tatar yoke” was first used in 1817 by H. Kruse, whose book was translated into Russian in the middle of the 19th century and published in St. Petersburg.”

So, for the first time this term was introduced by the Poles in the XV-XVI centuries, who saw the “yoke” in the relations of the Tatar-Mongol to other peoples. The reason for this is explained by the second work of 3 authors: “Apparently, the Tatar yoke was first used in Polish historical literature of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. At this time, on the borders of Western Europe, an active foreign policy was pursued by the young Muscovite state, which had freed itself from the vassal dependence of the Golden Horde khans. In neighboring Poland, there is an increased interest in the history, foreign policy, armed forces, national relations, internal structure, traditions and customs of Muscovy. Therefore, it is no coincidence that for the first time the phrase Tatar yoke was used in the Polish Chronicle (1515-1519) by Matvey Mekhovsky, professor at the University of Krakow, court physician and astrologer of King Sigismund I. The author of various medical and historical works, spoke enthusiastically about Ivan III, who threw off the Tatar yoke , considering this his most important merit, and apparently the global event of the era.

Mention of the yoke by historians.

Poland's attitude towards Russia has always been ambiguous, and the attitude towards its own fate - as an exceptionally tragic one. So they could completely exaggerate the dependence of some peoples on the Tatar-Mongols. And then 3 authors continue: “Later, the term Tatar yoke is also mentioned in notes on the Moscow war of 1578-1582, compiled by the secretary of state of another king, Stefan Batory, Reinhold Heidenstein. Even Jacques Margeret, a French mercenary and adventurer, an officer in the Russian service and a man far from science, knew what was meant by the Tatar yoke. This term was widely used by other Western European historians of the 17th-18th centuries. In particular, the Englishman John Milton and the Frenchman De Tu were familiar with him. Thus, for the first time, the term Tatar yoke was probably introduced into circulation by Polish and Western European historians, and not by Russians or Russians.

For now, I will interrupt the quotation to draw attention to the fact that foreigners write about the “yoke”, first of all, who really liked the scenario of a weak Russia, which was captured by the “evil Tatars”. Whereas Russian historians still did not know anything about it

"AT. N. Tatishchev did not use this phrase, perhaps because, when writing the Russian History, he mainly relied on early Russian chronicle terms and expressions, where it is absent. I. N. Boltin already used the term Tatar dominion, and M., M., Shcherbatov believed that liberation from the Tatar yoke was a huge achievement of Ivan III. N. M., Karamzin found in the Tatar yoke both negative - the tightening of laws and customs, the slowdown in the development of education and science, and positive points- the formation of autocracy, a factor in the unification of Russia. Another phrase, the Tatar-Mongolian yoke, also, most likely, comes from the lexicon of Western, and not domestic researchers. In 1817, Christopher Kruse published an Atlas of European History, where he first introduced the term Mongol-Tatar yoke into scientific circulation. Although this work was translated into Russian only in 1845, but already in the 20s of the XIX century. domestic historians began to use this new scientific definition. Since that time, the terms: Mongol-Tatars, Mongol-Tatar yoke, Mongol yoke, Tatar yoke and Horde yoke, have traditionally been widely distributed in Russian historical science. In our encyclopedic publications, under the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia of the XIII-XV centuries, it is understood: the system of rule of the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords, with the help of various political, military and economic means, aimed at the regular exploitation of the conquered country. Thus, in European historical literature, the term yoke denotes domination, oppression, slavery, captivity, or the power of foreign conquerors over defeated peoples and states. It is known that the Old Russian principalities were economically and politically subordinate to the Golden Horde, and also paid tribute. The Golden Horde khans actively interfere in the policy of the Russian principalities, which they tried to tightly control. Sometimes, the relationship between the Golden Horde and the Russian principalities is characterized as a symbiosis, or a military alliance directed against the countries of Western Europe and some Asian states, first Muslim, and after the collapse of the Mongol Empire - Mongolian.

However, it should be noted that, if theoretically the so-called symbiosis, or military alliance, could exist for some time, then it has never been equal, voluntary and stable. In addition, even in the epochs of the developed and late Middle Ages, short-term interstate unions were usually formalized by contractual relations. There could not be such equal allied relations between the fragmented Russian principalities and the Golden Horde, since the khans of the Ulus Jochi issued labels for the rule of the Vladimir, Tver, Moscow princes. The Russian princes were obliged, at the request of the khans, to field an army to participate in the military campaigns of the Golden Horde. In addition, using the Russian princes and their army, the Mongols carry out punitive campaigns against other recalcitrant Russian principalities. The khans called the princes to the Horde in order to issue a label to reign alone, and to execute or pardon those who were objectionable. During this period, the Russian lands were actually under the rule or yoke of the Ulus of Jochi. Although, sometimes the foreign policy interests of the Golden Horde khans and Russian princes, for various reasons, could coincide in some way. The Golden Horde is a chimera state in which the conquerors make up the elite, and the conquered peoples make up the lower strata. The Mongolian Golden Horde elite established power over the Polovtsians, Alans, Circassians, Khazars, Bulgars, Finno-Ugric peoples, and also placed the Russian principalities in rigid vassal dependence. Therefore, it can be assumed that the scientific term yoke is quite acceptable for designating in the historical literature the nature of the power of the Golden Horde established not only over the Russian lands.

Yoke as Christianization of Russia.

Thus, Russian historians really repeated the statements of the German Christopher Kruse, while they did not subtract such a term from any chronicle. On oddities in the interpretation of the Tatar Mongolian yoke noticed not only Kungurov. Here is what we read in the article (TAT): “Such a nationality as the Mongol-Tatars does not exist, and did not exist at all. The only thing the Mongols and Tatars have in common is that they roamed the Central Asian steppe, which, as we know, is quite large to accommodate any nomadic people, and at the same time give them the opportunity not to intersect in one territory at all. The Mongol tribes lived in the southern tip of the Asian steppe and often hunted for raids on China and its provinces, which is often confirmed by the history of China. While other nomadic Turkic tribes, called from time immemorial in Russia Bulgars (Volga Bulgaria), settled in the lower reaches of the Volga River. At that time in Europe they were called Tatars, or TatAriyev (the strongest of the nomadic tribes, inflexible and invincible). And the Tatars, the closest neighbors of the Mongols, lived in the northeastern part of modern Mongolia, mainly in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bLake Buir-Nor and up to the borders of China. There were 70 thousand families, which made up 6 tribes: Tutukulyut Tatars, Alchi Tatars, Chagan Tatars, Kuin Tatars, Terat Tatars, Barkui Tatars. The second parts of the names, apparently, are the self-names of these tribes. Among them there is not a single word that would sound close to the Turkic language - they are more in tune with the Mongolian names. Two kindred peoples - the Tatars and the Mongols - waged a war for a long time with varying success for mutual extermination, until Genghis Khan seized power in all of Mongolia. The fate of the Tatars was sealed. Since the Tatars were the murderers of Genghis Khan's father, they exterminated many tribes and clans close to him, constantly supported the tribes opposing him, “then Genghis Khan (Tei-mu-Chin) ordered a general massacre of the Tatars and not one left alive to that limit, which is determined by law (Yasak); that the women and little children should also be slaughtered, and that the wombs of the pregnant women should be cut open in order to completely destroy them. ...”. That is why such a nationality could not threaten the freedom of Russia. Moreover, many historians and cartographers of that time, especially Eastern European ones, “sinned” to call all indestructible (from the point of view of Europeans) and invincible peoples TatAri or simply in Latin TatArie. This can be easily traced on ancient maps, for example, the Map of Russia in 1594 in the Atlas of Gerhard Mercator, or the Maps of Russia and Tartaria by Ortelius. You can view these cards below. So what can we see from the newly found material? And we see that this event simply could not happen, at least in the form in which it is transmitted to us. And before proceeding to the narration of the truth, I propose to consider a few more inconsistencies in the "historical" description of these events.

Even in the modern school curriculum, this historical moment is briefly described as follows: “At the beginning of the 13th century, Genghis Khan gathered a large army from nomadic peoples, and subjecting them to strict discipline decided to conquer the whole world. Having defeated China, he sent his army to Russia. In the winter of 1237, the army of the "Mongol-Tatars" invaded the territory of Russia, and later defeating the Russian army on the Kalka River, went further, through Poland and the Czech Republic. As a result, having reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, the army suddenly stops, and without completing its task, turns back. From this period, the So-called "Mongol-Tatar Yoke" over Russia begins.
But wait, they were going to take over the world...so why didn't they go further? Historians answered that they were afraid of an attack from the back, defeated and plundered, but still strong Russia. But this is just ridiculous. A plundered state, will it run to protect other people's cities and villages? Rather, they will rebuild their borders, and wait for the return of the enemy troops in order to fully fight back. But the oddities don't end there. For some unimaginable reason, during the reign of the Romanov dynasty, dozens of chronicles describing the events of the "Horde times" disappear. For example, "The Word about the destruction of the Russian land", historians believe that this is a document from which everything that would testify to the Yoke was carefully removed. They left only fragments telling about some kind of "trouble" that befell Russia. But there is not a word about the "invasion of the Mongols." There are many more oddities. In the story “About the Evil Tatars”, a Khan from the Golden Horde orders the execution of a Russian Christian prince ... for refusing to bow to the “pagan god of the Slavs!” And some chronicles contain amazing phrases, for example, such: “Well, with God!” - said the Khan and, crossing himself, galloped at the enemy. So what really happened? At that time, Europe was already flourishing "new faith" namely Faith in Christ. Catholicism was widespread everywhere, and ruled everything, from the way of life and system, to the state system and legislation. At that time, crusades against the Gentiles were still relevant, but along with military methods, “tactical tricks” were often used, akin to bribing powerful people and inducing them to their faith. And after receiving power through a purchased person, the conversion of all his “subordinates” to the faith. It was precisely such a secret crusade that was then carried out against Russia. Through bribery and other promises, church ministers were able to seize power over Kyiv and nearby areas. Just relatively recently, by the standards of history, the baptism of Russia took place, but history is silent about the civil war that arose on this soil immediately after the forced baptism.

So, this author interprets the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" as a civil war imposed by the West during the real, Western baptism of Russia, which took place in the XIII-XIV centuries. Such an understanding of the baptism of Russia is very painful for the ROC for two reasons. The date of the baptism of Russia is considered to be 988, and not 1237. Due to the date shift, the antiquity of Russian Christianity is reduced by 249 years, which reduces the “millennium of Orthodoxy” by almost a third. On the other hand, the source of Russian Christianity is not the activities of the Russian princes, including Vladimir, but the Western crusades, accompanied by mass protests of the Russian population. This raises the question of the legitimacy of the introduction of Orthodoxy in Russia. Finally, the responsibility for the "yoke" in this case is transferred from the unknown "Tatar-Mongol" to the very real West, to Rome and Constantinople. And official historiography on this issue turns out to be not science, but modern near-scientific mythology. But let's get back to the texts of the book by Alexei Kungurov, especially since he examines in great detail all the inconsistencies of the official version.

Lack of writing and artifacts.

“The Mongols did not have their own alphabet and did not leave a single written source” (KUN: 163). Indeed, this is extremely surprising. Generally speaking, even if the people do not have their own written language, then for state acts it uses the writing of other peoples. Therefore, the complete absence of state acts in such a large state as the Mongol Khanate during its heyday causes not only bewilderment, but doubt that such a state ever existed. “If we demand to present at least some material evidence of the long existence of the Mongol Empire, then archaeologists, scratching their heads and grunting, will show a pair of half-rotted sabers and several female earrings. But do not try to find out why the remains of sabers are "Mongol-Tatar" and not Cossack, for example. No one will explain this to you for sure. At best, you will hear a story that the saber was dug up at the place where, according to the version of the ancient and very reliable chronicle, there was a battle with the Mongols. Where is that chronicle? God knows, it has not reached our days, but the historian N. saw it with his own eyes, who translated it from Old Russian. Where is this historian N.? Yes, he has been dead for two hundred years - modern "scientists" will answer you, but they will certainly add that the works of N are considered classic and are beyond doubt, since all subsequent generations of historians wrote their works based on his writings. I'm not laughing - something like this is the case in the official historical science of Russian antiquity. Even worse - armchair scientists, creatively developing the legacy of the classics of Russian historiography, scribbled such nonsense about the Mongols in their plump volumes, whose arrows, it turns out, pierced the armor of European knights, and wall-beating guns, flamethrowers and even rocket artillery allowed them to be taken by storm for several days powerful fortresses that this raises serious doubts about their mental usefulness. It seems that they do not see any difference between a bow and a crossbow loaded with a lever” ” (KUHN: 163-164).

But where could the Mongols encounter the armor of European knights, and what do Russian sources say about this? “And the Vorogs came from the Overseas, and they brought faith in alien gods. With fire and sword, they began to instill in us an alien faith, Showering the Russian princes with gold and silver, bribing their will, and misleading the true path. They promised them an idle life, full of wealth and happiness, and the remission of any sins, for their dashing deeds. And then Ros broke up into different states. The Russian clans retreated to the north to the great Asgard, And they named their state by the names of the gods of their patrons, Tarkh Dazhdbog the Great and Tara, his Sister of Light. (They called her Great Tartaria). Leaving foreigners with princes bought in the principality of Kiev and its environs. Volga Bulgaria also did not bow before the enemies, and did not accept their alien faith as their own. But the principality of Kiev did not live in peace with Tartary. They began to conquer the Russian land with fire and sword and impose their alien faith. And then the army rose up, for a fierce battle. In order to keep their faith and win back their lands. Both old and young then went to the Warriors in order to restore order to the Russian Lands.

And so the war began, in which the Russian army, the land of the Great Aria (tatAria) defeated the enemy, and drove him out of the primordially Slavic lands. It drove the alien army, with their fierce faith, from their stately lands. By the way, the word Horde, translated from the letters of the ancient Slavic alphabet, means Order. That is, the Golden Horde is not a separate state, it is a system. "Political" system of the Golden Order. Under which the Princes reigned locally, planted with the approval of the Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Army, or in one word they called him KHAN (our protector).
This means that there was not, after all, more than two hundred years of oppression, but there was a time of peace and prosperity of the Great Aria or Tartaria. By the way, in modern history there is also confirmation of this, but for some reason no one pays attention to it. But we will definitely pay attention, and very closely…: Don't you think it's strange that the battle with the Swedes takes place right in the middle of the invasion of the "Mongol-Tatars" into Russia? Russia, blazing in fires and plundered by the "Mongols", is attacked by the Swedish army, which safely drowns in the waters of the Neva, and at the same time, the Swedish crusaders do not encounter the Mongols even once. And the Russians, who defeated the strong Swedish army, lose to the Mongols? In my opinion, it's just Brad. Two huge armies at the same time are fighting on the same territory and never intersect. But if we turn to the ancient Slavonic chronicle, then everything becomes clear.

Since 1237, the Rat of Great Tartaria began to recapture their ancestral lands back, and when the war was coming to an end, church representatives who were losing power asked for help, and the Swedish crusaders were sent into battle. If it was not possible to take the country by bribery, then they will take it by force. Just in 1240, the army of the Horde (that is, the army of Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich, one of the princes of the ancient Slavic family) clashed in battle with the army of the Crusaders that came to the rescue of their henchmen. Having won the battle on the Neva, Alexander received the title of the Neva prince and remained to reign in Novgorod, and the Horde Army went further to drive the adversary from the Russian lands completely. So she persecuted the “church and alien faith” until she reached the Adriatic Sea, thereby restoring her original ancient borders. And having reached them, the army turned around and again went north. By establishing a 300-year period of peace” (TAT).

Fantasies of historians about the power of the Mongols.

Commenting on the lines cited above (KUN:163), Alexei Kungurov adds: “Here is what Sergey Nefyodov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, writes: “The main weapon of the Tatars was the Mongolian bow,“ saadak ”, - it was thanks to this New Weapon that the Mongols conquered most of the promised world. It was a complex killing machine, glued together from three layers of wood and bone and wrapped in tendons to protect against moisture; gluing was carried out under pressure, and drying lasted several years - the secret of making these bows was kept secret. This bow was not inferior in power to the musket; an arrow from it pierced any armor for 300 meters, and it was all about the ability to hit the target, because the bows did not have a sight and shooting from them required many years of training. Possessing this all-destroying weapon, the Tatars did not like to fight hand-to-hand; they preferred to fire at the enemy with bows, dodging his attacks; this shelling sometimes lasted several days, and the Mongols took out their sabers only when the enemies were wounded and fell from exhaustion. The last, "ninth", attack was carried out by "swordsmen" - warriors armed with curved swords and, along with horses, covered with armor made of thick buffalo leather. During the big battles, this attack was preceded by shelling from the "fire catapults" borrowed from the Chinese - these catapults fired bombs filled with gunpowder, which, when exploding, "burned the armor with sparks" (NEF). - Alexey Kungurov comments on this passage as follows: “The funny thing here is not that Nefyodov is a historian (this brethren has the most dense idea of ​​natural science), but that he is also a candidate of physical and mathematical sciences. Well, how much you need to degrade your mind in order to flog such nonsense! Yes, if the bow shot at 300 meters and at the same time pierced any armor, then firearms simply did not have a chance to be born. The American M-16 rifle has an effective firing range of 400 meters with a muzzle velocity of 1000 meters per second. Further, the bullet quickly loses its striking ability. In reality, further than 100 meters, aimed shooting from the M-16 with a mechanical sight is ineffective. At 300 meters, even from a powerful rifle, shoot accurately without optical sight only a very experienced shooter can do it. And the scientist Nefyodov spins nonsense about the fact that Mongolian arrows not only flew aiming for a third of a kilometer (the maximum distance at which archer champions shoot at competitions is 90 meters), but also pierced any armor. Rave! For example, good chain mail cannot be pierced even at close range from the most powerful bow. To defeat a warrior in chain mail, a special arrow with a needle tip was used, which did not pierce the armor, but, with a good combination of circumstances, passed through the rings.

In physics at school, I had grades no higher than three, but I know very well from practice that an arrow fired from a bow is given the force that the muscles of the hands develop when it is pulled. That is, with about the same success, you can take an arrow with your hand and try to pierce at least an enameled basin with it. In the absence of an arrow, use any pointed object such as half a tailor's scissors, an awl or a knife. How is it going? Do you believe the historians after that? If they write in their dissertations that short and thin Mongols pulled their bows with a force of 75 kg, then I would only award the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences to those who can repeat this feat on defense. Though parasites with scientific titles will be less. By the way, modern Mongols have no idea about any saadaks - the superweapon of the Middle Ages. Having conquered half the world with them, for some reason they completely forgot how to do it.

It is even easier with wall-beating machines and catapults: one has only to look at the drawings of these monsters, as it becomes clear that these multi-ton colossus cannot be moved even a meter, since they will get stuck in the ground even during construction. But even if in those days there were asphalt roads from Transbaikalia to Kyiv and Polotsk, how would the Mongols drag them thousands of kilometers, how did they transport them across large rivers like the Volga or the Dnieper? Stone fortresses ceased to be considered impregnable only with the invention of siege artillery, and in previous times well-fortified cities were taken only by starvation” (KUN: 164-165). I think this criticism is great. I will add that, according to the works of Ya.A. Koestler, there were no saltpeter reserves in China, so they had nothing to fill with powder bombs. In addition, gunpowder does not create a temperature of 1556 degrees, at which iron melts in order to "burn armor with sparks." And if he could create such a temperature, then the “sparks” would burn first of all the guns and guns at the moment of the shot. It is very funny to read that the Tatars fired and fired (the number of arrows in their quiver, apparently, was not limited), and the enemy was exhausted, and the skinny Mongol warriors shot the tenth and hundredth arrows with the same fresh strength as the first, not getting tired at all. Surprisingly, even shooters from a rifle get tired, shooting while standing, and this state was unknown to the Mongolian archers.

At one time, I heard from lawyers the expression: "Lies like an eyewitness." Now, probably, using the example of Nefyodov, an addition should be proposed: “He lies like a professional historian.”

Mongolian metallurgists.

It would seem that we can put an end to this already, but Kungurov wants to consider several more aspects. “I know little about metallurgy, but I can still estimate very roughly how many tons of iron are needed to arm even a 10,000-strong Mongol army” (KUN:166). Where did the 10,000 figure come from? - This is the minimum size of the troops with which you can go on a campaign of conquest. Guy Julius Caesar with such a detachment could not capture Britain, but when he doubled the number, the conquest of foggy Albion was a success. “Actually, such a small army could not conquer China, India, Russia and other countries. Therefore, historians, without trifles, write about the 30,000th cavalry horde of Batu, sent to conquer Russia, but this figure seems absolutely fantastic. Even if we assume that the Mongol warriors had leather armor, wooden shields, and stone arrowheads, then horseshoes, spears, knives, swords, and sabers still require iron.

Now it’s worth considering: how did the wild nomads know the high iron-making technologies at that time? After all, the ore still needs to be mined, and for this to be able to find it, that is, to understand a little about geology. Are there many ancient ore mines in the Mongolian steppes? How many remains of forges do archaeologists find there? Of course, they are still those wizards - they will find anything they want, where they need it. But in this case, nature itself made the task extremely difficult for archaeologists. Even today, iron ore is not mined in Mongolia (although small deposits have recently been discovered)” (KUN:166). But even if the ore was found, and smelting furnaces existed, the work of metallurgists would have to be paid, and they themselves had to live settled. Where are the former settlements of metallurgists? Where are waste rock dumps (heaps)? Where are the remnants of warehouses for finished products? None of this has been found.

“Of course, weapons can be bought, but money is needed, which the ancient Mongols did not have, at least they are completely unknown to world archeology. Yes, and could not have, because their economy was not marketable. Weapons could be exchanged, but where, from whom and for what? In short, if you think about such trifles, then the campaign of Genghis Khan from the Manchurian steppes to China, India, Persia, the Caucasus and Europe looks like a complete fantasy ”(KUN: 166).

This is not the first time I have come across such "punctures" in mythological historiography. As a matter of fact, any historiographical myth is written in order to close the real fact like a smoke screen. This kind of camouflage works well in cases where secondary facts are masked. But it is impossible to disguise advanced technologies, the highest at that time. It's like a criminal over two meters tall wearing someone else's suit and mask - he is identified not by his clothes or face, but by his exorbitant height. If in the indicated period, that is, in the XIII century, the best iron armor was worn by Western European knights, then it would be impossible to attribute their urban culture to the steppe nomads in any way. In the same way as the highest culture of Etruscan writing, where the Italian, Russian, stylized Greek alphabets and runica were used, it is impossible to attribute to any small people like the Albanians or Chechens, who, perhaps, did not exist in those days.

Forage for the Mongolian cavalry.

“For example, how did the Mongols cross the Volga or the Dnieper? You can't swim a two-kilometer stream, you can't wade. There is only one way out - to wait for winter to cross the ice. It was in winter, by the way, that in Russia they usually fought in old age. But in order to make such a long journey during the winter, it is necessary to prepare an enormous amount of fodder, since although the Mongolian horse is able to find withered grass under the snow, for this it needs to graze where there is grass. In this case, the snow cover should be small. In the Mongolian steppes, winters are just short of snow, and the herbage is quite high. In Russia, the opposite is true - the grass is tall only in floodplain meadows, and in all other places it is very thin. Snowdrifts, on the other hand, sweep up such that a horse, not only to find grass under it, will not be able to move through deep snow. Otherwise, it is not clear why the French lost all their cavalry during the retreat from Moscow. Of course, they ate it, but they ate the already fallen horses, because if the horses were well-fed and healthy, then uninvited guests would use them to get away as soon as possible ”(KUN: 166-167). – Note that it is for this reason that summer campaigns have become preferable for Western Europeans.

“Oats are usually used as forage, of which a horse needs 5-6 kg per day. It turns out that the nomads, preparing in advance for a trip to distant lands, sowed the steppe with oats? Or did they carry hay behind them in carts? Let's perform simple arithmetic operations and calculate what preparations the nomads had to make in order to go on a long trip. Let us assume that they have gathered an army of at least 10,000 cavalry fighters. Each warrior needs several horses - one specially trained combatant for combat, one for marching, one for a wagon train - to carry food, a yurt and other supplies. This is at least, but we must also take into account that some of the horses will fall along the way, there will be combat losses, therefore a reserve is needed.

And if 10,000 horsemen march in marching formation even across the steppe, then when the horses will graze, where the soldiers will live, will they rest in the snowdrifts, or what? On a long trip, one cannot do without food, fodder and wagon trains with warm yurts. You still need fuel to cook food, but where can you find firewood in the treeless steppe? The nomads drowned their yurts, sorry, with poop, because there is nothing else. It stank, of course. But they are used to it. You can, of course, fantasize about the strategic procurement of hundreds of tons of dried shit by the Mongols, which they took with them on the road, setting off to conquer the world, but I will leave this opportunity to the most stubborn historians.

Some wise men tried to prove to me that the Mongols did not have a convoy at all, which is why they managed to show phenomenal maneuverability. But in this case, how did they carry the stolen booty home - in their pocket, or what? And where were their battering rams and other engineering devices, and the same maps and food supplies, not to mention their environmentally friendly fuel? Not a single army in the world has ever done without a convoy if it was going to make a transition lasting more than two days. The loss of the baggage usually meant the failure of the campaign, even if there was no battle with the enemy.

In short, according to the most modest estimates, our mini-horde should have at its disposal at least 40 thousand horses. From the experience of mass armies of the XVII-XIX centuries. it is known that the daily forage requirement of such a herd will be at least 200 tons of oats. This is just in one day! And the longer the transition, the more horses should be involved in the wagon train. A medium-sized horse is capable of pulling a cart with 300 kg of weight. This is if on the road, and off-road in packs is half as much. That is, in order to provide our 40,000th herd, we need 700 horses per day. A three-month campaign will require a convoy of almost 70 thousand horses. And this horde also needs oats, and in order to feed 70 thousand horses carrying fodder for 40 thousand horses, it will take more than 100 thousand horses with carts for the same three months, and these horses, in turn, want to eat - it turns out a vicious circle " (KUHN:167-168). - This calculation shows that intercontinental, for example, from Asia to Europe, trips on horseback with a full supply of provisions are fundamentally impossible. True, here are the calculations for a 3-month winter campaign. But if the campaign is carried out in the summer, and moving in the steppe zone, feeding the horses with pasture, then you can move much further.

“Even in the summer, the cavalry never did without fodder, so the Mongols’ campaign against Russia would still require logistics. Until the 20th century, the maneuverability of troops was determined not by the speed of horse hooves and the strength of soldiers' legs, but by dependence on wagon trains and the capacity of the road network. A marching speed of 20 km per day was very good even for the average division of the Second World War, and German tanks, when paved highways allowed them to carry out blitzkrieg, wound on their tracks 50 km per day. But in this case, the rear inevitably lagged behind. In ancient times, in off-road conditions, such performance would have been simply fantastic. The textbook (SVI) reports that the Mongolian army passed about 100 kilometers a day! Yeah, you can hardly find people who are the worst versed in history. Even in May 1945, Soviet tanks, making a march from Berlin to Prague along good European roads, could not beat the "Mongol-Tatar" record" (KUN: 168-169). - I believe that the very division of Europe into Western and Eastern is made not so much from geographical as from strategic considerations. Namely: within each of them, military campaigns, although they require supplies of fodder and horses, but within reasonable limits. And the transition to another part of Europe already requires the tension of all state forces, so that the military campaign affects not only the army, but develops into a domestic war that requires the participation of the entire population.

Food problem.

“What did the riders themselves eat on the way? If you drive a herd of sheep behind you, then you will have to move at their speed. During the winter, there is no way to reach the nearest center of civilization. But nomads are unpretentious people, they managed with dried meat and cottage cheese, which was soaked in hot water. Like it or not, a kilogram of food a day is necessary. Three months of travel - 100 kg of weight. In the future, you can score convoy horses. At the same time, there will be savings on fodder. But not a single convoy is able to move at a speed of 100 km per day, especially off-road.” - It is clear that this problem mainly concerns deserted areas. In densely populated Europe, the victor can take food from the vanquished

Demographic problems.

“If we touch on demographic issues and try to understand how the nomads were able to field 10 thousand soldiers, given the very low population density in the steppe zone, then we will run into another unsolvable mystery. Well, there is no population density in the steppes higher than 0.2 people per square kilometer! If we take the mobilization capabilities of the Mongols as 10% of total number of the population (every second healthy man is from 18 to 45 years old), then in order to mobilize a 10,000th horde, it will be necessary to comb an area of ​​half a million square kilometers of commercials. Or let's touch on purely organizational issues: for example, how did the Mongols collect taxes on the army and recruit, how did military training take place, how was the military elite brought up? It turns out that for purely technical reasons, the Mongols' campaign against Russia, as described by "professional" historians, was impossible in principle.

There are examples of this from relatively recent times. In the spring of 1771, the Kalmyks, who roamed the Caspian steppes, annoyed that the tsarist administration had significantly curtailed their autonomy, unanimously took off and moved to their historical homeland in Dzungaria (the territory of the modern Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in China). Only 25 thousand Kalmyks, who lived on the right bank of the Volga, remained in place - they could not join the others due to the opening of the river. Of the 170 thousand nomads, only about 70 thousand reached the goal after 8 months. The rest, as you might guess, died on the way. The winter crossing would have been even more disastrous. The local population met the settlers without enthusiasm. Who will now find traces of the Kalmyks in Xinjiang? And on the right bank of the Volga today there are 165,000 Kalmyks who switched to a settled way of life during the period of collectivization in 1929-1940, but who did not lose their original culture and religion (Buddhism) ”(KUN: 1690170). This last example is amazing! Almost 2/3 of the population, who traveled slowly and with good convoys in the summer, died on the way. Even if the losses of the regular army were less, say, 1/3, but then instead of 10 thousand troops, less than 7 thousand people will reach the goal. It may be objected that they drove the conquered peoples ahead of them. So I counted only those who died from the difficulties of the transition, but there were also combat losses. Defeated enemies can be driven when the winners are at least twice the number of the defeated. So if half of the troops die in battle (in fact, the attackers die about 6 times more than the defenders), then the surviving 3.5 thousand can drive no more than 1.5 thousand prisoners in front of them, who in the first battle will try run over to the side of the enemies, strengthening their ranks. And an army of less than 4 thousand people is hardly capable of moving further into a foreign country with battles - it's time for him to return home.

Why do we need a myth about the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

“But the myth of the terrible Mongol invasion is being cultivated for something. And for what, it’s easy to guess - virtual Mongols are needed solely to explain the disappearance of the equally phantom Kievan Rus along with its original population. Say, as a result of the Batu invasion, the Dnieper region was completely depopulated. And what the hell, you ask, the nomads had to destroy the population? Well, they would have imposed a tribute, like everyone else - at least some benefit. But no, historians unanimously convince us that the Mongols completely ruined the Kiev region, burned the cities, exterminated the population or took them prisoner, and those who were lucky enough to survive, smearing their heels with fat, fled without looking back into the wild forests to the northeast, where time created a powerful Muscovite kingdom. One way or another, but the time before the 16th century, as it were, falls out of the history of Southern Russia: if historians mention anything about this period, it is the raids of the Crimeans. But who did they raid, if the Russian lands were depopulated?

It cannot be that for 250 years no events at all took place in the historical center of Russia! However, no landmark events were noted. This caused heated debate among historians, when disputes were still allowed. Some put forward hypotheses about the total flight of the population to the northeast, others believed that the entire population died out, and a new one came from the Carpathians in the following centuries. Still others expressed the idea that the population did not flee anywhere, and did not come from anywhere, but simply sat quietly in isolation from the outside world and did not show any political, military, economic, demographic or cultural activity. Klyuchevsky promoted the idea that the population, frightened to death by the evil Tatars, left their habitable places and went partly to Galicia, and partly to Suzdal lands, from where it spread far to the north and east. Kyiv, as a city, according to the professor, temporarily ceased to exist, reduced to 200 houses. Solovyov claimed that Kyiv was completely destroyed and for many years was a pile of ruins where no one lived. In the Galician lands, then called Lesser Russia, refugees from the Dnieper region, they say, became slightly Polonized, and after returning several centuries later to their autochthonous territory already as Little Russians, they brought there a peculiar dialect and customs acquired in exile ”(KUN: 170-171).

So, from the point of view of Alexei Kungurov, the myth about the Tatar-Mongols supports another myth - about Kievan Rus. While I do not consider this second myth, however, I admit that the existence of a vast Kievan Rus is also a myth. However, let's listen to this author to the end. Perhaps he will show that the myth of the Tatar-Mongols is beneficial to historians for other reasons as well.

Surprisingly fast surrender of Russian cities.

“At first glance, this version looks quite logical: evil barbarians came and destroyed a flourishing civilization, killed everyone and dispersed to hell. Why? Because they are barbarians. What for? But Batu was in a bad mood, maybe his wife cuckolded him, maybe he tortured his stomach with a stomach ulcer, so he was spiteful. The scientific community is quite satisfied with such answers, and since I have nothing to do with this very public, I immediately want to argue with the luminaries of historical "science".

Why, one wonders, did the Mongols totally clear out the Kiev region? It should be noted that the Kyiv land is not some insignificant outskirts, but supposedly the core of the Russian state, according to the same Klyuchevsky. Meanwhile, Kyiv in 1240 was surrendered to the enemy a few days after the siege. Are there similar cases in history? More often we will find reverse examples, when we gave everything to the enemy, but fought for the core to the last. Therefore, the fall of Kyiv seems completely unbelievable. Before the invention of siege artillery, a well-fortified city could only be taken by starvation. And it often happened that the besiegers ran out of steam faster than the besieged. History knows cases of very long defense of the city. For example, during the Polish intervention during the Time of Troubles, the siege of Smolensk by the Poles lasted from September 21, 1609 to June 3, 1611. The defenders capitulated only when the Polish artillery punched an impressive opening in the wall, and the besieged were extremely exhausted by hunger and disease.

The Polish king Sigismund, struck by the courage of the defenders, let them go home. But why did the people of Kiev surrender so quickly to the wild Mongols, who spared no one? The nomads did not have powerful siege artillery, and the battering rams with which they allegedly destroyed the fortifications are stupid inventions of historians. It was physically impossible to drag such a device to the wall, because the walls themselves always stood on a large earthen rampart, which was the basis of the city fortifications, and a moat was arranged in front of them. Now it is generally accepted that the defense of Kyiv lasted 93 days. The well-known fiction writer Bushkov is sarcastic about this: “Historians are a little cunning. Ninety-three days is not a period between the beginning and end of the assault, but the first appearance of the “Tatar” rati and the capture of Kyiv. First, “Batu Voivode” Mengat appeared at the Kyiv walls and tried to persuade the Kyiv prince to surrender the city without a fight, but the Kyivians killed his ambassadors, and he retreated. And three months later came "Batu". And in a few days he took the city. It is the interval between these events that other researchers call the “long siege” (BUSH).

Moreover, the story of the rapid fall of Kyiv is by no means unique. According to historians, all other Russian cities (Ryazan, Vladimir, Galich, Moscow, Pereslavl-Zalessky, etc.) usually held out for no more than five days. Surprisingly, Torzhok defended for almost two weeks. Little Kozelsk allegedly set a record by holding out for seven weeks in the siege, but fell on the third day of the assault. Who will explain to me what kind of superweapon the Mongols used to take fortresses on the move? And why was this weapon forgotten? In the Middle Ages, throwing machines - vices - were sometimes used to destroy city walls. But in Russia there was a big problem - there was nothing to throw - boulders of a suitable size would have to be dragged along.

True, the cities in Russia in most cases had wooden fortifications, and theoretically they could be burned. But in practice, in winter, this was difficult to do, because the walls were poured from above with water, as a result of which an ice shell formed on them. In fact, even if a 10,000-strong nomadic army came to Russia, no catastrophe would have happened. This horde would simply melt away in a couple of months, taking a dozen cities by storm. The losses of the attackers in this case will be 3-5 times higher than those of the defenders of the citadel.

According to the official version of history, the northeastern lands of Russia suffered much more from the adversary, but for some reason no one thought to scatter from there. And vice versa, they fled to where the climate is colder, and the Mongols were more outrageous. Where is the logic? And why was the "runaway" population right up to the 16th century paralyzed with fear and did not try to return to the fertile lands of the Dnieper region? The Mongols have long since disappeared, and the frightened Russians, they say, were afraid to show their nose there. The Crimeans were by no means peaceful, but for some reason the Russians were not afraid of them - the Cossacks on their seagulls descended along the Don and Dnieper, unexpectedly attacked the Crimean cities and staged cruel pogroms there. Usually, if any places are favorable for life, then the struggle for them is especially fierce, and these lands are never empty. The vanquished are replaced by the conquerors, those are displaced or assimilated by stronger neighbors - the question here is not in disagreements on some political or religious issues, but precisely in the possession of the territory ”(KUN: 171-173). - Indeed, the situation is completely inexplicable from the point of view of the clash between the steppe dwellers and the townspeople. It is very good for a denigrating version of the historiography of Russia, but it is completely illogical. So far, Alexei Kungurov is noticing new aspects of the absolutely incredible development of events from the standpoint of the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

Incomprehensible motives of the Mongols.

“Historians do not explain the motives of the mythical Mongols at all. In the name of what did they participate in such grandiose campaigns? If, in order to impose tribute on the conquered Russians, then why the hell did the Mongols raze 49 out of 74 large Russian cities to the ground, and the population was slaughtered almost to the root, as historians say? If they destroyed the natives because they liked the local grass and a milder climate than in the Trans-Caspian and Trans-Baikal steppes, then why did they leave for the steppe? There is no logic in the actions of the conquerors. More precisely, it is not in the nonsense composed by historians.

The root cause of the militancy of peoples in antiquity was the so-called crisis of nature and man. When the territory was overpopulated, the society, as it were, pushed young and energetic people out. They will conquer those lands of their neighbors and settle there - good. They will die in the hearth - also not bad, because there will be no “extra” population. In many ways, this is precisely what can explain the militancy of the ancient Scandinavians: their stingy northern lands could not feed the multiplying population, and they had to live by robbery or be hired in the service of foreign rulers in order to engage in the same robbery. The Russians can be said to be lucky - for centuries the surplus population rolled back south and east all the way to the Pacific Ocean. In the future, the crisis of nature and man began to be overcome through a qualitative change in agricultural technologies and the development of industry.

But what could be the reason for the militancy of the Mongols? If the population density of the steppes exceeds the permissible limits (that is, there is a shortage of pastures), some of the shepherds will simply migrate to other, less developed steppes. If the nomads there are not happy with the guests, then there will be a small massacre in which the strongest will win. That is, the Mongols, in order to get to Kyiv, would have to master vast expanses from Manchuria to the northern Black Sea region. But even in this case, the nomads did not pose a threat to strong civilized countries, because not a single nomadic people ever created their own statehood and did not have an army. The maximum that the steppe dwellers are capable of is to make a raid on the border village with the aim of robbery.

The only analogue of the mythical warlike Mongols is the pastoral Chechens of the 19th century. This people is unique in that robbery has become the basis of its existence. The Chechens did not even have a rudimentary statehood, lived in clans (teips), did not know how to farm, unlike their neighbors, did not possess the secrets of metal processing, and in general they owned the most primitive crafts. They posed a threat to the Russian frontier and communications with Georgia, which became part of Russia since 1804, only because they supplied them with weapons and supplies, and bribed local princes. But the Chechen robbers, despite their numerical superiority, could not oppose the Russians with anything other than the tactics of raids and forest ambushes. When the patience of the latter burst, the regular army under the command of Yermolov quite quickly carried out a total "cleansing" of the North Caucasus, driving the abreks into the mountains and gorges.

I am ready to believe in many things, but I categorically refuse to take nonsense about the evil nomads who destroyed Ancient Russia seriously. All the more fantastic is the theory of the three-century "yoke" of the wild steppes over the Russian principalities. Only the STATE can exercise dominance over the conquered lands. Historians generally understand this, and therefore they invented some kind of fabulous Mongol Empire - the largest state in the world in the entire history of mankind, founded by Genghis Khan in 1206 and including the territory from the Danube to the Sea of ​​​​Japan and from Novgorod to Cambodia. All empires known to us were created over centuries and generations, and only the greatest world empire was allegedly created by an illiterate savage literally by a wave of the hand ”(KUN: 173-175). - So, Alexei Kungurov comes to the conclusion that if there was a conquest of Russia, then it was carried out not by wild steppe dwellers, but by some powerful state. But where was its capital?

The capital of the steppes.

“If there is an empire, then there must be a capital. The fantastic city of Karakorum was appointed to be the capital, the ruins of the Buddhist monastery Erdeni-Dzu of the end of the 16th century in the center of modern Mongolia were explained as the remains of it. Based on what? And so wanted historians. Schliemann dug up the ruins of a small ancient city, and declared that it was Troy” (KUN:175). I showed in two articles that Schliemann unearthed one of the temples of Yar and mistook its treasures for the trace of ancient Troy, although Troy, as one of the Serbian researchers showed, was located on the shores of Lake Skoder (the modern city of Shkodra in Albania).

“And Nikolai Yadrintsev, who discovered an ancient settlement in the Orkhon Oeki valley, declared it Karakorum. Karakorum literally means "black stones" Since there was a mountain range not far from the place of the find, it was given the official name Karakorum. And since the mountains are called Karakorum, the settlement was given the same name. That's such a compelling reason! True, the local population had never heard of any Karakorum, but called the Muztag ridge - Ice Mountains, but this did not bother the scientists at all ”(KUN: 175-176). - And rightly so, because in this case, the "scientists" were looking not for the truth, but for confirmation of their myth, and geographical renaming is very conducive to this.

Traces of a grandiose empire.

“The largest empire in the world has left the fewest traces of itself. Or rather, none at all. It allegedly broke up in the 13th century into separate uluses, the largest of which was the Yuan Empire, that is, China (its capital Khanbalik, now Aekin, was supposedly at one time the capital of the entire Mongol Empire), the state of the Ilkhans (Iran, Transcaucasia, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan), Chagatai ulus (Central Asia) and the Golden Horde (the territory from the Irtysh to the White, Baltic and Black Seas). This historians cleverly came up with. Now any fragments of ceramics or copper jewelry found in the vastness from Hungary to the coast of the Sea of ​​Japan can be declared traces of the great Mongolian civilization. And find And announce. And they will not blink an eye at the same time ”(KUN: 176).

As an epigraphist, I am primarily interested in written monuments. Did they exist in the Tatar-Mongol era? Here is what Nefyodov writes about this: “Having installed Alexander Nevsky as the Grand Duke of their own free will, the Tatars sent Baskaks and numerals to Russia - “and the accursed Tatars began to ride through the streets, rewriting Christian houses.” This was the census being carried out at that time throughout the vast Mongol Empire; The clerks compiled defter registers in order to levy taxes established by Yelü Chu-tsai: land tax, “kalan”, poll tax, “kupchur”, and a tax on merchants, “tamga” (NEF). True, in epigraphy the word "tamga" has a different meaning, "generic signs of property", but this is not the point: if there were three types of taxes, drawn up in the form of lists, then something must have been preserved. “Unfortunately, there is none of that. It is not even clear what font all this was written in. But if there are no such special notes, then it turns out that all these lists were written in Russian, that is, in Cyrillic. – When I tried to find articles on the Internet on the topic “Artifacts of the Tatar-Mongol yoke”, I met a judgment that I reproduce below.

Why are the annals silent.

“At the time of the mythical “Tatar-Mongol yoke”, according to official history, Russia fell into decline. This, in their opinion, is confirmed by the almost complete absence of evidence for that period. Once, while talking with a lover of the history of my native land, I heard from him a mention of the decline that reigned in this area during the “Tatar-Mongol yoke”. As evidence, he recalled that a monastery once stood in these places. First, it should be said about the area: a river valley with hills in the immediate vicinity, there are springs - an ideal place for a settlement. So it was. However, in the annals of this monastery, the nearest settlement is mentioned only a few tens of kilometers away. Although between the lines you can read that people lived closer, only "wild". Arguing on this topic, we came to the conclusion that due to ideological motives, the monks mentioned only Christian settlements, or during the next rewriting of history, all information about non-Christian settlements was erased.

No, no, yes, sometimes historians dig up settlements that flourished during the “Tatar-Mongol yoke”. What forced them to admit that, in fact, the Tatar-Mongols were quite tolerant of the conquered peoples ... “However, the lack of reliable sources about the general prosperity in Kievan Rus does not give reason to doubt the official history.

In fact, apart from the sources of the Orthodox Church, we have no reliable data about the occupation by the Tatar-Mongols. In addition, quite interesting is the fact of the rapid occupation of not only the steppe regions of Russia (from the point of view of official history, the Tatar-Mongols are steppes), but also wooded and even swampy territories. Of course, the history of hostilities knows examples of the rapid conquest of the marshy forests of Belarus. However, the Nazis bypassed the swamps. But what about the Soviet army, which had a brilliant offensive operation in the swampy part of Belarus? This is true, however, the population in Belarus was needed to create a bridgehead for subsequent offensives. They simply chose to attack on the least expected (and therefore protected) site. But most importantly, the Soviet army relied on local partisans, who thoroughly knew the area even better than the Nazis. But the mythical Tatar-Mongols, who did the unthinkable, conquered the swamps on the move - abandoned further offensives ”(SPO). – Here, an unknown researcher notes two curious facts: already the monastery chronicle considers as a populated area only the one where the parishioners lived, as well as the brilliant orientation of the steppes among the swamps, which should not be characteristic of them. And the same author also notes the coincidence of the territory occupied by the Tatar-Mongols with the territory of Kievan Rus. Thus, he shows that in reality we are dealing with a territory that has undergone Christianization, regardless of whether it was in the steppe, in forests or in swamps. – But back to the texts of Kungurov.

Religion of the Mongols.

“What was the official religion of the Mongols? - Choose whichever you like. Allegedly, Buddhist idols were found in the Karakorum "palace" of the great Khan Ogedei (the heir of Genghis Khan). In the capital of the Golden Horde, Sarai-Batu, mostly Orthodox crosses and breastplates are found. Islam was established in the Central Asian possessions of the Mongol conquerors, and Zoroastrianism continued to flourish in the South Caspian. The Jewish Khazars also felt free in the Mongol Empire. A variety of shamanistic beliefs have been preserved in Siberia. Russian historians traditionally tell stories that the Mongols were idolaters. Say, they made the Russian princes a “headaxe”, if those, coming for a label for the right to reign in their lands, did not worship their filthy pagan idols. In short, no state religion the Mongols did not. All empires had it, but the Mongol one did not. Everyone could pray to whomever he pleased” (KUN:176). – Note that there was no religious tolerance either before or after the Mongol invasion. Ancient Prussia with the Baltic people of the Prussians who inhabited it (relatives in language to the Lithuanians and Latvians), the German knightly orders were wiped off the face of the earth only because they were pagans. And in Russia, not only Vedists (Old Believers), but also early Christians (Old Believers) began to be persecuted after Nikon's reform as enemies. Therefore, such a combination of words as "evil Tatars" and "tolerance" is impossible, it is illogical. The division of the greatest empire into separate regions, each with its own religion, probably indicates the independent existence of these regions, united into a gigantic empire only in the mythology of historians. As for the finds of Orthodox crosses and breastplates in the European part of the empire, this indicates that the “Tatar-Mongols” planted Christianity and eradicated paganism (Vedism), that is, there was forced Christianization.

Cash.

“By the way, if Karakorum was the Mongolian capital, then it must have had a mint. It is believed that the monetary unit of the Mongol Empire was gold dinars and silver dirhems. For four years, archaeologists were digging the soil on Orkhon (1999-2003), but not like the mint, they did not even find a single dirham and dinar, but they dug up a lot of Chinese coins. It was this expedition that found traces of a Buddhist shrine under Ogedei's palace (which turned out to be much smaller than expected). In Germany, a solid folio “Genghis Khan and His Legacy” was published on the results of the excavations. This is despite the fact that archaeologists have not found any traces of the Mongol ruler. However, it does not matter, everything they found was declared the legacy of Genghis Khan. True, the publishers prudently kept silent about the Buddhist shrine and Chinese coins, but most of the book was filled with abstract reasoning, not of any scientific interest ”(KUN: 177). - A legitimate question arises: if the Mongols carried out three types of census, and they collected tribute from them, then where was it stored? And in what currency? Was everything translated into Chinese money? What could they buy in Europe?

Continuing the theme, Kungurov writes: “In general, only a few dirhams with Arabic inscriptions have been found in ALL of Mongolia, which completely excludes the idea that it was the center of some kind of empire. “Scientists”-historians cannot explain this, and therefore they simply do not touch this issue. Even if you grab a historian by the lapel of his jacket, and staring into his eyes, ask about it, he will portray a fool who does not understand what he is talking about ”(KUHN:177). - I will interrupt the citation here, because this is exactly how archaeologists behaved when I made my message in the local history museum of Tver, showing that there is an INscription on the stone-cup donated to the museum by local historians. None of the archaeologists approached the stone and felt the letters cut there. For to approach and feel the inscription meant for them to sign a long-term lie about the lack of their own writing among the Slavs in the pre-Cyril era. This was the only thing they could do to protect the honor of the uniform (“I don’t see anything, I don’t hear anything, I won’t tell anyone,” as the popular song sings).

“There is no archaeological evidence of the existence of an imperial center in Mongolia, and therefore, as arguments in favor of a completely delusional version, official science can only offer a casuistic interpretation of the writings of Rashid ad-Din. True, they cite the latter very selectively. For example, after four years of excavations on the Orkhon, historians prefer not to recall what the latter writes about the circulation of dinars and dirhems in Karakorum. And Guillaume de Rubruk reports that the Mongols knew a lot about Roman money, with which their budget bins were overflowing. Now they have to keep quiet about it too. It should also be forgotten that Plano Carpini mentioned how the ruler of Baghdad paid tribute to the Mongols in Roman gold solids - bezants. In short, all the ancient witnesses were wrong. Only modern historians know the truth” (KUN:178). - As you can see, all ancient witnesses pointed out that the "Mongols" used European money that circulated in Western and Eastern Europe. And they didn't say anything about Chinese money from the "Mongols". Again, we are talking about the fact that the "Mongols" were Europeans, at least in economic terms. It would never occur to any pastoralist to compile lists of landowners that the pastoralists did not have. And even more so - to create a tax on merchants, who in many eastern countries were vagrants. In short, all these censuses, very expensive actions, in order to take a STABLE TAX (10%) give away not greedy steppe dwellers, but scrupulous European bankers, who, of course, levied taxes calculated in advance in European currency. Chinese money was useless to them.

“Did the Mongols have a financial system, without which, as you know, no state can do? Did not have! Numismatists are not aware of any specific Mongolian money. But if desired, any unidentified coins are declared as such. What was the name of the empire's currency? Yes, it was not named. Where was the imperial mint, treasury? But nowhere. It seems that historians wrote something about the evil Baskaks - tribute collectors in the Russian uluses of the Golden Horde. But today, the ferocity of the Basques seems highly exaggerated. It seems like they collected a tithe (a tenth of the income) in favor of the khan, and every tenth young man was recruited into his army. The latter should be considered a great exaggeration. After all, the service in those days lasted not a couple of years, but probably a quarter of a century. The population of Russia in the XIII century is usually estimated at the very least at 5 million souls. If every year 10 thousand recruits come to the army, then in 10 years it will swell to absolutely unimaginable sizes ”(KUN: 178-179). - If you call 10 thousand people annually, then in 10 years you will get 100 thousand, and in 25 years - 250 thousand. Was the state of that time able to feed such an army? “And if we take into account that the Mongols shaved into the service not only Russians, but also representatives of all other conquered peoples, then we get a million-strong horde that no empire could feed or equip in the Middle Ages” (KUN: 179). - That's it.

“But where the tax went, how the accounting was carried out, who disposed of the treasury, scientists cannot really explain anything. Nothing is known about the system of counting, measures and weights used in the empire. The purpose for which the huge Golden Horde budget was spent is also a mystery - the conquerors did not build palaces, cities, monasteries, or fleets. Although no, other storytellers claim that the Mongols had a fleet. They, they say, even conquered the island of Java, and almost captured Japan. But this is such an obvious nonsense that it makes no sense to discuss it. At least, until at least some traces of the existence of steppe pastoralists-seafarers are found on the earth ”(KUN: 179). - As Alexei Kungurov examines various aspects of the Mongols' activities, one gets the impression that the Khalkha people, appointed by historians to the role of world conqueror, were in the most minimal degree suitable for fulfilling this mission. How did the West pull off such a blunder? - The answer is simple. All of Siberia and Central Asia on the European maps of that time was called Tartaria (as I showed in one of my articles, it was there that the Underworld, Tartarus, was moved). Accordingly, the mythical "Tatars" settled there. Their eastern wing also extended to the Khalkha people, about whom at that time few historians knew anything, and therefore anything could be attributed to him. Of course, Western historians did not foresee that in a couple of centuries the means of communication would develop so strongly that through the Internet it would be possible to receive any latest information from archaeologists, which, after analytical processing, would be able to refute any Western myths.

The ruling layer of the Mongols.

“What was the ruling class in the Mongol Empire? Any state has its military, political, economic, cultural and scientific elite. The ruling layer in the Middle Ages is called the aristocracy, today's ruling class is usually called the vague term "elites". One way or another, but the state elite must be, otherwise there is no state. And the Mongol occupiers with the elite were tense. They conquered Russia and left the Rurik dynasty to rule it. Themselves, they say, went to the steppe. There are no such examples in history. That is, there was no state-forming aristocracy in the Mongol Empire” (KUN:179). The last one is extremely surprising. Take, for example, the previous huge empire - the Arab Caliphate. There was not only religion, Islam, but also secular literature. For example, fairy tales of a thousand and one nights. There was a monetary system, and Arab money was considered the most popular currency for a long time. And where are the legends about the Mongol khans, where are the Mongol tales about the conquests of distant western countries?

Mongolian infrastructure.

“Even today, any state cannot take place if it does not have transport and information connectivity. In the Middle Ages, the lack of convenient means of communication absolutely ruled out the possibility of the functioning of the state. Therefore, the core of the state was formed along river, sea, and much less often land communications. And the Mongol Empire, the greatest in the history of mankind, did not have any means of communication between its parts and the center, which, by the way, also did not exist. More precisely, he seemed to be, but only in the form of a camp where Genghis Khan left his family during campaigns ”(KUN: 179-180). In this case, the question arises, how did the state negotiations take place in general? Where did the ambassadors of sovereign states live? Is it at the military headquarters? And how could it be possible to keep up with the constant transfers of these rates during military operations? And where was the state chancellery, archives, translators, scribes, heralds, the treasury, the premises for the stolen valuables? Did they also move along with the Khan's headquarters? - It's hard to believe. - And now Kungurov comes to a conclusion.

Did the Mongol Empire exist?

“Here it is natural to ask the question: did this legendary Mongol Empire exist at all? Was! - Historians will shout in chorus and, as evidence, they will show a stone turtle of the Yuan dynasty in the vicinity of the modern Mongolian village of Karakorum or a shapeless coin of unknown origin. If this seems unconvincing to you, then historians will authoritatively add a couple more clay shards dug out in the Black Sea steppes. This, for sure, will convince the most inveterate skeptic” (KUN:180). - The question of Alexei Kungurov has been asking for a long time, and the answer to it is quite natural. No Mongol Empire ever existed! - However, the author of the study is concerned not only about the Mongols, but also about the Tatars, as well as the attitude of the Mongols towards Russia, and therefore he continues his story.

“But we are interested in the great Mongol Empire insofar as. Russia was allegedly conquered by Batu, the grandson of Genghis Khan and the ruler of the Jochi ulus, better known as the Golden Horde. From the possessions of the Golden Horde to Russia is still closer than from Mongolia. During the winter, from the Caspian steppes you can get to Kyiv, Moscow and even Vologda. But the same difficulties arise. First, horses need fodder. Horses can no longer get withered grass from under the snow with their hooves in the Volga steppes. Winters are snowy there, and therefore local nomads in their winter quarters prepared stocks of hay in order to survive in the most difficult time. In order for the army to move in winter, oats are needed. No oats - no way to go to Russia. Where do nomads get oats from?

The next problem is roads. In winter, frozen rivers have been used as roads for centuries. But the horse, so that it can walk on ice, must be shod. In the steppe, she can run unshod all year round, but an unshod horse, and even with a rider, cannot walk on ice, stone placers or a frozen road. In order to shoe a hundred thousand war horses and convoy mares needed for the invasion, more than 400 tons of iron alone is needed! And in 2-3 months it is necessary to shoe the horses again. And how many forests do you need to cut down in order to prepare 50,000 sleds for the convoy?

But in general, as we found out, even in the event of a successful march to Russia, the 10,000th army will be in an extremely difficult position. Supply at the expense of the local population is almost impossible, it is absolutely unrealistic to pull up reserves. We have to carry out exhausting assaults on cities, fortresses and monasteries, incur irreparable losses, deepening into enemy territory. And what is the point in this deepening, if the occupiers left a devastated desert behind them? What is the general purpose of the war? Every day the interventionists will be weaker, and by spring they will have to leave for the steppes, otherwise the open rivers will lock up the nomads in the forests, where they will die of starvation” (KUN: 180-181). – As you can see, the problems of the Mongol Empire on a smaller scale are also manifested by the example of the Golden Horde. And then Kungurov considers the later Mongolian state - the Golden Horde.

Capitals of the Golden Horde.

“There are two known capitals of the Golden Horde - Sarai-Batu and Sarai-Berke. Even the ruins have not survived from them to this day. Historians found the culprit here too - Tamerlane, who came from Central Asia and destroyed these very flourishing and populated cities of the East. Today, archaeologists dig out only the remains of adobe huts and the most primitive household utensils on the site of the supposedly great capitals of the great Eurasian empire. Everything of value, they say, was plundered by the evil Tamerlane. Tellingly, archaeologists do not find the slightest trace of the presence of Mongolian nomads in these places.

However, this does not bother them at all. Since traces of Greeks, Russians, Italians and others were found there, it means that the matter is clear: the Mongols brought craftsmen from conquered countries to their capital. Does anyone doubt that the Mongols conquered Italy? Read carefully the works of "scientific" historians - it says that Batu reached the coast of the Adriatic Sea and almost to Vienna. Somewhere there he caught the Italians. And what does the fact that Sarai-Berke is the center of the Sarsk and Podonsk Orthodox diocese mean? This, according to historians, testifies to the phenomenal religious tolerance of the Mongol conquerors. True, in this case it is not clear why the Golden Horde khans allegedly tortured several Russian princes who did not want to give up their faith. The Grand Duke of Kyiv and Chernigov Mikhail Vsevolodovich was even canonized for refusing to worship the sacred fire and was killed for disobedience” (KUN:181). Again we see a complete inconsistency in the official version.

What was the Golden Horde.

“The Golden Horde is the same state invented by historians as the Mongol Empire. Accordingly, the Mongol-Tatar "yoke" is also an invention. The question is who invented it. In Russian chronicles it is useless to look for mention of the "yoke" or the mythical Mongols. "Evil Tatars" are mentioned in it quite often. The question is who did the chroniclers mean by this name? Either this is an ethnic group, or a way of life or class (akin to the Cossacks), or this is the collective name of all Turks. Maybe the word "Tatar" means an equestrian warrior? A great many Tatars are known: Kasimov, Crimean, Lithuanian, Bordakov (Ryazan), Belgorod, Don, Yenisei, Tula ... just listing all kinds of Tatars will take half a page. The annals mention service Tatars, baptized Tatars, godless Tatars, sovereign Tatars and Basurman Tatars. That is, this term has an extremely broad interpretation.

Tatars, as an ethnic group, appeared relatively recently, about three hundred years ago. Therefore, an attempt to apply the term "Tatar-Mongols" to modern Kazan or Crimean Tatars is a fraud. There were no Kazan Tatars in the XIII century, there were Bulgars who had their own principality, which historians decided to call the Volga Bulgaria. There were no Crimean or Siberian Tatars then, but there were Kipchaks, they are also Polovtsy, they are also Nogais. But if the Mongols conquered, partially destroyed, the Kipchaks and periodically fought with the Bulgars, then where did the Mongol-Tatar symbiosis come from?

No newcomers from the Mongolian steppes were known not only in Russia, but also in Europe. The term "Tatar yoke", meaning the power of the Golden Horde over Russia, appeared at the turn of the 14th-15th centuries in Poland in propaganda literature. It is believed that it belongs to the historian and geographer Matthew Miechowski (1457-1523), professor at the University of Krakow” (KUN:181-182). - Above, we read the news about this both in Wikipedia and in works of three authors (SVI). His "Treatise on the Two Sarmatians" was considered in the West the first detailed geographical and ethnographic description of Eastern Europe up to the meridian of the Caspian Sea. In the preamble of this work, Mechowski wrote: “The southern regions and coastal peoples up to India were discovered by the king of Portugal. Let the northern regions with the peoples living near the Northern Ocean to the east, discovered by the troops of the Polish king, now become known to the world ”(KUN: 182-183). - Very interesting! It turns out that Russia had to be discovered by someone, although this state existed for several millennia!

“How cool! This enlightened husband equates Russians with African blacks and American Indians, and attributes fantastic merits to the Polish troops. The Poles have never reached the coast of the Arctic Ocean, long mastered by the Russians. Only a century after the death of Mekhovsky during the Time of Troubles, separate Polish detachments scoured the Vologda and Arkhangelsk regions, but these were not the troops of the Polish king, but ordinary robber gangs that robbed merchants on the northern trade route. Therefore, one should not take seriously his insinuations that the backward Russians were conquered by absolutely wild Tatars ”(KUN: 183) - It turns out that Mekhovsky’s work was a fantasy that the West had no opportunity to verify.

“By the way, Tatars is the European collective name for all eastern peoples. Moreover, in the old days it was pronounced as "tartars" from the word "tartar" - the underworld. It is quite possible that the word "Tatars" came to the Russian language from Europe. At least, when European travelers in the 16th century called the inhabitants of the lower Volga Tatars, they did not really understand the meaning of this word, and even more so they did not know that for Europeans it means “savages who escaped from hell.” The binding of the word "Tatars" of the Criminal Code to a certain ethnic group begins only in the 17th century. Finally, the term "Tatars", as a designation of the Volga-Ural and Siberian settled Turkic-speaking peoples, was established only in the 20th century. The word formation “Mongol-Tatar yoke” was first used in 1817 by the German historian Hermann Kruse, whose book was translated into Russian in the middle of the 19th century and published in St. Petersburg. In 1860, the head of the Russian spiritual mission in China, Archimandrite Pallady, acquired the manuscript of The Secret History of the Mongols, making it public. No one was embarrassed that the Tale was written in Chinese. This is even very convenient, because any inconsistencies can be explained by erroneous transcription from Mongolian to Chinese. Mo, Yuan is the Chinese transcription of the Chinggisid dynasty. And Shutsu is Kublai Khan. With such a "creative" approach, as you might guess, any Chinese legend can be declared even the history of the Mongols, even the chronicle of the Crusades" (KUN: 183-184). - It is not in vain that Kungurov mentions a clergyman from the Russian Orthodox Church, Archimandrite Pallady, hinting that he had an interest in creating a legend about the Tatars based on Chinese chronicles. And it is not in vain that he throws a bridge to the Crusades.

The legend of the Tatars and the role of Kyiv in Russia.

“The beginning of the legend of Kievan Rus was laid by the Synopsis published in 1674, the first educational book on Russian history known to us. This little book was reprinted more than once (1676, 1680, 1718 and 1810) and was very popular until the middle of the 19th century. Innokenty Gizel (1600-1683) is considered to be its author. Born in Prussia, in his youth he came to Kyiv, converted to Orthodoxy and took the vows as a monk. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla sent the young monk abroad, from where he returned as an educated man. He applied his scholarship in a tense ideological and political struggle against the Jesuits. He is known as a literary theologian, historiographer and theologian” (KUN:184). – When we talk about the fact that Miller, Bayer and Schlozer became the “fathers” of Russian historiography in the 18th century, we forget that a century earlier, under the first Romanovs and after Nikon’s reform, a new Romanov historiography was called Synopsis, that is, summary, the German also wrote, so there was already a precedent. It is clear that after the eradication of the Rurik dynasty and the persecution of the Old Believers and Old Believers, Muscovy needed a new historiography that would whitewash the Romanovs and denigrate the Rurikovichs. And it appeared, although it did not come from Muscovy, but from Little Russia, which since 1654 became part of Muscovy, although it spiritually adjoined Lithuania and Poland.

“Gizel should be considered not only a church figure, but also a political one, because the Orthodox church elite in the Polish-Lithuanian state was an integral part of the political elite. As a protégé of Metropolitan Peter Mogila, he maintained active contacts with Moscow on political and financial issues. In 1664 he visited the Russian capital as part of the Little Russian embassy of the Cossack officers and clergy. Apparently, his work was appreciated, since in 1656 he received the rank of archimandrite and rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, keeping it until his death in 1683.

Of course, Innokenty Gizel was an ardent supporter of the annexation of Little Russia to Great Russia, otherwise it is difficult to explain why the tsars Alexei Mikhailovich, Fedor Alekseevich and the ruler Sofya Alekseevna favored him very much, more than once bestowed valuable gifts. So, it is Synopsis that begins to actively popularize the legend of Kievan Rus, the Tatar invasion and the struggle with Poland. The main stereotypes of ancient Russian history (the founding of Kyiv by three brothers, the calling of the Varangians, the legend of the baptism of Russia by Vladimir, etc.) are laid out in the "Synopsis" in a slender row and accurately dated. Somewhat strange to today's reader will seem perhaps one hundred Gizel's story "On Slavic Freedom or Liberty." - “The Slavs, in their courage and courage, strive hard day by day, fighting also against the ancient Greek and Roman Caesars, and always glorious perceiving victory, living in all freedom; I also helped the great Tsar Alexander of Macedon and his father Philip to incite the state under the rule of this Light. The same, glorious for the sake of deeds and labors of the military, gave Alexander the Tsar of the Slavs privileges or a letter on gold parchment, written in Alexandria, liberties and the land they claim, before the Nativity of Christ, the year 310; and August Caesar (in his own Kingdom the King of glory Christ the Lord was born) did not dare to fight with the free and strong Slavs ”(KUN: 184-185). - I note that if the legend of the founding of Kyiv was very important for Little Russia, which, according to it, became the political center of all ancient Russia, in the light of which the legend of the baptism of Kyiv by Vladimir grew to the statement of the baptism of All Russia, and both legends, thus, carried a powerful the political meaning of the promotion of Little Russia to the first place in the history and religion of Russia, then the quoted passage does not carry such pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Here, apparently, we have an insertion of traditional views on the participation of Russian soldiers in the campaigns of Alexander the Great, for which they received a number of privileges. Here, examples of the interaction of Russia with the politicians of late antiquity are also given; later, the historiographies of all countries will remove any mention of the existence of Russia in this period. It is also interesting to see that the interests of Little Russia in the 17th century and now are diametrically opposed: then Gisel argued that Little Russia is the Center of Russia, and all events in it are epoch-making for Great Russia; now, on the contrary, the “independence” of the Outskirts from Russia, the connection of the Outskirts with Poland, is being proved, and the work of the first President of the Outskirts, Kravchuk, was called “The Outskirts is such a power.” Allegedly independent throughout its history. And the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Outskirts asks the Russians to write "In the Outskirts", and not "ON the Outskirts", mangling the Russian language. That is, at the moment, the Qiu power is more satisfied with the role of the Polish periphery. This example clearly shows how political interests can change the country's position by 180 degrees, and not only give up its claims to leadership, but even change its name to a completely dissonant one. Modern Gisel would try to connect the three brothers who founded Kyiv with Germany and the German Ukrainians, who had nothing to do with Little Russia, and the conduct of Christianity in Kyiv with the general Christianization of Europe, allegedly having nothing to do with Russia.

“When an archimandrite, favored at court, undertakes to compose history, it is very difficult to consider this work a model of unbiased scientific research. Rather, it will be a propaganda treatise. A lie is the most effective method of propaganda, if the lie can be introduced into the mass consciousness.

It is Synopsis, which was published in 1674, that has the honor of becoming the first Russian mass printed publication. Until the beginning of the 19th century, the book was used as a textbook on Russian history; in total, it went through 25 editions, of which the last one took place in 1861 (the 26th edition was already in our century). From the point of view of propaganda, it does not matter how much Gisel's work corresponded to reality, what matters is how firmly it was rooted in the minds of the educated layer. And it is firmly rooted. Considering that the "Synopsis" was actually written by order of the ruling house of the Romanovs and was officially planted, it could not be otherwise. Tatishchev, Karamzin, Shcherbatov, Solovyov, Kostomarov, Klyuchevsky and other historians, brought up on the Gizel concept, simply could not (and hardly wanted to) critically comprehend the legend of Kievan Rus ”(KUN: 185). - As you can see, a kind of " short course The VKP (b) ”of the victorious pro-Western Romanov dynasty was the“ Synopsis ”by the German Gisel, who represented the interests of Little Russia, which had recently become part of Russia, which immediately began to claim the role of leader in the political and religious life of Russia. So to speak, from dirt to riches! It was this peripheral newly acquired part of Russia that completely suited the Romanovs as a historical leader, as well as the tale that this weak state was beaten by the equally peripheral steppes from the Underworld - Russian Tartaria. The meaning of these legends is obvious - Russia was allegedly flawed from the very beginning!

Other Romanov Historians on Kievan Rus and the Tatars.

“The court historians of the 18th century, Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, August Ludwig Schlözer and Gerard Friedrich Miller, did not contradict the Synopsis either. Now tell me, for mercy, how could Bayer be a researcher of Russian antiquities and a writer of the concept of Russian history (gave rise to the Norman theory), when during the 13 years of his stay in Russia he did not even learn Russian? The last two were co-authors of the obscenely politicized Norman theory, proving that Russia acquired the features of a normal state only under the leadership of true Europeans Ruriks. Both of them edited and published the works of Tatishchev, after which it is difficult to say what was left of the original in his works. At least, it is known for sure that the original of Tatishchev's "History of Russia" disappeared without a trace, and according to the official version, Miller used some "drafts", which are also unknown to us now.

Despite constant conflicts with colleagues, it was Miller who formed the academic framework of official Russian historiography. His main opponent and ruthless critic was Mikhail Lomonosov. However, Miller managed to take revenge on the great Russian scientist. And how! The Ancient Russian History, prepared by Lomonosov for publication, was never published through the efforts of his opponents. Moreover, the work was confiscated after the death of the author and disappeared without a trace. A few years later, only the first volume of his monumental work was printed, prepared for publication, as it is believed, personally by Muller. Reading Lomonosov today, it is absolutely impossible to understand what he so fiercely argued with the German courtiers - his "Ancient Russian History" was sustained in the spirit of the officially approved version of history. There are absolutely no contradictions with Muller on the most controversial issue of Russian antiquity in Lomonosov's book. Therefore, we are dealing with a forgery” (KUN:186). - Brilliant conclusion! Although something else remains unclear: the Soviet government was no longer interested in exalting one of the republics of the USSR, namely the Ukrainian, and belittling the Turkic republics, which just fell under the understanding of Tartaria or Tatars. It would seem that it was high time to get rid of the forgery and show the true history of Russia. Why, then, in Soviet times, Soviet historiography adhered to the version pleasing to the Romanovs and the Russian Orthodox Church? – The answer lies on the surface. Because the worse was the history of tsarist Russia, the better was the history of Soviet Russia. It was then, in the time of the Rurikovichs, that it was possible to call foreigners to control a great power, and the country was so weak that it could be conquered by some kind of Tatar-Mongols. In Soviet times, it seemed that no one was called up from anywhere, and Lenin and Stalin were natives of Russia (although in Soviet times no one would have dared to write that Rothschild helped Trotsky with money and people, the German General Staff helped Lenin, and Yakov Sverdlov was responsible for communication with European bankers). On the other hand, one of the employees of the Institute of Archeology told me in the 90s that the color of pre-revolutionary archaeological thought did not remain in Soviet Russia, Soviet-style archaeologists were very much inferior in their professionalism to pre-revolutionary archaeologists, and they tried to destroy pre-revolutionary archaeological archives. - I asked her in connection with the excavations by the archaeologist Veselovsky of the caves of Kamennaya Mohyla in Ukraine, because for some reason all the reports about his expedition were lost. It turned out that they were not lost, but deliberately destroyed. For the Stone Grave is a Paleolithic monument, in which there are Russian inscriptions in runes. And a completely different history of Russian culture emerges from it. But archaeologists are part of the team of Soviet historians. And they created no less politicized historiography than historians in the service of the Romanovs.

“It remains only to state that the edition of Russian history used to this day was made up exclusively by foreign authors, mostly Germans. The works of Russian historians who tried to resist them were destroyed, and falsifications were issued under their name. You should not expect that the gravediggers of the national historiographic school spared the primary sources dangerous to them. Lomonosov was horrified when he learned that Schlözer had access to all the ancient Russian chronicles that had survived at that time. Where are those chronicles now?

By the way, Schlozer called Lomonosov "a rude ignoramus who knew nothing but his annals." It is difficult to say why these words contain more hatred - to the stubborn Russian scientist who considers the Russian people the same age as the Romans, or to the chronicles that confirmed this. But it turns out that the German historian who received the Russian chronicles at his disposal was not guided by them at all. He revered the political order above science. Mikhail Vasilyevich, when it came to the hated German, was also not shy in expressions. About Schlözer, the following statement of his has come down to us: “... what vile dirty tricks such a beast admitted to them will not do in Russian antiquities” or “He looks a lot like some idol priest who, having fumigated himself with bleached and dope and fast spinning on one leg, twisting his head, gives dubious, dark, incomprehensible and completely wild answers.

How long will we dance to the tune of "stoned idol priests"? (KUHN:186-187).

Discussion.

Although I read the works of L.N. Gumilyov, and A.T. Fomenko, and Valyansky with Kalyuzhny, but no one wrote so convexly, in detail and conclusively before Alexei Kungurov. And I can congratulate “our regiment” of researchers of non-politicized Russian history that it has become one more bayonet. I note that he is not only well-read, but also capable of a remarkable analysis of all the absurdities of professional historians. It is professional historiography that invents bows that shoot at 300 meters with the lethal force of a modern rifle bullet, it is she who calmly appoints backward pastoralists who did not have statehood as the creators of the largest state in the history of mankind, it is they who suck out of their fingers huge armies of conquerors who cannot be fed. , nor move for several thousand kilometers. Illiterate Mongols, it turns out, compiled land and per capita lists, that is, they conducted a population census on the scale of this vast country, and also registered trade income even from wandering merchants. And the results of this huge work in the form of reports, lists and analytical reviews disappeared somewhere without a trace. It turned out that there is not a single archaeological confirmation of the existence of both the capital of the Mongols and the capitals of the uluses, as well as the existence of Mongolian coins. And even today, the Mongolian tugriks are an inconvertible monetary unit.

Of course, the chapter touches on many more problems than the reality of the existence of the Mongol-Tatars. For example, the possibility of disguise due to the Tatar-Mongol invasion of the real forced Christianization of Russia by the West. However, this problem requires much more serious argumentation, which is absent in this chapter of Alexei Kungurov's book. Therefore, I am in no hurry to draw any conclusions in this regard.

Conclusion.

Nowadays, there is only one justification for supporting the myth of the Tatar-Mongol invasion: it not only expressed, but still expresses today the West's point of view on the history of Russia. The West is not interested in the point of view of Russian researchers. It will always be possible to find such "professionals" who, for the sake of self-interest, career or fame in the West, will support the myth generally accepted and fabricated by the West.

Chronology

• 1123 Battle of the Russians and Polovtsians with the Mongols on the Kalka River
• 1237 - 1240 The conquest of Russia by the Mongols
• 1240 The defeat of the Swedish knights on the Neva River by Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich (Battle of the Neva)
• 1242 The defeat of the Crusaders by Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky on Lake Peipus (Battle on the Ice)
• 1380 Battle of Kulikovo

The beginning of the Mongol conquests of the Russian principalities

In the XIII century. the peoples of Russia had to endure a hard struggle with Tatar-Mongol conquerors who ruled in the Russian lands until the 15th century. (the last century in a milder form). Directly or indirectly, the Mongol invasion contributed to the fall of the political institutions of the Kyiv period and the growth of absolutism.

In the XII century. there was no centralized state in Mongolia; the union of the tribes was achieved at the end of the 12th century. Temuchin, the leader of one of the clans. At a general meeting (“kurultai”) of representatives of all clans in 1206 d. he was proclaimed a great khan with the name Genghis(“Infinite Power”).

As soon as the empire was created, it began its expansion. The organization of the Mongolian army was based on the decimal principle - 10, 100, 1000, etc. The imperial guard was created, which controlled the entire army. Before the advent of firearms Mongolian cavalry took up in the steppe wars. She is was better organized and trained than any nomadic army of the past. The reason for success was not only the perfection of the military organization of the Mongols, but also the unpreparedness of rivals.

At the beginning of the 13th century, having conquered part of Siberia, the Mongols in 1215 set about conquering China. They managed to capture the entire northern part of it. From China, the Mongols took out the latest military equipment and specialists for that time. In addition, they received cadres of competent and experienced officials from among the Chinese. In 1219, the troops of Genghis Khan invaded Central Asia. Following Central Asia captured Northern Iran, after which the troops of Genghis Khan made a predatory campaign in Transcaucasia. From the south they came to the Polovtsian steppes and defeated the Polovtsians.

The request of the Polovtsy to help them against a dangerous enemy was accepted by the Russian princes. The battle between the Russian-Polovtsian and Mongol troops took place on May 31, 1223 on the Kalka River in the Azov region. Not all Russian princes, who promised to participate in the battle, put up their troops. The battle ended with the defeat of the Russian-Polovtsian troops, many princes and combatants died.

In 1227 Genghis Khan died. Ogedei, his third son, was elected Great Khan. In 1235, the Kurultai met in the Mongolian capital of Karakorum, where it was decided to begin the conquest of the western lands. This intention posed a terrible threat to the Russian lands. Ogedei's nephew, Batu (Batu), became the head of the new campaign.

In 1236, the troops of Batu began a campaign against the Russian lands. Having defeated the Volga Bulgaria, they set off to conquer the Ryazan principality. The Ryazan princes, their squads and townspeople had to fight the invaders alone. The city was burned and plundered. After the capture of Ryazan, the Mongol troops moved to Kolomna. Many Russian soldiers died in the battle near Kolomna, and the battle itself ended in defeat for them. On February 3, 1238, the Mongols approached Vladimir. Having besieged the city, the invaders sent a detachment to Suzdal, who took it and burned it. The Mongols stopped only in front of Novgorod, turning south due to mudslides.

In 1240 the Mongol offensive resumed. Chernigov and Kyiv were captured and destroyed. From here, the Mongol troops moved into Galicia-Volyn Rus. Having captured Vladimir-Volynsky, Galich in 1241, Batu invaded Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Moravia, and then in 1242 reached Croatia and Dalmatia. However, the Mongol troops entered Western Europe significantly weakened by the powerful resistance they met in Russia. This largely explains the fact that if the Mongols managed to establish their yoke in Russia, then Western Europe experienced only an invasion, and then on a smaller scale. This is the historical role of the heroic resistance of the Russian people to the invasion of the Mongols.

The result of the grandiose campaign of Batu was the conquest of a vast territory - the southern Russian steppes and forests of Northern Russia, the region of the Lower Danube (Bulgaria and Moldova). The Mongol Empire now included the entire Eurasian continent from the Pacific Ocean to the Balkans.

After the death of Ögedei in 1241, the majority supported the candidacy of Ögedei's son Gayuk. Batu became the head of the strongest regional khanate. He established his capital at Sarai (north of Astrakhan). His power extended to Kazakhstan, Khorezm, Western Siberia, the Volga, the North Caucasus, Russia. Gradually, the western part of this ulus became known as Golden Horde.

The struggle of the Russian people against Western aggression

When the Mongols occupied Russian cities, the Swedes, threatening Novgorod, appeared at the mouth of the Neva. They were defeated in July 1240 by the young prince Alexander, who received the name Nevsky for his victory.

At the same time, the Roman Church was making acquisitions in the countries of the Baltic Sea. Back in the 12th century, German chivalry began to seize the lands belonging to the Slavs beyond the Oder and in the Baltic Pomerania. At the same time, an offensive was carried out on the lands of the Baltic peoples. The Crusaders' invasion of the Baltic lands and Northwestern Russia was sanctioned by the Pope and the German Emperor Frederick II. German, Danish, Norwegian knights and hosts from other northern European countries also took part in the crusade. The attack on Russian lands was part of the doctrine of "Drang nach Osten" (pressure to the east).

Together with his retinue, Alexander liberated Pskov, Izborsk and other captured cities with a sudden blow. Having received the news that the main forces of the Order were coming at him, Alexander Nevsky blocked the way for the knights, placing his troops on the ice of Lake Peipsi. The Russian prince showed himself as an outstanding commander. The chronicler wrote about him: "Winning everywhere, but we won't win at all." Alexander deployed troops under the cover of a steep bank on the ice of the lake, eliminating the possibility of enemy reconnaissance of his forces and depriving the enemy of freedom of maneuver. Taking into account the construction of the knights in a “pig” (in the form of a trapezoid with a sharp wedge in front, which was heavily armed cavalry), Alexander Nevsky arranged his regiments in the form of a triangle, with a tip resting on the shore. Before the battle, part of the Russian soldiers were supplied with special hooks to pull the knights off their horses.

On April 5, 1242, a battle took place on the ice of Lake Peipus, which was called the Battle of the Ice. The knight's wedge broke through the center of the Russian position and hit the shore. The flank attacks of the Russian regiments decided the outcome of the battle: like pincers, they crushed the knightly “pig”. The knights, unable to withstand the blow, fled in panic. The Russians pursued the enemy, “flashed, rushing after him, as if through air,” the chronicler wrote. According to the Novgorod Chronicle, in the battle “400 and 50 Germans were taken prisoner”

Stubbornly resisting the western enemies, Alexander was extremely patient with the eastern onslaught. Recognition of the sovereignty of the khan freed his hands to repel the Teutonic crusade.

Tatar-Mongol yoke

While persistently resisting the Western enemies, Alexander was extremely patient with the Eastern onslaught. The Mongols did not interfere in the religious affairs of their subjects, while the Germans tried to impose their faith on the conquered peoples. They pursued an aggressive policy under the slogan "Who does not want to be baptized must die!". Recognition of the Khan's sovereignty freed forces to repel the Teutonic crusade. But it turned out that the "Mongol flood" is not easy to get rid of. RRussian lands despoiled by the Mongols were forced to recognize vassal dependence on the Golden Horde.

In the first period of Mongol rule, the collection of taxes and the mobilization of Russians into the Mongol troops was carried out on the orders of the great khan. Both money and recruits went to the capital. Under Gauk, Russian princes traveled to Mongolia to receive a label to reign. Later, a trip to Saray was enough.

The incessant struggle waged by the Russian people against the invaders forced the Mongol-Tatars to abandon the creation of their own administrative authorities in Russia. Russia retained its statehood. This was facilitated by the presence in Russia of its own administration and church organization.

To control the Russian lands, the institution of Baskak governors was created - the leaders of the military detachments of the Mongol-Tatars, who monitored the activities of the Russian princes. The denunciation of the Baskaks to the Horde inevitably ended either with the summoning of the prince to Sarai (often he lost his label, and even his life), or with a punitive campaign in the unruly land. Suffice it to say that only in the last quarter of the XIII century. 14 similar campaigns were organized in Russian lands.

In 1257, the Mongol-Tatars undertook a census of the population - "recording in number." Besermen (Muslim merchants) were sent to the cities, to whom the collection of tribute was given. The size of the tribute (“exit”) was very large, only the “royal tribute”, i.e. tribute in favor of the khan, which was first collected in kind, and then in money, amounted to 1300 kg of silver per year. The constant tribute was supplemented by "requests" - one-time requisitions in favor of the khan. In addition, deductions from trade duties, taxes for “feeding” khan officials, etc. went to the khan's treasury. In total there were 14 types of tributes in favor of the Tatars.

The Horde yoke slowed down the economic development of Russia for a long time, destroyed its agriculture, and undermined its culture. The Mongol invasion led to a decline in the role of cities in the political and economic life of Russia, urban construction was suspended, and fine and applied arts fell into decay. A severe consequence of the yoke was the deepening of the disunity of Russia and the isolation of its individual parts. The weakened country was unable to defend a number of western and southern regions, later captured by the Lithuanian and Polish feudal lords. Rus' trade relations with the West were dealt a blow: only Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Vitebsk and Smolensk retained trade relations with foreign countries.

The turning point was 1380, when Mamai's army of thousands was defeated on the Kulikovo field.

Russia began to grow stronger, its dependence on the Horde weakened more and more. The final liberation took place in 1480 under Tsar Ivan III. By this time, the period was over, the collection of Russian lands around Moscow and was ending.

There are a large number of facts that not only unambiguously 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 and why deliberately distorted history? What real events did they want to hide and why?

If we analyze 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 later 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 justification, which have already been described quite extensively, 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 in peacetime. 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 "military prince", which, in the modern world, is close to the position of the 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 warrior tall 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 tale that 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” created the Great Empire at one time, which they were very surprised and delighted with . 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". The roof on the left is almost an exact copy of the roofs of the old Russian towers ... (A. Bushkov, "Russia that 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 - these are, as it were, two around the world…” (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 declared “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, about Orthodox faith Christian!..»

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 northwest 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). Let us recall from the school curriculum on 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 you need 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 perfectly understood 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 who adopted the Greek religion survived - 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 the Kiev principality was baptized, and in order to stop all possible questions, 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.

o (Mongol-Tatar, Tatar-Mongol, Horde) - the traditional name for the system of exploitation of Russian lands by nomadic conquerors who came from the East from 1237 to 1480.

This system was aimed at the implementation of mass terror and robbery of the Russian people by levying cruel requisitions. It acted primarily in the interests of the Mongol nomadic military-feudal nobility (noyons), in whose favor the lion's share of the collected tribute came.

The Mongol-Tatar yoke was established as a result of the invasion of Batu Khan in the 13th century. Until the early 1260s, Russia was ruled by the great Mongol khans, and then by the khans of the Golden Horde.

The Russian principalities were not directly part of the Mongol state and retained the local princely administration, the activities of which were controlled by the Baskaks - representatives of the khan in the conquered lands. The Russian princes were tributaries of the Mongol khans and received from them labels for the possession of their principalities. Formally, the Mongol-Tatar yoke was established in 1243, when Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich received a label from the Mongols for the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. Russia, according to the label, lost the right to fight and had to regularly pay tribute to the khans twice a year (in spring and autumn).

On the territory of Russia there was no permanent Mongol-Tatar army. The yoke was supported by punitive campaigns and repressions against recalcitrant princes. The regular flow of tribute from the Russian lands began after the census of 1257-1259, conducted by the Mongolian "numerals". The units of taxation were: in cities - the yard, in rural areas - "village", "plough", "plough". Only the clergy were exempt from tribute. The main "Horde hardships" were: "exit", or "Tsar's tribute" - a tax directly for the Mongol Khan; trading fees ("myt", "tamka"); transport duties ("pits", "carts"); the content of the khan's ambassadors ("fodder"); various "gifts" and "honors" to the khan, his relatives and associates. Every year, a huge amount of silver left the Russian lands in the form of tribute. Large "requests" for military and other needs were periodically collected. In addition, the Russian princes were obliged, by order of the khan, to send soldiers to participate in campaigns and in battue hunts (“catchers”). In the late 1250s and early 1260s, tribute from the Russian principalities was collected by Muslim merchants (“besermens”), who bought this right from the great Mongol khan. Most of the tribute went to the great khan in Mongolia. During the uprisings of 1262, the "besermen" from Russian cities were expelled, and the duty of collecting tribute passed to the local princes.

The struggle of Russia against the yoke was gaining more and more breadth. In 1285, Grand Duke Dmitry Alexandrovich (son of Alexander Nevsky) defeated and expelled the army of the “Horde prince”. At the end of the 13th - the first quarter of the 14th century, performances in Russian cities led to the elimination of the Basques. With the strengthening of the Moscow principality, the Tatar yoke is gradually weakening. Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita (reigned in 1325-1340) won the right to collect "exit" from all Russian principalities. From the middle of the XIV century, the orders of the khans of the Golden Horde, not supported by a real military threat, were no longer carried out by the Russian princes. Dmitry Donskoy (1359-1389) did not recognize the khan's labels issued to his rivals and seized the Grand Duchy of Vladimir by force. In 1378 he defeated the Tatar army on the Vozha River in the Ryazan land, and in 1380 he defeated the Golden Horde ruler Mamai in the Battle of Kulikovo.

However, after the campaign of Tokhtamysh and the capture of Moscow in 1382, Russia was again forced to recognize the power of the Golden Horde and pay tribute, but already Vasily I Dmitrievich (1389-1425) received the great reign of Vladimir without the khan's label, as "his fiefdom." Under him, the yoke was nominal. Tribute was paid irregularly, the Russian princes pursued an independent policy. The attempt of the Golden Horde ruler Edigei (1408) to restore full power over Russia ended in failure: he failed to take Moscow. The strife that began in the Golden Horde opened before Russia the possibility of overthrowing the Tatar yoke.

However, in the middle of the 15th century, Muscovite Russia itself experienced a period of internecine war, which weakened its military potential. During these years, the Tatar rulers organized a series of devastating invasions, but they were no longer able to bring the Russians to complete obedience. The unification of Russian lands around Moscow led to the concentration in the hands of the Moscow princes of such political power, which the weakening Tatar khans could not cope with. The Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III Vasilyevich (1462-1505) in 1476 refused to pay tribute. In 1480, after the unsuccessful campaign of the Khan of the Great Horde Akhmat and “standing on the Ugra”, the yoke was finally overthrown.

The Mongol-Tatar yoke had negative, regressive consequences for the economic, political and cultural development of the Russian lands, was a brake on the growth of the productive forces of Russia, which were at a higher socio-economic level compared to the productive forces of the Mongol state. It artificially preserved for a long time the purely feudal natural character of the economy. Politically, the consequences of the yoke were manifested in the disruption of the natural process of the state development of Russia, in the artificial maintenance of its fragmentation. The Mongol-Tatar yoke, which lasted two and a half centuries, was one of the reasons for the economic, political and cultural backwardness of Russia from Western European countries.

The material was prepared on the basis of information from open sources.

Today we will talk about a very “slippery” topic from the point of view of modern history and science, but no less interesting topic.

Disputes about the history of the Tatar-Mongol invasion and the consequences of their invasion, the so-called yoke, do not disappear, probably never will. Under the influence of numerous critics, including Gumilyov's supporters, new, interesting facts began to be woven into the traditional version of Russian history. Mongolian yoke that would like to be developed. As we all remember from the school history course, the point of view still prevails, which is as follows:

In the first half of the 13th century, Russia was invaded by the Tatars, who came to Europe from Central Asia, in particular China and Central Asia, which they had already captured by this time. The dates are exactly known to our Russian historians: 1223 - the Battle of the Kalka, 1237 - the fall of Ryazan, in 1238 - the defeat of the combined forces of the Russian princes on the banks of the City River, in 1240 - the fall of Kyiv. Tatar-Mongolian troops destroyed individual squads of the princes of Kievan Rus and subjected it to a monstrous defeat. The military power of the Tatars was so irresistible that their dominance lasted for two and a half centuries - until the "Standing on the Ugra" in 1480, when the consequences of the yoke were finally completely eliminated, the end came.

250 years, that's how many years, Russia paid tribute to the Horde with money and blood. In 1380, for the first time since the invasion of Batu Khan, Russia gathered strength and gave battle to the Tatar Horde on the Kulikovo field, in which Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Temnik Mamai, but from this defeat all the Tatars - the Mongols did not happen at all, this is, so to speak, a won battle in lost war. Although even the traditional version of Russian history suggests that there were practically no Tatar-Mongol in Mamai's army, only local nomads and Genoese mercenaries from the Don. By the way, the participation of the Genoese, suggests the participation of the Vatican in this matter. Today, in the well-known version of the history of Russia, they began to add, as it were, fresh data, but intended to add credibility and reliability to an already existing version. In particular, there are extensive discussions on the number of nomadic Tatars - Mongols, the specifics of their martial art and weapons.

Let's evaluate the versions that exist today:

Let's start with a very interesting fact. Such a nationality as the Mongol-Tatars does not exist, and did not exist at all. The only thing the Mongols and Tatars have in common is that they roamed the Central Asian steppe, which, as we know, is quite large to accommodate any nomadic people, and at the same time give them the opportunity not to intersect in one territory at all.

The Mongol tribes lived in the southern tip of the Asian steppe and often hunted for raids on China and its provinces, which is often confirmed by the history of China. While other nomadic Turkic tribes, called from time immemorial in Russia Bulgars (Volga Bulgaria), settled in the lower reaches of the Volga River. At that time in Europe they were called Tatars, or TatAriyev (the strongest of the nomadic tribes, inflexible and invincible). And the Tatars, the closest neighbors of the Mongols, lived in the northeastern part of modern Mongolia, mainly in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bLake Buir-Nor and up to the borders of China. There were 70 thousand families, which made up 6 tribes: Tutukulyut Tatars, Alchi Tatars, Chagan Tatars, Kuin Tatars, Terat Tatars, Barkui Tatars. The second parts of the names, apparently, are the self-names of these tribes. Among them there is not a single word that would sound close to the Turkic language - they are more in tune with the Mongolian names.

Two kindred peoples - Tatars and Mongols - waged a war for a long time with varying success for mutual extermination, until Genghis Khan seized power in all of Mongolia. The fate of the Tatars was sealed. Since the Tatars were the murderers of the father of Genghis Khan, they exterminated many tribes and clans close to him, constantly supported the tribes opposing him, “then Genghis Khan (Tei-mu-Chin) ordered to carry out a general slaughter of the Tatars and not to leave not one of them alive to the limit that is determined by law (Yasak); that the women and little children should also be slaughtered, and that the wombs of the pregnant women should be cut open in order to completely destroy them. …”.

That is why such a nationality could not threaten the freedom of Russia. Moreover, many historians and cartographers of that time, especially Eastern European ones, “sinned” to call all indestructible (from the point of view of Europeans) and invincible peoples, TatAriy or simply in Latin TatArie.
This can be easily traced from ancient maps, for example, Map of Russia 1594 in the Atlas of Gerhard Mercator, or Maps of Russia and Tartary Ortelius.

One of the fundamental axioms of Russian historiography is the assertion that for almost 250 years, the so-called “Mongol-Tatar yoke” existed on the lands inhabited by the ancestors of the modern East Slavic peoples - Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. Allegedly in the 30s - 40s of the XIII century, the ancient Russian principalities were subjected to the Mongol-Tatar invasion led by the legendary Batu Khan.

The fact is that there are numerous historical facts that contradict the historical version of the "Mongol-Tatar yoke".

First of all, even in the canonical version, the fact of the conquest of the northeastern Old Russian principalities by the Mongol-Tatar invaders is not directly confirmed - supposedly these principalities were in vassal dependence on the Golden Horde (a state formation that occupied a large territory in the southeast of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia, founded Mongol prince Batu). They say that the army of Batu Khan made several bloody predatory raids on these very northeastern ancient Russian principalities, as a result of which our distant ancestors decided to go “under the arm” of Batu and his Golden Horde.

However, historical information is known that the personal guard of Batu Khan consisted exclusively of Russian soldiers. A very strange circumstance for the lackeys-vassals of the great Mongol conquerors, especially for the newly conquered people.

There is indirect evidence of the existence of a letter from Batu to the legendary Russian prince Alexander Nevsky, in which the all-powerful khan of the Golden Horde asks the Russian prince to take his son to raise him and make him a real warrior and commander.

Also, some sources claim that Tatar mothers in the Golden Horde frightened their disobedient children with the name of Alexander Nevsky.

Due to all these inconsistencies, the author of these lines in his book “2013. Memories of the Future” (“Olma-Press”) puts forward a completely different version of the events of the first half and the middle of the 13th century on the territory of the European part of the future Russian Empire.

According to this version, when the Mongols at the head of nomadic tribes (later called Tatars) went to the northeastern ancient Russian principalities, they really entered into quite bloody military clashes with them. But only a crushing victory for Batu Khan did not work out, most likely, the matter ended in a kind of “combat draw”. And then Batu offered the Russian princes an equal military alliance. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why his guards consisted of Russian knights, and Tatar mothers frightened their children with the name of Alexander Nevsky.

All these terrible stories about the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" were composed much later, when the Moscow tsars had to create myths about their exclusivity and superiority over the conquered peoples (the same Tatars, for example).

Even in the modern school curriculum, this historical moment is briefly described as follows: “At the beginning of the 13th century, Genghis Khan gathered a large army from nomadic peoples, and subjecting them to strict discipline decided to conquer the whole world. Having defeated China, he sent his army to Russia. In the winter of 1237, the army of the "Mongol-Tatars" invaded the territory of Russia, and later defeating the Russian army on the Kalka River, went further, through Poland and the Czech Republic. As a result, having reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, the army suddenly stops, and without completing its task, turns back. From this period begins the so-called " Mongol-Tatar yoke» over Russia.

But wait, they were going to take over the world...so why didn't they go further? Historians answered that they were afraid of an attack from the back, defeated and plundered, but still strong Russia. But this is just ridiculous. A plundered state, will it run to protect other people's cities and villages? Rather, they will rebuild their borders, and wait for the return of the enemy troops in order to fully fight back.
But the oddities don't end there. For some unimaginable reason, during the reign of the Romanov dynasty, dozens of chronicles describing the events of the "Horde times" disappear. For example, "The Word about the destruction of the Russian land", historians believe that this is a document from which everything that would testify to the Yoke was carefully removed. They left only fragments telling about some kind of "trouble" that befell Russia. But there is not a word about the "invasion of the Mongols."

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

At that time, the “new faith” was already flourishing in Europe, namely Faith in Christ. Catholicism was widespread everywhere, and ruled everything, from the way of life and system, to the state system and legislation. At that time, crusades against the Gentiles were still relevant, but along with military methods, “tactical tricks” were often used, akin to bribing powerful people and inclining them to their faith. And after receiving power through a purchased person, the conversion of all his “subordinates” to the faith. It was precisely such a secret crusade that was then carried out against Russia. Through bribery and other promises, church ministers were able to seize power over Kyiv and nearby areas. Just relatively recently, by the standards of history, the baptism of Russia took place, but history is silent about the civil war that arose on this basis immediately after the forced baptism. And the ancient Slavic chronicle describes this moment as follows:

« And the Vorogs came from the Overseas, and they brought faith in alien gods. With fire and sword, they began to instill in us an alien faith, Showering the Russian princes with gold and silver, bribing their will, and misleading the true path. They promised them an idle life, full of wealth and happiness, and the remission of any sins, for their dashing deeds.

And then Ros broke up into different states. The Russian clans retreated to the north to the great Asgard, And they named their state by the names of the gods of their patrons, Tarkh Dazhdbog the Great and Tara, his Sister of Light. (They called her Great Tartaria). Leaving foreigners with princes bought in the principality of Kiev and its environs. Volga Bulgaria also did not bow before the enemies, and did not accept their alien faith as their own.
But the principality of Kiev did not live in peace with Tartary. They began to conquer the Russian land with fire and sword and impose their alien faith. And then the army rose up, for a fierce battle. In order to keep their faith and win back their lands. Both old and young then went to the Warriors in order to restore order to the Russian Lands.

And so the war began, in which the Russian army, the land of the Great Aria (tatAria) defeated the enemy, and drove him out of the primordially Slavic lands. It drove the alien army, with their fierce faith, from their stately lands.

By the way, the word Horde is spelled Old Slavonic alphabet, means Order. That is, the Golden Horde is not a separate state, it is a system. "Political" system of the Golden Order. Under which the Princes reigned locally, planted with the approval of the Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Army, or in one word they called him KHAN (our protector).
It means that there was not more than two hundred years of oppression, but there was a time of peace and prosperity of the Great Aria or TarTaria. By the way, in modern history there is also confirmation of this, but for some reason no one pays attention to it. But we will definitely pay attention, and very close:

The Mongol-Tatar yoke is a system of political and tributary dependence of the Russian principalities on the Mongol-Tatar khans (until the beginning of the 60s of the XIII century, the Mongol khans, after the khans of the Golden Horde) in the XIII-XV centuries. The establishment of the yoke became possible as a result of the Mongol invasion of Russia in 1237-1241 and took place for two decades after it, including in the lands that were not devastated. In North-Eastern Russia it lasted until 1480. (Wikipedia)

Battle of the Neva (July 15, 1240) - a battle on the Neva River between the Novgorod militia under the command of Prince Alexander Yaroslavich and the Swedish army. After the victory of the Novgorodians, Alexander Yaroslavich received the honorary nickname "Nevsky" for his skillful management of the campaign and courage in battle. (Wikipedia)

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the battle with the Swedes takes place right in the midst of the invasion of the "Mongol-Tatars" into Russia? Blazing in fires and plundered by the Mongols, Russia is attacked by the Swedish army, which is safely drowning in the waters of the Neva, and at the same time, the Swedish crusaders never encounter the Mongols. And the Russians, who defeated the strong Swedish army, lose to the Mongols? In my opinion, it's just Brad. Two huge armies at the same time are fighting on the same territory and never intersect. But if we turn to the ancient Slavonic chronicle, then everything becomes clear.

Since 1237 Rat Great Tartaria began to win back their ancestral lands, and when the war was coming to an end, the representatives of the church, who were losing ground, asked for help, and the Swedish crusaders were launched into battle. Since it was not possible to take the country by bribery, then they will take it by force. Just in 1240, the army of the Horde (that is, the army of Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich, one of the princes of the ancient Slavic family) clashed in battle with the army of the Crusaders that came to the rescue of their henchmen. Having won the battle on the Neva, Alexander received the title of the Neva prince and remained to reign in Novgorod, and the Horde Army went further to drive the adversary from the Russian lands completely. So she persecuted the “church and alien faith” until she reached the Adriatic Sea, thereby restoring her original ancient borders. And having reached them, the army turned around and again left not the north. By setting 300 years of peace.

Again, confirmation of this is the so-called end of the Yoke. Battle of Kulikovo"Before which 2 knights Peresvet and Chelubey participated in the match. Two Russian knights, Andrei Peresvet (superior to the world) and Chelubey (beating, Telling, narrating, asking) Information about which was cruelly cut out from the pages of history. It was the loss of Chelubey that foreshadowed the victory of the army of Kievan Rus, restored with the money of all the same "Churchmen", who nevertheless penetrated into Russia from under the floor, albeit more than 150 years later. This is later, when all of Russia will plunge into the abyss of chaos, all sources confirming the events of the past will be burned. And after the coming to power of the Romanov family, many documents will take on the form we know.

By the way, this is not the first time that the Slavic army defends its lands and expels the Gentiles from their territories. Another extremely interesting and confusing moment in History tells us about this.
Army of Alexander the Great, consisting of many professional warriors, was defeated by a small army of some nomads in the mountains north of India (Alexander's last campaign). And for some reason, no one is surprised by the fact that a large trained army, which traveled half the world and redrawn the world map, was so easily broken by an army of simple and uneducated nomads.
But everything becomes clear if you look at the maps of that time and just even think about who the nomads who came from the north (from India) could be. These are just our territories that originally belonged to the Slavs, and where, to this day, the remains of the EtRuss civilization are found .

The Macedonian army was pushed back by the army Slavyan-Ariev who defended their territories. It was at that time that the Slavs “for the first time” went to the Adriatic Sea, and left a huge mark on the territories of Europe. Thus, it turns out that we are not the first to conquer "half of the globe."

So how did it happen that even now we do not know our history? Everything is very simple. The Europeans, trembling with fear and horror, did not cease to be afraid of the Rusichs, even when their plans were crowned with success and they enslaved the Slavic peoples, they were still afraid that one day Russia would rise and shine again with its former strength.

At the beginning of the 18th century, Peter the Great founded the Russian Academy of Sciences. For 120 years of its existence, there were 33 academicians-historians at the historical department of the Academy. Of these, only three were Russians (including M.V. Lomonosov), the rest were Germans. So it turns out that the history of Ancient Russia was written by the Germans, and many of them did not know not only the ways of life and traditions, they did not even know the Russian language. This fact is well known to many historians, but they do not make any effort to carefully study the history that the Germans wrote and get to the bottom of the truth.
Lomonosov wrote a work on the history of Russia, and in this field he often had disputes with his German colleagues. After his death, the archives disappeared without a trace, but somehow his works on the history of Russia were published, but under the editorship of Miller. At the same time, it was Miller who oppressed Lomonosov in every possible way during his lifetime. Computer analysis confirmed that the works of Lomonosov published by Miller on the history of Russia are a falsification. Little is left of Lomonosov's works.

This concept can be found on the Omsk State University website:

We will formulate our concept, hypothesis immediately, without
preliminary preparation of the reader.

Let us pay attention to the following strange and very interesting
data. However, their strangeness is based only on the generally accepted
chronology and inspired to us since childhood version of the ancient Russian
stories. It turns out that changing the chronology removes many oddities and
<>.

One of the highlights in the history of ancient Russia is so
called the Tatar-Mongol conquest by the Horde. Traditionally
it is believed that the Horde came from the East (China? Mongolia?),
captured many countries, conquered Russia, swept to the West and
even reached Egypt.

But if Russia had been conquered in the XIII century with any
was from the side - or from the east, as modern
historians, or from the west, as Morozov believed, they should have
remain information about the clashes between the conquerors and
Cossacks who lived both on the western borders of Russia and in the lower reaches
Don and Volga. That is, just where they were supposed to go
conquerors.

Of course, in the school courses of Russian history, we are strenuously
they convince that the Cossack troops allegedly arose only in the 17th century,
allegedly due to the fact that the serfs fled from the power of the landowners to
Don. However, it is known - although textbooks do not usually mention this,
- that, for example, the Don Cossack state existed IN
XVI century, had its own laws and history.

Moreover, it turns out that the beginning of the history of the Cossacks refers to
to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. See, for example, Sukhorukov's work<>in DON magazine, 1989.

In this way,<>Wherever she comes from,
moving along the natural path of colonization and conquest,
would inevitably come into conflict with the Cossack
areas.
This is not noted.

What's the matter?

A natural hypothesis arises:
NO FOREIGN
THERE WAS NO CONQUEST OF RUSSIA. THE HORDE DID NOT FIGHT WITH THE COSSACKS THAT
COSSACKS WERE A PART OF THE HORDE. This hypothesis was
not formulated by us. It is very convincingly substantiated,
for example, A. A. Gordeev in his<>.

BUT WE ARE APPROVING SOMETHING MORE.

One of our main hypotheses is that the Cossacks
troops were not only part of the Horde - they were regular
troops of the Russian state. Thus, the HORDE - IT WAS
JUST A REGULAR RUSSIAN ARMY.

According to our hypothesis, the modern terms ARMY and VOIN,
- Church Slavonic in origin, - were not Old Russian
terms. They came into constant use in Russia only with
XVII century. And the old Russian terminology was as follows: Horde,
Cossack, Khan

Then the terminology changed. Incidentally, in the 19th century
Russian folk proverbs<>and<>were
interchangeable. This can be seen from the many examples given
in Dahl's dictionary. For example:<>etc.

There is still the famous city of Semikarakorum on the Don, and on
Kuban - the village of Khanskaya. Recall that the Karakorum is considered
THE CAPITAL OF GENGHIS KHAN. At the same time, as is well known, in those
places where archaeologists are still stubbornly looking for Karakoram, no
For some reason there is no Karakorum.

Desperately, they hypothesized that<>. This monastery, which existed in the 19th century, was surrounded
an earthen rampart only about one English mile long. Historians
believe that the famous capital of Karakoram was entirely placed on
territory subsequently occupied by this monastery.

According to our hypothesis, the Horde is not a foreign entity,
captured Russia from the outside, but there is just an Eastern Russian regular
army, which was an integral part of the Old Russian
state.
Our hypothesis is this.

1) <>IT WAS JUST A MILITARY PERIOD
MANAGEMENT IN THE RUSSIAN STATE. NO FOREIGNERS RUSSIA
CONQUERED.

2) THE SUPREME RULER WAS THE COMMANDER-KHAN = KING, A B
THE CITIES WERE CIVIL GOVERNORS - PRINCES WHO ARE OBLIGED
WERE TO COLLECT TRIBUTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RUSSIAN TROOP, ON ITS
CONTENT.

3) THUS, THE OLD RUSSIAN STATE PRESENTS
A UNIFIED EMPIRE IN WHICH THERE WAS A PERMANENT ARMY CONSISTING OF
PROFESSIONAL MILITARY (HORDE) AND CIVIL UNIT WITHOUT
OF THEIR REGULAR TROOPS. WHEREAS SUCH TROOPS HAVE ALREADY ENTERED
COMPOSITION OF THE HORDE.

4) THIS RUSSIAN-HORDE EMPIRE HAD EXISTED FROM THE XIV CENTURY
BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE XVII CENTURY. ITS STORY ENDED WITH THE FAMOUS GREAT
TROUBLES IN RUSSIA IN THE BEGINNING OF THE XVII CENTURY. AS A RESULT OF THE CIVIL WAR
RUSSIAN HORDE TSARS - THE LAST OF WHICH WAS BORIS
<>, - WERE PHYSICALLY EXTERMINATED. A FORMER RUSSIAN
THE ARMY-HORDA ACTUALLY DEFEATED IN THE FIGHT WITH<>. RESULTS
NEW PRO-WESTERN ROMANOV DYNASTY. SHE TAKE POWER AND
IN THE RUSSIAN CHURCH (FILARET).

5) NEW DYNASTY REQUIRED<>,
IDEOLOGICALLY JUSTIFYING ITS POWER. THIS NEW POWER FROM THE POINT
THE VIEW OF THE FORMER RUSSIAN HORDE HISTORY WAS ILLEGAL. THAT'S WHY
THE ROMANOVS NEEDED TO CHANGE THE LIGHTING OF THE PREVIOUS
RUSSIAN HISTORY. HAVE TO TELL THEM - IT WAS DONE
COMPETENTLY. WITHOUT CHANGING MOST OF THE FACTS IN SUBSTANCE, THEY COULD
UNRECOGNIZABILITY TO DISTORT THE WHOLE RUSSIAN HISTORY. SO, PREVIOUS
HISTORY OF RUSSIA-HORDA WITH ITS ESTATE OF FARMERS AND MILITARY
ESTATE - HORDE, WAS ANNOUNCED BY THEM AN AGE<>. AT THE SAME TIME, YOUR OWN RUSSIAN HORDE-ARMY
TURNED, - UNDER THE PEN OF ROMANOV HISTORIANS, - INTO MYTHICAL
ALIENS FROM A FAR UNKNOWN COUNTRY.

notorious<>, familiar to us from Romanovsky
storytelling was just STATE TAX inside
Russia for the maintenance of the Cossack army - the Horde. famous<>, - every tenth person taken into the Horde is just
state MILITARY SET. Like conscription into the army, but only
since childhood - and for life.

Further, the so-called<>, in our opinion,
were simply punitive expeditions to those Russian regions,
who, for some reason, refused to pay tribute =
state tax. Then regular troops punished
civil rioters.

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 justification, which have already been described quite extensively, 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. The prince was responsible for governing the state in peacetime. 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 "military prince", which, in the modern world, is close to the position of the 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".).

In modern "Mongolia" there is not a single folk tale that 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).

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” created the Great Empire at one time, which they were very surprised and delighted with . 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 Poland, 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". The roof on the left is almost an exact copy of the roofs of the old Russian towers ... (A. Bushkov, "Russia that 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 declared “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, temples of God and formidable princes, honest boyars and many nobles. 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!”

More opinions:

The plenipotentiary representative of Tatarstan in Moscow (1999-2010), doctor of political sciences Nazif Mirikhanov spoke in the same spirit: “The term“ yoke ”appeared in general only in the 18th century,” he is sure. “Before that, the Slavs did not even suspect that they were living under oppression, under the yoke of certain conquerors.”

“In fact, the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union, and now Russian Federation- these are the heirs of the Golden Horde, that is, the Turkic empire created by Genghis Khan, whom we need to rehabilitate, as they have already done in China, ”continued Mirikhanov. And he concluded his reasoning with the following thesis: “The Tatars so frightened Europe in their time that the rulers of Russia, who chose the European path of development, in every possible way dissociated themselves from the Horde predecessors. Today is the time to restore historical justice.”

The result was summed up by Izmailov:

“The historical period, which is commonly called the time of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, was not a period of terror, ruin and slavery. Yes, the Russian princes paid tribute to the rulers from Sarai and received labels from them for reigning, but this is ordinary feudal rent. At the same time, the Church flourished in those centuries, and beautiful white-stone churches were built everywhere. Which was quite natural: disparate principalities could not afford such a construction, but only an actual confederation united under the rule of the Khan of the Golden Horde or the Ulus of Jochi, as it would be more correct to call our common state with the Tatars.