History is complex. Some study it from textbooks written by eminent historians and scientists. Others independently delve into the texts of ancient chronicles and try to analyze them. Still others are excavating ancient burial grounds and burial mounds. However, in the twentieth century, filmmakers (as well as specialists in the field of PR technologies) were added to them, each of them, to the best of their talent, trying to imagine the distant past so that it … what? Satisfied their own interest? Compensated for their childhood phobias? Or do they do it for the sake of an "idea" or on the instructions of those in power, in order to strengthen their power based on the corresponding ideology ?! And maybe the first, and the second, and the third ?! Who knows?
For example, the famous Soviet film director Sergei Eisenstein with his film "Alexander Nevsky" … The film was originally planned to be longer and ended with the death of the prince during his return from the Horde. But JV Stalin read the script and said: "Such a good prince cannot die!", And the film ended in a completely different way. Moreover, it was in these seemingly harsh conditions that not just a film was born, but a masterpiece of battle cinema, according to which Soviet citizens studied the Battle of the Ice for many decades, which, thanks to such a PR move, became perhaps the largest battle between Russians and Germans in the era middle ages!
My acquaintance with this historical event (or rather with its ambiguity!) Took place back in 1964 after watching the film "Alexander Nevsky". In the magazine "Young Technician" there was an article about this battle, and everything there was "in the mainstream of the movie and the textbook" except for one "but". The author wrote that "heaps of weapons and armor" were raised from the bottom of the lake, and next to this phrase in a note from the editorial board it was written that this was not so, that nothing was lifted from the bottom, and in general everything was not so simple, as the author of the article wrote. For a ten-year-old boy, it was a shock! It turns out that everything is not so simple ?!
Let's start by looking at what the sources of that time tell us about this "epoch-making" event: "Novgorod first chronicle of the older edition", "Novgorod first chronicle of the younger edition" and "Senior Livonian Rhymed chronicle", which today, by the way, all are available electronically. When citing, preference is usually given to the text of the Novgorod 1st Chronicle, as the most detailed and compact. But, besides him, the most striking passages from the Sofia 1st Chronicle, the Resurrection, Simeonovskaya and other chronicles and from the Life of Alexander Nevsky, which supplemented the description of the Ice Battle with bright battle scenes and individual realities, were also willingly quoted.
The first message is rather short in its content, and contains, in the language of modernity, one essence. The Novgorod First Chronicle of the Younger Edition adds details, but … mainly of a biblical nature, so that people do not forget that everything in the world is done according to the will of God!
There are sources referring to the statement of the "samovidsev" that allegedly Alexander was helped by the "divine regiment" that appeared over the battlefield in the sky. Whether it was actually impossible to verify. One can wonder whether it was a mirage or the author "added divinity" - a technique characteristic of the narratives of the time when the authors borrowed passages from the Bible and inserted them into their text - is unknown. But there is no doubt that the battle on Lake Peipsi really took place! Although the chronicles do not indulge us with the wealth of information. Even the battle on the Neva (1240) is described in chronicles in much more detail.
Well, what about information about this battle abroad? There it is called "The Battle of Lake Peipus." This is the German version of the Estonian name Peipsi, and this is how this lake is called there today on foreign maps. For Western historians, the main source is the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, where, if you cleanse it of the characteristic “beauty of the syllable,” you can briefly read the following: “The Russians had many shooters who courageously took the first onslaught in front of the prince's retinue. It was seen how a detachment of knight brothers defeated the riflemen; there the clinking of swords was heard, and the helmets were seen to be cut. On both sides, the dead fell to the grass. Those who were in the army of the knight brothers were surrounded. The Russians had such a host that perhaps sixty men attacked each German. The knight brothers resisted quite stubbornly, but they were defeated there. Some of the Dorpat residents withdrew from the battle, this was their salvation, they were forced to retreat. There were killed twenty knight brothers, and six were taken prisoner. This was the course of the battle. Prince Alexander was glad that he was victorious."
Here, in turn, begin questions to which our and foreign chronicles do not give answers. For example, if we had many archers in front of the army, why could they not shoot the German "pig", as did the English archers a hundred years later at the Battle of Crécy? Were the bows of our soldiers so much worse than the English ones, or … the outcome of the case was conceived like that from the very beginning?
What, however, is not written anywhere, is that the warriors of the order drowned in the hole, although why hide it? It was simply beneficial for the Germans: they say, "the brothers fought bravely", but the ice broke under them, so they were defeated … But no, none of the authors of either our chronicles of those years, or the "Rhymed Chronicle" wrote half a word about this !
The famous British historian David Nicole used in his work about the Battle of Lake Peipus the message of the Polish historian Reingold Heidenshtein (c. 1556-1620), who claimed that there is a "legend" (!) from the Monomakhov family, received the Tatar troops to help, and with their help defeated the Livonians. But here it is necessary to recall Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit": "Fresh tradition, but hard to believe!" That is, how reliable is this source?
If this is true, then the question arises: why did the khan need to do this at all? What benefit could Batu Khan have from this? It turns out that he had a direct benefit to helping Alexander!
We are used to thinking (however, this is the case with any nation, not just us!) That the events of its history are more important than all the others, that they are “world history”, although in reality this is not at all the case! In our case, exactly one year before the battle on Lake Peipus, on April 5, 1241, the troops of Khan Batu defeated the Christian troops at the Battle of Legnica. The Templars and knights of the Teutonic Order participated in that battle, remembered by him for their black crosses on white cloaks! That is, they dared to raise the sword against the "sons of Genghis Khan", and according to the law of Yassy they had to take revenge! But Bat himself had to urgently turn back in order to catch the Great Kurultai of the Chingizids, so in the spring of 1242 he and his army were on their way to the Mongol steppes, somewhere in the steppes near the Danube or Dniester.
Our Russian historian S. M. Soloviev wrote that right before his spring campaign in 1242, Prince Alexander Nevsky went to Batu Khan, who sent him a letter of formidable content: "… If you want to eat your land" - that is, if you want to save your land then come quickly to me and you will see the honor of my kingdom. But it can be understood in a completely different way. Like, come and help! Being at the headquarters of the khan, Alexander Nevsky, fraternized with his son khan Sartak (however, this fact is disputed by a number of historians). That is, he himself became the "son" of the Chingizid Khan! And the "father-khan" could not leave the "son-prince" in trouble, and, very possibly, that is why he gave the army to him. Otherwise, it is not clear why he would suddenly abandon fighting the Germans, first hastily left for the khan's headquarters, and then, not fearing that the Mongols would strike him from the rear, immediately moved his troops against the crusaders!
It was also beneficial for Khan Batu. Without a heavy war with the Russians, he thus subdued Northern Russia. She was not ruined and could pay a good tribute, and he himself got the opportunity to start arranging his new possession - the Golden Horde! However, this is all nothing more than a CONSIDERATION!
The authority of the historian David Nicolas * is not questioned by anyone. Moreover, a number of other historians also admit the possibility of Alexander using Mongolian horse archers who came with the Suzdal squad. And they interpret the fact of participation in the battle of "God's regiment in heaven" as an "echo" from their shelling of the crusaders, on whom a stream of deadly and invisible arrows rushed from the sky! But - and this is the most important thing: admit it, do not admit it, and all this is CONCEPTIONS! There is no real evidence for any of these fabrications today!
How many knights could participate in the battle on Lake Peipsi? This is important, because in one of our chronicles 400 fell, in another 500, and very different figures are given in the "Rhymed Chronicle". But the messages in the annals can help to calculate their number … information about the order castles! After all, the castle usually belonged to one knight, in whose assistants was a castellan, with weapons cheaper than that of his master. It is known that from 1230 to 1290. The order had 90 castles in the Baltics. Let's say that they were all built in 1242. Suppose that all their owners, together with the castellans, went on a campaign, plus a certain number of "guest knights" were added to them. Then it turns out that approximately this number of warriors of a knight's rank could participate in the battle. After all, someone could be sick or did not want to go on a campaign for some other objective reasons, and someone just died in the battle of Legnica a year before. Although the armed servants, servants and mercenaries for each of them could well have been 20 people or more. Of course, this calculation cannot be considered the ultimate truth. Another attempt to get closer to knowledge and nothing more! That is, it is understandable, purely humanly understandable, that we all want the details of this battle. But they are not! And people start to think out, using the deductive method of Sherlock Holmes. And this is how the Mongols of Batu, the Black Club archers appear on the lake, chained and packed with stones sledges and non-melting snowdrifts behind the Russian troops, but this is not history! Well, whoever wants to get acquainted in detail with all the chronicle sources that narrated about this event and get to know him not in creative retellings with funny fabrications - those here: https://www.livonia.veles.lv/research/ice_battle/rus_source. htm
* It is interesting that after Nikol and I published four joint publications on Russian military history in England, he regretted that he did not invite me to write with him about Lake Peipus. Then it would be the same there. But there would be even more versions of hypothetical events, this is the first (readers always love this). And the second - this is what would increase the degree of its scientific character (an indication of the hypotheticalness of the stated versions!), Instead of a priori and not documented statements about the Mongols of Batu and the traditional drowning of the knights in the lake, about which there is not a single word in the annals!
