There are two periods in the history of Russia, which in the works of researchers receive diametrically opposed assessments and cause the most fierce disputes.
The first of them is the early centuries of Russian history and the famous "Norman question", which, in general, is quite understandable: there are few sources, and they all have a later origin. So there is more than enough room for all sorts of conjectures and assumptions, and the politicization of this problem, which is little explained from a rational point of view, contributed to an unprecedented intensity of passions.
M. Voloshin wrote in 1928:
“Through the chaos of kingdoms, slaughter and tribes.
Who, by the syllables of the burial grounds, reading
Torn chronicle of the steppes, Will tell us who these ancestors were -
Oratai along the Don and Dnieper?
Who will collect all the nicknames in the synodik
Steppe guests from Huns to Tatars?
History is hidden in the mounds
Written in the jagged swords
Strangled by wormwood and weeds."
The second such period is the XIII-XV centuries, the time of the subordination of the Russian lands to the Horde, which received the conditional name "Tatar-Mongol yoke". There are immeasurably more sources here, but the same problems with interpretations.
L. N. Gumilyov:
Alien lives and alien death
They live in someone else's words of someone else's day.
They live without coming back
Where death found them and took them, Though the books are half erased and indistinct
Their angry, their terrible deeds.
They live in fog with ancient blood
Spilled and decayed for a long time
Gullible descendants of the headboard.
But the spindle of fate spins everyone
In one pattern; and the conversation of centuries
Sounds like a heart."
It is about this, the second "damned" problem of Russian history that we will talk about now.
Tatar-Mongols and the Tatar-Mongol yoke
Let's say right away that the very term "Tatar-Mongols" is artificial, "armchair": in Russia, no "hybrid" Tatar-Mongols were known. And they did not hear about the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" in Russia until, in 1823, the now unknown historian PN Naumov mentioned it in some of his work. And he, in turn, borrowed this term from a certain Christopher Kruse, who in 1817 published in Germany "Atlas and tables for reviewing the history of all European lands and states from their first population to our times." And here's the result:
“You can stay in the memory of human
Not in cycles of poetry or volumes of prose, But with just one single line:
"How good, how fresh the roses were!"
So J. Helemsky wrote about a line of a poem by I. Myatlev. Here the situation is the same: two authors have long been forgotten, but the term coined by one and introduced into scientific circulation by the other is alive and well.
And here is the phrase "Tartar yoke" really is found in a real historical source - the notes of Daniel Prince (ambassador of Emperor Maximilian II), who in 1575 wrote about Ivan IV that he "after the overthrow of the Tartar yoke" proclaimed himself king, "which the Moscow princes had never used before."
The problem is that the "enlightened Europeans" in those days called Tartaria the vast, unclear territory lying to the east of the borders of the lands included in the Holy Empire of the German nation and the Catholic world.
Therefore, it is difficult to say who Prince calls "tartars." Exactly the Tatars? Or - in general, "barbarians" who, in this context, could be anyone. Even Ivan's political opponents - other Russian princes and boyars, desperately resisting the centralization of power.
The mention of the "Tartarian yoke" is also found in the "Notes on the Moscow War" (1578-1582) by Reingold Heydenstein.
Jan Dlugosz in "Chronicles of the Famous Kingdom of Poland" writes no longer about Tartar or Tartar, but about the "barbarian yoke", also without explaining who he considers "barbarians".
Finally, the "yoke" itself - what is it in general?
Currently, this word is perceived as a synonym for some kind of "burden", "oppression" and so on. However, in its original meaning, it is a piece of harness, a wooden frame worn around the neck of two animals for their joint work. That is, there is little good in this device for the one on whom it is worn, but nevertheless it is not intended for bullying and torture, but for working in pairs. And therefore, even in the first half of the 19th century, the word "yoke" did not evoke unequivocally negative associations. Speaking about the "Yoke", the first historians, most likely, had in mind the traditional policy of the Horde khans (who wanted to consistently receive their tribute), aimed at suppressing internal unrest in the Russian principalities under their control, forcing their vassals to move not like "a swan, cancer and pike ", but approximately in one direction.
Now let's move on to assessments of this period of Russian history by different authors.
Supporters of the traditional point of view of the Mongol conquest describe it as a chain of continuous suffering and humiliation. At the same time, it is argued that the Russian principalities for some reason protected Europe from all these Asian horrors, giving it the opportunity for "free and democratic development."
The quintessence of this thesis is the lines of A. S. Pushkin, who wrote:
“Russia was assigned a high mission … Its boundless plains absorbed the power of the Mongols and stopped their invasion at the very edge of Europe; the barbarians did not dare to leave the enslaved Russia in their rear and returned to the steppes of their east. The enlightenment that was formed was saved by the torn apart and dying Russia”.
Very beautiful and pretentious, just imagine: the brutal "northern barbarians" selflessly "die" so that German boys have the opportunity to study at universities, and Italian and Aquitaine girls sighed languidly, listening to the trouvers' ballads.
That’s the trouble, and there’s nothing to be done: our mission is so "high", we must comply. The only strange thing is that the ungrateful Europeans strove at every opportunity to poke Russia, defending them with the last bit of strength, with a sword or a spear in the back.
“Don't you like our arrows? Get advanced bolts from the crossbow, and be patient a little: we have a scholarly monk Schwartz here, he is working on innovative technologies."
Do you remember these lines by A. Blok?
“For you - centuries, for us - a single hour.
We, like obedient slaves, They held a shield between two hostile races -
Mongols and Europe!"
Great, isn't it? "Obedient slaves"! The required definition has been found! So even “civilized Europeans” did not always insult us and “put” us only once or twice.
Supporters of a different point of view, on the contrary, are sure that it was the Mongol conquest that allowed the East and Northeast of the Russian lands to preserve their identity, their religion and cultural traditions. The most famous among them is L. N. Gumilev, whose poem we quoted at the beginning of the article. They believe that Ancient Rus (which was only called "Kievskaya" in the 19th century) was already at the end of the 12th century in a deep crisis that would inevitably lead to its death, regardless of the appearance of the Mongols. Even in the previously unified Rurik dynasty, only the Monomashichi were now important, split into two branches, and were at enmity with each other: the elders controlled the northeastern principalities, the younger ones controlled the southern ones. Polotsk has long been separated into a separate principality. The policy of the Novgorod authorities was also far from general Russian interests.
Indeed, in the second half of the 12th century, strife and contradictions between the Russian princes reached their climax, and the brutality of the confrontation shocked even the contemporaries who were accustomed to internecine wars and constant raids of the Polovtsians.
1169: Andrei Bogolyubsky, capturing Kiev, gives it to his troops for a three-day plunder: this is done only with foreign and absolutely hostile cities.
1178: Residents of besieged Torzhok declare their obedience to the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod the Big Nest, offering both a ransom and a large tribute. He is ready to agree, but his warriors say: "We did not come to kiss them." And far from the weakest of the Russian princes retreats before their will: Russian soldiers seize the Russian city and very diligently, with great pleasure, plunder it.
1187: The army of Suzdal completely ravages the Ryazan principality: "Their land is empty and burned the whole."
1203: Kiev somehow managed to recover from the barbaric devastation of 1169, and, therefore, it can be robbed again. After what Andrei Bogolyubsky did in the city, it seems that it will simply be impossible to surprise the people of Kiev with anything. The new conqueror, Rurik Rostislavich, succeeds: the Orthodox prince himself ravages St. Sophia and the Tithe Church (“all the icons are odrash”), and indifferently watches how the Polovtsy who came with him “hacked all the old monks, priests and nuns, and the young blue women, wives and the daughters of the Kievites were taken to their encampments”.
1208: Prince of Vladimir Vsevolod the Big Nest burns Ryazan, and his soldiers catch fleeing people like abandoned cattle and drive them in front of them, as the Crimean Tatars will then drive Russian slaves to Kafa.
1216: Battle of the Suzdal people with the Novgorodians on Lipitsa: more Russians on both sides die than in the battle with the Mongols on the City River in 1238.
Opponents of the historians of the traditional school tell us: the armies of the conquerors would have come anyway - if not from the East, then from the West, and in turn "ate" the scattered Russian principalities constantly at war with each other. And the Russian princes would gladly help the invaders "have" neighbors: if the Mongols were led against each other, why, under different circumstances, the "Germans" or Poles were not brought? Why are they worse than the Tatars? And then, seeing foreign “chefs” at the walls of their cities, they would be very surprised: “And why me, Mr. Duke (or Grand Master)? We took Smolensk together last year!
Consequences of Western European and Mongolian conquests
But there was a difference in the consequences of the conquest - and a very significant one. Western rulers and crusaders in the countries they captured first of all destroyed the local elite, replacing princes and tribal leaders with their dukes, counts, and komturs. And they demanded a change of faith, thus destroying the age-old traditions and culture of the conquered peoples. But the Mongols made an exception for Russia: the Chingizids did not pretend to the princely thrones of Vladimir, Tver, Moscow, Ryazan, and representatives of the previous dynasties ruled there. In addition, the Mongols were absolutely indifferent to missionary activity, and therefore did not demand from the Russians either worshiping the Eternal Blue Sky, or changing Orthodoxy to Islam later (but demanded respect for their religion and traditions when visiting the khan's headquarters). And it becomes clear why both Russian princes and Orthodox hierarchs so easily and willingly recognized the tsarist dignity of the Horde rulers, and in Russian churches, prayers for the health of both pagan khans and Muslim khans were officially served. And this was typical not only for Russia. For example, in the Syrian Bible, the Mongol Khan Hulagu and his wife (Nestorian) are depicted as the new Constantine and Helena:
And even during the "Great Zamyatnya" Russian princes continued to pay tribute to the Horde, hoping for continued cooperation.
Further events are extremely interesting: with the Russian lands, as if someone decided to conduct an experiment, dividing them roughly equally and allowing them to develop in alternative directions. As a result, the Russian principalities and cities, which found themselves outside the sphere of Mongolian influence, quickly lost their princes, lost independence and all political significance, turning into the outskirts of Lithuania and Poland. And those of them that fell into dependence on the Horde gradually transformed into a powerful state, which received the code name "Moscow Rus". To "Kievan Rus" Rus "Moscow" had about the same relation as the Byzantine Empire to the Roman. Kiev, which had little meaning, now played the role of Rome, conquered by the barbarians, Moscow, which was rapidly gaining strength, claimed the role of Constantinople. And the famous formula of Philotheus, the elder of the Pskov Elizarov Monastery, who called Moscow the Third Rome, did not cause any surprise or bewilderment among his contemporaries: these words were in the air of those years, waiting for someone to finally utter them. In the future, the Tsardom of Muscovy will turn into the Russian Empire, the direct successor of which was the Soviet Union. N. Berdyaev wrote after the revolution:
"Bolshevism turned out to be the least utopian … and the most faithful to the original Russian traditions … Communism is a Russian phenomenon, despite the Marxist ideology … there is Russian destiny, the moment of the inner destiny of the Russian people."
But let's go back to the XIII century and see how the Russian princes behaved in those terrible years for Russia. Here, the activities of three Russian princes are of great interest: Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, his son Alexander (Nevsky) and grandson Andrei (the third son of Alexander Nevsky). The activities of the first, and especially the second of them, are usually judged only in the most excellent tones. However, with an objective and unbiased study, a contradiction immediately catches the eye: from the point of view of the supporters of the traditional approach to the Mongol conquest, all three should unconditionally be considered traitors and collaborators. Judge for yourself.
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich became the Grand Duke of Vladimir after the death of his elder brother Yuri on the Sit River. And he died, including because Yaroslav did not come to his aid. Further - it is already quite "interesting". In the spring of 1239, the Mongols ravaged Murom, Nizhny Novgorod, once again passed through the Ryazan land, seizing and burning the remaining cities, and besieging Kozelsk. And Yaroslav at this time, not paying any attention to them, is fighting the Lithuanians - very successfully, by the way. In the autumn of the same year, the Mongols capture Chernigov, and Yaroslav - the Chernigov city of Kamenets (and in it - the family of Mikhail of Chernigov). Is it possible after this to be surprised that it was this warlike, but such a convenient prince for the Mongols who was appointed in 1243 by Batu “become old as all the prince in the Russian language” (Laurentian Chronicle)? And in 1245 Yaroslav was not too lazy to go to Karakorum for the "label". At the same time, he attended the elections of the Great Khan, marveled at the great traditions of Mongolian steppe democracy. Well, and, in the meantime, with his denunciation, he killed the Chernigov Prince Mikhail there, who was later canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church for his martyrdom.
Alexander Yaroslavich
After the death of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, the Grand Duchy of Vladimir was received from the Mongols by his youngest son, Andrei. Andrey's elder brother, Alexander, appointed only as the Grand Duke of Kiev, was terribly offended by this. He went to the Horde, where he became the adopted son of Batu Khan, fraternizing with his own son Sartak.
Having gained confidence, he informed his brother that he, in alliance with Daniel Galitsky, wanted to oppose the Mongols. And he personally brought to Russia the so-called "Nevryuev army" (1252) - the first campaign of the Mongols against Russia after Batu's invasion. Andrew's army was defeated, he himself fled to Sweden, and his warriors, who were captured, were blinded by Alexander's orders. By the way, he also reported on Andrey's potential ally - Daniil Galitsky, as a result of which Kuremsa's army set out on a campaign against Galich. It was after this that the real Mongols came to Russia: the Baskaks arrived in the Vladimir, Murom and Ryazan lands in 1257, in Novgorod in 1259.
In 1262 Alexander most brutally suppressed the anti-Mongol uprisings in Novgorod, Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Vladimir. Then he banned the veche in the cities of North-Eastern Russia subject to him.
And then - everything according to Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy:
“They shout: give tribute!
(At least carry the saints)
There is a lot of stuff here
It has arrived in Russia, That day, then brother to brother, Izvet is lucky to the Horde …”.
From that time on, it all began.
Andrey Alexandrovich
About this prince N. M. Karamzin said:
"None of the princes of the Monomakh clan did more harm to the Fatherland than this unworthy son of Nevsky."
The third son of Alexander is Andrey, in 1277-1278. at the head of the Russian detachment, he went to war with the Horde in Ossetia: having taken the city of Dyadyakov, the allies returned with great booty and were quite satisfied with each other. In 1281, Andrei, following the example of his father, for the first time brought a Mongol army to Russia - from Khan Mengu-Timur. But his older brother Dmitry was also the grandson of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and the son of Alexander Yaroslavich: he did not blunder, he adequately answered with a large Tatar detachment from the rebellious beklyarbek Nogai. The brothers had to make up - in 1283.
In 1285 Andrey brought the Tatars to Russia for the second time, but was defeated by Dmitry.
The third attempt (1293) turned out to be successful for him, but terrible for Russia, because this time "Dudenev's army" came with him. Grand Duke Vladimir, Novgorod and Pereslavsky Dmitry, Prince Daniel of Moscow, Prince Mikhail of Tverskoy, Svyatoslav Mozhaisky, Dovmont Pskov and some other, less significant, princes were defeated, 14 Russian cities were plundered and burned. For the common people, this invasion was catastrophic and was remembered for a long time. Because until then, the Russian people could still hide from the Mongols in the forests. Now the warriors of the Russian prince Andrei Alexandrovich helped the Tatars to catch them outside the cities and villages. And children in Russian villages were frightened by Dyudyuka back in the middle of the twentieth century.
But, recognized as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexander Nevsky is also declared a national hero, and therefore all these, not very convenient, facts about him and his close relatives are hushed up. The emphasis is on countering Western expansion.
But historians, who consider the "yoke" a mutually beneficial alliance of the Horde and Russia, highly value the collaborationist actions of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and Alexander. They are sure that otherwise the Russian northeastern principalities would face the sad fate of Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl and Polotsk, which quickly turned from “subjects” of European politics into “objects” and could no longer independently decide their own fate. And even the numerous cases of mutual and most frank meanness of the princes of the North-East, described in detail in Russian chronicles, in their opinion, were a lesser evil than the anti-Mongol position of the same Daniel Galitsky, whose pro-Western policy ultimately led to the decline of this strong and a rich principality, and its loss of independence.
There were few people willing to fight the Tatars for quite a long time; they were also afraid to attack their tributaries. It is known that in 1269, having learned about the arrival of the Tatar detachment in Novgorod, those who had gathered on the campaign "the Germans reconciled themselves in all the will of Novgorod, terribly afraid of the Tatar name".
The onslaught of the western neighbors, of course, continued, but now the Russian principalities had an ally overlord.
Recently, literally before our eyes, a hypothesis has appeared that there was no Mongol conquest of Russia at all, because there were no Mongols themselves, about whom there were countless pages of a huge number of sources from many countries and peoples. And those Mongols that, after all, were - as they were sitting, are still sitting in their backward Mongolia. We will not dwell on this hypothesis for a long time, as it will take too long. Let us point out only one of its weak points - the "reinforced concrete" argument, according to which the numerous Mongolian army simply could not overcome such great distances.
"Dusty hike" of the Kalmyks
The events that we will now briefly describe did not take place in the dark times of Attila and Genghis Khan, but by historical standards, relatively recently - 1771, under Catherine II. There is not even the slightest doubt about their reliability and never has been.
In the 17th century, Derben-Oirats, whose tribal union included the Torguts, Derbets, Khoshuts and Choros, came from Dzungaria to the Volga (without dying on the way either from hunger or disease). We know them as Kalmyks.
These newcomers, of course, had to get in touch with the Russian authorities, who were quite sympathetic to their new neighbors, since no irreconcilable contradictions arose then. Moreover, the skilled and experienced warriors of the Steppe became allies of Russia in the struggle against its traditional opponents. According to a treaty dated 1657, they were allowed to roam along the right bank of the Volga to Tsaritsyn and on the left to Samara. In exchange for military aid, the Kalmyks were given 20 poods of gunpowder and 10 poods of lead annually; in addition, the Russian government undertook to protect Kalmyks from forced baptism.
The Kalmyks bought grain and various industrial goods from the Russians, sold meat, skins, war booty, held back the Nogais, Bashkirs, and Kabardians (inflicting serious defeats on them). They went with the Russians on campaigns to the Crimea and fought with them against the Ottoman Empire, participated in Russia's wars with European countries.
However, with the growth in the number of colonists (including German ones), the emergence of new cities and Cossack villages, there was less and less space for nomadic camps. The situation was aggravated by the famine of 1768-1769, when, due to the harsh winter, there was a massive loss of livestock. And in Dzungaria (the former homeland of the Kalmyks) in 1757 the Zin people brutally suppressed the uprising of the aborigines, provoking a new wave of exodus. Many thousands of refugees went to the states of Central Asia, and some even reached the Volga. Their stories about the deserted steppes greatly excited their relatives; as a result, the Kalmyks of the Torghuts, Khoshuts and Choros clans made a rash decision by the whole people to return to their once native steppes. The Derbet tribe remained in place.
In January 1771, the Kalmyks, whose number reached from 160 to 180 thousand people, crossed the Yaik. Different researchers determine the number of their wagons at 33-41 thousand. Later, some of these settlers (about 11 thousand wagons) returned to the Volga, the rest continued on their way.
Let's pay attention: it was not a professional army, consisting of strong young men with clockwork horses and full military equipment - most of the Kalmyks who went to Dzungaria were women, children and old people. And with them they drove the herds, carried all the belongings.
Their march was not a festive procession - all along the way they were subjected to constant blows from Kazakh tribes. Near Lake Balkhash, Kazakhs and Kirghiz surrounded them altogether, they managed to escape with huge losses. As a result, only less than half of those who set out on the road made it to the border with China. This did not bring them happiness; they were divided and settled in 15 different places, living conditions were much worse than on the Volga. And there was no longer the strength to resist the unfair conditions. But, in six months, burdened with cattle and property, leading women, old people and children with them, the Kalmyks reached from the Volga to China! And there is no reason to believe that the disciplined and well-organized tumens of the Mongols could not have reached from the Mongol steppes to Khorezm, and from Khorezm to the Volga.
"Tatar exit" in Russia
Now let's return to Russia again to talk a little about the complex relationship between the Horde khans and the Russian princes.
The problem was that the Russian princes readily involved the Horde rulers in their quarrels, sometimes giving bribes to the khan's close associates or his mother, or his beloved wife, bargaining for an army of some "tsarevich". The ruin of the lands of the rival princes not only did not upset them, but even made them happy. Moreover, they were ready to "turn a blind eye" to the robbery by "allies" of their own cities and villages, hoping to compensate for the losses at the expense of defeated competitors. After the rulers of Sarai allowed the Grand Dukes to collect tribute for the Horde themselves, the "stakes" in internecine disputes increased so much that they began to justify any meanness and any crime. It was no longer about prestige, but about money, and very large money.
The paradox was that in many cases it was much more convenient and profitable for the Horde khans not to organize punitive campaigns to Russia, but to receive the previously agreed "exit" in time and in full. The loot in such forced raids went mainly into the pocket of the next "tsarevich" and his subordinates, the khan got mere crumbs, and the resource base of the tributaries was undermined. But, as a rule, there were more than one willing to collect this "exit" for the khan, and therefore it was necessary to support the most adequate of them (in fact, often the one who pays more for the right to collect the Horde tribute).
And now an extremely interesting question: was the Mongol invasion of Russia inevitable? Or is it a consequence of a chain of events, removing any of which could have avoided "close acquaintance" with the Mongols?
We will try to answer in the next article.
