Tatar Mongolian yoke table. Was there a Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia

how long did the Tatar-Mongol yoke last in Russia !! ! it is necessary exactly

1. there was no yoke
2. thanks a lot for the answers
3. from the Russians for a sweet soul ....
4. there were no mongol mengu manga from Turkic eternal glorious manga tatars
5. from 1243 to 1480
6. 1243-1480s Under Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, it is considered that it began when he received a label from the khans. And it ended in 1480 is considered. Kulikovo field was in 1380, but then the Horde took Moscow with the support of the Poles and Lithuanians.
7. 238 years (from 1242 to 1480)
8. judging by the numerous facts of inconsistency in history, there were - you can sun. For example, it was possible to hire nomadic "Tatars" to any prince, and it looks like the "yoke" is nothing more than an army hired by the Kievan prince to change the Orthodox faith to the Christian one ... it turned out the same.
9. from 1243 to 1480
10. There was no yoke, under this they covered up the civil war between Novgorod and Moscow. It's proven
11. from 1243 to 1480
12. from 1243 to 1480
13. MONGOLO-TATAR YOKE in Russia (1243-1480), the traditional name for the system of exploitation of Russian lands by the Mongol-Tatar conquerors. Established as a result of the invasion of Batu. After the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) it was nominal. Finally overthrown by Ivan III in 1480.

    In the spring of 1238, the Tatar-Mongol army of Batu Khan, who had been ravaging Russia for many months, ended up on Kaluga land under the walls of Kozelsk. According to the Nikon chronicle, the formidable conqueror of Russia demanded the surrender of the city, but the Kozelchans refused, deciding "to lay down their heads for the Christian faith." The siege lasted for seven weeks, and only after the destruction of the wall with battering rams did the enemy manage to climb the rampart, where "the battle was great and the slaughter of evil." Part of the defenders went beyond the walls of the city and died in an unequal battle, destroying up to 4 thousand Tatar-Mongol warriors. Bursting into Kozelsk, Batu ordered to destroy all the inhabitants, "until they suck milk," and ordered the city to be called the "Evil City". The feat of the Kozelsk people, who despised death and did not submit to the strongest enemy, became one of the bright pages of the heroic past of our Fatherland.

    In the 1240s. Russian princes found themselves in political dependence on the Golden Horde. The period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke began. At the same time, in the XIII century. under the rule of the Lithuanian princes, a state began to take shape, which included Russian lands, including part of the "Kaluga". The border between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Principality of Moscow was established along the rivers Oka and Ugra.

    In the XIV century. the territory of the Kaluga region became a place of constant confrontation between Lithuania and Moscow. In 1371, the Lithuanian prince Olgerd, in a complaint to the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus against the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia Alexei, among the cities taken from him by Moscow "against the kissing of the cross" names Kaluga for the first time (in domestic sources, Kaluga was first mentioned in the will of Dmitry Donskoy, who died in 1389 .) . It is traditionally believed that Kaluga arose as a border fortress to protect the Moscow principality from an attack from Lithuania.

    The Kaluga cities of Tarusa, Obolensk, Borovsk and others took part in the struggle of Dmitry Ivanovich (Donskoy) against the Golden Horde. Their squads participated in 1380 in the Battle of Kulikovo. A significant role in the victory over the enemy was played by the famous commander Vladimir Andreevich the Brave (specific prince of Serpukhov and Borovsky). In the Battle of Kulikovo, the Tarusian princes Fedor and Mstislav perished.

    A hundred years later, the Kaluga land became the place where the events that put an end to the Tatar-Mongol yoke took place. Grand Duke Ivan III Vasilyevich, who turned over the years of his reign from the Moscow specific prince into the sovereign-autocrat of all Russia, in 1476 stopped paying the Horde the annual monetary "exit" that had been collected from the Russian lands since the time of Batu. In response, in 1480, Khan Akhmat, in alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV, set out on a campaign against Russian soil. Akhmad's troops moved through Mtsensk, Odoev and Lubutsk to Vorotynsk. Here the khan expected help from Casimir IV, but did not wait for it. The Crimean Tatars, allies of Ivan III, diverted the Lithuanian troops by attacking Podolia.

    Having not received the promised help, Akhmat went to the Ugra and, standing on the shore against the Russian regiments that Ivan III had concentrated here in advance, made an attempt to cross the river. Several times Akhmat tried to break through to the other side of the Ugra, but all his attempts were thwarted by Russian troops. Soon the river began to freeze over. Ivan III ordered all troops to be withdrawn to Kremenets, and then to Borovsk. But, Akhmat did not dare to pursue the Russian troops and on November 11 retreated from the Ugra. The last campaign of the Golden Horde against Russia ended in complete failure. The successors of the formidable Batu were powerless before the state united around Moscow.

It is noteworthy that the epithet "settled" is most often attached to myths.
This is where the root of evil lies: myths take root in the mind as a result of a simple process - mechanical repetition.

WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, the difference between a horse allowed to roam in the winter without any work, and a horse forced to make long transitions under a rider, and also to participate in battles, is not taken into account. Even Mongols, if there were a million of them, with all their fantastic ability to soak in the middle of a snowy plain, would die of hunger, interfering with each other, beating each other's rare blades of grass ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the abundance of information does not always bring clarity ... In general, historical science has long denied the obvious fact that the events on the Kalka River are not an attack by evil aliens on Russia, but Russian aggression against their neighbors. Judge for yourself. The Tatars (the Mongols are never, never mentioned in the descriptions of the battle on the Kalka) fought with the Polovtsians. And they sent ambassadors to Russia, who quite friendly asked the Russians not to interfere in this war. The Russian princes ... killed these ambassadors, and according to some old texts, not just killed - "tortured". The act, to put it mildly, is not the most decent - at all times the murder of an ambassador was considered one of the most serious crimes. Following that Russian army goes on a long journey.

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

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

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

Let's get back to the riddles. For some reason, the same "Tale of the Battle of the Kalka" is not able ... to name the enemy of the Russians! Judge for yourself: "... because of our sins, unknown peoples, godless Moabites came, about whom no one knows exactly who they are and where they came from, and what their language is, and what tribe they are, and what faith. And they call them Tatars , while others say - taurmen, and others - Pechenegs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What, will you give up under these conditions?

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

But the Russian princes for some reason surrendered ...

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

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

However, the establishment of the true social position of Ploskin only confuses the matter. It turns out that the roamers in a short time managed to agree with the "unknown peoples" and got close to them so much that they hit the Russians together? Your brothers in blood and faith?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ROK - many already know that the prince of Kievan Rus Vladimir the Bloody - did not "baptize" the Russians into Christianity, but converted them to the "Greek Faith" monks of Byzantium - the Lunar Cult, only after the death of the great knight - Prince Svyatoslav Khorobre! Since the people with all their might resisted for almost 300 years the black monks of Byzantium and the mercenaries of Kyiv, the latter used GENOCIDE, burning all those who disagreed in a row in log cabins. They decided to disguise the monstrous crimes - the murder of about 9 million victims under the guise of a "Tatar-Mongolian" yoke! But the truth is already breaking through the Judeo-Christian shams of the Middle Ages.)

Great (Grande) i.e. Mogul Tartaria is Mogolo Tartaria

Many members of the editorial board are personally acquainted with the inhabitants of Mongolia, who were surprised to learn about their supposedly 300-year-old dominion over Russia. Of course, this news filled the Mongols with a sense of national pride, but at the same time they asked: “Who is Genghis Khan?” (from Vedic Culture magazine #2)

In the annals of the Orthodox Old Believers about the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" it is said unambiguously: "There was Fedot, but not that one." Let's turn to the ancient Slovene language. Having adapted the runic images to modern perception, we get: thief - enemy, robber; mogul-powerful; yoke - order. It turns out that "tati Aria" (from the point of view of the Christian flock) with light hand chroniclers were called "Tatars", (There is another meaning: "Tata" - father. Tatar - Tata Aryans, i.e. Fathers (Ancestors or older) Aryans) powerful - the Mongols, and the yoke - 300-year order in the State , who stopped the bloody civil war that broke out on the basis of the forced baptism of Russia - "martyrdom". Horde is a derivative of the word Order, where “Or” is strength, and day is daylight hours or simply “light”. Accordingly, the “Order” is the Power of Light, and the “Horde” is the Light Forces. Were there dark-haired, stocky, dark-faced, hook-nosed, narrow-eyed, bow-legged and very evil warriors in the Horde? Were. Detachments of mercenaries of different nationalities, who, like in any other army, were driven in the forefront, saving the main Slavic-Aryan Troops from losses on the front line.

It's hard to believe? All Scandinavian countries and Denmark were part of Russia, which extended only to the mountains, moreover, the principality of Muscovy is shown as an independent state, not part of Russia. In the east, beyond the Urals, the principalities of Obdora, Siberia, Yugoria, Grustina, Lukomorye, Belovodye are depicted, which were part of the Ancient Power of the Slavs and Aryans - the Great (Grand) Tartaria (Tartaria is the lands under the auspices of the God Tarkh Perunovich and the Goddess Tara Perunovna - Son and Daughter of the Supreme God Perun - Ancestor of the Slavs and Aryans).

Do you need a lot of intelligence to draw an analogy: Great (Grand) Tartaria = Mogolo + Tartaria = "Mongol-Tataria"? Not only in the 13th, but until the 18th century, Grand (Mogolo) Tartaria existed as realistically as the now faceless Russian Federation.

"Pisarchuks from history" not all were able to pervert and hide from the people. Their repeatedly darned and patched "Trishkin's caftan", which covers the Truth, now and then bursts at the seams. Through the gaps, the truth bit by bit reaches the consciousness of our contemporaries. They do not have truthful information, therefore they are often mistaken in the interpretation of certain factors, but they draw the correct general conclusion: what school teachers taught to several dozen generations of Russians is deceit, slander, falsehood.

The classic version of the “Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia” has been known to many since school. She looks like this. At the beginning of the 13th century, in the Mongolian steppes, Genghis Khan gathered a huge army of nomads, subject to iron discipline, and planned to conquer the whole world. Having defeated China, the army of Genghis Khan rushed to the west, and in 1223 went to the south of Russia, where they defeated the squads of Russian princes on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Tatar-Mongols invaded Russia, burned many cities, then invaded Poland, the Czech Republic and reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, but suddenly turned back, because they were afraid to leave behind the ruined, but still dangerous for them Russia. In Russia, the Tatar-Mongol yoke began. The huge Golden Horde had borders from Beijing to the Volga and collected tribute from the Russian princes. The khans gave the Russian princes labels for reigning and terrorized the population with atrocities and robberies.

Even the official version says that there were many Christians among the Mongols and some Russian princes established very warm relations with the Horde khans. Another oddity: with the help of the Horde troops, some princes were kept on the throne. The princes were very close people to the khans. And in some cases, the Russians fought on the side of the Horde. Are there many strange things? Is this how the Russians should have treated the occupiers?

Having grown stronger, Russia began to resist, and in 1380 Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Horde Khan Mamai on the Kulikovo field, and a century later the troops of Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat met. The opponents camped for a long time on opposite sides of the Ugra River, after which the khan realized that he had no chance, gave the order to retreat and went to the Volga. These events are considered the end of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke".

A number of scientists, including academician Anatoly Fomenko, made a sensational conclusion based on the mathematical analysis of manuscripts: there was no invasion from the territory of modern Mongolia! And there was a civil war in Russia, the princes fought with each other. No representatives of the Mongoloid race who came to Russia existed at all. Yes, there were some Tatars in the army, but not aliens, but residents of the Volga region, who lived in the neighborhood with the Russians long before the notorious "invasion".

What is commonly called the “Tatar-Mongol invasion” was in fact a struggle between the descendants of Prince Vsevolod the “Big Nest” and their rivals for sole power over Russia. The fact of the war between the princes is generally recognized, unfortunately, Russia did not unite immediately, and rather strong rulers fought among themselves.

But with whom did Dmitry Donskoy fight? In other words, who is Mamai?

The era of the Golden Horde was distinguished by the fact that, along with secular power, there was a strong military power. There were two rulers: a secular one, who was called a prince, and a military one, they called him a khan, i.e. "warlord". In the annals you can find the following entry: “There were roamers along with the Tatars, and they had such and such a governor,” that is, the troops of the Horde were led by governors! And wanderers are Russian free warriors, the predecessors of the Cossacks.

Authoritative scientists have concluded that the Horde is the name of the Russian regular army (like the "Red Army"). And Tatar-Mongolia is Great Russia itself. It turns out that it was not the "Mongols", but the Russians who conquered a huge territory from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean and from the Arctic to the Indian. It was our troops that made Europe tremble. Most likely, it was the fear of powerful Russians that caused the Germans to rewrite Russian history and turn their national humiliation into ours.

A few more words about names. Most people of that time had two names: one in the world, and the other received at baptism or a battle nickname. According to the scientists who proposed this version, Prince Yaroslav and his son Alexander Nevsky act under the names of Genghis Khan and Batu. Ancient sources depict Genghis Khan as tall, with a luxurious long beard, with "lynx", green-yellow eyes. Note that people of the Mongoloid race do not have a beard at all. The Persian historian of the times of the Horde, Rashid adDin, writes that in the family of Genghis Khan, children "were born mostly with gray eyes and blond."

Genghis Khan, according to scientists, is Prince Yaroslav. He just had a middle name - Genghis (who had a rank called gis) with the prefix "khan", which meant "commander". Baty (dad) Batuhan (if read in Cyrillic, it gives the Vatican) - his son Alexander (Nevsky). The following phrase can be found in the manuscripts: "Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, nicknamed Batu." By the way, according to the description of contemporaries, Batu was fair-haired, light-bearded and light-eyed! It turns out that it was the Horde Khan who defeated the crusaders into Lake Peipus!

Having studied the chronicles, scientists found that Mamai and Akhmat were also noble nobles, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, who had the right to a great reign. Accordingly, “Mamaev’s Battle” and “Standing on the Ugra” are episodes of the civil war in Russia, the struggle of princely families for power.

At the beginning of the 18th century, Peter 1 founded the Russian Academy of Sciences. During the 120 years of its existence, there were 33 academicians-historians at the historical department of the Academy of Sciences. Of these, only three are Russians, including M.V. Lomonosov, the rest are Germans. The history of Ancient Russia until the beginning of the 17th century was written by the Germans, and some of them did not even know the Russian language! This fact is well known to professional historians, but they make no effort to carefully review what history the Germans wrote.

It is known that M.V. Lomonosov wrote the history of Russia and that he had constant disputes with German academics. After Lomonosov's death, his archives disappeared without a trace. However, his works on the history of Russia were published, but edited by Miller. Meanwhile, it was Miller who persecuted M.V. Lomonosov during his lifetime! Lomonosov's works on the history of Russia published by Miller are a falsification, as shown by computer analysis. There is little left of Lomonosov in them.

OUR C A L E N D A R

November 24, 1480 - the end of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia

In the distant 1950s, the author of this article, then a graduate student at the State Hermitage, took part in archaeological excavations in the city of Chernigov. When we reached the layers of the middle of the 13th century, terrible pictures of the traces of the Batu invasion of 1239 were revealed before our eyes.

Ipatiev Chronicle under. 1240 describes the storming of the city as follows: “Obstupisha (“Tatars” - B.S.) the city of Chernigov is heavy in strength .. Prince Mikhail Glebovich came to foreigners with his own, and the battle was fierce at Chernigov ... But Mstislav was defeated and a multitude of howls (warriors - B.S.) were beaten by him. And they took the hail and lit it with fire ... ". Our excavations have confirmed the accuracy of the chronicle record. The city was devastated and burned to the ground. A ten-centimeter layer of ash covered the entire area of ​​one of the richest cities of Ancient Russia. Fierce battles went on for every house. The roofs of houses often bore traces of heavy stones from Tatar catapults, the weight of which reached 120-150 kg (In the annals it is noted that these stones could hardly lift four strong man.) The inhabitants were either killed or taken prisoner. The ashes of the burnt city were mixed with the bones of thousands of dead people.

After graduating from graduate school, already as a museum researcher, I worked on the creation of a permanent exhibition “Russian culture of the 6th-13th centuries.” In the process of preparing the exposition, special attention was paid to the fate of a small ancient Russian fortified city, erected in the 12th century. on the southern borders of Ancient Russia, near the modern city of Berdichev, now called Rayki. To some extent, its fate is close to the fate of the world-famous ancient Italian city of Pompeii, destroyed in 79 AD. during the eruption of Vesuvius.

But the Rayki were completely destroyed not by the forces of the raging elements, but by the hordes of Batu Khan. The study of material material stored in the State Hermitage Museum and written reports on the excavations made it possible to reconstruct the terrible picture of the death of the city. It reminded me of pictures of Belarusian villages and towns burned down by invaders, seen by the author during our offensive during the Great Patriotic War in which the author took part. The inhabitants of the city desperately resisted and all died in an unequal struggle. Residential buildings were excavated, on the thresholds of which lay two bones each - a Tatar and a Russian, killed with a sword in his hand. There were terrible scenes - the skeleton of a woman covering a child with her body. A Tatar arrow stuck in her vertebrae. After the defeat, the city did not come to life, and everything remained in the same form as the enemy left it.

The tragic fate of Raikov and Chernigov was shared by hundreds of Russian cities.

Tatars destroyed about a third of the entire population of Ancient Russia. Considering that at that time about 6 - 8,000,000 people lived in Russia, at least 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 were killed. Foreigners passing through the southern regions of the country wrote that Russia had practically been turned into a dead desert, and such a state was on the map Europe is no more. In Russian chronicles and literary sources, such as "The Word of the Destruction of the Russian Land", "The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan" and others, the horrors of the Tatar-Mongol invasion are described in detail. The tragic consequences of Batu's campaigns were largely multiplied by the establishment of an occupation regime, which not only led to the total plunder of Russia, but dried up the soul of the people. He delayed the forward movement of our Motherland for more than 200 years.

The Great Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 inflicted a decisive defeat on the Golden Horde, but failed to completely destroy the yoke of the Tatar khans. The Grand Dukes of Moscow were faced with the task of completely, legally eliminating the dependence of Russia on the Horde.

November 24 new style (11 old) on church calendar marks a remarkable date in the history of our Motherland. 581 years ago, in 1480, “Standing on the Ugra” ended. The Golden Horde Khan Akhma (? - 1481) turned his tumens from the borders of the Grand Duchy of Moscow and was soon killed.

This was the legal end of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Russia became a fully sovereign state.

Unfortunately, neither the media, nor in the minds of the general public, this date was not reflected. Meanwhile, it is quite obvious that on that day the gloomy page of our history was turned, and a new stage in the independent development of the Fatherland began.

It is necessary, at least briefly, to recall the development of events of those years.

Although the last khan of the Great Horde stubbornly continued to consider the Grand Duke of Moscow his tributary, in fact, Ivan Sh Vasilyevich (reigned 1462 - 1505) was actually independent of the khan. Instead of regular tribute, he sent insignificant gifts to the Horde, the size and regularity of which he determined himself. In the Horde, they began to understand that the times of Batu were gone forever. The Grand Duke of Moscow became a formidable adversary, not a silent slave.

In 1472, the Khan of the Great (Golden) Horde, at the suggestion of the Polish king Casimir IV, who promised him support, undertook a campaign against Moscow that was common for the Tatars. However, it ended in complete failure for the Horde. They could not even cross the Oka, which was the traditional defensive line of the capital.

In 1476, the Khan of the Great Horde sent an embassy to Moscow, headed by Akhmet Sadyk, with a formidable demand to completely restore tributary relations. In Russian written sources, in which legends and reports of true facts are intricately intertwined, the negotiations were of a complex nature. During the first stage, Ivan III, in the presence of the Boyar Duma, played for time, realizing that a negative answer meant war. It is likely that Ivan III made the final decision under the influence of his wife Sofya Fominichna Paleolog, a proud Byzantine princess, who allegedly declared to her husband with anger: “I married the Grand Duke of Russia, and not a serf of the Horde.” At the next meeting with the ambassadors, Ivan III changed tactics. He tore up the khan's letter and trampled on the basma with his feet (basma or paiza-box filled with wax with an imprint of the khan's heel was issued to the ambassadors as a credential). And the ambassadors themselves were expelled from Moscow. Both in the Horde and in Moscow, it became clear that a large-scale war was inevitable.

But Akhmat did not immediately move to action. In the early eighties, Casimir IV began to prepare for war with Moscow. There has been a traditional alliance of the Horde and the Polish crown against Russia. The situation in Moscow itself escalated. At the end of 1479 there was a quarrel between the Grand Duke and his brothers Boris and Andrei Bolshoy. They rose from their destinies with their families and "yards" and headed through the Novgorod lands to the Lithuanian border. There was a real threat of uniting the internal separatist opposition with the attack of external enemies - Poland and the Horde.

Given this circumstance, Khan Akhmat decided that the time had come to deliver a decisive blow, which should be supported by the invasion of the Russian borders of the Polish-Lithuanian troops. Having gathered a huge army, the khan of the Great Horde at the end of the spring of 1480, when the grass needed to feed his cavalry turned green, moved to Moscow. But not directly to the North, but bypassing the capital, from the southwest, to the upper reaches of the Oka, towards the Lithuanian border to connect with Casimir IV. In the summer, the Tatar hordes reached the right bank of the Ugra River, not far from its confluence with the Oka (Modern Kaluga Region). Moscow was about 150 km away.

For his part, Ivan III took drastic measures to strengthen his position. His secret services established contact with the enemy of the Great Horde, the Crimean Khan Mengly Giray, who attacked the southern regions of Lithuania and thus prevented Casimir IV from coming to the aid of Akhmat. Towards the Horde, Ivan III moved his main forces, which approached the northern left bank of the Ugra, covering the capital.

Besides, Grand Duke sent an auxiliary corps by water along the Volga to the capital of the Horde - the city of Saray. Taking advantage of the fact that the main forces of the Horde were on the banks of the Ugra, the Russian landing defeated it, and, according to legend, plowed up the ruins of the city, as a sign that the threat to Russia would never come from this place (Now the village of Selitryany is located on this place) .

Two huge armies converged on the banks of a small river. The so-called “Standing on the Ugra” began, when both sides did not dare to start a general battle. Akhmat waited in vain for Casimir's help, and Ivan had to deal with his brothers. As an extremely cautious person, the Grand Duke took decisive action only in those cases when he was sure of victory.

Several times the Tatars tried to cross the Ugra, but met with powerful fire from Russian artillery, commanded by the famous Italian architect Aristotle Fiorovanti, the builder of the Assumption Cathedral in 1479, were forced to retreat.

At this time, Ivan III, having abandoned his troops, returned to Moscow, which caused excitement in the capital, since the threat of a breakthrough by the Tatar troops had not been eliminated. The inhabitants of the capital demanded action, accusing the Grand Duke of indecision.

Rostov Archbishop Vassian in the famous “Message to the Ugra” called the Grand Duke “a runner” and urged him to “harrow his fatherland”. But Ivan's caution is understandable. He could not start a general battle without a reliable rear. In Moscow, with the assistance of church hierarchs, on October 6, he made peace with his brothers, and their squads joined the grand duke's army.

Meanwhile, the favorable situation for Akhmat changed dramatically. Occupied with the defense of the southern borders, the Polish-Lithuanian troops did not come to the aid of Akhmat. Strategically, the khan had already lost the failed battle. Time passed towards autumn. Winter was approaching, the Ugra river was frozen, which gave the Tatars the opportunity to easily cross to the other side. Accustomed to warm winters on the banks of the Black and Seas of Azov, the Tatars endured the cold weather worse than the Russians.

In mid-November, Ivan III gave the command to retreat to winter quarters to Borovsk, located 75 km from Moscow. On the banks of the Ugra, he left a "watchman" to watch the Tatars. Further events developed according to a scenario that no one in the Russian camp could have foreseen. On the morning of November 11, old style - 24 new, the guards unexpectedly saw that the right bank of the Ugra was empty. The Tatars secretly withdrew from their positions at night and went south. The swiftness and well-camouflaged retreat of the Khan's troops were perceived by the Russians as a flight that they did not expect.

Ivan III Vasilievich, Grand Duke of Moscow and All Russia, as a winner, returned to Moscow.

Khan Akhmat, who had no reason to return to the burned Saray, went to the lower reaches of the Volga, where on January 6, 1481 he was killed by the Nogai Tatars.

Thus the Tatar-Mongol yoke was liquidated, which brought innumerable disasters to our people.

November 24 of the new style is one of the most significant dates Patriotic history, the memory of which cannot be dissolved in centuries.

The myth of the Mongol-Tatar yoke is so firmly planted in the minds of each of us by official historiography that it is extremely difficult to prove that there really was no yoke. But still I'll try. In this case, I will use not speculative statements, but the facts cited in my books by the great historian Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov.

Let's start with the fact that the word "yoke" was not familiar to the ancient Russians themselves. For the first time it was used in the letter of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks to Peter I, containing a complaint against one of the governors.

Further. Historical facts testify that the Mongols never intended to conquer Russia. The appearance of the Mongols in Russia is connected with their war with the Polovtsy, whom the Mongols, ensuring the security of their borders, drove beyond the Carpathians. For the sake of this, a deep cavalry raid through Russia was made. But the Mongols did not annex the Russian lands to their state and did not leave garrisons in the cities.

Not critically perceiving the anti-Mongolian chronicles, historians argue about the terrible devastation caused by the Tatars, but they cannot explain why the churches in Vladimir, Kyiv and many other cities were not destroyed and survived to this day.

Little is known that Alexander Nevsky was the adopted son of Batu Khan. Even less is known that it was the alliance of Alexander Nevsky with Batu, and later with Batu's son Berku, that stopped the onslaught of the crusaders on Russia. Alexander's treaty with the Mongols was, in fact, a military-political alliance, and "tribute" was a contribution to the general treasury for the maintenance of the army.

It is also little known that Batu (Batu) emerged victorious from the confrontation with another Mongol khan, Guyuk, largely due to the support he received from the sons of Grand Duke Yaroslav - Alexander Nevsky and Andrei. This support was dictated by a deep political calculation. From the beginning of the thirteenth century Catholic Church began a crusade against the Orthodox: Greeks and Russians. In 1204, the Crusaders captured the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople. Latvians and Estonians were subjugated and turned into serfs. A similar fate awaited Russia, but Alexander Nevsky managed to defeat the crusaders in 1240 on the Neva, in 1242 on Lake Peipus, and thereby stop the first onslaught. But the war continued, and in order to have reliable allies, Alexander fraternized with Batu's son, Spartak, received Mongolian troops to fight the Germans. This union was preserved even after the death of Alexander Nevsky. In 1269, the Germans, having learned about the appearance of a Mongol detachment in Novgorod, sued for peace: "The Germans, having reconciled according to the will of Novogorod, are very afraid of the name of the Tatar." So, thanks to the support of the Mongols, the Russian land was saved from the invasion of the crusaders.

It should be noted that the first so-called campaign of the Mongols against Russia was in 1237, and the Russian princes began to pay tribute only twenty years later, when the Pope announced a crusade against the Orthodox. To protect Russia from the onslaught of the Germans, Alexander Nevsky recognized the sovereignty of the Khan of the Golden Horde and agreed to pay a kind of tax on the military assistance of the Tatars, which was called a tribute.

It is indisputable that where the Russian princes entered into an alliance with the Mongols, a great power, Russia, grew up. Where the princes refused such an alliance, and these are White Russia, Galicia, Volyn, Kyiv and Chernigov, their principalities became victims of Lithuania and Poland.

A little later, during the so-called Mongol-Tatar yoke, Russia experienced a threat both from the East from the Great Lame (Timur) and from the West from Vitovt, and only an alliance with the Mongols made it possible to protect Russia from invasion.

Mongol-Tatars are to blame for the desolation of Russia

Here is the generally accepted version. In the XII century, Kievan Rus was a rich country, with magnificent crafts and brilliant architecture. To XIV century this country became so desolated that in the 15th century it began to be repopulated by immigrants from the north. In the interval between the eras of prosperity and decline, the army of Batu passed through these lands, therefore, it is the Mongol-Tatars who are responsible for the decline of Kievan Rus.

But in fact, everything is not so simple. The fact is that the decline of Kievan Rus began in the second half of the 12th century or even in the 11th century, when the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" lost its significance due to the fact that Crusades opened an easier road to the riches of the East. And the invasion of the Tatars only contributed to the desolation of the region, which began 200 years ago.

The widely held opinion that almost all the cities (“they are innumerable”) in Russia were taken by the Tatars is also incorrect. The Tatars could not stop at every city to destroy it. They bypassed many fortresses, and forests, ravines, rivers, swamps sheltered both villages and people from the Tatar cavalry.

Mongol-Tatars are a primitive, uncivilized people

The opinion that the Tatars were savage and uncivilized is widely held due to the fact that this was the official opinion of Soviet historiography. But, as we have seen more than once, the official is not at all identical to the correct.

To debunk the myth of the backwardness and primitiveness of the Mongol-Tatars, we will once again use the works of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov. He notes that the Mongols did indeed kill, rob, drive away livestock, take away brides, and commit many of those acts that are customarily condemned in any anthology for young children.

Their actions were far from unreasonable. With the expansion of the habitat, the Mongols ran into rivals. The war with them was a completely natural rivalry. Driving away livestock is a kind of sport associated with a risk to life, first of all, a horse thief. The kidnapping of brides was explained by concern for offspring, since the stolen wives were treated no less delicately than those married with the consent of both families.

All this, of course, brought a lot of blood and grief, but, as Gumilyov notes, unlike other regions called civilized, in Great Steppe there were no lies and deceit of those who trusted.

Speaking about the uncivilization of the Mongols, we “reproach” them for the fact that they did not have cities and castles. In fact, the fact that people lived in felt yurts - gers, cannot in any way be considered a sign of uncivilization, because this is an economy of the gifts of nature, from which they took only what was necessary. It is worth noting that the animals were killed exactly as much as needed to satisfy hunger (unlike the "civilized" Europeans, who hunted for fun). It is also important that clothes, houses, saddles and horse harnesses were made of unstable materials that returned back to Nature along with the bodies of the Mongols. The culture of the Mongols, according to L.N. Gumilyov, "crystallized not in things, but in the word, in information about ancestors."

A thorough study of the way of life of the Mongols allows Gumilyov to draw, perhaps somewhat exaggerated, but essentially the correct conclusion: “Just think ... the Mongols lived in the sphere of earthly sin, but outside the sphere of otherworldly evil! And other peoples drowned in both.

The Mongols - the destroyers of the cultural oases of Central Asia

According to the established opinion, the cruel Mongol-Tatars destroyed the cultural oases of the agricultural cities. But was it really so? After all, the official version is based on legends created by Muslim court historiographers. About what these legends are worth, Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov tells in his book “From Russia to Russia”. He writes that Islamic historians reported the fall of Herat as a disaster in which the entire population was exterminated in the city, except for a few men who managed to escape in the mosque. The city was completely devastated, and only wild animals roamed the streets and tormented the dead. After sitting out for some time and recovering, the surviving residents of Herat went to distant lands to rob caravans, guided by a “noble” goal - to regain their lost wealth.

Further Gumilev continues: “This is a typical example of myth-making. After all, if the entire population of a large city were exterminated and lay corpses on the streets, then inside the city, in particular in the mosque, the air would be contaminated with ptomaine, and those who hid there would simply die. No predators, except for jackals, live near the city, and they very rarely penetrate the city. It was simply impossible for exhausted people to move to rob caravans a few hundred kilometers from Herat, since they would have to walk, carrying burdens - water and provisions. Such a “robber”, having met a caravan, would not be able to rob it, since he would only have enough strength to ask for water.

Even more absurd are the reports of Islamic historians about the fall of Merv. The Mongols took it in 1219 and allegedly exterminated all the inhabitants of the city there to the last man. Nevertheless, already in 1220, Merv rebelled, and the Mongols had to take the city again (and again exterminate everyone). But two years later, Merv sent a detachment of 10 thousand people to fight the Mongols.

There are many such examples. They once again demonstrate how much you can trust historical sources.