Mongol-Tatar yoke: myths and reality. Tatar-Mongol yoke

In our time, there are several alternative versions of the medieval history of Russia (Kiev, Rostov - Suzdal, Moscow). Each of them has the right to exist, since the official course of history has practically not been confirmed by anything other than “copies” of documents that once existed. One of such events in Russian history is the yoke of the Tatar-Mongols in Russia. Let's try to consider what it is The Tatar-Mongol yoke is a historical fact or fiction.

The Tatar-Mongol yoke was

The generally accepted and literally decomposed version, known to everyone from school textbooks and being the truth for the whole world, - “Russia was under the rule of wild tribes for 250 years. Russia is backward and weak - it could not cope with the savages for so many years ”.

The concept of "yoke" appeared at the time when Rus entered the European path of development. To become an equal partner for the countries of Europe, it was necessary to prove their “Europeanism”, and not the “wild Siberian East”, while recognizing their backwardness and the formation of a state only in the 9th century with the help of the European Rurik.

The version of the presence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke is confirmed only by numerous fiction and popular literature, including "The Legend of the Mamay Massacre" and all the works of the Kulikovo cycle based on it, which have many options.

One of these works - "The Word about the Death of the Russian Land" - refers to the Kulikovo cycle, does not contain the words "Mongol", "Tatar", "yoke", "invasion", there is only a story about "trouble" for the Russian land.

The most surprising thing is that the later the historical “document” is written, the more details it acquires. The fewer living witnesses, the more details are described.

There is no factual material 100 percent confirming the existence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

There was no Tatar-Mongol yoke

This development of events is not recognized by official historians not only around the world, but also in Russia and throughout the post-Soviet space. The factors that researchers who disagree with the existence of the yoke rely on are the following:

• the version of the presence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke appeared in the 18th century and, despite numerous studies by many generations of historians, did not undergo significant changes. It is illogical, in everything there must be development and movement forward - with the development of the capabilities of researchers, the factual material must change;
• there are no Mongolian words in the Russian language - a lot of research has been carried out, including by Professor V.A. Chudinov;
• practically nothing has been found at the Kulikovskoye field for many decades of searching. The very place of the battle is not clearly established;
• the complete absence of folklore about the heroic past and about the great Genghis Khan in modern Mongolia. Everything that has been composed in our time is based on information from Soviet history textbooks;
• great in the past, Mongolia is still a cattle-breeding country that has practically stopped in its development;
• complete absence in Mongolia of a gigantic number of trophies from most of the "conquered" Eurasia;
• even those sources that are recognized by official historians describe Genghis Khan as "a tall warrior, with white skin and blue eyes, a thick beard and reddish hair" - a clear description of a Slav;
• the word "horde", if read in ancient Slavic initial letters, means "order";
• Chinggis Khan - the rank of commander of the troops of Tartaria;
• "Khan" - protector;
• the prince is the governor appointed by the khan in the province;
• tribute - the usual taxation, as in any state in our time;
• on the images of all the icons and engravings related to the struggle against the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the opposing warriors are depicted in the same way. Even their banners are similar. This rather speaks of a civil war within one state than of a war between states with different cultures and, accordingly, differently armed soldiers;
• numerous genetic examinations and visual appearance indicate the complete absence of Mongolian blood in Russian people. Obviously, Russia was captured for 250 - 300 years by a horde of thousands of castrated monks, who also took a vow of celibacy;

• there are no handwritten confirmations of the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in the languages ​​of the invaders. Everything that is considered documents of this period is written in Russian;

• for the rapid movement of an army of 500 thousand people (the figure of traditional historians), spare (clockwork) horses are needed, on which riders are transplanted at least once a day. Each simple rider should have from 2 to 3 clockwork horses. The rich - the number of horses is calculated in herds. In addition, there are many thousands of transport horses with food for people and weapons, bivouac equipment (yurts, boilers, etc.). For the simultaneous feeding of such a number of animals, there is not enough grass in the steppes for hundreds of kilometers in a radius. For a given territory, such a number of horses is comparable to a locust infestation, which leaves a void behind. And the horses still need to be watered somewhere, and every day. To feed the warriors, many thousands of sheep are needed, which move much slower than horses, but eat up the grass to the ground. All this congestion of animals will sooner or later begin to die of hunger. An invasion on such a scale of horse troops from the regions of Mongolia to Russia is simply impossible.

What happened

To figure out what the Tatar-Mongol yoke is - a historical fact or fiction, researchers are forced to find miraculously preserved sources of alternative information about the history of Russia. The remaining inconvenient artifacts indicate the following:

• bribery and various promises, including unlimited power, Western "baptists" reached the consent of the ruling circles of Kievan Rus to the introduction of Christianity;
• the destruction of the Vedic worldview and the baptism of Kievan Rus (the province that broke away from Great Tartary) by "fire and sword" (one of the crusades, allegedly to Palestine) - "Vladimir baptized with a sword, and Dobrynya with fire" - 9 million people out of 12 died, lived at that time on the territory of the principality (almost the entire adult population). Out of 300 cities, 30 remained;
• all destruction and sacrifices of baptism are attributed to the Tatar-Mongols;
• everything that is called the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" is the retaliatory actions of the Slavic - Aryan Empire (Great Tartary - Mogul (Grand) Tartarus) to return the provinces that were invaded and Christianized;
• the period of time during which the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" fell is a period of peace and prosperity in Russia;
• destruction by all available methods of chronicles and other documents related to the Middle Ages all over the world and, in particular, in Russia: libraries with original documents burned, "copies" were preserved. In Russia, several times, on the orders of the Romanovs and their "historiographers", the chronicles were collected "for rewriting", after which they disappeared;
• all geographical maps published before 1772 and not subjected to correction call the western part of Russia Muscovy or Moscow Tartary. The rest of the former Soviet Union(without Ukraine and Belarus) called Tartaria or Russian Empire;
• 1771 - the first edition of the British Encyclopedia: "Tartary, a huge country in the northern part of Asia ...". This phrase was removed from subsequent editions of the encyclopedia.

In the age of information technology, data is not easy to hide. The official history does not recognize cardinal changes, therefore, what is the Tatar-Mongol yoke - a historical fact or fiction, which version of history to believe - must be determined for yourself. We must not only forget that the winner writes history.

The myth of the "Mongol" invasion and the "Mongol" yoke was created to hide the truth about the true history of Russia.

The degeneration of the Russian boyar-princely "elite" led to the first turmoil - "baptism" (an attempt at conceptual and ideological subordination of the Eastern Roman Empire, and then through it to Rome), a civil war between "Christians" and "pagans", feudal fragmentation and disintegration of the empire Rurikovich. The princely strife led to a whole series of internecine wars that seriously weakened Russia.
It should be noted that the internecine wars in Russia were distinguished by extreme fierceness. Writers love to show the horrors of the "Mongol-Tatar" invasion and yoke, but the Russians cut themselves with the Russians with no less bitterness and hatred. The Russes of Kiev, Galich, Polotsk, Novgorod, Suzdal and Vladimir killed, robbed, and took them away in the same way as the "Mongols" would do later. There were no "discounts" for belonging to the same tribe and faith.

The collective West, having received a powerful rebuff from the Muslim world in the Middle East, decided to continue the Drang nach Osten movement. Knightly orders are being thrown to the East - powerful Catholic spiritual and military organizations, which "by fire and sword" subjugated the tribes and peoples to Rome. In 1202, the Order of the Swordsmen was founded in Riga, and in 1237 it was transformed into the Livonian Order. Also, the Teutonic Order was thrown against Prussia, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia and other Russian lands.
It is obvious that a fragmented Russia would become a victim of the collective West. She would have been captured and "digested" piece by piece. The technique was already worked out during the capture and assimilation of Northern and Central Europe. The most brutal onslaught, total war, baptism "with fire and sword." Creation of fortified castles, strongholds of the occupation. The strategy "divide, play and conquer", when some tribes used one language against others. The destruction of the recalcitrant nobility, the domestication and baptism of the part that turned out to be ready for "cultural cooperation", the creation and education of a new nobility. The people, on the other hand, gradually, over tens and hundreds of years, are losing their native traditions, culture, and language. New "Germans" appear who have lost contact with the origins, native culture and language. Thus, Rome and the knightly orders subdued and "digested" the Slavic Pomerania (Pomerania), Prussia - Porussia, and settled in the Baltic (Livonia). The same fate awaited the Russian lands and the Russian people as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, where the Russian element initially prevailed. This Russian state was eventually subordinated to Poland and Rome, that is, the West. Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk, Tver and other Russian lands and cities would inevitably follow this path. Separately, sooner or later their resistance was broken, the rebellious, violent nobility was destroyed, the "flexible" nobility was bribed or persuaded.

Russia was saved by an invasion from the East - the East Siberian core of the Rus super-ethnos. As has already been noted more than once, there were no "Mongols" in Russia. This is a myth - created in the Vatican for the purpose of distorting the true history. In the West, they do not want to admit a strategic defeat from the Russian-Horde Empire. Russia and the Horde stopped the centuries-old offensive of the West - the "onslaught on the East." As a result, the collective West was able to subjugate only the Western Russian lands for some time (they became part of Hungary, Poland and Lithuania), but could not advance further. For centuries, bloody and brutal wars raged, but the West could not break through to Asia through Russian territory.
The Rus fought with the Rus. Two passionate cores of the super-ethnos of the Rus, the heirs of the Great Scythia. No "Mongols" conquered China, did not reach the Caucasus, Persia, the Northern Black Sea region and Russia. Khalkhu, Oirats - self-name, ethnonym of autochthons (indigenous population) of Mongolia, real anthropological Mongoloids, then were a poor nomadic community. They were at a low stage of development - hunters and primitive shepherds, like part of the Indian tribes North America... Shepherds and hunters, who were at a primitive primitive communal level, could under no circumstances create a powerful military power, and even more so a continental empire "from sea to sea." The real Mongols had no industrial, military, or state base to create a first-class military power.
Thus, the myth of the "Mongols from Mongolia", who created one of the greatest world empires in the history of mankind, is a deception and the greatest historical and informational sabotage of Rome and the West as a whole against Russia-Russia. The masters of the West deliberately distort and rewrite the true history of mankind in their interests. And this is being done all the time, it is enough to remember how the history of the Second and Great Patriotic Wars is being distorted literally before our eyes. Where from the Russian (Soviet) soldiers - liberators have already been converted into "occupiers and rapists" who allegedly captured a significant part of Europe and "overpowered" all German women. Communism and Nazism, Hitler and Stalin were put on the same level. Moreover, they are already talking about Hitler, who "defended" Europe from the Bolshevik, red hordes of Stalin. And Europe was allegedly liberated by Britain and the United States, which defeated Nazi Germany.
The myth of the "Mongol" invasion and the "Mongol" yoke was created to hide the truth about the true history of Russia, the heir to the thousand-year northern tradition of Hiberborea and Great Scythia. The Russians were allegedly a "wild" tribe that was brought to "civilization" by the German-Scandinavian Vikings and European Christian missionaries. And the "Mongol" invasion threw Russia into the "darkness of centuries", slowed down its development for several centuries, while the Russians were the "slaves" of the Golden Horde khans. At the same time, the Russians adopted from the "Mongols" the principles of government and organization, "slave psychology." All this separated Russia from Western Europe and led to "backwardness".
In reality, by way of war, the two parts of the former Great Scythia - North-Eastern Russia and the Rus of the Scythian-Siberian world - were united. Anthropological studies of burial grounds during the period of the "Mongol" invasion and domination show the complete absence of the Mongoloid element in Russia. Invasion, battles, storming of cities - all this happened. There was tribute, tithes, new campaigns, fires and looting. But there was no "Mongol" army and no "Mongol" empire. Since in the forest-steppe zone of Eurasia, including the lands from the Northern Black Sea region, the Northern Caucasus, from the Dnieper, Don and Volga to Altai and Sayan Mountains, for several millennia there is no real power, no people, except for the late Rus-Siberians and the powerful Scythian-Siberian world (heir the traditions of the Aryans and Great Scythia, which stopped the invasion of the Persian armies of kings Darius and Cyrus) did not exist. It was a truly powerful force - with a multi-thousand-year cultural, state, industrial and military tradition. Hundreds of clans united by language, traditions, and a single pagan faith. Only the Rus of the Scythian-Siberian world could create a huge continental empire, again unite the northern civilization from the borders of China to the Dnieper.
Northern Caucasians have more than once created kingdoms in China, gave the Celestial Empire ruling dynasties, elites, guards and officials. But it must be remembered that one or two generations and the Russians in China became Chinese. Mongoloid features of the dominant. A similar story happened in the 20th century. Many thousands of Russians fled to China during the Revolution and Civil War. Harbin was a Russian city. But quite a bit of time has passed, in historical terms, and only gravestones and several cultural and historical monuments have remained from the large Russian community. At the same time, the Russians were not exterminated. It's just that their children and grandchildren became Chinese. Another interesting example is India. There are arias who came from the territory modern Russia, and who were carriers of the common northern tradition for us, created closed caste-varnas and in many ways were able to preserve, preserve themselves. It is not surprising that the Hindus from the modern higher castes - the Brahman priests and Kshatriya warriors, are genetically, anthropologically the same Rus as the Russians. And the faith and traditions of the Hindus are the same as those of the Aryan-Rus 4 thousand years ago, or the Rus of the times of Oleg the Prophet and Svyatoslav (like the rite of cremation).
In a campaign to the west, the Scythian-Siberian Rus defeated and subjugated their relatives in Central Asia, which was also previously part of Great Scythia, and although the local population had already been Islamized, the Turkic and Mongoloid element had not yet become predominant. Also, the Tatars of the Urals and the Volga region, Alans and Polovtsians were included in the army (they were also the wreckage of the Great Scythia and the super-ethnos). Moreover, the Tatars were still pagans then, and the Turkic group not so long ago separated from the general language family and had almost no Mongoloid admixture (in contrast to the Crimean Tatars). Thus, the "Tatar-Mongol" invasion was the invasion of the Scythian-Siberian pagan Rus, who drew the Pagan Tatars, Polovtsians, Alans, and the inhabitants of Central Asia (descendants of the Scythian Rus) into their campaign. That is, it was a war between the pagan Rus of Asia and the Christian Rus of the fragmented Vladimir-Suzdal and Kievan Rus. The war between the two passionate cores of the super-ethnos of the Rus and the Russian civilization, the heir to the great northern tradition of Great Scythia. The tales about the "Mongols" were invented by the enemies of the Russian superethnos and Russia. It was the Scythian-Siberian Rus who created the great "Mongol" empire, the Russian-Horde empire.
The Horde Empire (from the Russian word for "clan") began to degenerate and degrade from the constantly growing and total Islamization, and the influx of a huge number of Arabs into the Golden (White) Horde. Islamization and became the main cause of intra-elite strife and the collapse of the empire. The history of the Horde Empire was rewritten in their own interests by Muslim and Catholic authors. The Rus of Ryazan and Novgorod and the Rus-Horde had a common anthropological, cultural and linguistic origin, and so were parts of a single superethnos and a single northern tradition-civilization. At first, they were distinguished by their faith and way of life, as well as by the difference in socio-political development: the Rus-Christians of Russia overcame the generic stage of development, had a "developed" feudalism; The Horde Rus were at the stage of tribal, "military" democracy. Therefore, later, when the center of government shifted to Moscow, most of the Horde people easily became Russian, without introducing any "Mongol" signs into the Russian people. At the same time, the Islamization of the Russians and Tatars of the Horde led to the division of the superethnos; it cut off the Islamized Eurasian part from it, except for those "Tatars" who adopted Orthodoxy by many thousands and went into the service of the Moscow sovereign.
Naturally, in Rome and in the West they tried to distort and hide the true history of the Russian superethnos and the Russian-Horde Empire, the so-called. "Tartaria", which was subject to most of the continent. In the West, they invented the "Mongol" invasion and the "Mongol" empire. The historians of the Romanovs (and the Germans were the first to write the official “history of Russia”) supported this myth, since Westernized Petersburg sought to join the family of “enlightened and civilized” Europe and did not want to continue the tradition of the Northern Eurasian Empire and the Horde-“Tartaria”. They tried to bury the many-thousand-year history of Russian civilization and the super-ethnos of the Russians. However, she left so many traces that the truth immediately began to make its way. Already Lomonosov, Tatishchev, Lyubavsky, Ilovaisky and many other researchers found that the history of the Rus-Russians does not correspond to the generally accepted "classical" version.
Among the footprints ancient empire the fact that up to the XVI-XVII centuries, and sometimes in the XVIII century, the entire territory of continental Eurasia in Western Europe was called the Great Scythia (Sarmatia), which was synonymous with the names “Great Tartary” and Russia. Historians of that time identified the ancient Scythians-Sarmatians and contemporary Russians, believing that the entire steppe Eurasia, as before, was inhabited by one people. In the Golden and other horde states, which occupied in the XIII - XVI centuries. the entire steppe zone of the East European Plain, Central Asia and southern Siberia, the basis of the population was the Scythians-Sarmatians-Alans-Rus. This was the opinion not only of the authors who used written sources, but also of the travelers who themselves saw the "Great Scythia - Tartaria".
Julius Pomponius Let, a 15th century Roman humanist, traveled to Scythia; visited Poland, near the Dnieper, at the mouth of the Don, described the customs and manners of the "Scythians". He mentioned Russian braga, honey, how the “Scythians”, sitting at oak tables, proclaim toasts in honor of the guests, wrote down several “Scythian” words that turned out to be Slavic. He believed that "Scythia" stretches far to the east and borders on India, wrote about the "Khan of the Asian Scythians". In the eyes of the author, the Scythians look Russian and the territory of their settlement includes not only the lands of the Russian-Lithuanian and Moscow states, but also others, which are ruled by the khans and stretch far to the east. And from the sources of the XIV - XVI centuries. we can learn that Siberia was then inhabited not by "Mongol-Tatars", but by white people, surprisingly similar to the ancient Scythians and modern Russians.
It is also worth remembering that the names Chemuchin (Temuchin), Batu, Berkei, Sebedai-Subudey, Guess, Mamai, Chagat (d) ai, Boro (n) dai, etc. are not “Mongolian” names. These are also the names of the super-ethnos of the Rus, only not Orthodox, but pagan. Most of the Horde's subjects were Rus-Russians. Fierce internecine wars between the Rus were commonplace for those times. Moscow fought a war with the Russians of Ryazan, Tver, Novgorod and the Horde for the unification of the country. Reality is tragic, more tragic than it is customary to imagine. There were no terrible "Mongols". Russians fought with Russians. Thus, the "Tatar" Murzas and khans with thousands of detachments constantly switched to the service of the Grand Dukes of Vladimir and Moscow, Russian-Lithuanian. These transitions were accompanied by marriages and inclusion in the elite of the Russian state. As a result, the Moscow aristocracy was formed from "Tatar" by a third. There was integration into the new state of the once united empire. At the same time, the Russian people and the Moscow aristocracy have no signs of "Mongoloid".

In the middle of the XIV century. the elite of the Horde converted to Islam. At the same time, the bulk of the population of the horde-clans retained the pagan tradition. In particular, in the "Tale of the Mamayev Massacre", a Russian written monument of the 15th century, the gods worshiped by the "Tatars" are mentioned. Among them are Perun and Khors. Islam has not yet become the mainstream religion. The Islamization of the Horde led to a series of violent internecine wars, the collapse of the empire. Moscow has become a new center of gravity for civilization and a super-ethnos. For a century and a half this new center was able to restore the main core of the empire. The first Russian tsar-emperor was Ivan the Terrible, heir to the ancient empire of Rurikovich and the Russian-Horde empire. During his reign, Rust turned to the south - to the Caucasus and the Caspian, and to the southeast, to Kazan and Siberia. With one blow, they returned the entire Volga region, opened the way beyond the Urals and began to reunite with Siberia. The indigenous population of the great steppe, the descendants of the ancient Scythians, Sarmatians, Polovtsians, "Mongols", returned under the rule of their national center. At the same time, the "Scythians" - "Cossacks" simultaneously became the shock vanguard of the Russian civilization and the super-ethnos, quickly returning and developing the ancestral lands of northern civilization - Eurasia.
Thus, under Ivan Vasilievich the Terrible, the core of the “Great Scythia”, the Russian Empire, was restored. Ancient authors knew the same country and people. She wiped off the Black (Russian) and Baltic seas to the borders of Japan, China and India. That is, Russia in the 16th - 19th centuries. did not conquer foreign lands, but returned their own. The West, on the other hand, faced with powerful resistance from Russia and the Horde, and then the Russian kingdom, headed by Moscow, was forced to look for new lands for seizures and plunder. This is how the "Great Geographical Discoveries" began.

The program "Five days" leads Vadim Tikhomirov

In 1238 Khan Batu took Moscow.

We speak with an expert - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Newest national history MPGU German Anatolyevich Artamonov.

Vadim Tikhomirov: - What preceded the Tatar-Mongol yoke and the invasion of Khan Baty on Moscow? Who else attacked us and from which side?

German Artamonov: - Our territory is open from all sides, so the foreign policy threat for us is an eternal problem, eternally relevant ... Perhaps, for the period that we are now considering, the southeastern border of Russia with the so-called Great Steppe is of fundamental importance. This is a huge landscape, which gave rise to endless hordes of nomadic peoples, and clashes between the steppe and the field were traditional ... Once you cope with one nomadic people, a more powerful, more cruel nomadic people immediately appears. The last wave is the Tatar-Mongol invasion ...

German Artamonov: - With education the old Russian state the past traditions of the people's militia, which were observed for some time, are leaving. The peasant is engaged in agriculture, which is what he should be doing. But the question of defense is decided by the princes with very few squads. By the time of the invasion, the presence of principalities on our territory was a huge figure - 250. It was necessary to resolve defense issues ...

German Artamonov: - In the cultural layers of pre-Mongol Rus, we found about 1200 urban-type settlements. The criteria are blurred, it is difficult to distinguish between a city and a fortress. There are large and small cities namely fortresses, but there are about 1200 such fortified settlements. Of these, we know only 300 by name, because in such a source as the Resurrection Chronicle, it was written at the court of Metropolitan Cyprian - the personal enemy of Prince Dmitry Donskoy and Metropolitan Alexy, who survived him by 18 years and did everything possible to desecrate him. name ... In this Chronicle of the Resurrection, 300 cities are named by their names. We know these 300 cities. But when archaeologists dug up and showed us 1200 cities (we do not know what they are called), which after the invasion were never rebuilt. For example, Ryazan - the historical Ryazan capital of the principality was wiped off the face of the earth in December 1237 and was never restored. Modern Ryazan is Pereslavl-Ryazan ...

Vadim Tikhomirov: - Let's go back to our story. We say the Tatar-Mongol yoke, but the Tatars were the main enemies of the Mongols, if my historical memory serves me right?

German Artamonov: - Here is a very delicate question. Russia is a multinational country - this is our advantage, although it is very difficult. We have two hundred peoples and everyone wants to hear their own history, but they must be named, at least on the flyleaf of a textbook. A significant part of the population of Russia is made up of ethnic Tatars. Imagine when they open the Russian textbook of their homeland, and their homes, and there they find that the Tatars are the very evil ones without explanation, and then we forget about them altogether and give rise to a feeling of guilt in them. This must be clarified - modern Tatars have nothing to do with the Mongols, in principle they do not. They even different languages... There the Mongolian language, and the Tatars speak the Turkic language. Modern Kazan Tatars are mostly descendants of the Volga Bulgars, a powerful state that existed between the Volga and Kama rivers, destroyed by Batu in 1236. They need to be separated ...

Listen to the entire program in the audio file.

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

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

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

1. Genghis Khan

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

2. Mongolia

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

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

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

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

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

The inscription is as follows: "The figure of a Tatar under the feet of Henry II, Duke of Silesia, Krakow and Poland, placed on the grave in Breslau of this prince, who was killed in the battle with the Tatars at Lygnitz on April 9, 1241" As we can see, this "Tatar" has a completely Russian appearance, clothes and weapons. The next image shows "the khan's palace in the capital of the Mongol empire, Khanbalik" (it is believed that Khanbalik is supposedly what it is).

What is "Mongolian" and what is "Chinese" here? Again, as in the case of the tomb of Henry II, before us are people of a clearly Slavic appearance. Russian caftans, rifle caps, the same thick beards, the same characteristic saber blades called "Elman". The roof on the left is practically an exact copy of the roofs of old Russian towers ... (A. Bushkov, “Russia, which did not exist”).

5. Genetic examination

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

6. Documents during the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke

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

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

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

“Oh, the bright light and beautifully decorated Russian land! You are glorified by many beauties: you are famous for many lakes, locally revered rivers and springs, mountains, steep hills, high oak forests, clean fields, wonderful animals, various birds, countless great cities, glorious villages, monastery gardens, temples of God and formidable princes, honest boyars and many nobles. You are filled with everything, Russian land, about the Christian Orthodox faith!..»

There is not even a hint of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" in this text. But on the other hand, this "ancient" document contains the following line: "You are filled with everything, Russian land, about the Christian Orthodox faith!"

Before the church reform of Nikon, which was carried out in the middle of the 17th century, it was called “the faithful”. It began to be called Orthodox only after this reform ... Therefore, this document could have been written not earlier than the middle of the 17th century and has nothing to do with the era of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" ...

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

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

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

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

Where did the name Tartary come from?

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

That is, the meaning of the word God, our ancestors was not at all the same as it is now. Gods were people who went much further in their development than the overwhelming majority of people. For an ordinary person, their abilities seemed incredible, nevertheless, the gods were also people, and the capabilities of each god had their limits.

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

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

Baptism of Russia

What does the baptism of Rus have to do with it? Some may ask. As it turned out, very much to do with it. After all, baptism took place in a far from peaceful way ... Before baptism, people in Russia were educated, almost everyone knew how to read, write, count (see article). Recall from school curriculum in history, at least, the same "Birch bark letters" - letters that peasants wrote to each other on birch bark from one village to another.

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

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

Everyone understood perfectly well what the "Greek religion", into which Prince Vladimir the Bloody and those who stood behind him, was going to baptize Kievan Rus. Therefore, none of the inhabitants of the then Kiev principality (the province that broke away from) did not accept this religion. But behind Vladimir were large forces, and they were not going to retreat.

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

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

conclusions

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THAT IS KNOWN TO EVERYONE

Classical, that is, recognized modern science the version of the "Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia", "Mongol-Tatar yoke" and "liberation from the Horde tyranny" is well known, but it will be useful to refresh your memory once again. So ... At the beginning of the XIII century, in the Mongolian steppes, a brave and devilishly energetic tribal leader named Genghis Khan gathered a huge army from the nomads, welded together by iron discipline, and set out to conquer the whole world, "to the last sea." Having conquered the closest neighbors, and then capturing China, the mighty Tatar-Mongol horde rolled westward. Having traveled 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 a battle on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Mongol-Tatars invaded Russia with their entire innumerable army, burned and ruined many Russian cities, and in 1241, in fulfillment of Genghis Khan's behests, tried to conquer Western Europe - they invaded Poland, the Czech Republic, in the south-west they reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, however, they turned back, because they were afraid to leave in their rear the ruined, but still dangerous for them Russia. And the Tatar-Mongol yoke began. 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 plunder and plunder, and repeatedly killed Russian princes in their Golden Horde. It is necessary to clarify 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 brothers. With the help of the Tatar-Mongol detachments, other princes were kept on the "table" (ie on the throne), solved their purely internal problems and even collected tribute for the Golden Horde on their own.

Having strengthened over time, Russia began to show its teeth. In 1380, the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Horde Khan Mamai with his Tatars, and a century later, in the so-called "standing on the Ugra", the troops of the Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat met. The opponents camped for a long time on different 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 took 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 that "every intelligent person" should know.

… I am close to the method that Conan Doyle put into service to the impeccable logic of Sherlock Holmes: first, the true version of what happened is presented, and then the chain of reasoning that led Holmes to the discovery of the truth.

This is exactly what I intend to do. First, present 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" as to the chronicles, works of historians of the past, which turned out to be undeservedly forgotten.

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

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

2. The Tatars are not newcomers, but the inhabitants of the Trans-Volga region, who lived in the neighborhood with the Russians long before the notorious invasion. "

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

4. Mamai and Akhmat were not alien raiders, but noble nobles, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, who had the right to a great reign. Accordingly, the "Mamaevo massacre" and "standing on the Ugra" are episodes not of a 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 upside down the historical sources that we have today. It is enough to reread many Russian chronicles and works of early historians thoughtfully. Weed out frankly fabulous moments and draw logical conclusions instead of thoughtlessly taking on faith the official theory, whose weight is mainly not in evidence, but in the fact that " classical theory"It has simply settled down for many centuries. Having reached the stage at which any objections are interrupted by a seemingly iron argument:" Have mercy, but this is ALL KNOWN! "

Alas, the argument only looks iron ... Only five hundred years ago "everyone knew" that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Two hundred years ago, the French Academy of Sciences, in 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 the stones have nowhere to come from. One important clarification: no one knew that stones fly outside the atmosphere, which can often fall to the ground ...

It should not be forgotten that many of our ancestors (more precisely, all) had several names. Even ordinary peasants bore at least two names: one was worldly, by which everyone knew the person, the second was baptismal.

One of the most famous statesmen of Ancient Russia, the Kiev 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 he was called 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 - cases were recorded when in the first half of the 19th (!) Century, inconsolable relatives and friends only after the death of the head of the family recognized that on the tombstone a completely different name should be written, with which the deceased, it turns out, was baptized ... In church books, for example, he was listed as Ilya - meanwhile, all his life he was known as Nikita ...

WHERE ARE THE MONGOLS?
Indeed, where is the "best half" of the expression "Mongol-Tatar" horde that has been imposed on you in your teeth? Where are the Mongols proper, according to other zealous authors, who constituted a kind of aristocracy, cementing the core of the army that had rolled into Russia?

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

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

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

Everything. Historians, no matter how hard they struggle, are not able to find 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 lived not in present-day Mongolia, but practically close to the Russians, who (which 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 and became related to them, and all of them as if became Kipchaks, as if of the same clan with them. "

The fact that the Tatars did not come from anywhere, and from time immemorial lived near 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 the Tatars and Kipchaks-Polovtsians, who are not Mongoloids, but a normal Caucasian type, fair-haired, light-eyed, not slanting at all ... (And their language is similar to Slavic.)

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

By the way, Batu's appearance is drawn in exactly the same way - fair-haired, light-bearded, light-eyed ... The author of these lines has lived his entire adult life not so far from the places where he allegedly "created his innumerable army of Genghis Khan." I have seen enough of a native Mongoloid people - Khakassians, Tuvinians, Altai people, 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 in Bashkir, and "Basty", as already mentioned, is in Polovtsian. So the very name of Chingizov's son 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 not earlier than the 17th century. And consequently, any mention that Genghis Khan really left Mongolia will be no more than a recorded three hundred years later, a retelling of ancient legends ... that your ancestors, it turns out, once passed with fire and sword to the very Adriatic ...

So, we have already clarified a rather important circumstance: there were no Mongols in the "Mongol-Tatar" horde; black-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 - from the Polovtsian steppes, no further.

HOW MUCH WAS MONGOLO-TATAR?
Indeed, how many of them came to Russia? Let's start to find out. Russian pre-revolutionary sources mention the "half-million Mongolian army".

Sorry for the harshness, but both the first and second numbers are bullshit. Since they were invented by the townspeople, cabinet figures who saw the horse only from afar and had no idea what worries the maintenance of a combat horse, as well as a pack and marching horse, requires.

Any warrior of a nomadic tribe goes on a campaign with three horses (as a minimum, two). One carries luggage (a small "dry ration", horseshoes, spare bridle straps, every little thing like spare arrows, armor that does not need to be worn on the march, etc.). From time to time it is necessary to change from the second to the third, so that one horse is a little rested all the time - you never know what happens, sometimes you have to fight "from the wheels", ie. from the 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 destroy the grass over a huge space, so that the rear ones will die from starvation very quickly. How many oats you can store for them in toroks (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 the winter. When the remaining grass is hidden under the snow, and the grain has yet to be taken away from the population, moreover, a mass of forage perishes in burning cities and villages ...

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

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

Secondly, the difference between a horse that was allowed to roam in winter without any work, and a horse forced to make long journeys under a rider, and also to participate in battles, is not taken into account. Even Mongolians, if there were a million of them, for all their fantastic ability to soak themselves in the middle of a snow-covered plain, would starve to death, interfering with each other, beating off rare blades from each other ...

But they, in addition to the horsemen, had to carry heavy prey as well!

But the "Mongols" also had rather big carts with them. The cattle that pulls the carts must also be fed, otherwise they will not pull the cart ...

In a word, throughout the twentieth century, the number of "Mongol-Tatars" who attacked Russia was drying up like the famous shagreen leather. In the end, with a gnash of teeth, historians stopped at thirty thousand - the remnants of professional pride simply do not allow them to sink below.

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

And the first among them will be this: isn't it not enough? No matter how you refer to the "disunity" of the Russian principalities, thirty thousand horsemen is too scanty figure to arrange "fire and ruin" all over Russia! After all, they (even the supporters of the "classical" version admit it) did not move in a compact mass, all in a crowd piled in turn on Russian cities. Several detachments scattered in different directions - and this reduces the number of "innumerable Tatar hordes" to the limit, beyond which elementary mistrust begins: well, there could not have been such a number of aggressors, no matter how discipline their regiments were soldered (apart from the supply bases, as if a small group of saboteurs behind enemy lines), "capture" Russia!

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

This vicious circle can only be relieved by our hypothesis - that there were no aliens. There was a civil war, the forces of the opponents were relatively small - and they relied on their own stocks of fodder 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 "tornado roads" - the most optimal way of waging war on a territory almost completely overgrown with dense forests, where it is damn hard for a more or less large military detachment, especially a horse one, to move around.

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

So, our piggy bank is gradually replenished with weighty evidence. We found out that there were no "Mongols", that is. For some reason, there were no Mongoloids among the "horde". They found out that there could not have been many "newcomers", that even that scanty number of thirty thousand, on which the historians were entrenched, like the Swedes at Poltava, could not provide the "Mongols" with the establishment of control over all of Russia. They found out that the horses under the "Mongols" were by no means Mongolian, and for some reason these "Mongols" fought according to Russian rules. And they were, curiously, fair-haired and blue-eyed.

Not too little to start with. And we, I warn you, are just getting a taste ...

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

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 current 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 today understand by some name. Today, for us, Russia means the entire land of that time, inhabited by Russians.

But then people thought a little differently ... Every time, you hardly happen to read about the events of the XII-XIII centuries, you must remember: then "Rus" was called a part of the Russian-populated regions - Kiev, Pereyaslavl and Chernigov princedoms. More precisely: Kiev, Chernigov, the Ros River, Porosye, Pereyaslavl-Russian, Severskaya land, Kursk. Quite often in the ancient chronicles it is written that from Novgorod or Vladimir ... "we went to Rus"! That is, to Kiev. Chernigov towns are "Russian", but Smolensk towns are already "non-Russian".

Historian of the XVII century: "... the Slavs, our ancestors - Moscow, the Rossians and others ..."

Exactly. No wonder that on Western European maps, for a very long time, Russian lands were divided into "Muscovy" (north) and "Russia" (south). Last title
lasted an extremely long time - as we remember, the inhabitants of those lands where "Ukraine" is now located, being Russian by blood, Catholics by religion and subjects of the Rzecz Pospolita (as the author calls the Rzeczpospolita, which is more familiar to us by ear, Sapfir_t), called themselves "Russian gentry ".

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

KALKA - CLUB OF RIDDLES
The first clash of Russians with the "Mongol-Tatars" on the Kalka River in 1223 was 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 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 no longer denied the obvious fact that the events on the Kalka River were not an attack by evil aliens on Russia, but Russian aggression against neighbors. Judge for yourself. The Tatars (in the descriptions of the battle on Kalka, the Mongols are never, never mentioned) fought with the Polovtsy. And they sent ambassadors to Russia, who rather friendly asked the Russians not to interfere in this war. 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 one - at all times, the murder of an ambassador was considered one of the most serious crimes. Following this, the Russian army sets out on a long campaign.

Having left the borders of Russia, it first of all attacks the Tatar camp, takes prey, steals cattle, after which it moves into the depths of foreign territory for another eight days. There, on Kalka, a decisive battle takes place, the Polovtsian allies flee in panic, the princes are left alone, they fight back for three days, after which, believing the assurances of the Tatars, they surrender. However, the Tatars, angry with the Russians (it’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 captive princes. According to some sources, they kill simply, without any fancy, according to others, they pile them on tied boards and sit down to feast on top, scoundrels.

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

You can understand him: the Russian princes in this story do not look the best way. I will add from myself: the Galician prince Mstislav Udaloy is not just an aggressor, but also a uniform scum - however, more on that later ...

Let's go back to the riddles. That same "Tale of the Battle of Kalka" for some reason is unable ... to name the enemy of the Russians! Judge for yourself: "... because of our sins, nations came unknown, godless Moabites, about whom no one knows for sure who they are and where they came from, and what their language is, and what kind of tribe they are, and what faith. And they call them Tatars. , and some say - taurmen, and others - Pechenegs. "

Extremely strange lines! Let me remind you that they were written much later than the events described, when it seemed like it was supposed to know exactly with whom the Russian princes fought on Kalka. After all, part of the army (although small, according to some sources - one tenth) still returned from Kalki. Moreover, the victors, in turn pursuing the broken 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 that and among the townspeople there must be witnesses who have witnessed the enemy with their own eyes.

However, this adversary remains "unknown". Those who come do not know from what places, speaking to God knows what language. Your will, it turns out a kind of incongruity ...

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

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

The 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 weighty reasons he does not want to directly name the enemy of the Russians in that battle. And this assumption is not in the least far-fetched. First, the expression "either Polovtsians, or Tatars, or Taurmens" in no way agrees with the life experience of the Russians of that time. And those, and others, and the third in Russia knew very well - everyone except the author of the "Tale" ...

Secondly, if the Russians had fought on Kalka with the "unknown" people, first seen by the people, 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 settled in the fortification of the "tyna and carts", where they fought off enemy attacks for three days, surrendered after ... a certain Russian named Ploskinya, who was in the enemy's battle formations, solemnly pectoral cross on the fact that the prisoners will not be harmed.

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

V. Yan, a supporter of the "classical" version, portrayed Ploskin as a kind of steppe vagrant, who was caught on the way by the "Mongol-Tatars" and, with a chain around his neck, was brought to the fortification of the Russians in order to persuade them to surrender at the mercy of the victor.

This is not even a version - this is, sorry, schizophrenia. Put yourself in the place of the Russian prince - a professional soldier, who has fought a lot both with Slavic neighbors and with nomadic steppe dwellers in his life, who has gone through fires and waters ...

You were surrounded in a distant land by warriors of a completely unknown tribe. For three days you have been repelling the attacks of this foe, whose language you do not understand, whose appearance is strange and disgusting to you. Suddenly this mysterious adversary urges 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: unknown to you hitherto, strangers in language and faith!) Will spare you if you surrender. ..

Well, will you surrender in these conditions?

Yes, fullness! Not a single normal person with the slightest military experience will surrender (besides, I will clarify that you just recently killed the ambassadors of this very people and robbed plenty of the camp of their fellow tribesmen).

But the Russian princes for some reason surrendered ...

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

Brodniks are Russian free warriors who lived in those places. The predecessors of the Cossacks. Well, this somewhat changes the matter: it was not a bound prisoner who persuaded to surrender, but a voivode, almost equal, such a Zheslavian and a Christian ... This can be believed - that the princes did.

However, the establishment of the true social position of Ploskini only confuses the matter. It turns out that the roaming people in a short time managed to come to an agreement with the "unknown peoples" and became so close to them that they hit the Russians together? Your brothers in blood and faith?

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

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

Or maybe not a part? Maybe there weren't any "Moabites"? Maybe the battle on 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 Polovtsi), on the other, the roaming and Orthodox Tatars, the neighbors of the Russians?

It is worth accepting this version, everything falls into place. And the hitherto mysterious surrender of the princes - they surrendered not to some unknown strangers, but to well-known neighbors (the neighbors, however, broke their word, but how lucky ...) - (About the fact that the captive princes were "thrown under the boards" , reports only the “Story.” Other sources write that the princes were simply killed without mockery, and the third - that the princes were “taken prisoner.” So the story with a “feast on the bodies” is just one of the options). And the behavior of those residents of Novgorod-Svyatopolch, that it is not clear why they came out to meet the Tatars pursuing the Russians fleeing from Kalka ... religious procession!

This 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. Indeed, what kind of normal person would go out to appease with a procession of the cross some unknown stranger, whose language, faith and nationality remain a mystery ?!

However, we should assume that some of their own, familiar for a long time, were chasing the fleeing remnants of the princely army, and that, most importantly, the same Christians - the behavior of the city's inhabitants instantly loses all signs of madness or absurdity. Indeed, there was a chance to defend oneself with a procession of the cross from his own, long-time acquaintances, from fellow Christians.

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

Thus, the battle on Kalka is not at all a clash with unknown peoples, but one of the episodes of the internecine war waged between the Russian-Christians, the Polovtsian Christians (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 ravaged the fortresses and towns and villages of the Polovtsian. And all the lands near the Don, and the Meotsky Sea (Sea of ​​Azov), today it is called Perekop), and around the Pontus of the Euchsinus, that is, the Black Sea, the Tatars took it under their arm, and settled there ".

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

And finally - about the Galician prince Mstislav Udal, or rather, about what he just deserves the definition of "scum". A word to the same historian: "... The brave prince Mstislav Mstislavich Galitsky ... when he ran to the river to his boats (immediately after the defeat from the" Tatars "- A. Bushkov), having crossed the river, he commanded to sink all boats and chop and to burn, fearing the Tatar chase, and, fearful, he made his way to Galich. Most of the Russian regiments, running, reached their lodges and, seeing them to a single sunken and burnt, from grief and need and hunger could not swim across the river , in the same place they died and perished, except for some princes and warriors, who swam across the river on wicker sheaves of tavolzhany ".

Like this. By the way, this scum - I'm talking about Mstislav - is still called Udal 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 blunders and absurdities committed by Mstislav as prince of Galician, using the remarkable phrase: "Obviously, under old age Mstislav finally lost his common sense." On the contrary, N. Kostomarov, with no hesitation, considered Mstislav's act with the Lodyas to be taken for granted - Mstislav, they say, "did not allow the Tatars to cross." However, excuse me, after all, they somehow crossed over, if "on the shoulders" of the retreating Russians rushed to Novgorod-Svyatopolch ?!

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

SUPERMEN OF MONGOL STEPPES
Having accepted the classic version of the "Mongol-Tatar" invasion, we ourselves do not notice with what accumulation of inconsistencies, and even outright stupidity, we are dealing.

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

"Wandering peoples, by the very nature of their lives, should be widely spread over a large uncultivated area by separate patriarchal groups, incapable of general disciplined action, requiring economic centralization, that is, a tax on which an army of adult unmarried people could be supported. peoples, like clusters of molecules, each of their patriarchal group repels from the other, thanks to the search for more and more grass to feed their flocks.

Having united together in the number of at least a few thousand people, they must also connect 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 nearby grass would be quickly eaten and the whole company would have to scatter again by the former patriarchal small groups in different directions in order to be able to live longer without moving their tents to another place every day.

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

But even in the Sahara itself, not a single large oasis was forever covered with the surrounding sand, and at the end of the hurricane it was revived again 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 cultural 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 resettlement of their names or, at best, rulers, and even then from more cultured countries to less cultured ones, and not vice versa. "

Gold words. History really does not know cases when nomads scattered over vast spaces would suddenly create, if not a mighty state, then a mighty 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 supposedly lived in present-day Mongolia, by some miracle, in a matter of years created an army out of scattered uluses that surpassed any European army in discipline and organization ...

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

Here is a suitable example: when, in 1916, the tsarist officials gave something special to the Kazakh nomads, they calmly withdrew and migrated from the Russian Empire to neighboring China. The authorities (and we are talking about the beginning of the twentieth century!) Simply could not prevent them and prevent them!

Meanwhile, we are invited to believe in the following picture: steppe nomads, free as the wind, for some reason obediently agree to follow Chingiz "to the last sea." Given the complete, let us emphasize and repeat, Genghis Khan's lack of means of influencing the "refuseniks" - it would be unthinkable to chase them across the steppes and thickets stretching for thousands of kilometers (some Mongol clans lived not in the steppe, but in the taiga).

Five thousand kilometers - approximately this distance was covered by Chingiz's detachments to Russia according to the "classical" version. The armchair theorists who wrote this simply never thought about what it would cost to overcome such routes in reality (and if you remember that the "Mongols" reached the shores of the Adriatic, the route increases by another fifteen hundred kilometers). What power, what miracle could compel the steppe inhabitants to set off into such a distance?

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

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

Do historians suggest that we believe this? Well, so much the worse for historians ... If you do not want to be called an idiot, do not commit idiotic acts - an old everyday truth. So 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 themselves after Genghis Khan for six and a half thousand kilometers. Nomads, even in a tight (damn tight!) Time frame, suddenly learned to own the best military equipment of that time - battering machines, stone throwers ...

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

Mark Twain was right: well, geese don't spawn! Well, rutabaga does not grow on a tree!

Well, the steppe nomad is not capable of mastering the art of taking cities with the use of battering machines in a couple of years! Create an army superior to the armies of any states of that time!

First of all, because he doesn't 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. Moreover, in such utopian terms, as the official history tells us, uttering pearls like: "After the invasion of China, the army of Genghis Khan adopted Chinese military equipment - battering machines, stone throwers and flamethrowers."

This is nothing, there are pearls and cleaner. I happened to read an article in an extremely serious, academic journal: it described how the Mongolian (!) Military fleet in the XIII century. fired at the ships of the ancient Japanese ... with war rockets! (The Japanese, presumably, responded with laser-guided torpedoes.) In a word, sailing must also be attributed to the number of arts mastered by the Mongols in a year or two. Well, at least, not flying heavier-than-air vehicles ...

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

By the way, an important question: How did the wives of the Mongols let their husbands go to the ends of the earth? The vast majority of medieval sources describe
the "Tatar-Mongol horde" as an army, not a migrating 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 book nomads, but real nomads always behave completely differently: they calmly wander for long hundreds of years (occasionally attacking neighbors, not without it), it never even occurs to them to conquer a nearby country or go halfway across the world to look for the "last sea". It would never occur to a Pashtun or Bedouin tribal leader to build a city or create a state. How would he not think of 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 you dream of an "empire half the world"?

Meanwhile, we are seriously assured that the nomadic steppe dweller for some reason suddenly became imbued with the idea of ​​the state or, at least, a grandiose campaign of conquest to the "limits of the world." And in shock terms, by some miracle, he united his fellow tribesmen into a mighty organized army. And for several years he learned to handle machines that were quite complex by the standards of that time. And he created a navy that fired rockets at the Japanese. And he compiled a set of laws for his huge empire. And he corresponded with the Pope, kings and dukes, teaching them how to live.

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

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

In a word - frolic, soul ... For example, the Ryazan governor Baldoha, at the head of a valiant army, swooped down on the Suzdal people, instantly and brutally defeated their army, after which the Ryazan people outraged Suzdal women and girls outragedly, robbed all stocks of salted mushrooms, squirrel skins and honey , they finally nailed on the neck of a monk who turned up inopportunely and returned home victorious. Everything. You can, narrowing your eyes significantly, say: "The Ryazan people received a drive of passion, but the people of Suzdal had lost their drive by that time."

Six months passed - and now the Suzdal prince Timonya Guniavy, burning with a thirst for revenge, attacked the Ryazan people. Fortuna turned out to be changeable - and this time the "kosopuza" pulled in on the first number and took away all the good, and the women and girls were cut off by the skirts that before the governor Baldokha, they mocked him ad libitum, shoving his bare ass at an inopportune hedgehog. The picture for the historian of the Gumilev school is clear through and through: "Ryazan people have lost their former passionarity."

Perhaps they did not lose anything - simply the hungover blacksmith did not shoe the horse in time for Baydokhin's greyhound, he lost his horseshoe, and then everything went in accordance with the English song translated by Marshak: there was no nail, the horseshoe was gone, there was no horseshoe, the horse limped. .. And the main part of Baldokhina's army did not take part in the battle at all, since it was chasing the Polovtsians about a hundred versts from Ryazan.

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

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

There is one more piquant moment: the Suzdal chronicle will be compiled by the same monk, whom the Ryazan people so imprudently slapped on the neck. If he is particularly vindictive, he will introduce Ryazan ... and not Ryazan at all. And some "filthy", insidious horde of Antichrist. Out of nowhere emerged from the Moabites, devouring foxes and gophers. Subsequently, I will give some quotes showing that in the Middle Ages sometimes it was something like this ...

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

To be honest, I do not want to list this evidence. Too much and often wrote about how Russian princes and "Mongol khans" became brothers-in-arms, relatives, sons-in-law and father-in-law, how they went on joint military campaigns, how (let's call things by their proper names) were friends. If desired, the reader himself can easily familiarize himself with the details of the Russian-Tatar friendship. I will focus on one aspect: that this kind of relationship is unique. For some reason, the Tatars did not behave like this in any country they had broken or captured by them. 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" reacts to this somehow strangely: upon hearing of this sad event, no
only does not take punitive measures, but gives Nevsky additional privileges, allows him to collect tribute, and in addition, frees him from the need to supply recruits for the Horde army ...

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

And nowhere. Russia is the Golden Horde, don't you forget? Or, more precisely, the Golden Horde is a part of Russia, the one that is under the rule of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes, the descendants of Vsevolod the Big Nest. And the notorious symbiosis is just an incompletely distorted reflection of events.

Gumilyov never dared to take the next step. And I, forgive me, will risk it. If we 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 the same thing. And the tales of the "evil Tatars" were composed much later.

Have you ever wondered what the word "horde" itself means? In search of an answer, I first dug into the depths of the Polish language. For a very simple reason: it is in Polish that quite a few words have survived that disappeared from Russian in the 17th-18th centuries (at one time, both languages ​​were much closer to each other).

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

Let's 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 "many" or "assembly". In Russian chronicles, when telling about military campaigns, they calmly insert the phrases "Swedish horde" or "German horde" in the same meaning - "army".

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

To this can be added the Anglo-Saxon "order", which again means "order" in the sense of "law", and besides - the military order. In the navy, the expression "marching order" still exists. That is, the construction of ships on the voyage.

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 the battalion and the regiment ...

At the end of the 17th century. on the basis of the written reports of the explorers, the Tobolsk serviceman S.U. Remezov, together with his three sons, compiled the "Drawing Book" - a grandiose geographical atlas covering the entire territory of the Muscovy. The Cossack lands adjacent to the North Caucasus are called ... "The Land of the Cossack Horde"! (As on many other old Russian maps.)

In a word, all meanings of the word "horde" revolve around the terms "army", "order", "law-making" (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 the Russians and Tatars (or just the armies of this state) fits into reality much more successfully than the Mongol nomads, who surprisingly inflamed with a passion for battering machines, the military fleet and campaigns for five or six thousand kilometers.

Quite simply, once Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and his son Alexander began a fierce struggle for domination 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 "foreign invasion".

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 familiar only with the name and does not suspect what is behind it.

In the XVII century. In the Polish army, there were cavalry units called "Cossack gonfalons" ("gonfalon" - a military unit). There were not a single real Cossacks there - in this case the name only meant that these regiments were armed according to the Cossack model.

During Crimean War the Turkish troops landed on the peninsula included a unit called the "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, you can remember the French Zouaves. These parts received the name from the Algerian Zuazu tribe. Gradually, not a single Algerian remained in them, only purebred French, but the name remained for subsequent times, until these units, a kind of special forces, ceased to exist.

This is where I stop. If interested, then read further here