The theme of the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the yoke has an extensive historiography. Many issues are debatable. But most of all, the focus is on the question of the influence of the Mongol-Tatar factor on the fate of Russia. It is recommended to familiarize yourself with the basic approaches.
You can start with N.M. Karamzin, who adhered to the theory of "small influence" ...
Karamzin recognized the destructive nature of the invasion, which had thrown back and slowed down Rus' in its development. He noted the resulting decline in morals, culture, the growth of despotism in power. But at the same time, he asserted: "... The Russians emerged from the yoke with a European rather than an Asian character." (Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: In 12 vols. T.V. M., 1993. P. 210). In other words, Karamzin denied any qualitative impact of the Tatar conquest on the development of Russian society (it remained European).
Karamzin's approach received its further approval and development in the works of major historians of the 19th - early 20th centuries: S.M. Solovieva, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov…
They assessed the influence of the conquerors on the internal life of Russian society as insignificant. From their point of view, the processes taking place in the second half of the 13th - 15th centuries either organically followed from the tendencies of the previous period, or arose independently of the Horde. The same S.F. Platonov considered the Mongol yoke nothing more than an accident in our history. He argued that we can consider the life of Russian society, "not paying attention to the fact of the Tatar yoke." (See: Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. M., 1993. P.138. (Part 1. Ch.4). http://www.patriotica.ru/history/index.html)
|
|
Soviet historians, on the contrary, regarded the influence of the conquerors as noticeable and, no doubt, negative. But this was linked not so much with the impact on the development processes of Russian society (there was a vision here that the Mongols "slowed down, but did not change" the course Russian history), how much with a slightly different moment. It is worth remembering that Soviet historical science considered the centralized state to be one of the leading values. AND Negative influence she saw the Mongol-Tatar factor primarily in preventing the unification of the Russian lands.
The apotheosis of a positive assessment of the influence of the Mongol-Tatars on the Russian lands was the point of view of such a historiosophical trend as "Eurasianism".
The Eurasianists emphasized the positive role of the eastern, Turanian element, the "legacy of Genghis Khan", in whose empire the Eurasian cultural world first appeared as a whole. So, P.N. Savitsky made a conclusion shocking to public opinion: “The happiness of Rus' is great, that at the moment when, due to internal decay, it had to fall, it went to the Tatars and no one else.” (Savitsky P.N. Steppe and settled way of life // Russia between Europe and Asia: Eurasian temptation. Anthology. M., 1993. P. 124). He argued that without the "Tatars" there would be no Russia. A N.S. Trubetskoy considered the Mongol to be the founders of Russian statehood.
The "Eurasian concept" is not a thing of the past. It is reflected in modern literature. Here you can find its modernized version, when the conquest and brutal ruin of Rus' by the Mongols is recognized. The establishment of the dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde is recognized (more precisely, even their inclusion in the Mongolian state). But at the same time, the idea is being held that if Rus' had not been conquered by the Mongols, then it would inevitably be conquered by the West. Inclusion in the Mongol state saved her from a much worse fate. They write that the Mongols, although they ravaged the Russian lands, also protected them (as their property) from the West. And thus they provided the possibility of preserving the identity of Rus', the possibility of forming the Russian State.
|
|
Based on the above remarks, consider in more detail the approaches found in the educational and research literature on the issue of the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the yoke.
In any case, those positions that we have touched upon, with all the variety of assessments, proceed from the recognition of the fact of the Tatar-Mongol invasion and the establishment of a system of dependence of Rus' on the Horde. But there is also a line that denies the aggressive invasion of the Mongols and the obedience to the Horde rulers imposed on Rus' by force of arms. It is logical to analyze this position on the example of the concept of L.N. Gumilyov…
Next page >>>
Lecture: V3: The establishment of the Horde yoke over the Russian lands.
I: ((176)); K=B
S: Political system Mongolian state before the invasion of Rus' can be described as ...
+: early feudal
I: ((177)); K=A
S: To the reasons for the defeat of the Russian princes from the Tatar-Mongolian troops it is forbidden carry...
+: military-technical lag
I: ((178)); K=C
S: Match dates and events:
L1: Capture of Kyiv by Batu 1240
L2: Battle on the river.
L4: Defeat of Ryazan by Mongol-Tatars 1237
I: ((179)); K=A
S: Commanded the Mongolian troops during the first campaign against Rus'...
I: ((180)); K=A
S: In the battle on the Kalka River, the Russian princes fought against the Mongol-Tatars together with ...
+: Cumans
I: ((181)); K=B
S: The Mongol invasion was largely avoided...
+: Novgorod land
I: ((182)); K=A
S: To the reasons for the defeat of Rus' in the fight against the Tatar-Mongols does not apply…
+: Polovtsian raids
I: ((183)); K=A
S: Choose the correct statement:
+: as a result Tatar-Mongol invasion Rus' fell into political and economic dependence on the Golden Horde
I: ((184)); K=A
S: To the consequences of the Tatar-Mongol invasion it is forbidden carry...
+: ending princely strife
I: ((185)); K=B
S: From paying tribute to the Mongol-Tatars was released ...
+: clergy
I: ((186)); K=B
S: The main reason for the uprisings in Russian cities in 1262
+: arbitrariness of the Horde tribute collectors
I: ((187)); K=A
S: Labels in the Golden Horde were called ...
+: certificates for the right to reign, issued to Russian princes
I: ((188)); K=B
S: In May 1238
Batu Khan ordered to wipe it off the face of the earth and called it an "evil city" ...
+: Kozelsk
I: ((189)); K=A
S: The Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russian lands began in…
I: ((190)); K=A
S: In the battle on the Kalka River, the Russian princes were opposed by...
+: Mongols
I: ((191)); K=A
S: The first to take the blow of the Mongol army in 1237 ...
+: Ryazan principality
I: ((192)); K=A
S: A small Chernihiv fortress put up a seven-week resistance to the troops of Batu Khan, for which it was called the “evil city” - ...
+: Kozelsk
I: ((193)); K=A
S: The invasion of Batu into Rus' and the establishment of the Horde dominion took place in ...
I: ((194)); K=A
S: The first battle of the Russian squads with the Mongol-Tatars took place on the river ...
I: ((195)); K=B
S: Determine the event that happened after all the others:
+: the capture of Kyiv by the Mongols
N. M. Karamzin in his History of the Russian State writes that “... if Russia were an autocratic state (from the limits of the Dnieper to Livonia, White Sea, Kama, Don, Sula), then it would not yield in power to any power of this time; would have escaped, as likely, from the yoke of the Tatars, and, being in close ties with Greece, borrowing her art, education, did not lag behind other European lands in civic education.
Chapter 2. From Kalka to Ugra.
The first battle with the Mongols in the Polovtsian steppe on the Kalka River took place on May 31, 1223. The troops of several Russian princes and Polovtsians were completely defeated. The battle of Kalka was lost not so much because of disagreements between the rival princes, but because of historical factors.
The army of the Mongols tactically and positionally completely surpassed the united regiments of the Russian princes, who had in their ranks, for the most part, princely squads. All this army did not have sufficient unity, was not trained in combat tactics, based more on the personal courage of each combatant.
However, in fairness, it must be said that at that time, not only in Rus', but also in Europe, there would not have been an army capable of competing with the formations of Genghis Khan. However, the defeat did not lead to unity in the face of the impending danger, but was perceived as a sad episode, an accidental raid by an unknown people who disappeared as quickly and unexpectedly as they appeared. The next meeting took place only in 1237. Meanwhile, Chisgis Khan died, the supreme power in the country weakened, and all the lands he conquered were divided among his grandchildren.
Batu was allocated lands north of Lake Balkhash and the Aral Sea from the Irtysh to Yaik (Urals). In December 1237, the rivers rose. On the Sura, a tributary of the Volga, on Voronezh, a tributary of the Don, Batu's troops appeared. Winter opened the way on the ice of the rivers to North-Eastern Rus'. Based on geographic and demographic considerations, it can be assumed that Batu brought 30-40 thousand horsemen to Rus'. Even such, at first glance, a small army, the Russian sovereign princes had nothing to oppose.
After a 6-day assault, Ryazan fell. The city was burned, and its inhabitants were exterminated. In front of Batu lay several roads into the depths of the Vladimir-Suzdal land. Since Batu's task was to conquer all of Rus' in one winter, he went to Vladimir along the Oka, through Moscow and Kolomna. The battle of the Vladimir-Suzdal army with the Mongol-Tatars took place near the city of Kolomna. “The Tatars surrounded them at Kolomna, and fought hard; there was a great battle." In this battle, the Vladimir army perished, predetermining the fate of North-Eastern Rus'.
In mid-January, Batu occupies Moscow, then, after a 5-day siege, Vladimir. After the capture of Vladimir, Batu divides his army into several parts. All the cities in the north, except for Torzhok, surrendered almost without a fight. Torzhok, standing in the way of Batu, held out for 2 weeks, courageously defending itself and hoping for help from the Novgorodians. “But in this unfortunate time, everyone thought only of himself. Horror, bewilderment reigned in Russia; the people, the boyars said that the fatherland was perishing, and did not use any general methods to save it ”(N.M. Karamzin).
Torzhok was taken only on March 23. From there, Batu moved further along the Seliger route, but before reaching Novgorod a hundred miles, he turned south and went to Kozelsk. The turn from Novgorod is usually explained by spring floods. But there are other explanations: firstly, the campaign did not fit into the deadlines, spring came, mudslides, the Mongols' cavalry could not move through the swampy wooded area; secondly, Batu was unable to defeat the combined forces of North-Eastern Rus' in one or two battles, using numerical and tactical superiority; there is also a version according to which the Novgorodians simply paid off.
Batu combs the entire territory of Rus', using the tactics of a hunting raid. On its way, it destroys everything, including villages, as the main productive force in Rus'. The city of Kozelsk was declared the collection point of the Khan's troops.
Kozelsk held out for 7 weeks and withstood the general assault. The city was taken by cunning. Smolensk bypassed. Batu did not reach Vologda, or Beloozero, or Veliky Ustyug, and behind him all Chud Zavolotskaya, Novgorod possessions, remained untouched.
Scientists about the mythical Tatar-Mongol yoke
The following year, 1239, the Tatar crowds again appeared in the northeast. The news of the new invasion caught up with such horror that the inhabitants of cities and villages fled without knowing where. But this time the Tatars moved to destroy the southern borders of Rus'. Invasion of South Rus' and Eastern Europe Batu began in the autumn of 1240. Having again gathered all the people devoted to themselves under their command, Batu's troops captured and burned Pereyaslavl, half of whose inhabitants were exterminated, and the other was taken prisoner; Chernigov was also taken and burned.
In November 1240, Batu approached Kyiv. “Batu came to Kyiv in a heavy force, the Tatar force surrounded the city, and nothing was heard from the creaking of carts, from the roar of camels, from the neighing of horses; the Russian land was filled with warriors. The entire population stood up to defend the city. With the help of powerful wall-beating guns, the very heavily fortified Kyiv was nevertheless taken and literally wiped off the face of the earth.
The once famous "capital of Russian cities" in the 14th-15th centuries. still represented ruins. After that, the path to all cities, to all the centers of Southern Rus' and Eastern Europe was opened. Now it's Europe's turn.
“The state of Russia was the most deplorable,” writes N.M. Karamzin .- It seemed that the fiery river rushed from its eastern limits to the western; that the plague, the earthquake, and all the horrors of nature together devastated them. The chroniclers add: “Batu, like a fierce beast, devoured entire regions, tormenting the remnants with his claws.
The living envied the peace of the dead." By the end of 1242, all the Tatar-Mongolian troops settled down for the winter in the Black Sea and Caspian steppes, where they set up their new capital - Saray. It was this territory that became the core of the future state, known to us under the name Golden Horde. Counting it down political history you can start from the very beginning of 1243, when the Ipatiev Chronicle reported that Batu "came back to eat from Ougor" (Hungary) and when Grand Duke Yaroslav was the first of the Russian rulers to arrive at the headquarters of the Mongol Khan for a label to reign.
In the history of Rus', an era has come, which Russian historians call the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Second half of the 13th century - undoubtedly, its most difficult period, when out of 74 cities that were attacked, 49 were destroyed, of which 14 did not revive, turned into villages 19.
According to historians, in the second half of the 13th century. Tatars invaded Russian borders 14 times. Cities suffered from the Mongol-Tatars to a greater extent, because. they took artisans away, causing the disappearance of entire trades such as jewelry and glass making. Trade relations with Europe have been disrupted, with the exception of Novgorod, as
there was simply nothing to trade, resulting in economic isolation. The Russian people who fell under the power of the conquerors had to learn to live in new conditions, under a new state system. It was announced that henceforth the head of the Mongol Empire was the supreme ruler of Rus'. The name “tsar” was assigned to the Horde Khan (earlier, the Russians only titled the Byzantine emperor in this way). Each principality was now considered primarily as a “royal ulus” (Khan’s possession), and only secondarily as a “princely homeland” (i.e.
hereditary possession of the prince). In accordance with the procedures adopted in the Mongol Empire, all the princes who survived during the invasion were obliged to come to Batu and receive from him a “label” - a letter of commendation confirming the authority to manage the principality.
The Grand Duke of Vladimir, in addition, had to go to bow to the imperial court in Karakorum. At the same time, along with and as a result of the campaign of Batu, the western neighbors of Rus' (Lithuania, the Crusaders) made several attempts to seize the Russian lands adjacent to their possessions. The Swedish ships of the Crusaders appeared on the Neva at the same time as Batu's forces were gathering near Kiev. At this time, from 1236 to 1240, Yaroslav's son Alexander continuously reigned in Novgorod, fulfilling the will of his father. Having learned about the invasion of the Swedes, he hastened to meet them on the Neva.
On July 15, in the Battle of the Neva, the crusaders suffered a crushing defeat. The victory brought Alexander Yaroslavich loud fame and the honorary nickname "Nevsky". As soon as the Swedes were beaten off, the knights of the Teutonic Order appeared, they defeated the Pskov regiments and approached Pskov, burned the suburbs and laid siege to the city. Alexander Pskov did not recapture, but cleared Koporye from the Germans.
In this situation, the question arose: how to fight on all sides. Analyzing the military-political situation of that time, Yaroslav had to choose the path of further development of Rus', which turned into a second-rate region of Eastern Europe, weakened, split into many small and politically weak principalities.
Possibly from final collapse and her death was saved only by the efforts of selfless, unusually gifted and perspicacious individuals.
"Black Years" - this is the exact name of the times of life and political activity Grand Duke Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Alexander Nevsky, his brothers and sons.
This time is very poorly reflected in historical sources. The news of foreigners is not numerous, only about 30 acts (i.e. individual documents) are known for the whole century, the chronicles are so laconic that the history of the whole region sometimes depends on the interpretation of a single chronicle line.
After the hurricane invasion of the hordes of Batu, when the Russian military force was crushed and dozens of cities were burned, a system of heavy dependence on the Horde conquerors began to take shape, based on fear of new invasions.
Novgorod and Pskov, fortunately, almost did not undergo a devastating defeat, but experienced a strong onslaught from the Germans, Swedes and Lithuanians. Rus''s foreign policy position was desperate. No less disasters and shame were brought by internal internecine strife, now and then reaching bloody clashes.
Having assessed the situation, Yaroslav, and then Alexander Nevsky, decided to secure, first of all, their eastern borders, going to bow to the Horde, in order to then turn their eyes against the crusaders and Lithuanian princes. This step did not reflect the mood of the people, whose patriotism has always been very strong, but brought to the Russian land, though not stability, but time for a respite.
The figure of Alexander Nevsky acquired a huge influence during this period. Batu, seeing the deterioration of the political situation on the western borders of the Novgorod and Pskov lands, again installed Alexander Yaroslavich in Novgorod, capable of stopping the movement of the crusaders.
It was very important for the Golden Horde to maintain its protectorate over Russia and not to share the tribute that the principalities regularly pay to the Mongols with the crusaders. Alexander Nevsky did not allow the Western feudal lords to settle on the territory of Rus', thereby earning the trust of the Horde Khan. After a trip to the Horde in 1242, Alexander gathered the Novgorod regiments, and calmly behind his rear moved to Pskov, expelled the crusaders from there and entered the Chudskaya Land, into the possession of the Order.
Victory on Lake Peipus very highly raised the authority of Alexander and at the same time strengthened the political influence of his father, Prince Yaroslav of Vladimir. The visit of the Mongols was to teach Alexander a lot and change his views in many ways. He became closely acquainted with the conquerors of Rus' and understood how it was possible to get along with them. Fierce to everything that resisted them, the Mongols demanded one thing - servile worship.
It was in their customs and concepts, as in general among the Asian peoples. Extreme cohesion of forces, unconditional obedience to elders, complete silence of an individual and extreme endurance - these are the qualities that contributed to the Mongols to make their conquests, qualities that are completely opposite to the properties of the Russians of that time, who, being ready to defend their freedom and die for it, were not yet able to rally for this protection.
In order to get along now with the invincible conquerors, it remained to assimilate their qualities ourselves. This was all the more convenient because the Mongols, demanding humility and tribute, considering themselves entitled to live at the expense of the vanquished, did not think of raping either their faith or their nationality. They absolutely did not force anyone to change their faith, and they fully recognized the Russian clergy as their civil rights. The Tatars were tolerant of Orthodox faith not because they made an exception for the Russians, but because this is how they treated the religions of all the peoples they conquered.
Complete tolerance was theirs general rule. There are several reasons for the complete loyalty of the Tatars to the church. The first reason is that the Tatars were pagans, and pagans do not perceive their faith as the only correct and true one and accept other faiths as true as well. The second reason was political motives. Temujin declared and recognized himself as a person who was destined by God to conquer the world in order to create one single state.
But there are many religions in the world, and to force people to change their faith would be to incite enmity and hatred against oneself. Temujin declares complete and perfect religious tolerance with patronage supreme power and fixes it in his famous jar.
Traditional: for Rus', the yoke was a great disaster. This concept originates from the ancient Russian chronicles (ʼʼThe Tale of Batu's Devastation of Ryazanʼʼ, Laurentian, Ipatiev, Tver Chronicles and others).
Supporters of another direction consider Batu’s invasion an ordinary invasion of nomads (that is, there was no enslavement, moreover, according to a mutually beneficial alliance, the Mongols even protected the Russian principalities and helped them in the fight against enemies).
They usually do not deny the severity of this dependence. Another thing is that the assessment of this, ultimately, is given positively.
L.N. Gumilyov:
ʼʼThe great western campaign of Batu would be more correctly called the great cavalry raid, and we have every reason to call the campaign against Rus' a raid.
There was no question of any Mongol conquest of Rus'. The Mongols did not leave the garrisons, they did not think of establishing their permanent power. With the end of the campaign, Batu went to the Volga, where he founded his headquarters - the city of Saraiʼʼ.
C5.Analysis of historical versions and estimates.
1. In historical science there are different assessments of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. What grades do you know? Which assessment do you think is more convincing?
Give facts that support your chosen point of view.
Was there a Mongol-Tatar yoke? (Version by A. Bushkov)
Some scholars believe that the Mongol-Tatar invasion had a deeply regressive effect on the economic and political development of Rus'. What other points of view on this problem do you know?
Which point of view do you find the most convincing? Argument your opinion.
Another judgment can be stated: the Mongol domination protected the Russian lands from expansion from Lithuania and Western European knights.
Arguments in support of the point of view stated in the task:
- the devastation of the Russian lands by the Mongol pogroms and the systematic robbery of the Russian people by the Horde tributes
- urban craft was undermined by the destruction of cities and the removal of artisans into captivity, the peasant economy was ruined by the Mongol ʼʼarmsʼʼ and heavy payments to the Horde
- the economic ties between the city and the countryside were disrupted, the conditions of foreign trade worsened
- the dominance of the Horde was a brake on the development of the productive forces of Rus', which were at a higher level of economic and cultural development
- the dominance of the Horde preserved and aggravated the fragmentation of the country
Arguments in support of a different point of view:
- many Mongols through mixed marriages became part of the Russian people
- Russian princes and boyars believed that it was more profitable to have a not very strong ally behind the wide steppes, which was the Golden Horde, than the Livonian Order and Poland on cutting edge aggressive chivalry at your side (L.N.
So, let's consider the first point of view, which reflects the significant and positive impact of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on Rus'. Let's start with the founder of this point of view N.M. Karamzin. According to his view of the above event, on the one hand, the “Tatar region”, which overthrew Rus' and fenced it off from Europe, caused Rus' to lag behind in the 14th-15th centuries. The invasion of the Mongol-Tatars simply threatened the existence of the state. However, if it were not for the invasion, which nevertheless forced the Russian princes to rally after a while, then Rus' would have died in civil strife. “It happened under the Mongols, easily and quietly, which neither Andrei Bogolyubsky nor Vsevolod III did, in Vladimir and everywhere except Novgorod and Pskov, the veche bell fell silent, ... autocracy was born,” writes N.M. Karamzin, strengthened Moscow was "owed its greatness to the khan." In particular, N. M. Karamzin emphasizes the development of trade during the period of the invasion, the expansion of ties with the Eastern states and the role of Rus' as an intermediary in international trade. Thus, according to N.M. Karamzin, the state received a powerful impetus for the evolutionary development of its statehood, and was also one of the reasons for the rise of the Moscow principality, which was the center of the unification (which was already mentioned above) of the Russian state. But you should also pay attention to the moment that N.M. Karamzin characterizes the invasions as a terrible disaster for the Russian people: “it humiliated humanity itself in our ancestors and left deep, indelible marks for several centuries, irrigated with the blood and tears of many generations.” The basis of the created N.M. Karamzin's teachings are various Russian chronicles, as well as Western European sources in the person of Plano Carpini, Rubruk, Marco Polo. A similar point of view was also held by N.I. Kostomarov, who in the article “The Beginning of Autocracy in ancient Rus'”, opposes S.M. Solovyov (his point of view will be discussed below), thus the point of view of N. I. Kostomarov partially coincides with the point of view of N. M. Karamzin. N. I. Kostomarov argues that “in North-Eastern Rus', no step was taken before the Tatars to destroy the specific veche system” and only in Tatar “slavery did Rus' find its unity, which it did not think of during the period of freedom.” In general, according to the author, the invasion and subsequent conquest was the impetus for the transfer of power into the hands of a single Moscow prince. Another historian who adhered to the first point of view was F.I. Leontovich. In his opinion, the Mongol-Tatars brought many different political and social innovations to Rus', such as localism, serfdom, etc. Thus, the historian concludes that " Cathedral Code 1649" resembles the "Great Yasa" of Genghis Khan. It is especially necessary to single out and pay attention to the views of the “Eurasians”. Here's to in general terms what they were reduced to: the conquest of the Mongol-Tatars was a historically necessary and progressive phenomenon; there was silence about the predatory nature of the invasion and their destruction inflicted on various aspects of the life of Rus'; exaggeration of the level of culture, statehood and military affairs of the Mongol-Tatar Khanate, their idealization took place; consideration of the history of the Russian people as one of the "Mongolian uluses" devoid of independent historical existence; the announcement of the Russians as a “Turanian people”, which was close to the Mongols and Turks, thus showing that the Russians were the opposite of the Western Europeans, and therefore it led to the “preaching of eternal conflict” between East and West; all the achievements of the Russian nation in the field of culture, statehood were associated directly with the Mongols, their beneficial influence. Thus, we can conclude that the opinion of the "Eurasians" about positive influence the Mongol-Tatars on the further development of Rus' was simply brought to the point of absurdity. They saw the advantages of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on all aspects of the life of the Russian people. Some ideas of the "Eurasians" were also reflected in the works of L.N. Gumilyov, based on them, we can conclude that the author believes that the Mongol-Tatar invasion marked the beginning of a new ethno- and cultural genesis “the clash of different fields of attitude always gives rise to a violent reaction - the death of excess passionaries, bearers of different traditions, the emergence of conflicts within ". It is worth paying attention to the fact that a number of historians hold a positive point of view regarding the Mongolian culture, since it contributed and made it possible to isolate the Russian, Orthodox culture from the Western one, which was close to the Russian people, but was changed, since it was based on Catholicism . This point of view, in particular, was held by the Slavophiles. The above opinions belonged to the point of view, which we conditionally designated as the first. Now consider the following view of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The point of view, designated as the second, whose supporters consider the influence of the Mongol-Tatars on Rus' to be insignificant. One of the most famous supporters of this point of view is the Russian historian S.M. Solovyov. It is characterized by an almost complete denial of the role of the Mongol-Tatars in the history of Rus'. In several of his works. He believes that one of the reasons for the lack of influence is that the Mongols were located, lived far from the Russian principalities. Their main concern was the collection of tribute, and the lack of interest in the relations that developed between the principalities and princes in particular. The underestimation of these events can also be seen in the fact that S.M. Solovyov devotes very little space to this event in his writings. K.D. Kavelin, in his review, objects to S. M. Solovyov, citing a number of reasons. One of the accents is made precisely on insufficient attention to this issue: “Citizen Solovyov speaks of tribal relations, then of state relations, which at first fought with them and, finally, they were replaced. But in what relation were they among themselves, where did they come from state relations in our everyday life, following the rank and file, he does not explain or explains too unsatisfactorily. But at the same time, it is worth noting that K.D. Kavelin largely adheres to the same point of view as S.M. Solovyov. K.D. Kavelin says that the Tatars did not make a special contribution to the development of the civilizational process of the Russian nation, and also did not damage it. However, K.D. Kavelin also expresses a point of view, which is more associated with the first, about the fact that the Tatar dominion “strengthened the power of the Grand Duke and thereby recreated the visible center political development Rus'". I.N. Boltin also makes a remark about the fact that the Mongol-Tatars did not influence the peoples they conquered, while contrasting them with the Romans. A similar point of view is shared by V.I. Kelsiev, who protests to the supporters of the first point of view, speaking about the exaggeration of the role of foreign, especially the Mongol-Tatar influence on Russia. Another supporter of the second point of view is V.O. Klyuchevsky, yes, he is also of the opinion that it was the Mongol-Tatars who influenced the formation of a centralized Russian state, which is an aspect of the first, but he tends to underestimate the Mongol-Tatar invasion. IN. Klyuchevsky does not pay attention to the fact that after the conquest the Russian principalities found themselves in new conditions of their existence. Thus, he emphasizes that the Horde khans do not impose their orders on Rus'. There are also scientists who express in their writings the idea of the superficiality of the Mongol-Tatar influence. The supporters of this view include N. Rozhkov, S.F. Platonov. We remain unlit by the third point of view, which refers to the negative impact of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on Rus' and its further history as a whole. Let us first turn to the point of view of A. Richter, which was based on the "History of the Russian State", but unlike its author, N.M. Karamzin, a supporter of the first point of view, A. Richter chooses the opposite to the author. Yes, he also believes that the impact was significant, but mostly negative. According to A. Richter, under the influence of the Mongol-Tatars, the Russians “got used to low cunning, to deceit, to greed”, the attitude towards the head of state, military tactics and weapons were adopted (let’s make an amendment to the fact that this is still a plus, since military affairs Mongols was one of their most strengths), influence on civil laws, as well as on literature (the appearance of a large number of words of Tatar origin in Russian). I would like to add that this phenomenon did not frighten the Slavophiles at all (see the first point of view), which, in our opinion, is somewhat contradictory. Opinion of M.S. Gasteva also refers to the third view of the Mongol-Tatar invasion and its further influence on Rus'. M.S. Gastev believes that the Mongol yoke is one of the reasons that influenced the further slowdown in Russia's development. He characterizes it as "a time of the greatest disorder, the greatest misfortune for our fatherland, one of those times that weigh on a person, suffocate him." It is also worth noting that M.S. Gastev does not believe that the rule of the Mongol-Tatars contributed to the eradication of civil strife, that the successes of the Russian people in agriculture were very small, and that constant raids simply changed and interfered with the usual and familiar way of life. Drawing a conclusion, M.S. Gastev says: “What benefit did the Tatars bring to us? It seems none. Autocracy itself, taken by many as the fruit of their dominion, is not the fruit of their dominion. Now I would like to draw attention to the view of A.N. Nasonov. Most researchers, on the issue we are considering, believe that his opinion belongs to the second point of view, but I would like to object and attribute it to the third. Since, according to his opinion, the Mongols tried in every possible way to prevent the formation of a single state in Rus', trying to increase its fragmentation. Thus, he vividly expresses his negativity in relation to what kind of influence the Mongol-Tatars had on Rus'. However, some of those who study this issue believe that A.N. Nasonov considers the influence insignificant, based on the foregoing, we express disagreement on this matter. Academician H. Fren believed that the Mongol-Tatar invasion was the gravest disaster for the Russian people. V.G. Belinsky called Tatar yoke"fettering beginning" of the Russian people, which delayed its development. N.G. Chernyshevsky expresses the opinion that this invasion played a negative role in the development of Rus', but the Russian people literally saved European civilization from destruction. A. I. Herzen adheres to a similar point of view, considering the Mongol-Tatars the main brake on the further development of Rus'. A.S. Pushkin spoke about this, also stating that this contributed to the slowdown in the development of Rus' compared to Western Europe: “Russia was assigned a high destiny, its boundless expanses absorbed the forces of the Mongols and stopped their invasion on the very edge of Europe ... The emerging enlightenment was saved torn and dying Russia". Opinion B.D. Grekova also tends to the third point of view. He points out that the policy of the Mongol khans not only did not contribute to the formation of a single centralized state, but more precisely, on the contrary, it happened against their will and contrary to expectations: “Tatar dominion had a negative and regressive character for the Russian people. It contributed to the growth of feudal oppression and delayed the economic and cultural development countries". K.V. is also inclined to a similar opinion. Bazelevich and V.N. Bochkarev. Their works also contain an assessment of the Mongol invasion as a terrible disaster that delayed the "economic and cultural development of the country."
List of used literature:
- Boltin, I.N., Notes on the History of Ancient and Present Russia in Leclerc, composed by Major General Ivan Boltin [Text] / I.N. Boltin. - [B. m.] : Typ. Gor. school.
- Gumilyov, L.N. , Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe / Gumilyov L.N. - M.: Thought., 1989. - 766 p.
- Karamzin, N.M., History of the Russian State / N.M. Karamzin. - M .: Alpha book. – 2009.
- Nasonov, A.N., Mongols and Rus' / A.N. Nasonov. - M.-L., 1970.
- Handbook on the history of the fatherland: for applicants to universities / [ed. collegium A. S. Orlov Shchetinov, Yu. A Polunov, A. Yu.]. - M. : Prostor, 1995.
- Solovyov, S.M., History of Russia / S.M. Solovyov. - M .: AST, - 2001.
The term "Tatar-Mongols" is not in the Russian chronicles, neither V.N. Tatishchev, nor N.M. Karamzin… The term “Tatar-Mongols” itself is neither a self-name nor an ethnonym for the peoples of Mongolia (Khalkha, Oirats). This is an artificial, office term, first introduced by P. Naumov in 1823...
“What dirty tricks such a beast admitted to them will do in Russian antiquities!” - M.V. Lomonosov on the dissertations of Miller, Schlozer and Bayer, according to which we are still taught in schools.
K. G. Skryabin, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “We did not find noticeable Tatar introductions in the Russian genome, which refutes the theory of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. There are no differences between the genomes of Russians and Ukrainians. Our differences with the Poles are scanty.”
Yu. D. Petukhov, historian, writer:“It should be noted right away that under the pseudo-ethnonym “Mongols” we should by no means understand the real Mongoloids who lived on the lands of present-day Mongolia. Self-name, the true ethnonym of the natives of present-day Mongolia is Khalkha. They never called themselves Mongols. And they never reached either the Caucasus, or the Northern Black Sea region, or Rus'. Khalhu - anthropological Mongoloids, the poorest nomadic "community", consisting of many disparate clans. Primitive shepherds, who are at an extremely low primitive communal level of development, under no circumstances could create even the simplest pre-state community, not to mention a kingdom, and even more so an empire... Amazons. Their consolidation and creation by them of even the most primitive military unit out of twenty or thirty warriors - sheer absurdity. The myth of the "Mongols in Rus'" is the most grandiose and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia! Anthropological studies of burial grounds of the 13th-15th centuries show the absolute absence of the Mongoloid element in Rus'. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. There was no Mongoloid invasion of Rus'. It just wasn't. Neither in the Kyiv lands, nor in the Vladimir-Suzdal, nor in the Ryazan lands of that era were Mongoloid skulls found. There were no signs of Mongoloidity among the local population either. All serious archaeologists dealing with this problem know about it. If there were those innumerable "tumens" that stories tell us about and which are shown in films, then "anthropological Mongoloid material" in Russian land would certainly remain. And Mongoloid signs in the local population would also remain, because Mongoloidism is dominant, overwhelming: it would be enough for hundreds of Mongols to rape hundreds (not even thousands) of women so that Russian burial grounds would be filled with Mongoloids for tens of generations. But in the Russian burial grounds of the times of the "horde" there are Caucasoids...
“No Mongols could ever overcome the distance that separates Mongolia from Ryazan. Never! Neither replaceable hardy horses, nor provided food along the way would have helped them. Even if these Mongols were carried on carts, they would not be able to get to Rus'. And therefore, all the countless novels about campaigns "to the last sea" along with films about narrow-eyed riders burning Orthodox churches, there are just utter and stupid tales. Let's ask ourselves a simple question: how many Mongols were there in Mongolia in the 13th century? Could the lifeless steppe suddenly give rise to tens of millions of warriors who captured half the world - China, Central Asia, Caucasus, Rus' ... With all due respect to the current Mongols, I must say that this is an absolute nonsense. Where in the steppe can one get swords, knives, shields, spears, helmets, chain mail for hundreds of thousands of armed warriors? How can a savage steppe dweller living on seven winds become a metallurgist, a blacksmith, a soldier within one generation? This is just nonsense! We are assured that there was iron discipline in the Mongol army. Collect a thousand Kalmyk hordes or gypsy camps and try to make warriors with iron discipline out of them. It’s easier to make a nuclear submarine out of a school of herring going for spawning…”.
L. N. Gumilyov, historian:
“Earlier in Rus', 2 people were responsible for governing the state: the Prince and the Khan. The prince was responsible for governing the state in peacetime. Khan or "war prince" took over the reins of government during the war, in peacetime he was responsible for the formation of the horde (army) and maintaining it in combat readiness. Genghis Khan is not a name, but the title of "war prince", which, in modern world, close to the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And there were several people who bore such a title. The most prominent of them was Timur, it is about him that they usually talk about when they talk about Genghis Khan. In the surviving historical documents, this man is described as a tall warrior with blue eyes, very white skin, powerful reddish hair and a thick beard. Which clearly does not correspond to the signs of a representative of the Mongoloid race, but fully fits the description of the Slavic appearance.
A. D. Prozorov, historian, writer: “In the 8th century, one of the Russian princes nailed a shield to the gates of Constantinople, and it turns out to be difficult to argue that Russia did not exist even then. Therefore, in the coming centuries, corrupt historians planned long-term slavery for Rus', an invasion of the so-called. "Mongol-Tatars" and 3 centuries of humility and humility. What marked this era in reality? We will not deny the Mongol yoke due to our laziness, but ... As soon as Rus' became aware of the existence of the Golden Horde, young guys immediately went there to ... rob the "Tatar-Mongols who came to Rus'." The Russian raids of the 14th century are best described (if anyone has forgotten, the period from the 14th to the 15th century is considered the yoke). In 1360, the Novgorod lads fought along the Volga to the Kama mouth, and then stormed the large Tatar city of Zhukotin. Having seized untold riches, the ushkuyniki returned back and began to “drink zipuns on drink” in the city of Kostroma. From 1360 to 1375, the Russians made eight large campaigns on the middle Volga, not counting small raids. In 1374, the Novgorodians took the city of Bolgar (not far from Kazan) for the third time, then went down and took Saray itself, the capital of the Great Khan. In 1375, the Smolensk guys in seventy boats under the command of the governor Prokop and Smolyanin moved down the Volga. Already by tradition, they paid a "visit" to the cities of Bolgar and Sarai. Moreover, the rulers of Bolgar, taught by bitter experience, paid off with a large tribute, but the Khan's capital Saray was taken by storm and plundered. In 1392, the Ushkuiniki again took Zhukotin and Kazan. In 1409, the governor Anfal led 250 ears to the Volga and Kama. And in general, to beat the Tatars in Rus' was considered not a feat, but a trade. During the Tatar “yoke”, the Russians went to the Tatars every 2-3 years, Saray was fired dozens of times, Tatars were sold to Europe by the hundreds. What did the Tatars do in response? Wrote complaints! To Moscow, to Novgorod. The complaints persisted. There was nothing more the “enslavers” could do.”
G. V. Nosovsky, A. T. Fomenko, authors of the New Chronology":" The very name "Mongolia" (or Mogolia, as Karamzin and many other authors write, for example) comes from the Greek word "Megalion", i.e. "Great". In Russian historical sources, the word "Mongolia" ("Mogolia "") is not found. But it is found " Great Rus'". It is known that foreigners called Rus' Mongolia. In our opinion, this name is simply a translation of the Russian word "Great". Notes of the Hungarian king and a letter to the pope were left about the composition of the troops of Batu (or Bati, in Russian). “When,” the king wrote, “the state of Hungary from the invasion of the Mongols, as from a plague, was for the most part turned into a desert, and like a sheepfold was surrounded by various tribes of infidels, namely, Russians, wanderers from the east, Bulgarians and other heretics.” Let's ask a simple question: where are the Mongols here? Russians, wanderers, Bulgarians are mentioned, i.e. - Slavic tribes. Translating the word “Mongol” from the king’s letter, we get simply that “great (megalion) peoples invaded,” namely: Russians, wanderers from the east, Bulgarians, etc. Therefore, our recommendation: it is useful to replace every time Greek word"Mongol-megalion" by its translation - "great". The result will be a completely meaningful text, for the understanding of which one does not need to involve some distant people from the borders of China.
“The very description of the Mongol-Tatar conquest of Rus' in Russian chronicles suggests that the “Tatars” are Russian troops led by Russian princes. Let's open the Laurentian Chronicle. It is the main Russian source about the time of the Tatar-Mongol conquest of Genghis Khan and Batu. Let's go through this chronicle, freeing it from obvious literary embellishments. Let's see what's left after that. It turns out that the Laurentian Chronicle from 1223 to 1238 describes the process of unification of Rus' around Rostov under the Grand Duke of Rostov Georgy Vsevolodovich. At the same time, Russian events are described, with the participation of Russian princes, Russian troops, etc. "Tatars" are often mentioned, but not a single Tatar leader is mentioned. And in a strange way, the fruits of these "Tatar victories" are enjoyed by the Russian princes of Rostov: Georgy Vsevolodovich, and after his death - his brother Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. If we replace the word “Tatar” with “Rostov” in this text, then we get a completely natural text describing the unification of Rus', carried out by the Russian people. Indeed. Here is the first victory of the "Tatars" over the Russian princes in the Kyiv region. Immediately after that, when “they were crying and grieving in Rus' all over the earth”, the Russian prince Vasilko, sent there by Georgy Vsevolodovich (as historians believe “to help the Russians”) turned back from Chernigov and “returned to the city of Rostov, glorifying God and the Holy Mother of God ". Why was the Russian prince so delighted with the victory of the Tatars? It is quite clear why Prince Vasilko praised God. Praise God for victory. And, of course, not for someone else! Prince Vasilko was delighted with his victory and returned to Rostov.
After briefly talking more about the Rostov events, the chronicle again turns to a description of the wars with the Tatars, rich in literary embellishments. Tatars take Kolomna, Moscow, besiege Vladimir and take Suzdal. Then Vladimir is taken. After that, the Tatars go to the river Sit. There is a battle, the Tatars are victorious. Grand Duke George dies in the battle. Having reported on the death of George, the chronicler completely forgets about the "evil Tatars" and tells in detail, on several pages, how the body of Prince George was taken with honors to Rostov. Having described in detail the magnificent burial of Grand Duke George, and praising Prince Vasilko, the chronicler writes at the end: “Yaroslav, the son of the great Vsevolod, took the table in Vladimir, and there was great joy among the Christians, whom God delivered with his strong hand from the godless Tatars.” So, we see the result of the Tatar victories. The Tatars defeated the Russians in a series of battles and captured several of the main Russian cities. Then the Russian troops are defeated in the decisive battle on the City. From that moment on, the Russian forces in "Vladimir-Suzdal Rus" were completely broken. As we are led to believe, this is the beginning of a terrible yoke. The devastated country has been turned into a smoking conflagration, flooded with blood, and so on. In power - cruel newcomers foreigners - Tatars. Independent Rus' ended its existence. The reader is apparently waiting for a description of how the surviving Russian princes, no longer capable of any military resistance, are forced to bow to the khan. Where, by the way, is his bet? Since the Russian troops of George are defeated, it is to be expected that a Tatar conqueror khan will reign in his capital, who will take control of the country. And what does the chronicle tell us? She immediately forgets about the Tatars. Tells about the affairs of the Russian court. About the magnificent burial of the Grand Duke who died in the City: his body is being taken to the capital, but it turns out that it is not the Tatar Khan (who has just conquered the country!), but his Russian brother and heir, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who is sitting in it. And where is the Tatar Khan ?! And where does the strange (and even absurd) “great joy among Christians” come from in Rostov? There is no Tatar Khan, but there is the Grand Duke Yaroslav. He takes power into his own hands. Tatars disappeared without a trace! Plano Carpini, passing through Kyiv, allegedly just conquered by the Mongols, for some reason does not mention a single Mongol chief. Desyatsky in Kyiv calmly remained, as before Batu, Vladimir Yeikovich. Thus, it turns out that many important command and administrative posts were also occupied by Russians. The Mongol conquerors turn into some kind of invisible people, who for some reason "no one sees."
K. A. Penzev, writer:“Historians say that, unlike the previous ones, Batu's invasion was especially brutal. Rus' was all deserted, and the intimidated Russians were forced to pay tithes and replenish Batu's army. Following this logic, Hitler, as an even more cruel conqueror, had to recruit a multimillion-strong Russian army and conquer the whole world. However, Hitler had to shoot himself in his bunker ... "
So, let's consider the first point of view, which reflects the significant and positive impact of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on Rus'.
Let's start with the founder of this point of view N.M. Karamzin. According to his view of the above event, on the one hand, the “Tatar region”, which overthrew Rus' and fenced it off from Europe, caused Rus' to lag behind in the 14th-15th centuries. The invasion of the Mongol-Tatars simply threatened the existence of the state. However, if it were not for the invasion, which nevertheless forced the Russian princes to rally after a while, then Rus' would have died in civil strife. “It happened under the Mongols, easily and quietly, which neither Andrei Bogolyubsky nor Vsevolod III did, in Vladimir and everywhere except Novgorod and Pskov, the veche bell fell silent, ... autocracy was born,” writes N.M. Karamzin, strengthened Moscow was "owed its greatness to the khan." In particular, N. M. Karamzin emphasizes the development of trade during the period of the invasion, the expansion of ties with the Eastern states and the role of Rus' as an intermediary in international trade. Thus, according to N.M. Karamzin, the state received a powerful impetus for the evolutionary development of its statehood, and was also one of the reasons for the rise of the Moscow principality, which was the center of the unification (which was already mentioned above) of the Russian state. But you should also pay attention to the moment that N.M. Karamzin characterizes the invasions as a terrible disaster for the Russian people "humiliated humanity itself in our ancestors and left deep, indelible marks for several centuries, irrigated with the blood and tears of many generations." The basis of the created N.M. Karamzin's teachings are various Russian chronicles, as well as Western European sources in the person of Plano Carpini, Rubruk, Marco Polo.
A similar point of view was also held by N.I. Kostomarov, who in the article “The Beginning of Autocracy in Ancient Rus'”, opposes S.M. Solovyov (his point of view will be discussed below), thus the point of view of N. I. Kostomarov partially coincides with the point of view of N. M. Karamzin. N. I. Kostomarov argues that “in North-Eastern Rus', no step was taken before the Tatars to destroy the specific veche system” and only in Tatar “slavery did Rus' find its unity, which it did not think of during the period of freedom.” In general, according to the author, the invasion and subsequent conquest was the impetus for the transfer of power into the hands of a single Moscow prince.
Another historian who adhered to the first point of view was F.I. Leontovich. In his opinion, the Mongol-Tatars brought many different political and social innovations to Rus', such as localism, serfdom, etc. Thus, the historian concludes that the "Council Code of 1649" resembles the "Great Yasa" of Genghis Khan.
It is especially necessary to single out and pay attention to the views of the “Eurasians”. Here's what they've been reduced to in a nutshell:
- · the conquest of the Mongol-Tatars was a historically necessary and progressive phenomenon;
- · there was a silence about the predatory nature of the invasion and their destruction inflicted on various aspects of the life of Rus';
- Exaggeration of the level of culture, statehood and military affairs of the Mongol-Tatar Khanate, their idealization took place;
- · consideration of the history of the Russian people as one of the "Mongolian uluses" deprived of independent historical existence;
- · the announcement of the Russians as a “Turanian people”, which was close to the Mongols and Turks, thereby showing that the Russians were the opposite of the Western Europeans, and therefore it led to the “preaching of the eternal conflict” between East and West;
- · all the achievements of the Russian nation in the field of culture, statehood were associated directly with the Mongols, their beneficial influence.
Thus, we can conclude that the opinion of the "Eurasians" about the positive influence of the Mongol-Tatars on the further development of Rus' was simply brought to the point of absurdity. They saw the advantages of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on all aspects of the life of the Russian people.
Some ideas of the "Eurasians" were also reflected in the works of L.N. Gumilyov, based on them, we can conclude that the author believes that the Mongol-Tatar invasion marked the beginning of a new ethno- and cultural genesis “the clash of different fields of attitude always gives rise to a violent reaction - the death of excess passionaries, bearers of different traditions, the emergence of conflicts within ".
It is worth paying attention to the fact that a number of historians hold a positive point of view regarding the Mongolian culture, since it contributed and made it possible to isolate the Russian, Orthodox culture from the Western one, which was close to the Russian people, but was changed, since it was based on Catholicism . This point of view, in particular, was held by the Slavophiles.
The above opinions belonged to the point of view, which we conditionally designated as the first. Now consider the following view of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The point of view, designated as the second, whose supporters consider the influence of the Mongol-Tatars on Rus' to be insignificant.
One of the most famous supporters of this point of view is the Russian historian S.M. Solovyov. It is characterized by an almost complete denial of the role of the Mongol-Tatars in the history of Rus'. In several of his works. He believes that one of the reasons for the lack of influence is that the Mongols were located, lived far from the Russian principalities. Their main concern was the collection of tribute, and the lack of interest in the relations that developed between the principalities and princes in particular. The underestimation of these events can also be seen in the fact that S.M. Solovyov devotes very little space to this event in his writings.
K.D. Kavelin, in his review, objects to S. M. Solovyov, citing a number of reasons. One of the accents is made precisely on insufficient attention to this issue: “Citizen Solovyov speaks of tribal relations, then of state relations, which at first fought with them and, finally, they were replaced. But in what relation they were with each other, where did state relations come from in our life, following the rank and file, does not explain or explains too unsatisfactorily. But at the same time, it is worth noting that K.D. Kavelin largely adheres to the same point of view as S.M. Solovyov. K.D. Kavelin says that the Tatars did not make a special contribution to the development of the civilizational process of the Russian nation, and also did not damage it. However, K.D. Kavelin also expresses a point of view, which is more associated with the first, about the fact that the Tatar dominion "strengthened the power of the Grand Duke and thus recreated the visible center of the political development of Rus'."
I.N. Boltin also makes a remark about the fact that the Mongol-Tatars did not influence the peoples they conquered, while contrasting them with the Romans. A similar point of view is shared by V.I. Kelsiev, who protests to the supporters of the first point of view, speaking about the exaggeration of the role of foreign, especially the Mongol-Tatar influence on Russia.
Another supporter of the second point of view is V.O. Klyuchevsky, yes, he is also of the opinion that it was the Mongol-Tatars who influenced the formation of a centralized Russian state, which is an aspect of the first, but he tends to underestimate the Mongol-Tatar invasion. IN. Klyuchevsky does not pay attention to the fact that after the conquest the Russian principalities found themselves in new conditions of their existence. Thus, he emphasizes that the Horde khans do not impose their orders on Rus'.
There are also scientists who express in their writings the idea of the superficiality of the Mongol-Tatar influence. The supporters of this view include N. Rozhkov, S.F. Platonov.
We remain unlit by the third point of view, which refers to the negative impact of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on Rus' and its further history as a whole.
Let us first turn to the point of view of A. Richter, which was based on the "History of the Russian State", but unlike its author, N.M. Karamzin, a supporter of the first point of view, A. Richter chooses the opposite to the author. Yes, he also believes that the impact was significant, but mostly negative. According to A. Richter, under the influence of the Mongol-Tatars, the Russians “got used to low cunning, to deceit, to greed”, the attitude towards the head of state, military tactics and weapons were adopted (let’s make an amendment to the fact that this is still a plus, since military affairs Mongols was one of their greatest strengths), influence on civil laws, as well as on literature (the appearance of a large number of words of Tatar origin in Russian). I would like to add that this phenomenon did not frighten the Slavophiles at all (see the first point of view), which, in our opinion, is somewhat contradictory.
Opinion of M.S. Gasteva also refers to the third view of the Mongol-Tatar invasion and its further influence on Rus'. M.S. Gastev believes that the Mongol yoke is one of the reasons that influenced the further slowdown in Russia's development. He characterizes it as "a time of the greatest disorder, the greatest misfortune for our fatherland, one of those times that weigh on a person, suffocate him." It is also worth noting that M.S. Gastev does not believe that the rule of the Mongol-Tatars contributed to the eradication of civil strife, that the successes of the Russian people in agriculture were very small, and that constant raids simply changed and interfered with the usual and familiar way of life. Drawing a conclusion, M.S. Gastev says: “What benefit did the Tatars bring to us? It seems none. Autocracy itself, taken by many as the fruit of their dominion, is not the fruit of their dominion.
Now I would like to draw attention to the view of A.N. Nasonov. Most researchers, on the issue we are considering, believe that his opinion belongs to the second point of view, but I would like to object and attribute it to the third. Since, according to his opinion, the Mongols tried in every possible way to prevent the formation of a single state in Rus', trying to increase its fragmentation. Thus, he vividly expresses his negativity in relation to what kind of influence the Mongol-Tatars had on Rus'. However, some of those who study this issue believe that A.N. Nasonov considers the influence insignificant, based on the foregoing, we express disagreement on this matter.
Academician H. Fren believed that the Mongol-Tatar invasion was the gravest disaster for the Russian people. V.G. Belinsky called the Tatar yoke the "fettering beginning" of the Russian people, which delayed its development. N.G. Chernyshevsky expresses the opinion that this invasion played a negative role in the development of Rus', but the Russian people literally saved European civilization from destruction. A. I. Herzen adheres to a similar point of view, considering the Mongol-Tatars the main brake on the further development of Rus'. A.S. Pushkin spoke about this, also stating that this contributed to the slowdown in the development of Rus' compared to Western Europe: “Russia was assigned a high destiny, its boundless expanses absorbed the forces of the Mongols and stopped their invasion on the very edge of Europe ... The emerging enlightenment was saved torn and dying Russia"
Opinion B.D. Grekova also tends to the third point of view. He points out that the policy of the Mongol khans not only did not contribute to the formation of a single centralized state, but rather, on the contrary, it happened against their will and contrary to expectations: “Tatar rule had a negative and regressive character for the Russian people. It contributed to the growth of feudal oppression and delayed the economic and cultural development of the country.
K.V. is also inclined to a similar opinion. Bazelevich and V.N. Bochkarev. Their works also contain an assessment of the Mongol invasion as a terrible disaster that delayed the "economic and cultural development of the country."
The Mongol-Tatar invasion and the yoke of the Golden Horde that followed it played a huge role in the further history of our country. The rule of the nomads lasted two and a half centuries and, of course, it could not pass without a trace. In addition to the deaths of a large number of people, the devastation of lands, this tragedy affected many aspects of society.
The significance of the Mongol-Tatar yoke is well reflected in the various points of view of scientists, writers, historians, and critics. They view it with different sides presenting various arguments in their favour. It is worth noting that each thesis has two opposing points of view. What are the main theses and views on them can be identified?
The Mongol-Tatar invasion contributed to the eradication of feudal fragmentation and the unification of the Russian principalities around one center, but this is one view. There are supporters of the opposite opinion, who believe that the Mongol-Tatar yoke, on the contrary, interrupted the desire of pre-Mongolian Rus' to eliminate feudal fragmentation and unify the country, intensifying princely civil strife, thereby slowing down the process of unification.
The Mongol-Tatar conquest retarded economic development, and also caused irreparable damage to the cultural and historical monuments of the country.
It is initially wrong to talk about the insignificance of the invasion of the eastern nomads, because the yoke, which lasted 250 years, could not go unnoticed and pass absolutely without a trace for the history of the state.
Directly three points of view, into which it is conventionally customary to divide researchers on this issue, intersect with each other. Each point of view is closely intertwined with the other, there is no such view and a scientist whose opinion would be clear and not ambiguous. The fact that they are divided into three directions simply shows a greater commitment to a particular point of view.
One could now make several assumptions about what and how it would have been if Rus' had not suffered this terrible misfortune. It can be assumed that the current backwardness, in comparison with European countries, has its own response from that ancient past, but history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. The main thing is that Rus' emerged from under the yoke of the Mongol-Tatar yoke as a single state, which, thanks to him, our country united around the center, which is still such.
- 69.97 KbBoth sides suffered huge losses, which are estimated at two hundred thousand people. Russian army left on the Kulikovo field up to half of its composition. The Russian Orthodox Church has legalized these days the custom of commemorating the dead, the so-called "Dmitriev's Parental Saturday" 4 .
The battle on the Kulikovo field was not just a military success: it instilled in the Russians the confidence that they could overthrow the power of the Horde, and liberation from it became a matter of time. The Golden Horde was never able to recover from the blow, its collapse became irreversible. Even despite the fact that in the summer of 1382 Moscow was taken and burned by Khan Tokhtamysh, the former system of domination over Russia, which existed in the XIII-XIV centuries, was never restored.
In the Battle of Kulikovo, the Grand Duke proved himself not only as a great commander, but simply as a brave warrior, ready to lead the regiments by his own example. The nickname "Don" marked the recognition of his merits by his contemporaries.
- Liberation from the yoke of the Golden Horde
The Russian principalities did not directly become part of the Mongol feudal empire and retained the local princely administration, whose activities were controlled by the Baskaks. Russian princes received labels for the possession of their principalities. Power was supported by punitive campaigns and repressions against some princes. Until the beginning of the 60s of the XIII century, Rus' was under the rule of the great khans, and then the khans - the Golden Horde.
The Golden Horde was a state artificially formed by seizing foreign lands and forcibly uniting different peoples into one whole. The wealth of the Golden Horde was based on tribute, as well as on huge taxes and duties from the nomadic and agricultural population. Batu founded Sarai-Batu, the capital of the Horde, at the mouth of the Volga. At the head was a khan with unlimited power. The Tatar-Mongol yoke was formally established in 1243. Russian princes with their troops were to serve the Golden Horde Khan. Only the clergy were exempt from tribute, which the conquerors tried to use to strengthen their power.
Since 1245, the Galicia-Volyn land was in vassal dependence on the Tatars, but in fact continued to pursue an independent policy. In 1262, uprisings rose up against the Baskaks in Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir, Yaroslavl. The most powerful princes sought to receive the grand prince's table. During this period, Moscow, Rostov, Tver, Kostroma principalities stand out, the rulers of which were at enmity with each other. Under these conditions, it was very difficult for the Russian people to fight for unification and liberation from the Tatars. And yet the struggle against the Tatars goes on (1289,1315,1316,1320), this forced the Golden Horde khans to transfer the collection of tribute into the hands of the Russian princes and abandon the Basques.
Temnik Mamai represented a real danger to Moscow. In 1373, the Tatars marched on the Ryazan land, in the reflection of which the Moscow troops participated. From this moment begins the "peace" of Moscow with the Tatars. By this time, most of the principalities had already fully recognized the primacy of Moscow, and therefore real opportunity form an all-Russian coalition against the Tatars. In the winter of 1374, a princely congress was held in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, at which the issue of further struggle against the Horde was decided. It was the peak of all-Russian unity. The prince of Tver from the Horde was sent a label on Vladimir. There was a threat of a new internecine war. But this attempt by Mamai failed. The agreement with Tver, concluded after the campaign of the combined forces in 1375, contained a special clause on the fight against the Tatars: “And the Tatars will go against us or against you, we and you will fight against them at the same time. Ali will go to them, and you and us will go to them at the same time.
Thus, the foundations of all-Russian military-political unity were laid.
The prince of Tver, who had completely lost the fight against Moscow, was sent a label to Vladimir from the Horde. There was a threat of a new internecine war. And this attempt by Mamai failed. The agreement with Tver, concluded after the campaign of the combined forces in 1375, contained a special clause on the fight against the Tatars: “And the Tatars will go against us or against you, fight us and you at the same time against them. Ali let's go to them and you and us at the same time go to them. Thus, the foundations of all-Russian military-political unity were laid. In 1377, Arabshah from the Horde, which competed with Mamai, approached the Russian borders. Dmitry Ivanovich himself, along with the Nizhny Novgorod princes, came out to meet the Tatars. Near the Pyana River in the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Principality, it became known that the Tatars lingered at the "Wolf Waters". By that time, the Grand Duke had already returned to Moscow with the main forces. But the Tatars came from the other side. The detachment sent by Mamai attacked the Russians, taken by surprise. Boyars and warriors fled, many of them drowned in the river or were killed. As a result, the Nizhny Novgorod land was devastated by two waves of invasion.
The final defeat of the Golden Horde occurred after the clash of Moscow and Mongol-Tatar troops on the Ugra River. At the head of the Horde troops was Ahmed Khan, who made an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV. Ivan III managed to attract the Crimean Khan Mengli - Giray to his side. After standing on the Ugra for several weeks, Ahmed Khan realized that it was hopeless to enter the battle; having learned that his capital Sarai was attacked by the Siberian Khanate, he led his troops back. "Standing on the Ugra" ended with the liberation of the Russian land from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. It was prepared by the whole course of history, the heroic struggle against the conquerors and the success of the unification process. More than two centuries of the hated Tatar-Mongolian yoke was forever overthrown.
Socio-economic development in the XIV century.
In the socio-economic field, the 14th century was characterized by serious changes. The principle of inheritance has changed, the transfer of princely power and possessions from the father to the eldest son, and not to the younger brother, has become normative. The same thing happened among the boyars. By the end of the XIV century, the supreme power passed into the hands of the Moscow princes. At the same time, there was a process of limiting the "freedoms" of the boyars to move. In the treaties of various principalities, the refusal to accept boyars and their service people from other principalities was especially emphasized, and if this did happen, then the boyars were deprived of the right to the land on which they fed. This position was most beneficial to strong principalities. In the XIV century, a gradual, albeit slow, strengthening of the nobility began to occur simultaneously with a change in its social status. The landlords stopped settling directly with the princes and began to receive small allotments on the terms of military service. The landowners were initially deprived of boyar freedoms, primarily freedom of movement. The situation of the peasants has hardly changed. They had practically the same liberties and rights as in the previous century. The main aspects of their life were still regulated by the community, although it was already weakening and losing its solidity. In this regard, the princes tried to interfere in the activities of the community. This was expressed primarily in attempts to limit the free movement of peasants. In a number of spiritual letters, usually concluded after military conflicts, wording appeared on mutual restrictions on the transfer of peasants from one inheritance to another and the transfer of draft (arable) peasants to household servants.
The XIV century was marked by the rapid development of crafts and agriculture in North-Eastern Rus'. Everywhere there was not only a differentiation of existing technologies, but also the emergence of new ones. In ore production, for example, there is a separation of ore mining and smelting from subsequent processing. In the leather industry, in addition to shoemakers, such professions as belt makers, bagmakers, chebotari, bridle makers, etc., appeared. In the 14th century, water wheels and water mills became widespread in Rus', the size of the iron working parts of the plow increased, parchment began to be actively replaced by paper. Agriculture developed somewhat more slowly than handicrafts. However, undercutting was still replaced by field arable land, three-field land spread everywhere, virgin lands were actively developed and new villages were built. The number of domestic animals has also increased, and hence the application of organic fertilizers to the fields.
- Opinions of historians on the influence of the Mon golo-Tatar invasion on Rus'.
Among historians studying the Mongol-Tatar invasion, there is no consensus on two main problems:
1) whether there was a Mongol-Tatar yoke;
2) what impact it had on the Russian lands.
In general, there are opposing points of view on these issues:
The assessment of the Mongol-Tatar conquest by N. M. Karamzin, who devoted an entire section to the invasion of Batu in the third volume of the History of the Russian State, was contradictory. On the one hand, he correctly described Batu’s invasion as a terrible disaster for the Russian people, which, “having swallowed up civil well-being, humiliated humanity itself in our ancestors and left deep, indelible marks for several centuries, irrigated with the blood and tears of many generations.” It is the Tatar yoke that N.M. Karamzin considers the reason for Russia's lagging behind the "European states". However, on the other hand, he admits that the Tatars brought "good" to Rus': thanks to them, fragmentation was eliminated and "autocracy was restored." “It happened under the Mongols, easily and quietly, which neither Andrei Bogolyubsky nor Vsevolod III did,” writes N. M. Karamzin, “in Vladimir and everywhere except Novgorod and Pskov, the veche bell fell silent ... autocracy was born”; strengthened Moscow was "owed its greatness to the khan."
A lively, figurative narrative about the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus', created by N. M. Karamzin on the basis of Russian chronicles and some Western European sources (Plano Carpini, Rubruk, Marco Polo), became widely known and formed the basis of a number of articles devoted to the invasion of Batu.
L.N. Gumilyov believed that there was no Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus'. Batu's invasions were only a military raid, and subsequent events are not directly related to him. He argued that the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, represented by Alexander Nevsky, had achieved a profitable alliance with the Golden Horde. As long as strong Byzantium existed, neither the Catholic nor the Muslim world were afraid of the Russian lands. But in 1204 Byzantium was destroyed by the crusaders. The same fate awaited Rus'.
The peculiarity of Russian-Horde relations can only be understood in line with that historical time, when specific Rus' was subjected to double aggression - from the East and from the West. At the same time, Western expansion had more serious consequences for Rus': the goal of the crusaders was territorial seizures and the destruction of Orthodoxy, while the Horde, after the initial blow, retreated back to the steppe, and with regard to Orthodoxy, they showed not only tolerance, but even guaranteed the inviolability of the Orthodox faith, churches and church property. The choice of the foreign policy strategy implemented by A. Nevsky was connected with the defense of the "historical meaning of the originality of Russian culture - Orthodoxy." "The alliance with the Horde - not the yoke of the Horde, but a military alliance with it - predetermined the special path of Rus'," says historian L. I. Gumilyov. The Union helped preserve the "golden belt" of the ancient cities around Moscow and the foundations of Russian culture. And in the southern Russian lands, which became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not even traces of Russian culture remained. Those Russian lands where they abandoned the alliance with the Mongol-Tatars and chose the Catholic West as allies lost everything.
Most Russians, both pre-revolutionary (S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky, and modern historians (in particular, B.A. Rybakov)), reject the point of view of L.N. Gumilyov. They argue that the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus' was and had the most negative impact on its development.
An interesting remark about the role of the Mongol-Tatar conquest was made by the progressive historian of the 18th century I. N. Boltin. He notes that the Mongol-Tatars, unlike the Romans, did not have a decisive impact on the life of the conquered peoples. “Under their dominion,” writes I. N. Boltin, “the Russians were governed by the same laws that they had before owning them ... Morals, dress, language, names of people and countries remained the same as they were before”
Academician Fren considered the Mongol-Tatar conquest the gravest disaster for the Russian people and pointed to the dominion of "the Mongol dynasty, which was once the horror and scourge of Russia for two and a half centuries, holding it in the bonds of unconditional enslavement and willfully disposed of the crown and life of its princes"; Fren noted that "this dominion should have had more or less influence on the fate, structure, decrees, education, law, language of our fatherland," to clarify which it is necessary to study the history of the Golden Horde.
V. G. Belinsky called the Tatar yoke a “fettering beginning” in the history of the Russian people, which delayed its development.
Young N. G. Chernyshevsky wrote, characterizing the Mongol conquerors: “Is it a pity or not the existence of such peoples? Bysha, and bysha, as if it had not been. Passed like a storm, destroyed everything, burned, captivated, plundered, and only ... To be omnipotent in the political and military sense and insignificant in other, higher elements of people's life? N. G. Chernyshevsky correctly understood the world-historical significance of the struggle of the Russian people against the Mongol-Tatar conquerors, which saved “European civilization” from defeat: “No, Russians are not conquerors and robbers in political history, like the Huns and Mongols,” writes N G. Chernyshevsky, - but saviors, saviors from the yoke of the Mongols, which they held back on their powerful you, preventing it from reaching Europe, being its wall, however, subjected to all the shots, a wall that was half broken by the enemies. N. G. Chernyshevsky returns to the question of the regressive role of the Tatar-Mongol conquests in the article “Disregard for authors”, in which he notes that the development of civilization in Russia “was delayed by the proximity of predatory Asian hordes: Pechenegs, Tatars” .
A significant place in the source base of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus' is occupied by eastern sources: Persian, Arabic, Mongolian, Chinese, Armenian. Among the publications of Eastern sources, collections of translations of Persian and Arabic authors on the history of the Golden Horde by V. G. Tizenhausen are of particular value. Two volumes of these materials, containing excerpts from the writings of 41 Arabic and Persian authors, are an exceptional collection of factual material for studying the Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe and the history of the Golden Horde. Of the Persian authors, the most reliable and detailed information about the Mongol campaign against Eastern Europe is given by Rashid ad-Din. Rashid-ad-Din (Fazl-Allah Abu-l-Khair Hamadani, 1247-1318) was the official historian of the Ilkhans of the Khulagid dynasty and the grand vizier of the Mongol ruler Ghazan Khan. The main work of Rashid-ad-Din - "Collection of Chronicles" ("Jami at-tavarih") - was written, according to D "Osson, on the basis of the Mongolian archives in Persia (where "historical fragments of recognized authenticity, written in the Mongolian language and alphabet"), information from "scholars of various nationalities", oral stories of representatives of the Mongol feudal nobility2 and was distinguished by reliability and critical selection of sources. I.P. "his great value as a historical source."
Description of work
The power of the Golden Horde over Russia in historiography was called the Mongol-Tatar yoke. The system of domination of the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords over Russian lands in the XIII-XV centuries. was aimed at the regular exploitation of the conquered country through various extortions and predatory raids. The Mongol conquest and yoke brought disaster to the peoples of Rus'. The conquest was accompanied by mass destruction of the population, the devastation of vast territories, the destruction of cities, the decline of agricultural culture, especially in areas of irrigated agriculture. Mongolian yoke long delayed the socio-economic and cultural development of the country.
The content of the work
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..3
1. The Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus' ………………………………...……....8
2. Tatar - Mongol yoke.
Problems of mutual influence of Rus' and the Golden Horde ............................................. ......eleven
3. Liberation from the yoke of the Golden Horde………………………………………...…....21
4. Opinion of historians on the influence of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on Rus'………..25
Conclusion………………………………………..………………………………….32
List of sources used……………….…………………….………34