Interpretation of events in Russian history of the 12th - 16th centuries. lately has become a hot issue, the subject of fierce controversy.
Indeed, quite a lot of sources have survived from this time, and it was only possible to hide the forgery (committed in the 17th century by those who like to “shorten our past”) while maintaining a monopoly on the media.
The traditional presentation of the "Tatar-Mongol" invasion is a lie, this is clear to everyone. The question is to restore the true history. Historians took two paths.
The first - "Eurasianism" (G. Vernadsky, L. Gumilev, etc.) presupposes the preservation of the factual basis of the "traditional" version, but with a total ideological inversion, with the replacement of minuses with pluses and vice versa. From the point of view of the "Eurasians", the Tatar-Mongols were friendly to Russia and were in a state of idyllic "symbiosis" with it. But the "friendliness" of the "Tatar-Mongols" in relation to Russia is incompatible with the monstrous pogrom of 1237-1240.
Eurasian theory has dealt a blow to the deceitful version of Russian history. Its positive aspect is in overcoming the old slander about the supposedly everlasting hostility of the "forest" and the "steppe", about the incompatibility of Russians and Slavs with the civilization of steppe Eurasia.
The interpretation of the "Tatar-Mongol" yoke, proposed by the supporters of the "new chronology" (A. Fomenko and others), went further. According to Fomenko, there were no "Tatar-Mongols" at all; under this name in medieval sources … a part of the Russian state is described. Supporters of the "new chronology" cite a selection of information that allows to assert that the "Great Tartary" of the late Middle Ages was mainly inhabited by Russians. Russia as a “country”, as a geopolitical reality has always existed, and within the boundaries of the “Eurasian” space - this is the positive conclusion of this theory.
A multitude of sources that managed to avoid the total "cleansing" of the 17th century, allow us to draw a conclusion about the reality of the "Tatar-Mongol" aggression against Russia. But the nature of this war, its events in these sources appear different than in the "traditional" version … Until recently, it was customary to describe the events of 1237 starting with the capture of Ryazan; it is believed that the "Tatar-Mongols" attacked Russia unexpectedly. This would be possible only if the southern, steppe part of the East European Plain at that time remained uninhabited or did not exist. In fact, they tried to convince us of this.
In fact, the war did not begin in December 1237, when Batu's troops approached Ryazan, but earlier. The first blow was directed against the Alano-Polovtsian steppe: “In the spring of 1237, the conquerors crossed the Volga and began a protracted and far from easy war for them with the Polovtsy and Alans … late autumn. In Russia they knew not only that an invasion was being prepared, but even about the place of concentration of the Horde army."
Promotional video:
Under the pseudo-ethnonym "Mongols", we should by no means understand real Mongoloids who lived on the lands of present-day Mongolia. The self-name, the true ethnonym of the autochthons of present-day Mongolia is Khalkhu. They never called themselves Mongols. And they never reached either the Caucasus, or the Northern Black Sea region, or Russia. Khalkhu, Oirats - anthropological Mongoloids, the poorest nomadic "community", which consisted of many scattered clans. Primitive shepherds, who were at an extremely low primitive 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 the creation of even the most primitive military unit of twenty or thirty soldiers by them is sheer absurdity.
The myth of "Mongols from Mongolia in Russia" 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 Russia. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. There was no Mongoloid invasion of Russia. And there was no Mongoloid empire in the history of Eurasia.
But the invasion itself was. There were fierce battles, sieges of cities, pogroms, looting, fires … There was a tribute-tithe, there were "labels", treaties, joint military campaigns … - everything described in the chronicles and chronicles was, all this is confirmed archaeologically. To understand who actually invaded the Caucasus, the Black Sea region, Russia, and before that conquered China and Central Asia, who crushed and subdued the Alan Rus, the Polovtsian Rus of the Great Steppe, and then the Rus of Kievan Rus, you just need to define the people, the community that had the potential for such great and difficult deeds.
In the forest-steppe zone of Eurasia from the Caucasus to the Altai and the Sayan Mountains, including Inner Mongolia, there was no real power, no people, except for the late Rus of the Scythian-Siberians, the heirs of the boreal, huge and mighty Scythian-Siberian world. Even if such a people appeared, they would be crushed by the Scythian-Siberians mercilessly. Hundreds of powerful clans united by language, Boreal-Aryan traditions of a super-ethnos, a single pagan faith - hundreds and hundreds of thousands of well-armed warriors, professional knights in many generations, mighty fair-haired and light-eyed Boreal Rus - these were the real “Mongols”. Only they, these invincible and ardent clans, could unite for a great conquest, for a great campaign (in which they would not have taken the unfortunate Khalkha savages as drivers). No one could resist the Russ of the Scythian-Siberian world - and the author of this study knows about this and writes about it - it was the Rus who gave the dynasties and elites to the Chinese kingdoms, it should be added - and the guards with officials too. It was they, together with the Rus of Central Asia, who subjugated it to themselves in a matter of years. Who could compete with them! Who could resist them! The Chinese would have driven the Mongoloid Oirats and Khalkha with whips, but they simply would not have reached Central Asia. In a campaign to the west, the Scythian-Siberian Rus defeated the Tatars of the Urals and the Volga region, joined them to their "hordes" (let it be known that "horde" is not a Turkic or Mongolian word, "horde" is a characteristic transformation of the word "clan" during the transition into the early German languages: compare, “clan” - “horde, ordnung, order”, “work” - “arbayt.” Scythian-Siberian Rus, pagans, drove ahead of themselves and threw to the slaughter,on the walls of the cities, the squads of the conquered peoples - Tatars, Bulgars, Rus-Alans, Rus-Polovtsy. Moreover, the Tatars were pagans of the "boreal sense", they, like the "Turkic group" as a whole, not so long ago separated from the boreal community and practically did not have a Mongoloid admixture (unlike the Crimean Tatars - "krym Tatarlar").
The "Tatar-Mongol" invasion was the invasion of the Scythian-Siberian pagan Rus who pulled into their mighty "ninth wave" the pagan Tatars, the pagan Polovtsians, the Rus-Alans, the secondary Rus-pagans of Central Asia … - the invasion of the pagan Rus of Asia onto the Rus -Christian of the "feudal-fragmented" Great Vladimir-Suzdal and Kievan Rus.
Tales about the Mongols-Oirats should be left to those who composed them. It was the Scythian-Siberian Rus, who relied on the conquered kingdoms and empires, including Russia, who created the Great "Mongol" Empire.
The Empire-Horde (Empire-Rod) began to degenerate and degrade after its growing and total Islamization, which was facilitated by the influx of a huge number of Arabs into the Golden (correctly, White) Horde. Islamization as a result and caused the collapse of the mighty Empire.
The history of the Eurasian Empire-Horde has come down to us in the "crooked mirrors" of Muslim and Catholic sources. None of the Russian chronicles mentions either "Mongols" or "Mongolia" - they simply did not exist. There was an invasion, monstrous in its consequences. There was no "symbiosis", Gumilev idealizes the past. But there were strong, contractual, kinship relations. And if at first the Rus Rus and the Horde Rus were divided by faith and way of life, as well as by the difference in socio-political development (the Rus-Christians of Rus had already overcome the generic phases, had "developed feudalism", and the Horde Rus were experiencing a generic peak of "military democracy"), then a century later, the Islamization of the Rus and Tatars of the Horde plowed an insurmountable border between the ethnocultural and linguistic "brothers", or rather, finally cut off from the super-ethnos of the Rus its Islamized Eurasian part (with the exception of those Russian "Tatars"that tens of thousands were converted to Orthodoxy and transferred to the service of Russia-Russia).
The names Chemuchin, Batu, Berkei, Sebeday, Guess, Mamai, Kill, Chagadai, Boro (n) give, etc. are also Russian names, only not Orthodox, but pagan (later, in the same manner, Russians, and especially Siberian Russians, began to call their "little brothers" - Torn apart, Catch up, Guess …).
And the fact that the "khans" of the Rus of the Scythian-Siberian Horde accepted into their army the squads of the Alan Rus, the Yass Rus, the Vladimir-Suzdal and Kievan Rus Rus, the heathen Tatars, is not strange. It would be strange if they collected an army from the Khalkha, Khanty, Mansi and Oirats - with such an “army” they would never have got out of “Mongolia”.
As for the descriptions of the cruelties and atrocities of the "Tatar-Mongols" in Russia - that is, the Rus - pagans, their deeds were no less colorfully described during the campaigns of the Rus in Byzantium, the Balkans, and the British Isles. But there is no doubt that there was no Mongoloid invasion of Russia. And also in the fact that the small outlying peoples and the merchant-usurious "international", as always, profited from the strife between the Russians and, taking advantage of the turmoil and wars, took tens of thousands of Russians to slave markets, mostly women and children from ruined villages, unprotected male warriors. A special role in this was played by the "Crimean Tatars", who have a very indirect relationship to both the Horde and the Volga-Ural Caucasian Tatars, who suffered no less from strife than the Russians.
Those political strategists who are trying to convince the modern Tatars that their ancestors were “great conquerors” and “kept Russia in slavery” are liars, their efforts are aimed at playing off peoples on the principle: divide and rule.
We need to remember that genuine Caucasian Tatars are a subsidiary filial ethnos that emerged from the superethnos at the boreal stage. The difference between the Rus and the Pagan Tatars, the carriers of the original Boreal tradition, was much less than between the present-day Russians and the Muslim Tatars.