Here is the usual interpretation of Mamaev's massacre from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: “… On the Kulikovo field, a strong blow was struck against the domination of the Golden Horde, which accelerated its subsequent disintegration” (Vol. 13, p. 587). But in the same encyclopedia, in an article devoted to the Golden Horde (Vol. 9, pp. 561-562), it is stated differently: it was after the defeat of Mamai in the Horde that the troubles ceased for fifteen years, the “central power” became stronger; As for the “disintegration” of the Golden Horde, this event belongs to the next, 15th century. It is no coincidence that Alexander Blok ranked the battle at the Nepryadva River among such events, the solution to which is “still ahead”. This was said by the poet, who carefully studied the historical materials about the Mamayev massacre, who created the famous cycle of poems "On the Kulikovo Field". What is the mystery of one of the most memorable and famous events in Russian history?
Let's read what is written
First of all, let us pay attention to the fact that the chronicle calls the enemy of the Moscow army in the beater on the Nepryadva river not the Golden, but the Mamaev Horde. To understand the events of 1380, it is fundamentally important to understand that the Mamaev Horde is not at all equivalent to the Golden Horde, and the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, nicknamed Donskoy, was aware of this difference.
As you know, in 1357, exactly one hundred and twenty years after the invasion of Batu into the borders of Russia, the Golden Horde found itself in a state of long and serious crisis. Over the next two decades, more than twenty (!) Khans succeeded each other on the Golden Horde throne. In Russian chronicles, this period is designated by the expressive word zamyatnya.
In this situation, the outstanding military leader and politician Mamai began to play an exceptional role. He captured the capital of the Golden Horde four or even five times, but still had to leave it. The reason for this helps to clarify the message of the chronicle about how later, at the end: in 1380, Mamai entered into battle with Tokhtamysh, who was the legitimate khan, Chinggisid: faith and took his side, but Mamai was left outraged."
Presumably, about the same thing happened earlier: Mamai seized power in the Golden Horde, but when one or another legal khan appeared, they simply ceased to obey him.
And by the middle of the 1370s, Mamai, as follows from sources, was defeating fruitless attempts to seize power in the Golden Horde and. turns his gaze to Moscow. Until 1374, he did not show hostility: in relation to Moscow, on the contrary, on his own initiative, for example, he sent Dmitry Ivanovich a "label for the great reign", although he believed that the Russian princes themselves. Would apply for this label. It is also known that in 13.71, Dmitry Ivanovich visited Mamai and “gave many gifts and promises (taxes) to Mamai”. But under the year 1374 the chronicle reports on the irrevocable "peace" between Dmitry Ivanovich and Mamai, which ultimately led to the Battle of Kulikovo.
Promotional video:
The Mamayev Horde itself - at least by the time of its "peace" with Russia - was a very special phenomenon, as well-known to all sources report quite clearly. But historians, as a rule, ignore this information, they do not see and, as it were, do not even want to see a significant difference between Mamai and the khans of the Golden Horde.
In the "Rendering of the Mamay Massacre," the program of Mamai, who had gathered on a campaign against Moscow, is set forth - a program that we have no reason to consider an arbitrary fiction of the author of the "Tale": families): “I don’t want to create like Batu; how I will wear out the princes (I will expel the princes - I mean the Russians) and which red breeds prevail (are suitable) for us, and that (s) we sit down, quietly and serenely live … " Besermens and Armenians, Fryaei, Cherkasy, Yases and Burtases … And go to Russia … and the commandment to your ulus (here: villages): "Do not plow bread for one of you, but you will be ready for Russian bread …"
That is, Mamai intended not only to subjugate Russia, but to settle directly with his entourage in its best cities, which the Golden Horde rulers never aspired to; just as incompatible with the orders of the Golden Horde are the mercenary foreign troops, on which Mamai apparently pinned great or even his main hopes. In a word, the Mamaeva Horde was a fundamentally different phenomenon than the Golden Horde, and set different goals for itself. But in works about the Battle of Kulikovo, surprisingly enough, there are almost no attempts to comprehend the information just cited, supported by other sources.
Mamai's campaign to Moscow is usually interpreted only as a means of forcing Russia to pay tribute to him in the same amount as the Golden Horde received it under the “prosperous” khans. Thus, the author of a number of essays on the Battle of Kulikovo V. V. Kargalov states: “According to the chronicler, Mamai’s ambassadors“asked for tribute, as under Khan Uzbek and his son Janibek”… Mamai’s demand was clearly unacceptable, and Dmitry Ivanovich refused. The ambassadors, "proudly verbs," threatened war, because Mamai was already "in the field behind the Don with great strength." But Dmitry Ivanovich showed firmness."
Here we are faced with a downright startling fact. Since Kargalov, like many other historians, do not see Mamaia a figure who is inherently completely different from the Golden Horde rulers, he “managed” to simply “fail to notice” that on the same page of the source he quoted, it was reported that Mamai had been paid the required tribute!
At first, Dmitry Ivanovich really did not want to pay it, because he knew the real "status" of Mamai, who was not the khan of the Golden Horde and, therefore, "did not have the right to the tribute that he demanded. However, then, after consulting with the Metropolitan, who said … that. Mamai “for our sin goes to captivate our land” and “it befits you, an Orthodox prince, to quench those wicked with gifts of fours …” (that is, to satisfy four times more gifts than before), Dmitry Ivanovich “release a lot of gold and silver, Mamai”. And this was, undoubtedly, a reasonable decision of a statesman, a leader who preferred to pay in gold and silver, and not with many lives of his subjects (besides, in the event of the victory of "a lot of power" Mamai would still have to give up "gold and silver").
However, immediately after the payment of the required tribute, "news came again that Mamai urgently wants to go to the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich." This, I realized, means that Mamai's true goal was not at all to receive a rich tribute. However, not only Kargalov, but also the overwhelming majority of historians define it this way. Thus, by the way, the very meaning of the Kulikovo battle is clearly and extremely belittled, for everything, in essence, boils down to a dispute about tribute: Dmitry Ivanovich does not want to satisfy Mamai's demand, and as a result, thousands of Russian people die …
To understand the true meaning and significance of the Battle of Kulikovo, first of all, a more or less concrete idea of the “originality” of the Mamaeva Horde is necessary, which, as already mentioned, is completely unreasonably identified with the Golden Horde (or they speak of the Horde “in general”).
Let's start with the fact that the Mamaev Horde occupied a completely different geographical and, in a deeper sense, geopolitical position: its center, its focus was the Crimea, separated from the Golden Horde center in the Volga region by a thousand kilometers. This is clear, in particular, from historical sources, which, unfortunately, are unknown to Russian researchers - "Memorable records of Armenian manuscripts of the XIV century", published in 1950 in Yerevan (in the original language). The most prominent researcher of the history of Armenian settlements in the Crimea V. A. Mikaelyan kindly provided me with his translations of a number of “notes” that interested me:
A) “… this painting was written in the city of Crimea (now - Old Crimea, - V. K.) … in 1365, on August 23, during numerous unrest, because from all over the country - from Kerch to Sarukerman (Chersonesos, now - Sevastopol. - V. K.) - here: they gathered people and cattle, and Mamai is located in Karasu (now - Belogorsk, 45 km west of the Old Crimea. - V. K.) with countless Tatars, and the city is in fear and horror ;
B) "this manuscript was completed in 1371 during the reign of Mamai in the Crimea region …";
C) "… this manuscript was written in 1377 in the city of Crimea during the reign of Mamai - the prince of princes …".
As you can see, in the period from 1365 to 1377, Mamai, according to these Armenian records made at the same time, was the ruler of the Crimea, and there is every reason to believe that his rule began here much earlier, and ended only at the end of 1380.
Prayer of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich before the Battle of Kulikovo.
Drawing by V. P. Vereshchagin
This great prince was born of noble and honorable parents, the Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich and the mother of the Grand Duchess Alexandra, the grandson was the Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich, the collector of the Russian land, and the root of the saint and the God of the planted garden of the fruitful offshoot and the color of the beautiful Tsar Vladimir, the new Constantine, who baptized the Russian land …
The word about the life and the repose of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, Tsar of Russia, XIV century
Let's listen to Toynbee and Winter
Popes coordinating the front against Russia
It is impossible to understand the general situation in the Crimea in the XIV century without understanding the then role of the Italians, mainly the Genoese, a truly determining role. The fact that the Italians firmly established themselves in the XIII century in the Crimea is known, as they say, by everyone and everyone - at least from the remains of their fortresses in Feodosia, Sudak or Balaklava, the power of which is clearly visible even now, in our days. But it is extremely rare that the understanding of individual aspects of the problem, so to speak, is inscribed in the general picture of world history of the XIV century.
Here you can refer to Arnold Toynbee's treatise "Comprehension of History", which recognizes that "Western civilization" consistently moved east to the "line" of the Elbe, then - the Oder and, further, Dvina and "by the end of the XIV century (that is, just by the time of the Battle of Kulikovo! - VK) the continental European barbarians, opposing … developed civilizations, disappeared from the face of the earth. " As a result, "Western and Orthodox Christianity … found themselves in direct contact along the entire continental line from the Adriatic Sea to the Arctic Ocean."
It is appropriate to refer to the German historian Edward Winter, author of the two-volume treatise Russia and the Papacy (1960). This researcher proves that “in the XIV century, the papacy in its policy widely used … plans, in which not the last place was occupied by conquest, through Lithuania, Russia … Throughout the XIV century, conversion (papal. - V. K.) to Mindovg (Lithuanian prince in 1239-1263 - V. K.) about the rejection of Russia in the name of the popes and with their blessing one region after another. The Lithuanian princes acted so diligently that the newly formed Grand Duchy of Lithuania consisted of approximately 9/10 of the regions of Ancient Rus in the XIV century … In the middle of the XIV century … especially under Clement VI (Pope in 1342-1352 - V. K.),Lithuania took a central place in the plans to seize Rus … The German Order … was supposed to serve as a link with the front of the offensive in the north, which was organized by the Swedes against Novgorod … Little attention has been paid to this role of the popes in coordinating the various fronts against Russia … "Meanwhile it is this kind of coordination "clearly seen from Pope Clement VI's appeal to the Archbishop of Uppsala (that is, Swedish. - V. K.), dating back to about the same time, in 1351 …" Russians are enemies of the Catholic Church "(this is a quote from the papal bulls to the Swedish archbishop of March 2, 1351 - V. K.). This address of the Pope was at least a call for a crusade against the Russians. At night, the front on the Neva comes to life … We see here, therefore, the line of attack against Russia, which stretched from the Neva to the Dniester. "which was organized by the Swedes against Novgorod … Little attention has been paid to this role of the popes in coordinating various fronts against Russia so far … "Meanwhile, it is precisely this kind of coordination that" is clearly seen from Pope Clement VI's appeal to the Archbishop of Uppsala (that is, Swedish. - V. K..), relating approximately to the same time, to 1351 … "Russians are enemies of the Catholic Church" (this is a quote from the papal bull to the Swedish archbishop of March 2, 1351 - V. K.). This address of the Pope was at least a call for a crusade against the Russians. At night, the front on the Neva comes to life … We see here, therefore, the line of attack against Russia, which stretched from the Neva to the Dniester. "which was organized by the Swedes against Novgorod … Little attention has been paid to this role of the popes in coordinating various fronts against Russia so far … "Meanwhile, it is precisely this kind of coordination that" is clearly seen from Pope Clement VI's appeal to the Archbishop of Uppsala (that is, the Swedish one..), relating approximately to the same time, to 1351 … "Russians are enemies of the Catholic Church" (this is a quote from the papal bull to the Swedish archbishop of March 2, 1351 - V. K.). This address of the Pope was at least a call for a crusade against the Russians. At night, the front on the Neva comes to life … We see here, therefore, the line of attack against Russia, which stretched from the Neva to the Dniester."
So, the German historian, independently of Toynbee, formulated the same thesis about an extremely significant "line" between the West and Russia (or, rather, Eurasia).
But Toynbee was more accurate, arguing that this very "line" did not stretch from the Neva to the Dniester (as in Winter), but from the Arctic Ocean (Toynbee pointed to the involvement of the West, Russia and the territory of Finland in the confrontation) to the Adriatic Sea (for in the south, the "line" ran not between the West and Orthodox Russia, but between the West and the Orthodox Byzantine Empire). And even at the very beginning of the XIII century, the West very aggressively "stepped over" here, in the south, this cherished "line", sending a powerful and destructive crusade of 1204 not to Jerusalem, but to Constantinople.
Now we can return to the “Italian presence” in Crimea. To get there, the Italians had to go very far beyond the "line" that ran along the western border of Byzantium. And they not only crossed this border, but, in essence, weakened and put the great state on the brink of destruction. They completely seized the sea, including the coast of the Crimea, which had dire consequences for Byzantium.
It is generally believed that the Italian invasion of Crimea was for the sole purpose of trade, including the slave trade. However, here too - as in the "advancement" of the West in the more northern sections of the same "line" - the guiding role of the papacy is obvious.
So, already in 1253, Pope Innocent IV (the same one who in 1248 called Alexander Nevsky to convert Russia to Catholicism) issued a bull about the introduction of the population of Crimea to the Roman faith, and in 1288 Pope Nicholas IV repeated the same demand. And "in 1320 a Catholic bishopric was founded in Cafe (Feodosia): its diocese extended from Sarai on the Volga to Varna in Bulgaria."
Of course, the Italians in the Crimea dealt primarily with the Golden Horde, and the border of Russia was then very far from the Crimea. However, the advance of the Italians into the Crimea meant the merciless devastation of Byzantium, which at that time was inseparably linked with Russia, primarily with its Church.
In addition, the Italians in the Crimea found themselves in direct contact with the large Armenian population, who belonged - just like the Russians - to the Church, which is related to the Byzantine. Historian V. A. Mikaelyan recreated the pressure of the papacy, as a result of which "a part of the Armenian trading elite associated with the Genoese capital in the XIV-XV centuries succumbed to Catholic propaganda, and the latter: had some success among the Crimean Armenians …".
V. A. Mikaelyan also writes that in order to achieve their goals, “missionaries and Latin bishops in the Cafe often resorted to violence … even to bribe individual ministers of the Armenian Church … As a sign of passive struggle, Armenians left Kafa to their compatriots in other parts of Crimea: Probably, this caused the need to found the famous Armenian monastery Surb-Khach (Holy Cross) in that period - in 1358 - not far from the Old Crimea”.
So, the introduction of the Italians into the Crimea had far-reaching consequences.
Academician MN Likhomirov once showed: “… Italians (in Russian sources -“fryagi”) appear in Moscow and in the north of Russia already in the first half of the XIV century, as the letter of Dmitry Donskoy shows. The Grand Duke refers to the old order, the “duty”, which existed under his grandfather Ivan Kalita, therefore, up to 1340. The Grand Duke grants "Pechora" a certain Andrey Fryazin and his uncle Matthew. Both "Fryazins" were attracted to the far north, to Pechora, probably in search of expensive and popular goods of the Middle Ages; furs, walrus tusks and birds of prey”.
Individual merchants who bought "licenses" from the Grand Duke for a large fee, of course, did not pose any danger to Russia. But their appearance even in the far Russian North testifies to the strategic "aspiration" of the Crimean "fryags".
Above was quoted the message of the "Tale" that Mamai went to Moscow in order to expel the Russian princes and take their place. This goal was set, presumably, by the Genoese, for the khans of the Golden Horde never had such intentions.
All this explains the main "riddle" why Russia only once in almost two and a half centuries of the "Mongol era" entered a wide field for a deadly battle. In this regard, one cannot fail to mention that the Monk Sergius of Radonezh, some time before the Battle of Kulikovo, refused to bless the Grand Duke for the war with Mamai. In one of the manuscripts of the life of the greatest Russian saint, his direct objection to Dmitry Ivanovich is given: "… The duty (original order, establishment) is your darzhit (restrains, hinders), you must submit to the Horde king." There is no reason to doubt that Saint Sergius really said so. However, in all likelihood, these words were uttered for some considerable time before the Battle of Kulikovo, when the Trinity Monastery had not yet understood what Mamai really was,and they saw in him the traditional khan of the Golden Horde, the "king".
On the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo, Sergius of Radonezh said something completely different: “It befits you, sir, when you cite about the herd of Christ handed over from God. Go against the godless, and help God, conquer."
In this regard, the passage from the "Tale" is very significant, where it is reported about the reaction of the Ryazan prince Oleg to Dmitry Ivanovich's speech against Mamai. Throughout my work, I tried to quote the "Tale" in the original, believing that Old Russian speech is understandable without translation. But the episode with Oleg is complicated in language, and therefore I quote it in the translation of M. N. Tikhomirov.
Upon learning of the decision of the Moscow prince, Oleg says: “I used to think that the Russian princes should not oppose the eastern tsar. But now how to understand? Where does this help to Dmitry Ivanovich come from? … "And his boyars (Oleg. - VK) told him:" … in the estate of the Grand Duke near Moscow lives a monk, his name is Sergius, very perspicacious. He armed him and gave him accomplices from among his monks."
In 1888, a wooden cross in a gilded silver setting was found among the ancient relics. On the frame there is an inscription:
“With this cross, the Monk Hegumen Sergius blessed Prince Dmitry for the rotten king Mamai and the river: thus conquer the enemy. In the summer of 1380 August 27 days."
How far is "shibla glory"?
The Battle of Kulikovo was of worldwide importance. This is proclaimed in the "Zadonshchina" (a related text is also in the lists of the "Tale"). After the victory of Russia, it is stated here, "shibla (rushed) glory to the Iron Gates and to Karanacha, to Rome and to the Cafe by the sea, and to Tornavu and from there to Constantinople." Thus, three directions of the path of glory are indicated: to the east - to Derbent and Urgench (the capital of Khorezm), which were then part of the "Mongol world", to the west, to the Catholic world - to Rome through Kafa (linking Kafa with papal Rome is significant), and to the Orthodox south - through the ancient Bulgarian capital Tarnovo to Constantinople.
Someone might think that the statement about such a wide spread of "glory" is just solemn rhetoric - and they will be deeply mistaken, for the news of the defeat of Mamai reached even more distant cities. More than named in the "Zadonshchina". So, the most prominent Persian historian of the late XIV-early XV centuries, Nizam ad-din Shami, wrote about this in the city of Shiraz located 1,500 kilometers south of Urgench, already near the Indian Ocean. And in the southern direction, this "glory" reached the city located 1,500 kilometers south of Constantinople: the defeat of Mamai is said in the treatise of the outstanding Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) who lived in Cairo. As for Constantinople, the enormous significance of the Battle of Kulikovo was fully realized there.
For example, her contemporary Franciscan monk and chronicler Dietmar Lubeck wrote about the Battle of Kulikovo, and later the most prominent German historian of the 15th century Albert Krantz, the “dean of the spiritual chapter” of Hamburg, that is, the second person in the Catholic Church, gave a general description in his work Vandalia. hierarchy of this German city: “At this time, the greatest battle in the memory of the people took place between the Russians and the Tatars … The Russian victors seized considerable booty … But the Russians did not rejoice in this victory for long, because the Tatars, having united with the Lithuanians, rushed after the Russians, who were already returning back, and the loot that they lost was taken away and many of the Russians, having overthrown, were killed. It was in 1381 (one year error. - V. K.) after the birth of Christ. At this time, a congress and gathering of all cities of a society called the Hansa gathered in Lubeck.
Information about the battle was obtained, obviously, from the Hanseatic merchants who traded with Novgorod, about which S. N. Azbelev wrote. specially studied the question of the role of the Novgorodians in the Battle of Kulikovo.
In the message of Albert Krantz, S. N. Azbelev argues, it is about “the attack of the Lithuanian army on the Novgorod detachment, returning … to Novgorod along the Lithuanian border. It is quite possible that the additional indication of Krantz, who writes that the Tatars also took part in this attack, was also true: some of the Tatars who fled from the Kulikovo field could join the Lithuanian detachments … The record of Epiphanius the Wise, dated September 20, 1380 (i.e. through 12 days after the Battle of Kulikovo): "… the news will come, as if Lithuania is coming from the Hagaryans (ie, with the Tatars)" … However, the clash with the Novgorodians, obviously, exhausted the military potential of the Lithuanian army.
The German information about the great battle is especially significant in the sense that the hierarch of the Catholic Church, Albert Krantz, is clearly dissatisfied with the victory of the Russians in the "greatest in the memory of people" battle and, not without gloating, reports revenge to the winners, trying to exaggerate its actual scale and significance.
Meanwhile, in the Mongol world, not to mention the Byzantine, Orthodox world, the defeat of Mamai was perceived in a completely different way.
One more thing. The famous collection of Vladimir Dahl "Proverbs of the Russian people" contains (even in two versions) the proverb: "A lot of trouble has been done to us - the Crimean Khan and the Pope." The unification, the rapprochement of so far from each other, seemingly, having nothing in common, sources of "troubles" would not be very logical if the historical reality that we are talking about did not take place, and which was imprinted in one way or another in the legends about the Battle of Kulikovo where the owner of the Crimea Mamai, the "fryazhskaya" Kafa and Rome are connected. I am by no means claiming that the above proverb directly reflected the events of 1380, but I still consider it possible to see here a kind of trace of the historical memory of those times.
It is possible that some readers will perceive it as a kind of oddity or even absurdity of the unification in the 1370s of the West (primarily the Genoese) with the Asian Mamayev Horde in the campaign against Russia. But there is also another, later - and no less striking - example: the unification of the West with the Turkish Empire in the Crimean War against Russia in the 1850s (and again, the "knot" - Crimea!). A comparison of these events can clarify a lot. And this kind of situation can arise in our time. The Battle of Kulikovo is not only the glory of the past, but also a lesson for the future.
V. Kozhinov