Who, where and how actually fought in the famous battle - modern historians have more questions than answers.
The school program read: The Battle of Kulikovo took place in 1380 and marked the beginning of the restoration of united Russia and the overthrow of the yoke of the Golden Horde. The Russian troops were led into battle by the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich, later nicknamed Donskoy, the Horde troops - beklyarbek (something like a prime minister) Mamai. The battlefield, located in the present Tula region, was enormous; hundreds of thousands of soldiers from both sides took part in the battle itself.
But is the information about the battle that is still being taught in history lessons really true? In recent years, more and more researchers have questioned seemingly immutable truths. And there are reasons for this.
Archaeological research
Usually historians compare several sources, for example, the results of archaeological excavations and chronicle information. The researchers of the Kulikovo battle took the same path.
"Battle of Kulikovo". Adolphe Yvon, 1859.
Since the 19th century, Russian archaeologists have been excavating the alleged battle site. The first explorer was the landowner Stepan Nechaev. Needless to say, he failed to find evidence of the terrible battle. Only in 2006 a group of archaeologists discovered the site of the alleged burial.
Promotional video:
Then scientists determined the high content of organic matter in the soil, but the bones themselves were not found. Archaeologists explained the absence of the remains by the fact that the bodies were buried shallowly, in black soil, which simply dissolved everything. But where, then, are the arrowheads or fragments of armor?
Okay, the armor could be removed and the arrows removed from the bodies. Both were highly valued, and many soldiers generally marked their arrows. If they managed to survive, they tried to get them back by any means. But where are the pectoral crosses, without which no warrior would have entered the battlefield? They certainly could not steal them - it was considered a terrible sin.
Chronicle sources
The only chronicle sources by which we can judge the great battle are the literary monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. At the same time, the dates of creation of the works have not been precisely established. "Zadonshchina" could see the light even at the end of the 15th century, that is, a hundred years after the battle. "The Legend of the Mamayev Massacre" is considered a literary monument of the 15th century, there is no more accurate information.
Historians believe that all the works that have come down from time immemorial and dedicated to the great battle are in fact just fiction. When reading the stories of the Kulikovo cycle, the question arises: how can they describe the small details known only to the participants in the battle with such accuracy?
The works of the Kulikovo cycle contain a lot of contradictory information. New and new characters appear in them, who lived much later than the events described by the authors. In the stories of the cycle, the number of fallen soldiers is constantly increasing. For example, in the Synopsis, which was written in 1674, there are more than 250 thousand of them.
The researchers concluded that details such as the disposition of troops, Mamai's prayer, and descriptions of the fights were borrowed from other sources. The chroniclers simply diluted the legend with their conjectures.
Postage stamp of Russia from the "Great Dukes" series. Dmitry Donskoy, 1995.
The real number of warriors
Historians and archaeologists, comparing the research facts, are perplexed. Indeed, according to historical information, hundreds of thousands of soldiers took part in the battle. Most of them, in all likelihood, were supposed to rest at the site of the battle.
It is quite possible that the bodies of the dead soldiers, who were sent to the aid of the legendary Prince Dmitry Donskoy, were taken from the battlefield and buried. There is a version that at that time chapels and churches were erected over the graves of the defenders. But there is no real confirmation of this.
Of course, several centuries passed from the time of the restoration of Rus to the beginning of research into the battle on the Kulikovo field. The bodies could completely decay, as some historians assure. But this is unlikely. Most likely, the fallen soldiers were really taken away from the battlefield (but where?), Or they were simply not there.
In their writings, historians cite figures that they probably consider to be close to reality.
Nikolai Karamzin, who introduced the name "Battle of Kulikovo" into circulation, for example, writes that there were about 150 thousand soldiers. "Russian History" by Vasily Tatishchev already tells us about 400 thousand, two times less we find in Mikhail Shcherbatov.
Miniature from the manuscript "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev", 17th century.
Soviet historians were of a more modest opinion. They believed that the number of the army did not exceed 100 thousand souls. Indeed, such a number of soldiers determines the scale of the battle. Everything would be fine if not for a few "buts".
In those distant times, an army of 500 people was already considered large enough. And if we take into account the theory that Mamai hired about 100 thousand soldiers, then there is no need to talk about the reliability of the facts of the Kulikovo battle.
In those days, the beklarbek could only count on 300-500 people. The same story with the Donskoy army. It is very hard to believe that the Moscow army numbered hundreds of thousands, for the XIV century such a number is simply fantastic. And in the same "Zadonshchina" they say about 300 thousand soldiers, both Moscow and Tatar.
The personality of Dmitry Donskoy
The main character of the Battle of Kulikovo was canonized only in 1988. It is strange that this happened many centuries after his death. But the church was in no hurry to attribute Dmitry Donskoy to the saints for the reason that he opposed the legitimate, in the eyes of the church, the tsar and intervened in the appointment of metropolitans. No matter how paradoxical this situation was, at that time, in the understanding of the righteous Dmitry, it could not be considered a saint.
Novoskoltsev A. N. "The Monk Sergius blesses Dmitry to fight Mamai."
The stories of the Kulikovo cycle describe that during the battle Dmitry ordered his close boyar Brenok to put on his clothes, and he himself changed into his armor. Apparently, Dmitry did not want to draw attention to himself in the thick of the fight.
But in those days such behavior of the commander would be considered at least cowardice. After all, any enemy warrior knew that the enemy commander must be killed first. It turns out that Dmitry framed the boyar, and he himself tried to get lost in the crowd, hoping that he simply would not be recognized? After all, the prince could not but participate in the battle.
At that time, the squad could completely refuse to engage in battle if the prince did not enter the field. But the stories of the Kulikovo cycle were written a little later, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, who never fought with the soldiers. Therefore, readers of the 16th century might not know that Donskoy's act was by no means heroic.
Currently, many facts about the battle remain the subject of heated debate. In particular, various researchers have suggested that the battle did not take place between the Don and Nepryadva, but at the sources of the Nepryadva on Volovoe Lake, located in the same Tula region. On both sides, no more than 5-10 thousand people took part, and they were professional riders. And the battle allegedly lasted not several hours, but about half an hour. And all this happened on a much more modest area than the chronicles tell.
Most likely, the truth about the battle lies in the middle between real events and a beautiful legend. But if Grand Duke Dmitry had not led an army against it, who knows what our history would have become?
Stepan Kondratyev