The Battle of Kulikovo, one of the most controversial events in our history. Controversial not in form - everyone recognizes the status of the Great for this battle, but in content: where the battle took place, what caused it and who, in fact, fought with whom.
Now, few people know that the official version of the battle site dates back to the early 19th century.
The Decembrist Nechaev, pardoned by Nicholas II, returned home from exile, studied the Battle of Kulikovo and was the first in history to find a place for it … on his estate (such a wonderful case)! What he immediately told about in the Western (!) Edition of Vestnik Evropy, the material was accompanied by sketches of artifacts found by the peasants (!) At the "battle site": two chain mail, an ax and a flint pistol (Nechaev then enthusiastically argued that the pistol belongs to the same era). This unexpected discovery came in handy for the image of the Russian Empire (Nicholas II was extremely pleased with this). However, the first enthusiasm subsided and everyone forgot about this place until our time: US President Eisenhower, during his alleged visit to the USSR, expressed a desire to visit the famous battlefield. It was then that they remembered about Nechaev's estate near Tula …
Before the battle.
The authors of "New Chronology" A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky, not so long ago proposed a new version of those events, arguing (not without reason) that the battle took place on the territory of present-day Moscow.
As proof, they cite the following arguments:
1) at an officially recognized place (near Tula) for decades of excavations, they did not find any burials, not bones (the chronicles claim that Mamai's soldiers were not buried, but their own were buried at the battlefield for 8 days), not weapons / armor, in general, practically nothing;
2) the chronicles definitely place the place of the battle at the confluence of the Don and Nepryadva rivers, but this is not possible near Tula and therefore historians have placed the Kulikovo field 10-15 km from the confluence of the rivers;
Promotional video:
3) the geographical relief of the area from the chronicles is completely unsuitable for the Nechaev estate (for example, there is no place for the Donskoy headquarters and historians got out of the situation by explaining that his troops fought without control!);
4) before Nechaev's “discovery”, no one knew that the stream flowing into the Don source is called the Nepryadva River;
5) on the other hand, in Moscow, they found the ENTIRE complex of geographic references to the area;
6) in ancient times, any river was called Don (this is a common name, hence the Dnieper, Dniester, Danube, etc.), and Nepryavda means "a small, not big river", so any river is suitable for their role;
7) the nickname Donskoy was attributed to Prince Dmitry Ivanovich only in the 16th century, and the chronicle closest in time to the events dates back 150 years after the battle, so a lot of different things are mixed up (completely);
8) the monks Peresvet and Oslablya mentioned in the annals, as well as another 100 (apparently the most noble) warriors, are buried in the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos in Moscow (and under it, there are mass graves of that time) and the question arises: how the dead were taken there for 28 days?
This version also has weaknesses and most importantly: if everything is so, then it turns out that there was no Moscow in this place in the 14th century? It is clear that the official history cannot agree with this in any way! The authors of "New Chronology" propose to consider this as a fact of a global substitution of history and have their own explanation, but this is a slightly different story ….
***
Western European sources of the 17-18 centuries ("Stratiman's Chronograph", as well as the French encyclopedia of Diderot and Dolombert) indicate that the first use of cannons occurred in the battle of 1380, where the "Genoese" fought the "Venetians" (the place of the battle itself is not indicated, which is very strange for cunning Europeans) in Italy at this time, there were no serious battles, and it would be strange not to know a specific place, be it an event in the Apennines. Where did it happen?
The duel of Peresvet with Chelubey.
According to New Chronology, it was just the Battle of Kulikovo! I wonder what is your evidence?
1) It is known that Mamai's army significantly outnumbered (and consisted of professional soldiers) the army of Dmitry Donskoy (which consisted mostly of the militia) and, by all accounts, could well count on a clear victory. The Horde had many mercenaries: Genoese, Poles, Kasogs, Armenians, Circassians, Tatars and others. Donskoy had Russian, Lithuanian squads and militias, that is, mainly Slavs (in Western Europe, the Slavs were often identified with the Wends, the founders of Venice - hence the simplistic Venetians).
Decisive blow.
2) The chroniclers, the victory of Moscow is directly called a MIRACLE, the intervention of heavenly forces: "the heavenly horsemen Boris and Gleb beat them with red-hot stones and arrows." For people who first heard and saw firearms, the most natural association is the intervention of divine, heavenly forces (an analogy with our Cossacks in Siberia or the conquistadors is quite appropriate). Fear, confusion, loss of control, flight and, as a result, defeat from a weaker opponent.
3) The well-known blessing of Sergius of Radonezh, who gave Donskoy some kind of secret weapon "Christian tree" (the first cannons were wooden, that is, literally a "miraculous tree" and were used right up to the 18-19 centuries), after which the prince believed in victory (a strong shock affected seen and heard?). At the same time, information has been preserved that spies reported to Mamai about some secret weapon from his enemy (he brushed aside: what weapon is against his strength?). According to the official version, such a weapon was a cross and two monks (I'm wondering, are they really holding us for idiots, carrying such a crap?).
4) Gunpowder was invented by a certain Bartholomew Schwartz, of unknown origin, and the worldly name of S. Radonezh was Bartholomew (then still black / black - Schwartz?), And to make it better to believe: according to the Western sources mentioned above, muskets were invented and first used exactly Muscovites (though they remembered this and reflected in books only in the 17-18 centuries, and in the 19th century they somehow suddenly forgot everything and attributed to others).
Battle of Kulikovo. And where are the Mongols-Tatars?
Civil War.
- Interestingly, on early icons up to the 17th century, all those fighting on the Kulikovo field were depicted only as Caucasians, and besides, under the same banners depicting the Savior not made by hands, but where are the images of the pagans "Mongol-Tatars", canonical for our time?
- At the same time, there was a series of internecine battles between Moscow, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod and other Russian princes. All these cities were in turn devastated by neighboring principalities, that is, there was a stubborn civil strife - a civil war.
Fragment of the image of the Battle of Kulikovo on the icon.
- In this war, as always, there were traitors: for example, the son of the temnik Dmitry Donskoy, Ivan Velyaminov. He tried to usurp power, betrayed his prince and fled to the horde, where he gathered an army for a campaign against Moscow. In parallel, we know that Mamai was also a temnik, but already of Khan Tokhtamysh. He also tried to usurp power, betrayed his khan and gathered an army (note - mostly foreign mercenaries) to conquer the territories belonging to his khan. An amazing coincidence and layering of temniki in one, separately taken area of historical events!
- By the way, Ivan Velyaminov was captured and beheaded on the Kulikovo field, in honor of which Donskoy even issued a commemorative coin depicting a prince with a shield (a symbol of battle) and a decapitated body.
- In the same period, coins were printed on one side depicting Dmitry Donskoy, and on the other, a seal of Tokhtamysh with an Arabic script.
The minting of coins is a serious matter and it is unlikely that the "vassal" (of the Golden Horde) could be allowed to print their coins with the name of the "suzerain" (Tokhtamysh).
All this confusion and nonsense can be easily explained if we remember that the “Mongol-Tatar yoke” covered up the existence of Great Tartary (for more details read “Genghis Khan and other“Monoglo-Tatars”and“Tartaria-the first great empire”). And that along with the Russian language, the Arabic language was also circulating on the territory of the multinational empire (one of the striking examples is the inscription on the helmet of Alexander Nevsky). Therefore, the inscriptions in two languages on one coin, it is quite understandable, if they mean the same name of the ruler, this coin minting. There is a version that Dmitry Donskoy and Tokhtamysh are one and the same person who has Russian and Turkic names (even now, among the Tatars and Muslims in general, the practice is widespread when, to facilitate communication in the Russian environment, they call themselves some consonant Russian name and vice versa).
Then it becomes more understandable that there are “two” temniks thirsty for power and a fight with Donskoy: Mamai and Ivan Velyaminov are one and the same person. Also, the struggle for power (and maybe independence) between the regions within the empire of Great Tartary becomes more understandable.
Ferrying Mamai across the river - again no Mongoloids are seen.
Such are the versions of one of the most significant events in our official history. Surely there will be those who will say - what kind of nonsense, some kind of assumptions, guesses, is it possible to build serious versions on this nonsense? Probably yes, you can. The officially recognized history is based on exactly the same guesses, unconfirmed copies of medieval sources, often confused explanations of the authors (moreover, not even contemporaries and eyewitnesses of the described events, but their distant descendants) and conflicting annals.
Alternative history in this does not differ from the official history, and the difference between them is that the "alternatives" are always ready for dialogue. They ask the "officials" to explain the facts that do not fit with the canon, to listen to and possibly refute the arguments they have. But none of the official scientists condescends to explanations and dialogue. They “CREATE”, “soar in lofty matters,” and the plebs (that is, the people, the masses, the electorate, etc.) always interfere with them. Therefore, dear reader, it remains for us to draw conclusions ourselves. Which in itself is good.