Conservative historical science creates a certain official paradigm, which is a kind of axiom regarding the past of the state. Undoubtedly, the position of the authorities, the dominant religion in this issue plays a significant role, if we also take into account the specifics of Russian statehood, then all the questions disappear by themselves. You should not react negatively to such a passage in the preface to the main part of the article; it is enough to recall how Peter I took all the chronicles to the capital and personally watched the burning of these documents. Or recall the great Empress Catherine II, under whom only the Germans were engaged in Russian history. Based on this, the above is substantiated.
Even from school, all students learn about the events that have become dark pages in the history of Russia - this period is called the "Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia." A significant number of scientific works have been devoted to this historical period, films have been shot, books have been written, but imagine that this is not quite the way it seems to be in official history and there are very interesting facts that are ignored, and sometimes their existence is hidden.
Let us consider several such proofs that may cast doubt on the official version about the Tatar-Mongol yoke.
1. Khan
At the head of each individual principality, there was a prince, followed by the boyars, who were either aristocratic nobility or representatives of the "oligarchy". These people acted as a special council under the prince. There was another interesting position, the person who held this post was responsible for the combat readiness of the troops and monitored all events related to the movement of neighboring troops, ensured the protection of borders, trade routes and was directly responsible for the safety of the prince and his family. During the war, almost all power passed into his hands. The official title of this person sounded - khan. In some cases, the prince combined both posts.
Some historians suggest that Genghis Khan is not his own name, but the name and title of the person who led the country during the war. Of course, there were many such people in history, but the most famous of them was a warrior named Timur, it is this historical person who is remembered when it comes to Genghis Khan.
Russian historian L. N. Gumilev, found a 13th century birch bark letter. This document was dedicated to a military campaign. It is impossible to determine exactly what kind of campaign it was due to a poorly preserved document, however, a fragment that has not been touched by time preserved a description of the great warrior, whom the author of the document calls Genghis Khan.
Promotional video:
Gumilev L. N. in his book "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe" gives surviving descriptions: "This great warrior was tall, had piercing blue eyes, luxurious hair and a red beard, and very light skin." This description is clearly discordant with the appearance of representatives of the peoples of Central Asia.
Another interesting point is the absence of an oral tradition (legends, epics, fairy tales) about the fact that the Mongols or Tatars conquered almost all of Europe. Strange as it may seem, but in the epic of these peoples there is no mention of the great warrior-conqueror Genghis Khan.
2. Country Mongolia
Mongolia, as a state, was formed only in the 1930s and only because the Bolsheviks came to the peoples living in the Gobi desert, who informed the nomadic peoples that they were the descendants of great warriors who conquered half the world. Obviously, the peaceful inhabitants of the desert were delighted with such a sharp turn in their measured life and did not deny this fact.
3. Army
The answer to this question is rather difficult due to the absence of a significant number of material monuments of this era. However, let us turn to the church heritage. Saint Sergius of Radonezh is known as the spiritual leader of the army of Dmitry Donskoy. On one of the icons, where the saint is depicted, there are fragments of his life. One of the fragments illustrates the Battle of Kulikovo and the prayerful assistance of the monk to the troops of Dmitry Donskoy. It is interesting that the warriors are depicted in this fragment in the same way. One can refer to the ignorance of the icon painter, but this image was painted several years after the death of the saint, which causes some bewilderment what his contemporary wrote, who had to navigate such high-profile events of the past. What is really puzzling is that both troops,which are depicted on the fragment of the saint's icon, enter into battle, deploying banners with the face of Jesus Christ. Such an oversight is simply impossible, how an icon painter could make such an oversight, depicting the Face of the Savior over an army of pagan fire-worshipers, remains a mystery.
Based on this, it follows that the fragment of the picture rather depicts a civil war than a struggle against an external enemy.
4. The appearance of the "Tatar" in the historical evidence of Western Europe
In April 1291, a battle took place on the Legnica field. King Henry II the Pious was killed during the battle, but his troops coped with their task and the troops of the Tatar-Mongols were driven back. In this regard, Europe, for a while, was able to breathe easy. Of interest is the tomb of the murdered monarch, it depicts how Henry II stands on a defeated warrior of the Tatar-Mongol army, note that the defeated person has Slavic facial features, a Russian streltsy caftan, a thick beard and weapons characteristic of Slavic warriors.
5. Documents
For more than three hundred years the Tatar-Mongols ravaged Russia, reached Poland, Hungary, Germany, but there is not a single document in the language of the Tatars or Mongols that would confirm the existence of such a state. And there are a lot of documents in the Slavic language, which causes even more bewilderment, because the state cannot exist without a bureaucratic apparatus.
6. There is no evidence
There are no documents relating to the 12-14 centuries that would prove the existence of the yoke in Russia. A small excerpt from the poem "The Word of the Death of the Russian Land", which is practically the only proof, is increasingly causing confusion in the scientific community. Let us consider it in detail: “Oh, the bright light and beautifully decorated Russian land! You are glorified for many beauties: you are famous for many lakes, revered rivers and springs, mountains, steep hills. You are filled with everything, Russian land, about the Christian Orthodox faith! " However, the question arises, where is the mention of the Tatars here? How can this fragment of the document testify to the fact that Russia was conquered by the containers? The answer is obvious! This fragment cannot be used to justify the conquest of the Slavs by the Mongols.
In conclusion, we can say that Russia began to be called Orthodox only after the reform of Patriarch Nikon, which took place in the 17th century, until that moment Russia was called Orthodox, so the answer to the question of whether the Mongol yoke suggests itself.