Military Review

Alexander Nevsky - the key figure of Russian history

195
Alexander Nevsky - the key figure of Russian history



The outstanding commander, hero of the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of the Ice, Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky was a wise ruler and an experienced diplomat. The political path chosen by him did not allow Rus to disappear, and for many centuries determined the vector of development of our state.

Alexander Yaroslavich was born on May 13 of 1221 in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. He was the direct heir of the great Kiev princes, Vladimir, the Baptist of Russia and Yaroslav the Wise, among his famous ancestors Yuri Dolgoruky and Vsevolod the Great Nest.

By the time of the beginning of the state activity of Alexander Nevsky, the position of Russia was disastrous. The invasion of the Mongol nomads in 1237-1238 caused enormous damage to the Russian lands. Cities and villages were ravaged, thousands of peasants and artisans were in full, trade relations between the cities ceased. The Mongols absorbed the eastern and southern neighbors of Russia - the Volga Bulgarians, Polovtsy, Pechenegs, Torks and Berendeys. A similar fate awaited the Russians.

To some extent, the former structures of princely power, with the inclusion of the Golden Horde, managed to save Alexander Yaroslavich’s father, Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. After his death, his son Alexander had to continue this line. But besides the Mongol question, the prince had to solve the German question.

"The enmity of the German tribe with the Slavic belongs to such world historical "phenomena, according to the historian Nikolai Kostomarov," of which the beginning is inaccessible to research, because it is hiding in the darkness of prehistoric times. "

The Livonian Order, which had as its patron one of the most powerful rulers of Europe, the Pope of Rome, in the first half of the 13th century, launched an offensive against the Slavic lands. This offensive was not a simple attempt by one state to expand its territory at the expense of another, it was a real crusade in which knights from all over Europe participated, and which set as its goal the political, cultural and religious enslavement of North-Western Russia.

In addition to the Livonian Order, the Russian land was threatened by a young Lithuanian state and Sweden. Novgorod's reign of Alexander Yaroslavich fell on the period of serious foreign policy complications in the north-west of Russia. And the appearance of the prince on the historical scene already by his contemporaries was regarded as providential.

“Without the command of God, there would be no reign of his,” reports the chronicle.

The political intuition of the young prince prompted him to make the right decision, to refuse phantom help against the Mongols of the West, which Pope Innocent IV offered under certain conditions. It was obvious that treaties with the West could not lead to a positive result. At the beginning of the 13th century, European rulers revealed their true intentions when, instead of being liberated from the infidels of the Holy Land, in 1204, they seized Orthodox Constantinople.

Alexander will resist any attempts of the western neighbors to take advantage of the Mongol invasion and seize the Russian lands. In 1240, he will smash the Swedes on the Neva, and for this brilliant victory he will receive the name Nevsky, in 1241, Alexander Yaroslavich will dislodge the invaders from Koporye, in 1242 - from Pskov and defeat the Bishop's army and Dipta Bishop on the ice of Lake Peipsi.

As Kostomarov notes, Alexander Nevsky saved the Russians from the fate of the Baltic Slavs conquered by the Germans, and strengthened the north-western borders of Russia.

Having secured the western borders of Russia, Prince Alexander Yaroslavich set to work in the east. He traveled to the Horde four times to enlist the support of the khan. It was impossible to solve the Eastern question by military means, the forces of the nomads significantly outnumbered the Russians, therefore Alexander Yaroslavich chose a diplomatic way.

“By his prudent policy,” the historian Vladimir Pashuto wrote about Prince Alexander Nevsky, he saved Russia from the final destruction of nomads by rats. Armed struggle, trade policy, electoral diplomacy, he avoided new wars in the North and the West, a possible, but disastrous for Russia, alliance with the papacy and the rapprochement of the curia and the Crusaders with the Horde. He won the time by letting Russia get stronger and recover from the terrible ruin. ”

Alexander Nevsky's weighted policy protected Russian Orthodoxy from mutation - the union with Rome, allowed the Church to continue its mission in Russian lands and even beyond its borders. In 1261, even the Sarai diocese with the chair in Saray-Batu, the capital of the Golden Horde, was formed with the mediation of the Grand Duke .

According to the historian Georgy Vernadsky, thanks to the preserved Orthodoxy “as the moral and political power of the Russian people,” the emergence of the Russian kingdom was possible.

The Russian Orthodox Church, appreciating the life feat of the Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, glorified him in the face of the saints.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/church/aleksandr-nevskiy-klyuchevaya-31752.html
195 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 9 December 2017 07: 31 New
    10
    It was impossible to solve the eastern issue by military means, the forces of the nomads far exceeded the forces of the Russians, so Alexander Yaroslavich chose the diplomatic path.
    ... And quite tough ... In 1257 he came to Novgorod with Tatar ambassadors to express support for the Horde. Alexander exiled the son of Vasily, who resisted the invasion of the Tatars, to Suzdal, and put 7-year-old Dmitry in his place. In 1259, with the help of threats of the Tatar invasion, he obtained consent from the Novgorodians to census and pay tribute to the Horde.
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 9 December 2017 07: 36 New
      +4
      At that time it was impossible not to disobey his father. Balashov reflects well on this topic.
      1. Alex1117
        Alex1117 10 December 2017 09: 46 New
        +1
        And that Yaroslav (well, the one that is "Wise"), doesn’t it refer to "that time"?
    2. Chichikov
      Chichikov 9 December 2017 08: 30 New
      +8
      Quote: parusnik
      And pretty tough

      How else? Any freemen in difficult times, led to even greater problems. To rule the state is not to play chess, where for the chess player there are examples of previous battles.
    3. Spnsr
      Spnsr 9 December 2017 12: 10 New
      +4
      Probably reading the story, it is worth taking a break from the modern perception of the Mongols, and the concept of the Mongolotars.
      Well, if you look at the whole written history, you get the impression that until the end of the 12th century, the territory of Eurasia was a single state, or rather, it was inhabited by peoples, no, a population that did not even think about some kind of statehood, and only from the end 12 at the beginning of 13, rulers begin to appear occupying a particular territory, with its population and attempts to create some autonomies.
      Russia was the same, it was the subject of this state, which, like other entities, tried to be autonomous.
      In addition, at the same time, a large Empire begins to split into three
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 9 December 2017 14: 25 New
        +2
        ... into three, which united under themselves both the formed entities and simply populated territories by some population. And between whom there were conflicts over these territories ...
        1. Spnsr
          Spnsr 9 December 2017 15: 28 New
          +2
          Around this time, the Western Slavs were united in the so-called speech of the Commonwealth and Lithuania, which were further united in a larger union, and which had claims both territorial and human resources. Especially in view of the fact that then the territory of the Eastern Slavs consisted of free cities, which themselves could not repulse Western expansion, but flirted with it, with the Western Slavs. I emphasize that at that time there was still neither Sweden nor Germany nor Poland nor anything else ...
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 9 December 2017 15: 49 New
            +3
            If we go to the territory of the Eastern Slavs, then their unification begins closer to the middle of the 13th century, and those. Who, under the pressure of Western ideology and Western values, tried to resist this, was accurately punished. This is Alexander Nevsky, and the so-called Khan Batu, who stopped and overthrew the Western conquerors with fire and sword, and united the Eastern Slavs into a more or less large state capable of opposing their Western partners.
      2. Hantengri
        Hantengri 9 December 2017 21: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: SpnSr
        then more impression

        When "more impression" (that is, it seems), "priests" recommend being baptized. lol
        Quote: SpnSr
        until the end of the 12th century, the territory of Eurasia was a single state, more precisely, it was inhabited by peoples, no, a population that did not even think about some kind of statehood

        Appearances, passwords, names (crossed out) documents, annals, archaeological sources confirming that "until the end of the 12th century, the territory of Eurasia was a single state", to the studio! And, then, in fact, to assume - not toss the bags!
        Quote: SpnSr
        Russia was the same, was the subject of this state, (and blah, blah, bah ...)

        And with it it is similar. laughing
        1. Spnsr
          Spnsr 9 December 2017 23: 35 New
          +3
          Quote: HanTengri
          (i.e. it seems) "

          It seems to you that you are baptized!
          I just said that a sensation arises from the flow of information, one might say - perception! It does not seem, it is perceived !!!
          Appearances, passwords, names (crossed out) documents, annals, archaeological sources confirming that "until the end of the 12th century, the territory of Eurasia was a single state", to the studio! And, then, in fact, to assume - not toss the bags!
          all the same, my friend, all the same!
          For example, the development of Turkistan was started by the Romanovs because the arrogant Saxons climbed with perseverance, and the Romanovs at that time had many other things to do in other areas, for example, due to the inability to keep the Western Slavs, who were influenced by the arrogant Saxons, they split into smaller states (the so-called sections of Poland) that we are now observing on the political map of the world!
          Do you think it’s a problem to be one when the population doesn’t even think of being some kind of nationality, but only does this to feed itself.
          It can be said more that in the last century, many of those who now have a nationality did not even think that they belong to them. An example of Ukraine, in which the Russians suddenly became ukrami !!!
          You have to be a little more careful ...
        2. groks
          groks 10 December 2017 20: 59 New
          +1
          documents

          Well, for example, the time of the appearance of national languages ​​looks very strange. The Swedes scratched the longest - right up to the 21st century. But before that, did people somehow communicate? In the same Sweden, once, an almost overthrown monarch, he turned to the army, which consisted mostly of Tatars, with such a felt speech that they penetrated and supported it.
      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 10 December 2017 11: 14 New
        +5
        Simple language: there was a huge Empire of Genghisides.
        And all of Eurasia paid tribute to it for 300 years.
        1. Spnsr
          Spnsr 10 December 2017 13: 16 New
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Simple language: there was a huge Empire of Genghisides.
          And all of Eurasia paid tribute to it for 300 years.

          Subtlely spotted! You can immediately see a person with an inquiring mind!
          And to the question of Genghisides, for torturing the mind, Ivan the fourth declared and could do it on the full grounds that he was a descendant of Augustus!
          This is for logic, if the Genghisides owned the world, and Augustus, as the first person in this world, then who are the Genghisids? Or Genghisides alternate story or story with Augustus alternate!
          And which of the stories is alternative? For example, the Kazakh is alternative to Augustus, but I think the Augustus is the main story for the European!
        2. Seal
          Seal 12 December 2017 08: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          there was a huge Empire of Genghisides.

          You would have somehow more precisely decided. Either you have a “huge empire”, or “a mass of small Genghisides who manage their villages”. lol
          About the Batu and Genghis Khan. The Turks, well, take, for example, the Kazakhs, as a basis for orientation in space, the directions for sunrise and sunset are taken. In the Kazakh language, sunrise is shygys, sunset is batys. Hence the East-Shygys, and the West-Batys. The main holy direction of the Turks (Kazakhs) was and remains the "East". If you face east, then on the right (in the Kazakh language “right side” - “he”) will be Ontustik-South, and on the left (in the Kazakh language - “sol”), respectively, Soltustik-North. In this regard, everything that is located to the west of the steppe for the Kazakhs had the prefix "batu", and to the east - "shygys." From here the ruler of any Turk (Kazakhs) western from the habitat was called Batu-Khan (Batu). And the one who ruled east - well, for example, China - was Shygys Khan (in our pronunciation, Genghis Khan). That is, all of these Batu, Batu, Batys and Shagysy (Genghis) could be (and were, after all in the West is full of all kinds of “Karls”) the names of both specific people and common names for all khans-rulers of these areas and territories. By the way, Genghis Khan is simply any “Solar Khan” or “Eastern Khan” and in the language of a number of Volga non-Turkic peoples. But apparently, the Volga peoples still nevertheless adopted this term, well, for example, among the Tatars. Genghis Khan is a post. More precisely, the position is Khan. And Shagys or Chinggis is East. Just the "Eastern Khan", of which there have been thousands over the centuries. Here, another puncture is evident among professional historians. Those travelers who then brought to the European courts and court historians all the information they received when they traveled through the Turkic lands, the question “Who caused this or that destruction” from their Turkic counterparts could receive the following answers:
          1) This was done by Shagys Khan (Genghis Khan). In the understanding of the storyteller is some kind of famous Khan, whose lands were located east of those who were interviewed.
          2) This was done by Batys-Khan (Batu, Batu). This is any Khan of lands located west of those who were interviewed. Batys - Western.
          Maybe even names were called, such as Genghis Khan Roll of Wallpaper or Genghis Khan Kirdyk Nadoev. But since the last (proper names) components were inconstant - only the first invariably constant part was remembered - CHINGIS KHAN. Since the East was and remains the main holy direction among the Turks (Kazakhs), it goes without saying that now every second in Asia is a descendant of one or another Genghis Khan (Genghisid). If the Turks would have been in the main holy direction not the East, but the West - then every second Kazakh or other Turk would now be someone like "Batyzid." Well, apparently, since the Turks were attacked by the Turks from the south (deserts and mountains) and from the north (Siberian swamps, the Arctic Ocean), not less than that, the Turkic-speaking storytellers put all the main complaints against Genghis Khan and Batu- Khan. " But European historians, having gathered such a lot of complaints against Genghis Khan and Batu Khan and stupidly not realizing that they (well, those travelers who later brought all this information to European courts and court historians), the locals were simply talking about their local showdowns with some eastern or western neighbors for 300-400 years, and believing that “Genghis Khan” and “Batu Khan” are the names of specific people decided that only great people could commit such large-scale acts. And being honestly mistaken, historians began to sculpt the myth of the “Great Genghis Khan” and his grandson “Batu Khan” (which historians sent to the very west).
    4. co-creator
      co-creator 9 December 2017 12: 35 New
      +7
      Quote: parusnik
      In 1259, with the help of threats of the Tatar invasion, Alexander obtained from Novgorod the consent to the census and payment of tribute to the Horde.

      In short, he did that (census) that the feudal lords always did before the Tatars, after the Tatars, in Russia, in Europe and generally everywhere in the world. Question What does the Tatars and the invasion have to do with it?
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 9 December 2017 15: 06 New
        +5
        You will be surprised, but in Russia, a regular census began during the Mongol invasion. Prior to this, the accounting was economic: they were counted for taxation at home, or "smoke". The first census made by the Mongols dates back to 1245. Following it, three more censuses were made: in 1257, 1259 and 1273. The first census took place in 1646. The next census was carried out in the years 1676-1678.
        In short, he did that (census)
        ..No, you read carefully, A. Nevsky helped the Horde to conduct a census to collect tribute from the Horde .. Personally, A. Nevsky did not need this census, he took his own from the "smoke" at home .. He took his own like the others feudal lords, but the Horde ...
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 9 December 2017 16: 10 New
          +7
          Quote: parusnik
          You will be surprised, but in Russia, a regular census began during the Mongol invasion. Prior to this, the accounting was economic: they were counted for taxation at home, or "smoke".

          What is the difference as it was called and how it was done? At different times, the Republic of Ingushetia also considered the population for tax collection differently.
          You can of course translate everything into the Tatars, as today, hoh.kh all transfer to Russia.
          Quote: parusnik
          The first census made by the Mongols dates back to 1245.

          The Mongols could not rewrite anything, since they were physically not in Russia. There was not even a Mongol representative like the governor. According to the annals, it turns out to be completely foolish, since the prince could not rewrite anything at all and take the figure out of his head because no one controlled it.
          Quote: parusnik
          ..No, you read carefully, A. Nevsky helped the Horde to conduct a census to collect tribute from the Horde .. Personally, A. Nevsky did not need this census, he took his own from the "smoke" at home .. He took his own like the others feudal lords, but the Horde.

          No, you read it carefully. Alexander obtained consent to the census and the payment of tribute to the scaring Novgorodtsev invasion of the Tatars. As you know, the Mongols themselves were not going to give, but the prince did it and then paid to the horde. Arrears (that is, non-payment to the horde) were sometimes ten years old and then riots occurred when they were collected.
          Maybe you personally do not need a census, but any ruler really needs it. All feudal lords took taxes differently. If there is a war, this is one money; if they are building Versailles, it’s different;
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 9 December 2017 16: 16 New
            +5
            Read works, for example, academician Tikhomirov on this topic ... he and others write in detail about this ..
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 9 December 2017 16: 29 New
              +5
              Quote: parusnik
              Read works, for example, academician Tikhomirov on this topic ... he and others write in detail about this ..

              Clear . Slightly something is sent to different Tikhomirovs. Can you answer something yourself? I can’t enter into a discussion with academician Tikhomirov.
              1. parusnik
                parusnik 9 December 2017 16: 59 New
                +5
                I do not want to argue with you. You already crushed me with your knowledge ..
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator 9 December 2017 17: 12 New
                  +4
                  All knowledge from your comment is taken. Well, okay, nothing new.
                  1. parusnik
                    parusnik 9 December 2017 17: 59 New
                    +3
                    The Mongols could not rewrite anything, since they were physically not in Russia. There was not even a Mongol representative like the governor. According to the annals, it turns out to be complete okhinea
                    ..This is not from my comments. Sorry, after reading this your comment, I just did not read the rest, because I realized that I was dealing with a person who carefully studied the primary sources, was ashamed of my lack of knowledge, about which I wrote in my penultimate commentary ...
                    1. dSK
                      dSK 9 December 2017 22: 54 New
                      +4
                      "At the beginning of the 1204th century, European rulers laid bare their true intentions when, instead of liberating the Holy Land, in XNUMX they seized Orthodox Constantinople."
                      - facts are a stubborn thing.
                      “Without God's command, there would not have been his reign,” the chronicle reports. According to the historian George Vernadsky, thanks to the preserved Orthodoxy “as the moral and political force of the Russian people” the emergence of the Russian kingdom was possible.
                      - only by the protection and help of God through the Holy Spirit can be explained how the poor, unarmed Apostles and their followers "fermented" half the planet into Christianity. In the name of Jesus Christ they resurrected, healed, saved thousands of suffering people. At the same time, Christ himself did not split, and help came through the Holy Spirit. "Holy Trinity - Father and Son and Holy Spirit."
                      1. zoolu350
                        zoolu350 10 December 2017 05: 23 New
                        +5
                        Quote: dsk
                        - only by the protection and help of God through the Holy Spirit can be explained how the poor, unarmed Apostles and their followers "fermented" half the planet into Christianity. In the name of Jesus Christ they resurrected, healed, saved thousands of suffering people. At the same time, Christ himself did not split, and help came through the Holy Spirit. "Holy Trinity - Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

                        Come on, for the glory of Yeshua, millions of people around the world have been destroyed. And the success of the “poor and unarmed” apostles is explained by the fact that Shimon (Peter), the founder of the Christian sect of “Judaism for the gentiles,” created a doctrine and church organization, which came in handy for many rulers, because it was much better than paganism to ensure control and control of the masses.
                    2. co-creator
                      co-creator 10 December 2017 01: 15 New
                      +4
                      Quote: parusnik
                      for I realized that I was dealing with a man who studied the source very carefully, was ashamed of his lack of knowledge, about which he wrote in his penultimate commentary ..

                      You will probably tell me the city where the viceroy from the Great Khan was grubbing with his retinue and guards. The city and the name will be kind enough to name, but you carefully read the original sources.
                      1. parusnik
                        parusnik 10 December 2017 11: 13 New
                        +1
                        I won’t be engaged in retelling what I read, I rummaged around here, found not a big article for you .. http: //historicaldis.ru/blog/43731684546/Bas
                        kacheskaya-organizatsiya-na-Rusi..Maybe you at least read it ...
                2. Seal
                  Seal 11 December 2017 18: 38 New
                  +1
                  In 1906, on the eve of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, the Approved Letter of 1613 on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State was re-photographed and reprinted.
                  How is it remarkable? And the fact that it was the most important state act, which was not lost (like all kinds of annals), was constantly under protection, was inaccessible for revisions. Still - who dares to edit something in the most important state document !!!
                  And what made editing even more difficult was the fact that there were two copies of the Approved Certificate. And on both signatures are all members of the Council. Both copies were stored together, then disconnected, then together again. At the time of publication in 1906, one copy was stored in the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the other in the Armory.
                  And to the trouble of all admirers of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", in the Approved Charter of 1613 there is a section telling about the origin and formation of the Russian State.
                  Yes, Batu is already mentioned in it. But in what context!
                  And most importantly, there are neither Tatars nor Mongols. And just a "horde."
                  So, here is the place we are interested in:
                  “According to the great sovereign Vladimir Manamakh, I took the scepter of the Russian kingdom of kingdom, his son the great prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, and piety prosiya, and all the peasantry in peace and quiet.
                  According to it, a congress at the Russian state in Volodimer, his son the prince the great Vsevolod Yuryevich, a champion of piety and a strong champion for the holy churches, and about the holy Orthodox peasant vrya.
                  According to Vsevolod, the scepter of the Russian state contains the son of his great prince Yaroslav Vsevolodich, he is observing God from Batu in Veliky Novograd and with children and after capturing the godless Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faith is spread and the holy churches are renewed.
                  According to it, the Great Russian State will take the scepter, his son, the brave prince the great Alexander Yaroslavich, those over Hermans showing the glorious victory on the Neva, and on the peasant faith of the godless Berkay the king, loyal anger in the horde of tame, and after death, the miracles of God are glorified. "
                  And what do we see?
                  The first one. Our ancestors wrote in 1613: “..when the godless Batu was captured, the holy and immaculate peasant faith was spread and the holy churches renew the packs,” that is, they still remembered that the godless Batu was captured, after which Yaroslav Vsevolodovich “spread the holy and immaculate peasant faith and renew the holy churches of Paki. ” It is a pity, it is not specified when and who Batu was captured. You can, of course, interpret it so that it was not Batu who was captured, but the Russian Land was captured by him. But then it was painfully some kind of short “captivity” that Yaroslav Vsevolodovich himself caught the end of this captivity. And not just caught, but managed to work hard to eliminate the consequences of "captivity", namely, the Christian faith spread, and updated the church. Such things are not done in a short time.

                  And the second one. Our ancestors in 1613 recorded that Alexander Yaroslavich on the Neva won a glorious victory over the Germans (Germans) and not over the sveta (Swedes). Of which our ancestors in 1613 very clearly distinguished. But about the "more significant", as is now believed, the victory of Alexander Yaroslavich over the Germans on Lake Peipsi or near it, our ancestors did not mention. Didn't know about her ???
              2. Nagaibak
                Nagaibak 10 December 2017 15: 16 New
                0
                conservative "Slightly something is sent to different Tikhomirov."
                Hmm ... it's not different Tikhomirovs. This is Mikhail Nikolayevich Tikhomirov (May 19 (May 31), 1893, Moscow, Russian Empire - September 2, 1965, Moscow, USSR) - Soviet Slavic historian, source critic, specialist in the history and culture of Russia of the 23.10.1953th-2th centuries. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (04.12.1946 [XNUMX], corresponding member from XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX)
                Author of over 350 scientific publications, including about 20 books.
                SPECIALLY FOR UNKNOWN))))

                Dmitrov city: from the foundation of the city to the half of the XIX century. M., 1925.
                Pskov Uprising of 1650 M. - L., 1935.
                Research on Russian Truth. The origin of the texts. - M .; L .: Publishing house of Acad. Sciences of the USSR, 1941 .-- 254 p.
                Peasant and urban uprisings in Russia XI-XIII centuries. M., 1955.
                Old Russian cities. 2nd ed .. M., 1956.
                Medieval Moscow in the XIV-XV centuries. M., 1957.
                Joining Merv to Russia. M., 1960.
                Russia in the 1962th century. M., XNUMX.
                Sources of the history of the USSR. Vol. 1. From ancient times to the end of the XVIII century. M., 1962.
                Medieval Russia on international routes. XIV — XV centuries M., 1966.
                Russian culture of the 1968thth centuries M., XNUMX.
                Historical ties of Russia with Slavic countries and Byzantium. M., 1969.
                The class struggle in Russia of the 1969th century. M., XNUMX;
                The Russian state of the XV — XVII centuries. M., 1973.
                Ancient Russia, M., 1975.
                Russian annals. M., 1979.
                Russian paleography. M., 1982.
                1. Alex1117
                  Alex1117 10 December 2017 16: 00 New
                  +2
                  A long list of fiction. And not a single collection of genuine documents. You could add the Murzilka magazine and the Pionerskaya Pravda newspaper to your list. In them, too, "historical stories" were placed.
                  1. Nagaibak
                    Nagaibak 10 December 2017 21: 08 New
                    +1
                    Alex1117 "And not a single collection of genuine documents. You could add the Murzilka magazine and the Pionerskaya Pravda newspaper to your list. They also included" historical stories "."
                    For some, the scientific works of Murzilka. Well, nothing ... will pass ...)))
                    1. Alex1117
                      Alex1117 10 December 2017 21: 50 New
                      +2
                      But what did you fail? Or are you really so ...... naive that you don’t understand that any “scientific work” on historical topics has the level of Murzilka’s journal if it does not contain photocopies of genuine documents in itself or in applications.
                      1. Pancir026
                        Pancir026 11 December 2017 17: 13 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex1117
                        any "scientific work" on historical topics has the level of Murzilka magazine, if it does not contain photocopies of genuine documents in itself or in applications.

                        How can you give direct copies of the 11th-12th century or ..?
                        However, for those who can read this, it’s enough
                        http://www.drevnyaya.ru/vyp/2009_2/part6.pdf
                    2. Seal
                      Seal 11 December 2017 18: 39 New
                      +1
                      And the same for you.
                      In 1906, on the eve of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, the Approved Letter of 1613 on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State was re-photographed and reprinted.
                      How is it remarkable? And the fact that it was the most important state act, which was not lost (like all kinds of annals), was constantly under protection, was inaccessible for revisions. Still - who dares to edit something in the most important state document !!!
                      And what made editing even more difficult was the fact that there were two copies of the Approved Certificate. And on both signatures are all members of the Council. Both copies were stored together, then disconnected, then together again. At the time of publication in 1906, one copy was stored in the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the other in the Armory.
                      And to the trouble of all admirers of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", in the Approved Charter of 1613 there is a section telling about the origin and formation of the Russian State.
                      Yes, Batu is already mentioned in it. But in what context!
                      And most importantly, there are neither Tatars nor Mongols. And just a "horde."
                      So, here is the place we are interested in:
                      “According to the great sovereign Vladimir Manamakh, I took the scepter of the Russian kingdom of kingdom, his son the great prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, and piety prosiya, and all the peasantry in peace and quiet.
                      According to it, a congress at the Russian state in Volodimer, his son the prince the great Vsevolod Yuryevich, a champion of piety and a strong champion for the holy churches, and about the holy Orthodox peasant vrya.
                      According to Vsevolod, the scepter of the Russian state contains the son of his prince the great Yaroslav Vsevolodich, he himself will observe God from Batu in Veliky Novograd and with his children and after capturing the godless Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faith are distributed and renewed by the holy churches.
                      According to him, the Great Russian State will be taken by the scepter, his son, the brave prince the great Alexander Yaroslavich, who, like Germans, show the glorious victory on the Neva, and on the godly faith of the godless Berkai tsar, the beastly wrath in the horde of tame and glorified God’s miracle after death. ”
                      And what do we see?
                      The first one. Our ancestors wrote in 1613: “..when the godless Batu was captured, the holy and immaculate peasant faith was spread and the holy churches renew the packs,” that is, they still remembered that the godless Batu was captured, after which Yaroslav Vsevolodovich “spread the holy and immaculate peasant faith and renew the holy churches of Paki. ” It is a pity, it is not specified when and who Batu was captured. You can, of course, interpret it so that it was not Batu who was captured, but the Russian Land was captured by him. But then it was painfully some kind of short “captivity” that Yaroslav Vsevolodovich himself caught the end of this captivity. And not just caught, but managed to work hard to eliminate the consequences of "captivity", namely, the Christian faith spread, and updated the church. Such things are not done in a short time.

                      And the second one. Our ancestors in 1613 recorded that Alexander Yaroslavich on the Neva won a glorious victory over the Germans (Germans) and not over the sveta (Swedes). Of which our ancestors in 1613 very clearly distinguished. But about the "more significant", as is now believed, the victory of Alexander Yaroslavich over the Germans on Lake Peipsi or near it, our ancestors did not mention. Didn't know about her?
                2. co-creator
                  co-creator 10 December 2017 19: 12 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Nagaibak
                  SPECIALLY FOR UNKNOWN))))

                  Especially for you. I asked a specific question and instead of a specific answer was sent .. to Tikhomirov. If I could ask Tikhomirov a question, I would certainly ask.
                  Scientific works are good, but the trouble is that different historians interpret texts differently and for example, who are “such Basques”
        2. Alex1117
          Alex1117 10 December 2017 10: 23 New
          +2
          Apparently you will be even more surprised, but there are no traces left of the so-called “Mongolian poll head census” in the tax system of our state. To determine the amount of direct tax in Russia, the basis was a collegiate letter. Which was canceled only in 1679. Sokha (area) was measured in "chety". One "couple" of approximately 0,5 acres.
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 10 December 2017 11: 06 New
            +2
            I read the works of Tikhomirov, Zimin, Nasonov, Semenov, Grekov, Yakubo-
            -skogo, Cherepnin, Kargalov, on this subject, so you did not surprise me ...
            1. Nagaibak
              Nagaibak 10 December 2017 21: 09 New
              +1
              In vain you wrote them so many new names, surnames and beech.)))
            2. Alex1117
              Alex1117 10 December 2017 21: 58 New
              +2
              And you were not at all surprised that before the so-called “Mongols” (which are Tatars, but recently called Mongols) for the purposes of taxation they used the concept of “smoke”, after the so-called “Mongols” in Russia they supposedly “forgot” the progressive method tax accounting and returned to collecting tax from the plow. "That's interesting, why supposedly only the notorious" Mongols ", who in terms of intellectual development back in the 18-19 centuries were no different, for example, from Evenki or Yakuts, for some reason forced to conduct a per capita population census, supposedly back in the 13th century, and we ourselves didn’t think of switching to this “progressive method.” People who are never surprised at all live well and calmly. Even after reading a lot of “researchers on the issue”, so to speak.
              1. Luga
                Luga 11 December 2017 10: 12 New
                +1
                Quote: Alex1117
                And you were not at all surprised that before the so-called “Mongols” (which are Tatars, but recently called Mongols) for the purposes of taxation they used the concept of “smoke”, after the so-called “Mongols” in Russia they supposedly “forgot” the progressive method tax accounting and returned to tax on plow. "

                It would be surprising if the Mongols, who by their nature did not plow the land, did not know how to do this, would begin to delve into what is “plow” and how to consider what to receive from it. "From the smoke" - yes, everything is clear here. Smoke - home - landlord - employee - taxpayer. And in the steppe, this is generally the only way to calculate the tax base. I saw a nomad, counted yurts, and that's it.
                1. Seal
                  Seal 11 December 2017 18: 06 New
                  +1
                  I saw a nomad, counted yurts, and that's it.
                  Wow, do you think the Mongols had taxation? Well, to whom and to what extent did the Mongols pay taxes in the 18 century of our era?
                  And if for the Mongols, in your opinion, it was customary to take into account "fumes" as taxation, then why in Russia did they "make" a poll poll?
                  1. Luga
                    Luga 11 December 2017 18: 24 New
                    0
                    Quote: Seal
                    Wow, do you think the Mongols had taxation? Well, to whom and to what extent did the Mongols pay taxes in the 18 century of our era?

                    What do you think? And the territory, and taxes, and the state apparatus, and the army - everything was. They generally do in the XIII century. already there was an empire, however, did not last long ...
                    About the 18 century was not interested. We are now, with your permission, discussing the 13 century. But if this question interests you so much, I think that you can easily find the answer to it on the open spaces of the network - I am too lazy to do this for you.
                    1. Seal
                      Seal 12 December 2017 09: 02 New
                      +3
                      Oh-oh-oh .... well, of course, everything was, everything was ... but the trouble was, it wasn’t long and after some short time of the “Great World Empire” all the Mongols (well, those who are the hulk) returned to his primitive nomadic way of life, forgetting about his "great tax abilities."
                      Oh yes, it’s even more interesting. In fact, according to the official version of the story, everything looks like this:
                      1) Somewhere in the Mongolian steppes, separate clans and families of the hulk ethnic groups wandered, representatives of which sometimes gathered together (and by no means all) for some local holiday. They did not know any taxes; they paid nothing to anyone. The Chinese officials ran into these "Mongols" differently and "collected tribute from them."
                      2) Suddenly they have the Great Leader Kim ... pah, Genghis Khan. He unites all hitherto separate families and families of the Mongols, organizes from the previously not recognized leadership, except the head of the family, the “Great Army” with the strictest discipline, hitherto unattainable for any of the armies of the world, developed a strategy based on the use of the “invincible super-fast and super-maneuverable cavalry. " That is, yesterday’s shepherds moving on traditional Mongolian horse breeds with a height at the withers of 125-127 cm and ... from the horse breeding guide:
                      "... by the nature of the performance, the Mongolian horse is a breed suitable for use under saddle, pack and harness, but due to its small stature and live weight it is adapted to perform work with a small load and low traction. The harsh climatic conditions of Mongolia and The natural selection that dominated the semi-wild keeping of horses made unsuccessful attempts to improve the horse, and for many centuries it remained the same small and unpretentious. Mongolian horses are shallow. Their overwhelming mass has a height at the withers below 130 cm. Their trunk is elongated and very massive. The oblique length of the body usually exceeds the height at the withers by 6% or more, while the girth of the chest is 120-123% of growth for most horses.Relatively short legs and low planting of the body in the limb zones create a squat build of the horse. The Mongolian horse does not tolerate a wet climate, which makes it difficult to use it in other areas."

                      You can also add that the usual way to move a Mongolian horse is a step. The step speed is 5-6 km. in hour. The Mongolian horse is not adapted to amble. Can gallop, but so wild that the main thing for the rider is to stay in the saddle.
                      Having created the army, Genghis Khan set the goal of the army - to conquer the whole world in the name of "progress" and "introduction of Yasa" and most importantly - to find Ryazan located somewhere in the West somewhere and burn it. At the same time, it was strictly forbidden in any way to intersect with the troops of the Nicene Empire and the crusader states in the Levant. That the "Mongol commanders" was performed in the best way. The "Mongolian" and Nicaean units operated in the same areas, but never crossed.
                      It goes without saying that Genghis Khan developed instructions for tax collection and introduced the most progressive taxation .... That is, as Luzhsky writes
                      And the territory, and taxes, and the state apparatus, and the army - everything was.

                      3). Then, as Luzhsky writes
                      the empire, however, did not last long ...
                      And the Mongols, whom the hulk, returned to their primitive (pre-Genghis Khan) state. Forgetting the "progressive tax system"; having lost its most powerful "state apparatus" and so on. Having become an ordinary people, standing at a not very high stage of development, such as the Evenki or Yakuts, at which our Cossacks discovered them in the 17th century AD.
        3. Yura Yakovlev
          Yura Yakovlev 11 December 2017 09: 02 New
          0
          Fresh tradition, but hard to believe. The prince in Novgorod was on the bird's rights. At any moment he could get under the ass with his knee. Even living in the city was forbidden, not to have land ownership.
    5. Vend
      Vend 11 December 2017 10: 29 New
      0
      Quote: parusnik
      It was impossible to solve the eastern issue by military means, the forces of the nomads far exceeded the forces of the Russians, so Alexander Yaroslavich chose the diplomatic path.
      ... and quite tough ....
      Name at least one ruler who raised his country or saved from destruction, which would not be cruel? The softness of Nicholas II led to chaos.
      1. Alex1117
        Alex1117 13 December 2017 05: 50 New
        0
        Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (tsar); Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov The Quietest (Tsar), Fedor Alekseevich Romanov (Tsar); Elizaveta Petrovna (tsarina); Emperor Alexander the First Blessed; Emperor Alexander the Second Liberator; Emperor Alexander the Third Peacemaker; Emperor Matsuhito (Meiji Restoration); Indira Gandhi; George Washington Abraham Lincoln; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Fidel Castro ......
        1. Vend
          Vend 13 December 2017 09: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex1117
          Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (tsar); Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov The Quietest (Tsar), Fedor Alekseevich Romanov (Tsar); Elizaveta Petrovna (tsarina); Emperor Alexander the First Blessed; Emperor Alexander the Second Liberator; Emperor Alexander the Third Peacemaker; Emperor Matsuhito (Meiji Restoration); Indira Gandhi; George Washington Abraham Lincoln; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Fidel Castro ......

          Here they wrote, and now study the history of how these people led the state and what happened in the country during their rule, what laws were issued. And also I advise you to compare the era. because morality at different times was not the same.
  2. ImPerts
    ImPerts 9 December 2017 07: 37 New
    +8
    Cherkasov - Nevsky, Nevsky - Cherkasov ... Since childhood good
    1. zoolu350
      zoolu350 10 December 2017 05: 33 New
      +2
      Yes, under Stalin they were able to create GREAT films, which even now, without any special effects, are watched in one breath and are spectacular ALWAYS. And under the oligarchy of the Russian Federation, miserable movie artworks are created, which, despite the PR, they forget almost immediately.
  3. XII Legion
    XII Legion 9 December 2017 08: 36 New
    19
    It is especially impressive how, for the sake of a great label, he framed his brother Andrew the Horde.
    The figure is iconic - especially now, when again they are forced to choose between west and east.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 9 December 2017 12: 35 New
      +5
      Quote: XII legion
      It is especially impressive how, for the sake of a great label, he framed his brother Andrey the Horde

      And where can I see this shortcut?
      1. XII Legion
        XII Legion 9 December 2017 13: 57 New
        16
        Label do not know where to see
        And the episode is quite famous
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 9 December 2017 14: 08 New
          +6
          There is no label, but there is an episode. Understood.
          1. XII Legion
            XII Legion 9 December 2017 14: 19 New
            18
            I'm sorry, I didn’t live at that time. I judge in this case the work of historians.
            The label may someday be excavated by archaeologists)
            And what - all the labels of that era have survived to this day?
            1. co-creator
              co-creator 9 December 2017 14: 43 New
              +7
              Quote: XII legion
              I'm sorry, I didn’t live at that time. I judge in this case the work of historians.

              This is clear .
              Quote: XII legion
              The label may someday be excavated by archaeologists)

              How much can you dig. There are chronicles. Labels of the Crimean Tatars are. There are even birch bark letters.
              But the labels that were given not by anyhow to anyone, but to the princes themselves and not for buying a pond of salt, but to reign (the same document that should have been stored like the apple of an eye) have not yet been found. Paradox) Maybe there were no shortcuts to reign, eh?
              Quote: XII legion
              And what - all the labels of that era have survived to this day?

              The fact of the matter is that not one has been preserved. There is not a single label for reigning from the Golden Horde.

              Here's an example of a label of Crimean khans to Lithuanian princes.
              https://aquilaaquilonis.livejournal.com/10563.htm
              l
              1. XII Legion
                XII Legion 9 December 2017 15: 30 New
                18
                But how was it not
                The sources of EVERYTHING turn out to be “deceiving" - only modern miracle historians know the truth.
                I even saw a picture of a label on reign - I do not remember only in what material. Need to search.
                But if a document is not preserved after 700 years - there is nothing surprising either. Not made of cast iron
                1. co-creator
                  co-creator 9 December 2017 16: 21 New
                  +6
                  Quote: XII legion
                  The sources of EVERYTHING turn out to be “deceiving" - only modern miracle historians know the truth.

                  Why cheat? There are simply no originals, but lists. During the census, people wrote as they understood the situation or were simply dictated by senior comrades. The original meaning of the document is very easy to lose. For example, the coined term Kievan Rus is already perceived as a real state. I believe that the same thing with shortcuts.
                  If you rely on the Crimean Tatar labels, it’s just a notification that such and such a khan became the king in the Horde and recognizes the prince of such and such (for example, Nevsky) as the main one in Russia. Since the Horde controlled the main trade route to the east, this recognition made any prince a monopolist in trade with the Horde, and this is a huge amount of money which actually meant power over all the principalities of Russia.

                  Quote: XII legion
                  I even saw a picture of a label on reign - I do not remember only in what material. Need to search.

                  Look and find it. No need to suffer, there is nothing.
                  Quote: XII legion
                  But if a document is not preserved after 700 years - there is nothing surprising either. Not made of cast iron

                  Chronicles have been preserved, different papers too, but no labels. Wonders.
                  1. XII Legion
                    XII Legion 9 December 2017 16: 35 New
                    19
                    co-creator
                    I believe that the same thing with shortcuts.

                    You can think of anything
                    Only a lot of sources indicate the presence of labels.
                    Dear Curious below sheds light on the history of the issue.
                    If you think - I can also believe that the labels were unambiguously, but cleared later by order of the authorities in the tsarist period.
                    For example, the collection of labels for the metropolitans has been preserved - as well as for other subjects.
                    1. co-creator
                      co-creator 9 December 2017 16: 42 New
                      +6
                      Quote: XII legion
                      You can think of anything

                      Historians do not see them, too, believe. Why can not I all the more I refer to similar labels.
                      Quote: XII legion
                      Only a lot of sources indicate the presence of labels.

                      So I do not deny their presence. It's just that they are not talking about how the khan appointed the princes to reign on their behalf.

                      Quote: XII legion
                      Dear Curious below sheds light on the history of the issue.

                      That's right. All labels about privileges and benefits.
                      Quote: XII legion
                      If you think - I can also believe that the labels were unambiguously, but cleared later by order of the authorities in the tsarist period.

                      I completely agree. The question is why? Why did the Romanovs clean everything up?

                      Quote: XII legion
                      For example, the collection of labels for the metropolitans has been preserved - as well as for other subjects.

                      Of course . So the question is why they survived, but not to the princes. That is, all supposedly political labels have disappeared.
                      1. XII Legion
                        XII Legion 9 December 2017 16: 46 New
                        16
                        Political shortcuts to reign were. This is certain.
                        Why later cleaned up?
                        Because the period of dependence on the steppe for the Third Rome is at least shameful
                2. Hantengri
                  Hantengri 9 December 2017 21: 41 New
                  +5
                  Quote: XII legion
                  I even saw a picture of a label on reign - I do not remember only in what material. Need to search.
                  But if a document is not preserved after 700 years - there is nothing surprising either. Not made of cast iron

                  Why are you arguing with this creature of alternative historical orientation, "trying to prove something to him? Sorry, but the approving one proves! The creature claimed:
                  "that until the end of the 12th century, the territory of Eurasia was a single state, or rather, it was inhabited by peoples, no, a population that did not even think about some kind of statehood,"
                  ,
                  "Russia was the same, was the subject of this state, which, like other entities, tried to be autonomous.
                  In addition, at the same time, a large Empire begins to split into three "
                  ,
                  "This is Alexander Nevsky, and the so-called Batu Khan, who stopped and overthrew the Western conquerors with fire and sword, and united the Eastern Slavs into a more or less large state, able to withstand the Western partners."
                  wassat laughing !!! Here, let him prove his nonsense! Do not get fooled. hi
                  1. XII Legion
                    XII Legion 9 December 2017 23: 08 New
                    15
                    Good!
                    Thanks for the recommendation. hi
                  2. co-creator
                    co-creator 10 December 2017 01: 18 New
                    +3
                    Quote: HanTengri
                    Why are you arguing with this creature of alternative historical orientation, "trying to prove something to him? Sorry, but the approving one proves!

                    If you are not a creature, then show the document, that is, a shortcut. Maybe in your true story evidence is not needed and enough indirect evidence, but this is not done in science. So present the label, not the creature.
                    1. Hantengri
                      Hantengri 10 December 2017 21: 08 New
                      +1
                      Quotation: blooded man
                      If you are not a creature, then show the document, that is, a shortcut.

                      Label Tokhtamysh Lithuanian Grand Duke Jagiello suit? http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Zolotoord
                      /XIV/1380-1400/Tochtamysch/jarlyk_jagajle.phtml
                  3. Spnsr
                    Spnsr 10 December 2017 10: 10 New
                    +2
                    Quote: HanTengri
                    Creature claimed

                    Listen, creature, it’s enough to look at the picture of history as a whole, and not divide it into particulars, but in general, it is then that the unification of all the free cities of Russia begins, that
                    1. Spnsr
                      Spnsr 10 December 2017 10: 38 New
                      +1
                      Such as Bulgar, Ryazan, Pskov, Novgorod, Kiev!
                      And also an attempt to liberate from the Naglasaksonian ideology, the Western Slavs who dared to fight with the brothers!
                  4. Alex1117
                    Alex1117 10 December 2017 22: 43 New
                    +1
                    And how fundamentally do these nonsense differ from the nonsense about the "monogl conquest under the leadership of Genghis Khan half the world"? You are also unable to prove these nonsense, no matter how many do not ask you. But for some reason you want to take your nonsense without evidence, on the basis of "data from fiction-pseudo-historical literature."
                    1. Spnsr
                      Spnsr 10 December 2017 23: 29 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alex1117
                      And how fundamentally do these nonsense differ from the nonsense about the "monogl conquest under the leadership of Genghis Khan half the world"? You are also unable to prove these nonsense, no matter how many do not ask you. But for some reason you want to take your nonsense without evidence, on the basis of "data from fiction-pseudo-historical literature."

                      I don’t know who you are talking to, but unless of course to me, then rewriting all the same, aaa yaimet a lot of space and time ...
                      And confirmation - this is the whole story repeating from year to year, from century to century, and therefore that era, unattainable to us because of its repeated re-interpretation, can be interpreted in the same way
                      1. Alex1117
                        Alex1117 11 December 2017 19: 27 New
                        +1
                        Not to you. This is a numbered legion. Apparently a fan of the "Roman Empire".
            2. Curious
              Curious 9 December 2017 15: 44 New
              +9
              "And what - all the labels of that era have survived to this day."
              The fate of the numerous labels of the Horde khans to Russian princes, information about which the ancient Russian chronicles preserved, is unknown, although each Russian prince received a label both upon his own accession to the throne and upon the accession of another khan. Especially a lot of labels were issued during the so-called "Great Jam" (1359-1381) - the internecine war in the Golden Horde, during which more than 20 khans were replaced on the Horde throne. The Soviet historian Cherepnin discovered an archival record of the XNUMXth century that reported that labels were given in the Moscow archives given by the khans to the princes of Tver.
              It is possible that the labels stored in the Moscow funds were destroyed later - perhaps in the era of the oprichnina (1565-1572) or with the abolition of parochialism (1682). The strengthening of the autocracy demanded the deprivation of citizens the right to claim any privileges and privileges other than those which the monarchs themselves had granted. As a result, only a few translations of Khan labels-messages to Russian princes in the so-called embassy books were preserved.
              But the clergy, who sought to maintain their privileges in conditions of strengthening the autocratic power, managed to save some documents confirming their benefits.
              Therefore, the collection of Khan labels to Russian metropolitans is available to researchers today.
              Also in the archives of Venice preserved ten Golden Horde documents of the middle of the XIV century.
              Thus, today the following Golden Horde labels are available:
              1. Label Mengu-Timur Metropolitan Cyril (1267).
              2. Fake Uzbek label to Metropolitan Peter (dated 1313).
              3. The label of Uzbek Venetian merchants of Azov (1332).
              4. Shortcut Janibek to the Venetian merchants of Azov (1342).
              5. Shortcut Janibek to the Venetian merchants of Azov (1347).
              6. Label of Berdibek to Metropolitan Alexy (1357).
              7. Shortcut Berdibek to the Venetian merchants of Azov (1358).
              8. Label of Berdibek to the ruler of Crimea Kutlug-Timur (1358).
              9. Label of Muhammad Bulek to Metropolitan Michael (1379).
              10. Label of Tokhtamysh Bek-Hadji (1381).
              11. Label of Tokhtamysh to the Lithuanian Grand Duke Jagaila (1392/1393).
              12. Label Timur-Kutlug Mohammed (1398).
              13. The label of Ulug-Muhammed Tuglu-bai and Khizr (1420).
              14. Label of Ahmed (Akhmat) to the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II (1476).
              15. Label of Ahmed (Akhmat) to Grand Duke Ivan III (1476).
              16. Label Murtaza to Grand Duke Ivan 111 (1486).
              1. Seal
                Seal 11 December 2017 18: 40 New
                +2
                There is one interesting document.
                In 1906, on the eve of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, the Approved Letter of 1613 on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State was re-photographed and reprinted.
                How is it remarkable? And the fact that it was the most important state act, which was not lost (like all kinds of annals), was constantly under protection, was inaccessible for revisions. Still - who dares to edit something in the most important state document !!!
                And what made editing even more difficult was the fact that there were two copies of the Approved Certificate. And on both signatures are all members of the Council. Both copies were stored together, then disconnected, then together again. At the time of publication in 1906, one copy was stored in the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the other in the Armory.
                And to the trouble of all admirers of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", in the Approved Charter of 1613 there is a section telling about the origin and formation of the Russian State.
                Yes, Batu is already mentioned in it. But in what context!
                And most importantly, there are neither Tatars nor Mongols. And just a "horde."
                So, here is the place we are interested in:
                “According to the great sovereign Vladimir Manamakh, I took the scepter of the Russian kingdom of kingdom, his son the great prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, and piety prosiya, and all the peasantry in peace and quiet.
                According to it, a congress at the Russian state in Volodimer, his son the prince the great Vsevolod Yuryevich, a champion of piety and a strong champion for the holy churches, and about the holy Orthodox peasant vrya.
                According to Vsevolod, the scepter of the Russian state contains the son of his prince the great Yaroslav Vsevolodich, he himself will observe God from Batu in Veliky Novograd and with his children and after capturing the godless Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faith are distributed and renewed by the holy churches.
                According to him, the Great Russian State will be taken by the scepter, his son, the brave prince the great Alexander Yaroslavich, who, like Germans, show the glorious victory on the Neva, and on the godly faith of the godless Berkai tsar, the beastly wrath in the horde of tame and glorified God’s miracle after death. ”
                And what do we see?
                The first one. Our ancestors wrote in 1613: “..when the godless Batu was captured, the holy and immaculate peasant faith was spread and the holy churches renew the packs,” that is, they still remembered that the godless Batu was captured, after which Yaroslav Vsevolodovich “spread the holy and immaculate peasant faith and renew the holy churches of Paki. ” It is a pity, it is not specified when and who Batu was captured. You can, of course, interpret it so that it was not Batu who was captured, but the Russian Land was captured by him. But then it was painfully some kind of short “captivity” that Yaroslav Vsevolodovich himself caught the end of this captivity. And not just caught, but managed to work hard to eliminate the consequences of "captivity", namely, the Christian faith spread, and updated the church. Such things are not done in a short time.

                And the second one. Our ancestors in 1613 recorded that Alexander Yaroslavich on the Neva won a glorious victory over the Germans (Germans) and not over the sveta (Swedes). Of which our ancestors in 1613 very clearly distinguished. But about the "more significant", as is now believed, the victory of Alexander Yaroslavich over the Germans on Lake Peipsi or near it, our ancestors did not mention. Didn't know about her ???
                1. Curious
                  Curious 11 December 2017 19: 39 New
                  0

                  Long known document.
                  The approved letter was executed in two copies, the text of which is close. One copy (Archival) was stored in the State Treasury of the former Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (now located in the RSL), the other in the Armory. Historians suggest that one copy was intended for the king, the other - for the patriarchal court. There are several lists of Approved Letters of the XVII – XVIII centuries. At a high archaeographic level, two editions of the monument with the preface by S.A. Belokurov: 1904 (phototypic) and 1906
                  The publication you are talking about is not 1906, but 1904.
                  The approved letter on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow state / was reproduced by the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University under the supervision of a full member of Society C, A. Belokurov. M .: Synod. typ., 1904. 34 p., ill. [24 stlb., 9 l. ill.]. 85 x 67 cm.
                  Large-format publication prepared for the 100th anniversary of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. This is a phototypic reproduction of the “Diploma” of 1613. In view of the impossibility of making an exact copy - the size of which is “more than 5 arshins” - it was “recognized that it should be published in seven separate sheets of not arbitrary size, but the one that each sheet has in the original”. All pictures were taken by Sherer and Nabgolts with the close participation of photographer Neil Nadymashkina. The paper for this publication was modeled on XNUMXth-century paper at the Uglich Paper and Paper Factory.
                  The starting price at auctions is currently up to 80 rubles.
                  The source of any sensational discoveries did not serve.
                2. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 12 December 2017 00: 08 New
                  +1
                  "..With the captivity of the godless Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faith is spread and the holy churches are renewed",

                  It can be interpreted as follows: "despite the fact that they were captured by the godless Batu,
                  spread the Christian faith and renew the churches. "
                  Batu Khan was not captured, but he himself captured many: he reached the very middle of Europe without military defeat.

                  And Alexander Nevsky was called "Nevsky", and not "miraculous" for his victory on the Neva.
                  About the Germans is interesting. The fact is that Swedish historians are perplexed: whom did he defeat on the Neva? According to them, no Swedish military units were there at that time. Maybe he really banged a detachment of the Liaon Order there?
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 10 December 2017 14: 06 New
        +3
        The label (diploma) looked like this:
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 10 December 2017 14: 30 New
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The label (diploma) looked like this:

          It is time for ooh .. stories.
    2. Gopnik
      Gopnik 9 December 2017 19: 38 New
      +3
      Andrei framed himself.
  4. Nehist
    Nehist 9 December 2017 08: 43 New
    +2
    Gg ... Actually, all the campaigns of the Livonian Order were usually responded to the raids of dashing earmen .. There are vaults of the Livonian chronicles where the whole life of the Livonian Order is described in some detail. Strengthening its power and expanding its possessions (namely, expanding rather than unifying), he willingly used the Horde troops. They were even brothers with some of the khans. As for the churches, the Horde themselves understood that it was better to manage the herd through the shepherds. Therefore, all possible cults and religions served. They had a special status, by the way, who doesn’t know, it was during the Horde that the so-called monostyr peasants appeared who did not have the right to leave monostyr lands.
    1. VIN34
      VIN34 9 December 2017 09: 14 New
      +7
      Reasoning on a historical subject is so loose and banal. Especially spelling ... You, dear, do not replace ignorance with skepticism.
    2. Luga
      Luga 9 December 2017 14: 12 New
      +7
      Quote: Nehist
      In fact, all the campaigns of the Livonian Order were usually retaliatory attacks by dashing ushkuynikov ..

      A bold statement. Try to justify. List the military clashes between Russians and Germans in the 13th century, well, at least in the first half. And at the same time tell us who the ears are.
      You can not?
      Then do not throw groundless theses, especially in the format of the ultimate truth.
      But with your permission I’ll try, for some clarity.
      The first direct clash between the Russians and the Germans dates back to 1205, - the capture of the Kukeynos castle on the Dvina by the Germans. Then, if I am not mistaken in 1208, the Germans captured Herzike, on the Dvina, but somewhat higher.
      Then the center of gravity of the armed confrontation is transferred to the territory of modern Estonia, where we have sporadic uprisings of the conquered Estonians (slave psychology has not yet been vaccinated with them), sometimes supported by the Russians, in 1224 Russians lost Yuryev (present Tartu), during the period from 1224 to 1234 - regular raids of knights on Pskov and its lands, 1234 - the battle on Omovzh (near Yuryev), where Yaroslav Vsevolodovich defeated the knights, but could not capture the city. Until 1240's silence. The Pskovs even participated in the battle of Saul on the side of the crusaders. In 1240, the Germans captured Pskov (bloodless) and attempted to capture the Vodskaya Pyatina (construction of the Koporye fortress), 1241 -1242 - the "reconquest" of Alexander Nevsky. Further, until the beginning of the 1250's, it was relatively quiet, the Germans were busy with Lithuanian affairs.
      I did the dating of events from memory, did not check the dates, there may be minor errors, but that's not the point.
      And about ushukinikov even funny. What do you know? Are you on the ears through the Gulf of Finland in the possession of the Order of the Ushkunikov want to send?
      So either check the information that falls into your head from unfamiliar sources, or refrain from such loud statements - you may fall into a silly position.
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 9 December 2017 19: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Luga
        1241 -1242 - "reconquest" Alexander Nevsky.

        The most humor from all that history, which looks very much like the situation, that they again try to climb, when in Russia the purge of "pro-Western ideology" begins. And already an attempt to support them, including Kiev, causes an invasion of the territory of the West, a campaign of the so-called Batu, and the bashing of all kinds of Horde, fie you, well, types of orders, Nevsky ... wink
      2. Alex1117
        Alex1117 10 December 2017 16: 07 New
        +2
        Well, you calmly send the "ancient Rus" on the chisels-odnodrevki across the Black Sea to Constantinople. And nothing, for you this is quite normal. And then all that is the Gulf of Finland.
        1. Luga
          Luga 10 December 2017 16: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Alex1117
          Well, you calmly send the "ancient Rus" on the chisels-odnodrevki across the Black Sea

          Me not. I only sent in ambushes. smile And then not everyone came, and sometimes they didn’t reach ... request
          1. Alex1117
            Alex1117 10 December 2017 22: 56 New
            +2
            Radish horseradish is not sweeter. Rather, the notorious dugouts have better stability than your insides. Which, in principle, are non-navigable. The extension of the sides on punts (in the absence of frames) is nonsense of the pros of historians who studied at humanitarian universities and do not understand a damn thing about anything technical.
  5. Sergey-svs
    Sergey-svs 9 December 2017 08: 55 New
    +8
    Why do our and Western liberals hate Alexander Nevsky and Joseph Stalin so much? request Because these two outstanding statesmen of Russia defended our country in the most difficult times of its history. yes Therefore, for every Russian person they must remain forever one of the most revered historical figures of Russia! good
  6. polpot
    polpot 9 December 2017 11: 44 New
    +6
    The problem of choice was chosen by the Horde, which demanded tribute but did not require a soul, Daniil Galitsky and his heirs sold their souls for the crown from the pope, there is a great Russia and what is Galicia
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 9 December 2017 12: 39 New
      +3
      Nobody chose anything. Tributes were paid to the nomads, so there would be no raids. The Livonians did not have the human and geographical potential to raid, so they simply fought with them.
    2. Alex1117
      Alex1117 10 December 2017 16: 10 New
      +2
      Well, where's the melting crown? Has anyone ever seen her? Has anyone ever admitted that he personally saw this crown? Especially on the head of "Daniil Galitsky"?
  7. victorrat
    victorrat 9 December 2017 13: 24 New
    +3
    Surprising is still the mention of the mythical Mongol nomads. Maybe stop repeating this nonsense? Or is it a bow in the direction of the lies of the history of the Russian state, which earned the title on this. Read about Evpatiya Kolovrat. Is there a mention of the Mongols? Tatars! Two people who created Great Russia. And Alexander Nevsky is our hero. Not Dmitry Donskoy, the myth of which was disseminated by the Bolsheviks, since the Battle of Kulikovo is also a big lie.
    1. Luga
      Luga 9 December 2017 16: 12 New
      +8
      Quote: victorrat
      Surprising is still the mention of the mythical Mongol nomads. Maybe stop repeating this nonsense? Or is it a bow in the direction of the lies of the history of the Russian state, which earned the title on this. Read about Evpatiya Kolovrat. Is there a mention of the Mongols? Tatars! Two people who created Great Russia. And Alexander Nevsky is our hero. Not Dmitry Donskoy, the myth of which was disseminated by the Bolsheviks, since the Battle of Kulikovo is also a big lie.

      If you do not know something, this does not mean that you need to fill in the gaps in your education at your own discretion.
      A lot has been written about the campaigns of the Mongols, just mainly in Chinese and Arabic. In Russia, many of these works have been introduced into scientific circulation relatively recently. In addition, there is also a Mongolian source, The Secret Legend of the Mongols. And if the Russian chroniclers admit that they don’t know where the Mongols came from (in the annals of the "Tatars") what kind of tribe they are ("And we shall not eat up where the essence came, and where is the desa again, God the tidings how much will come upon us for our sins"), then Arab and Chinese sources give fairly complete answers to these questions, and also describe in detail the path of the Mongols from their historical homeland to European borders.
      Quote: victorrat
      Tatars! Two people who created Great Russia.

      Only here the Russians did not suspect this either in the 13th century or later (quote from the annals above). Or do you think that the Russians of their old acquaintances with whom Russia was built might not be recognized in the heat of battle?
      Quote: victorrat
      Read about Evpatiya Kolovrat.

      Let it be known to you that the "Legend of the destruction of the Ryazan land" dates back to the end of the XIV-XV centuries, and the historicity of the personality of Kolovrat himself has not been confirmed in any way. And in general, this is a work of art.
      Quote: victorrat
      Dmitry Donskoy, the myth of which was disseminated by the Bolsheviks, since the Battle of Kulikovo is also a big lie.

      What kind of myth?
      There was such Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, nicknamed Donskoy, his ancestors and descendants are known and counted. There are documents with his seal. There are detailed descriptions of contemporaries of his campaign to the Don and the Battle of Kulikovo itself, both on the Russian side and on the part of its other participants or simply outside observers. They are not classified, you can get acquainted with them if you wish. Of course, it is easier to read various pseudo-historians, because their reasoning, in comparison with the calculations of academic historians, is much more primitive (they write for the same as they themselves - scientists, and these - for the people), and therefore more accessible for understanding, and the conclusions are straightforward, categorical and simple as a bayonet, without all sorts of intellectuals “possible”, “presumably”, etc. Rr-time! - and all knowledge gaps are filled. And there was no battle of Kulikovo, of the Mongol invasion, and Genghis Khan and Lenin were one person.
      1. co-creator
        co-creator 9 December 2017 16: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Luga
        In addition, there is also a Mongolian source, The Secret Legend of the Mongols.

        Oh yes, source of sources)
        Quote: Luga
        Only here the Russians did not suspect this either in the 13th century or later (quote from the annals above). Or do you think that the Russians of their old acquaintances with whom Russia was built might not be recognized in the heat of battle?

        Write about horses, closer to the body.
        Quote: Luga
        There are detailed descriptions of contemporaries of his campaign to the Don and the Battle of Kulikovo itself, both from the Russian side, and from its other participants or simply outside observers.

        the smallest thing left is to confirm this record with archaeological finds.
        Quote: Luga
        then Arab and Chinese sources give fairly complete answers to these questions, and also describe in detail the path of the Mongols from their historical homeland to European borders.

        there are no answers there. Arabs very tightly traded with Russia, but about the Mongols cattle .. they concealed)
        1. Cat
          Cat 9 December 2017 20: 57 New
          +5
          Hmm ...?
          The mythical Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, more precisely, the place of his resting in the walls of the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. For the followers of Nasonov and Fomenko I clarify this in Moscow.
          1. Seal
            Seal 12 December 2017 14: 17 New
            +2
            The mythical Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, more precisely, the place of his resting in the walls of the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin.

            It’s strange. And in the Archangel Cathedral there is also a sarcophagus of Prince Dmitry Donskoy. Hmm !!!
        2. Hantengri
          Hantengri 9 December 2017 22: 18 New
          +2
          Quotation: blooded man
          Quote: Luga
          There are detailed descriptions of contemporaries of his campaign to the Don and the Battle of Kulikovo itself, both from the Russian side, and from its other participants or simply outside observers.
          the smallest thing left is to confirm this record with archaeological finds.

          Nate. At least bite! https://scisne.net/a-2487
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 10 December 2017 01: 23 New
            +4
            Quote: HanTengri
            Nate. At least bite! https://scisne.net/a-2487

            Did you yourself read what Dvurechensky writes? In short, he did not find traces of the battle that is described in "ZAPONDESHN." His findings showed that in that place there was a small skirmish of two detachments and the rest of Dvurechensky’s work was devoted to explaining that the chroniclers supposedly invented and confused everything. His work is no different from the work of Fomenko, only he carried out excavations.
            1. Cat
              Cat 10 December 2017 05: 25 New
              +1
              Have you ever opened a school history textbook? So there is the same thing about the place of the Battle of Kulikovo! Only balanced and without hysteria. Especially if you read the history of "finding" Kulikov field.
              But this is no reason to transfer the scene to Moscow.
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 10 December 2017 09: 43 New
                +3
                Quote: Kotischa
                Have you ever opened a school history textbook? So there is the same thing about the place of the Battle of Kulikovo! Only balanced and without hysteria.

                So I say, Dvurechensky on the site of Kulikov field did not find traces of the battle which is described in the "Zadonshchina". Now you can say like Fomenko that the chroniclers lie and all that or admit that the battle was in another place.
                Quote: Kotischa
                But this is no reason to transfer the scene to Moscow.

                Until a battle place is found, it can be moved anywhere where there are toponyms similar to the Battle of Kulikovo. Of course, to believe that the battle was in Moscow is strong, but Fomenko brought some pretty weighty arguments that should be studied by the same Dvurechensky, and not just brush aside and compose his own version.
            2. Hantengri
              Hantengri 10 December 2017 21: 36 New
              0
              Quotation: blooded man
              His findings showed that in that place there was a small skirmish of two detachments and the rest of Dvurechensky’s work was devoted to explaining that the chroniclers supposedly invented and confused everything.

              8-10K Russians at 10-15K monogol (according to Dvurechensky) is a “small skirmish ??? What, in your opinion, is a decent battle then? (Given that the battle took place in the“ Ice ”, according to modern calculations of mobilization ability of that time , 350 - 400 forged ratification of Russians (Alexander's squad + Novgorod city regiment) and 250-300 Livonians + "Miracles without a number" (wretched, in the sense, no one counted !!!).
              1. co-creator
                co-creator 11 December 2017 12: 39 New
                +3
                Quote: HanTengri
                8-10K Russian for 10-15K monogol (according to Dvurechensky) is a "little hassle ??? What, in your opinion, is a decent battle then?

                What are 10k and 15k? I watched it on YouTube, there weren’t such numbers there. And there were no finds that would confirm these figures. Yes, he said that so much could fit no more.
                Not I determine how many thousands are needed for a "decent battle." There are chronicles about the Battle of Kulikovo and the approximate number of soldiers is indicated there. Be so kind as to confirm them, and if you can’t, then you don’t need to present your version as evidence.
                Quote: HanTengri
                If we consider that according to modern calculations of mobilization ability, the “massacre” of the battle involved 350–400 Russians forged (Alexander’s squad + Novgorod city regiment) and 250-300 Livonians + “Miracles without a number”

                According to modern estimates, there could not be any Tatar-Mongol invasion, much less in the winter in the forests. We draw conclusions.
                1. Hantengri
                  Hantengri 11 December 2017 22: 16 New
                  0
                  Quotation: blooded man
                  According to modern estimates, there could not be any Tatar-Mongol invasion, much less in the winter in the forests. We draw conclusions.

                  Can you name the authors of the calculations? Concerning the "Ice" battle and mobilization ability, at that time, I, personally, compiled the figures from the military historian, the mediaevist Klim Zhukov. And who did you take your "calculations" from?
                  Quotation: blooded man
                  What are 10k and 15k? I watched it on YouTube, there weren’t such numbers there. And there were no finds that would confirm these figures.

                  What finds do you need 100 tons of armor and hundreds of kilograms of arrowheads? Backfill question: What do you think, then, how much did one steel ax cost?
                  Quotation: blooded man
                  Yes, he said that so much could fit no more.

                  Those. Dvurechensky said that traces of the battle were found, even an oak grove was found in which an ambush regiment could sit (right across Zadonshchina), but, on this field, more than 20-25K horsemen could not fit. Is not it? I repeat the question 8-10K forged rati for Russia, at that time, is it a lot, or "about nothing"?
                  Quotation: blooded man
                  Not I determine how many thousands are needed for a "decent battle." There are chronicles about the Battle of Kulikovo and the approximate number of soldiers is indicated there.

                  In the "Livonian Rhymed Chronicle" it was said that for every German, on the Battle of the Ice, there were 60 Russians ... As a matter of fact, the Batu knights fought like lions, but they got tired of waving sabers and Alexander and Novgorodians filled up them with dumb meat! lol Question: is it worth checking the messages of chronicles and annals using cross-sources and archeology? Or it’s written, by some monk (not military, which is important) through 100 !!! years, after the fight - stopitzot milionov, then - stopitstsot milionov? wassat
              2. Seal
                Seal 11 December 2017 18: 31 New
                +1
                Our ancestors (already partially infected with the Western version of the development of history) as early as 1799 believed that for the first time the Mongols appeared within the Russian Empire (within the borders of 1799) in 1368, after they were expelled from China.

                So, how could Alexander Nevsky communicate with the “Mongols” if in 1799 they were sure that they (the Mongols) appeared within Russia much later than the death of Prince Alexander?
        3. Luga
          Luga 10 December 2017 14: 51 New
          0
          By your message from 16: 53 yesterday, as well as by many others, you managed to demonstrate not only the absence in your head of any knowledge and ability to think soundly and systemically, but also the lack of any education. And although I am deeply indifferent to what your parents did during your childhood, judging by some signs, which never ended, still it would be worthwhile for them to devote some time to bringing to you the basics of behavior in society.
          Now about your "historical" knowledge, so to speak.
          To read all the waste paper that various authors are publishing now is simply unrealistic. There are too many of them, so much so that in a satisfactory way, their concepts can be systematized only by devoting a great deal of time. Personally, I can’t determine where you got the nonsense that you are trying to uphold here. But one thing I can say clearly - the theses that you defend can only inspire confidence in a person who has the most superficial understanding of history, has terrifying gaps in education and, at the same time, has the highest opinion of himself.
          Communicating with such a person is uninteresting and, most unfortunate, useless.
          In my personal Kunstkamera, I put you in a place of honor after the user venaya, if the moderators consider this an insult (which would not be surprising to me), then I am ready to endure a ban corresponding to my degree of guilt.
          1. Seal
            Seal 11 December 2017 18: 34 New
            +1
            I repeat it especially for you.
            Our ancestors (already partially infected with the Western version of the development of history) as early as 1799 believed that for the first time the Mongols appeared within the Russian Empire (within the borders of 1799) in 1368, after they were expelled from China.



            So, how could Alexander Nevsky communicate with the “Mongols” if in 1799 our ancestors, including the academics who presented this work to Emperor Paul the First, were sure that they (the Mongols) appeared within Russia much later than the death of Prince Alexander ?
      2. Spnsr
        Spnsr 9 December 2017 23: 52 New
        +2
        Quote: Luga
        mainly in chinese and arabic

        That's exactly where the arrogant Saxons sat and wrote for a long time, and now we add this biller to ourselves as confirmation!
        I. No one wonders why the story is exactly what daredevils dictate to us! And why do we perceive it as an axiom, like the statement about the civilized west, and the enlightened "" geyropa
        1. Luga
          Luga 10 December 2017 16: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: SpnSr
          That's exactly where the arrogant Saxons sat and wrote for a long time, and now we add this biller to ourselves as confirmation!

          When did they sit there? In the days of Rashid ad-Din, in the 13th century? Or took these arrogant Saxons in the 19th century. all the manuscripts found, translated, read, did not like, then rewritten in their own way and placed in the same places? Moreover, they forged the documents in such a way that even now experts are sure that they were written in the period from the 13th to the 16th century. Yes, ah, they, arrogant Saxons, are not capable of that. All give up. Checkmate. There were no Mongols, they were invented by the arrogant.
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 10 December 2017 23: 35 New
            +1
            Quote: Luga
            Or took these arrogant Saxons in the XNUMXth century. all the manuscripts found, translated, read, did not like, then rewritten in their own way and placed in the same places?

            After all, you can think adequately! With all the inquisitiveness of the mind, and not to harass the Naglasaksonian interpretation of history!
          2. Alex1117
            Alex1117 11 December 2017 06: 10 New
            +2
            With impudent Saxons, either busting or generalizing. Replace the impudent Saxons with the Jesuits who had been sitting in China since the Minas since 1583, and under the Qing, as the researchers note, a long time before the banning of the Order in Europe in 1773, a peculiar concordat was concluded between the Jesuits and the Chinese emperors: the right of unhindered preaching in exchange for Western technology. Which, after the expulsion of the Jesuits from China by the next emperor, who drastically changed the policies of their predecessors, were declared "primordially ancient Chinese" - and everything will fall into place. Jesuits all over the world carried and introduced into their minds the official Catholic version of history.
            There are a lot of questions regarding Rashid ad Din. Firstly, the most ancient version of his manuscript, the one in Arabic, even officially refers to the 14th century.
            1. Spnsr
              Spnsr 11 December 2017 06: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex1117
              Which, after the expulsion of the Jesuits from China by the next emperor, who drastically changed the policies of their predecessors, were declared "primordially ancient Chinese" - and everything will fall into place.

              I think you and I are about the same thing!
              1. Luga
                Luga 11 December 2017 10: 28 New
                0
                No, guys, do you REALLY believe that historical sources were rewritten by WORLDWIDE by someone (impudent Saxons, Jesuits, etc.), and this has been done for hundreds of years according to a single plan and scenario? Can you imagine what you are talking and writing about? Can you imagine HOW this was supposed to happen? The armies of the most qualified historians who know the clouds of languages, acting with the same intention, need this ... Who will prepare them (the teaching staff) and for what purpose - to illustrate the archives? There were no other, more important cases? People dear, I do not believe that you can talk about it seriously!
                1. Spnsr
                  Spnsr 11 December 2017 12: 53 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Luga
                  SERIOUSLY consider that sources on history were WORLDWIDE rewritten by someone (

                  Not that word! For some, you don’t need to rewrite anything, write from scratch! An example of the great Ukrainians!
                2. Seal
                  Seal 11 December 2017 18: 24 New
                  +1
                  And the only body that had all this, including finance, was the Roman Catholic Church, led by the Pope. The scope of the Jesuit order was a mass of other orders, including those working in the field of public education in the right direction:
                  Benedictines.
                  The contribution of the Benedictines to the culture and civilization of Western society is enormous, in the early Middle Ages Benedictine monasteries were the main centers of culture in Western Europe. Almost all the prominent scholars of the time came out of the schools attached to the abbeys, including Bede Hon. Monasteries organized fairs that revived trade; hospitals where they treated the suffering. Accepting travelers, monasteries actually served as hotels. Many Benedictine monks such as Anselm of Canterbury and Peter Damian were prominent philosophers and theologians.
                  Benedictine monasteries arose in England, France, and other countries of Western and Central Europe, and by the XNUMXth century in Eastern Europe.
                  Franciscans. By 1264, the Franciscans were subordinate to the General 8 thousand monasteries and 200 thousand monks. By the 1700th century, the Franciscan order united 25 monasteries and XNUMX thousand monks. From the XNUMXth to the XNUMXth centuries, representatives of the order were confessors of most European monarchs, which helped them influence the politics of entire states.
                  There was also a “secular” branch of the Franciscans - the order of the tertiary, designed for secular people who would like, without leaving the world and their usual activities, to lead a cleaner lifestyle and in some way find a monastery in their own home.
                  Theatians. The main tasks of the order were the fight against heresies and the call of the priesthood to renew life. The missionary activity of the theater went to almost the whole of Europe, and later to America, Persia, and the Caucasus.
                  The heyday of the order fell on the XVII century, in the XVIII century the order began to decline.

                  Dominicans. In the era of greatest prosperity, the Dominican order totaled up to 150 members in 000 provinces (of which 45 are outside Europe). Later, the Dominicans were driven out by the Jesuits from schools and court sermons, and partly from missionary work.

                  All Catholic monks worked for one purpose - to exalt their denomination and its leader the Pope. This was the army of the most qualified (at that time) historians you were looking for, knowing the clouds of languages, acting with the same intent ...
      3. Alex1117
        Alex1117 10 December 2017 16: 14 New
        +2
        If in the annals there are “Tatars”, why do you forward them to the “Mongols”? In fulfillment of the instructions of the Vatican regional committee?
        1. Luga
          Luga 10 December 2017 16: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex1117
          If in the annals there are “Tatars”, why do you forward them to the “Mongols”? In fulfillment of the instructions of the Vatican regional committee?

          Because they were the Mongols, whom the Russian chroniclers called the Tatars, for they had no idea who they were, which they honestly admitted. Chronicles called them Moabites, so now they are Semites, or what?
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 10 December 2017 18: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: Luga
            Because it was a Mongol

            Won the night! Wonanokak, however!
            Are those Mongols directly called Mongols at the beginning of the last century?
            1. Luga
              Luga 10 December 2017 20: 36 New
              +1
              Quote: SpnSr
              Quote: Luga
              Because it was a Mongol

              Won the night! Wonanokak, however!
              Are those Mongols directly called Mongols at the beginning of the last century?

              Here are the very ones, but what? Or do you want to use the terminology of the XIII century today? Then say “Rusichi”, not Russians, Moscow, not Moscow, “Germans Sveisky” instead of Swedes, “Germans Fryazinsky” instead of Italians, otherwise you’ll generally go over to the annalistic speech with “beshé”, “go” you’ll be afraid and so on It seems to me that it is more convenient to speak in modern Russian, but now we will start to argue: the Black Sea, the Russian, or the Pont Evksinsky in general.
              To be honest, I’m not very aware when exactly in your opinion the Mongols were called the Mongols, if they are the next Fomenko’s pearls, then I don’t care. But I have repeatedly heard that in the era described they were called moals (by whom - I don’t remember, maybe self-name), and now they themselves call them Mongols, as we call ourselves Russians. In our chronicles, the expression "Mungal steppes" is found.
              1. Spnsr
                Spnsr 10 December 2017 22: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: Luga
                the Germans are in-house "instead of the Swedes," the Germans are Fryazino "instead of the Italians, otherwise you’ll generally go over to the annals with" better "," go "you’re afraid," etc. It seems to me that it is more convenient to speak in modern Russian. And now we will begin to argue: the Black Sea, whether Russian, or even the Pont Evksinsky.

                So you yourself cross out, for example, the Germans destroying Rome, continue in the same vein, and in the end you may be able to throw away the extra husk, and there will be a more or less clear story !!!
          2. Alex1117
            Alex1117 11 December 2017 06: 14 New
            +2
            That option when the Mongols called the Hulk nation is no less ridiculous than the option you proposed to call them "Semites".
            1. Luga
              Luga 11 December 2017 10: 46 New
              0
              Quote: Alex1117
              That option when the Mongols called the Hulk nation is no less ridiculous than the option you proposed to call them "Semites".

              Clarified here. "Moals" is truly a self-name. So Sartacus, the son of Batu introduced himself to Guillaume de Rubruk, the ambassador of Louis of France.
              "Mungal Steppes" are found in chronicles and documents quite often. Why don’t you the Mongols?
              1. Spnsr
                Spnsr 11 December 2017 12: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: Luga
                Mungal steppes "are found in chronicles and documents quite often. Why don’t you the Mongols?

                And why do you need a great mogul !? Not the basis? How great America, great Germany, great Russia? So is the great Tartaria?
  8. Dimmih
    Dimmih 9 December 2017 14: 37 New
    +5
    Quote: victorrat
    Surprising is still the mention of the mythical Mongol nomads. Maybe stop repeating this nonsense? Or is it a bow in the direction of the lies of the history of the Russian state, which earned the title on this. Read about Evpatiya Kolovrat. Is there a mention of the Mongols? Tatars! Two people who created Great Russia. And Alexander Nevsky is our hero. Not Dmitry Donskoy, the myth of which was disseminated by the Bolsheviks, since the Battle of Kulikovo is also a big lie.

    I agree, Mongolia is also a mythical country, bordered by Narnia and Westeros. And all the references to the Mongols were faked by historians. There is a criminal conspiracy of chroniclers of all countries and times.
    1. co-creator
      co-creator 9 December 2017 16: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: Dimmih
      And all the references to the Mongols were faked by historians. There is a criminal conspiracy of chroniclers of all countries and times.

      Well, the fact that you will not find MONGOL in Russian chronicles is just a documentary fact. This is how easily the Mughal historians transformed into a Mongol, and you are looking for all the Narnians.
      1. Hantengri
        Hantengri 9 December 2017 22: 28 New
        +2
        Quotation: blooded man
        Well, the fact that you will not find MONGOL in Russian chronicles is just a documentary fact. This is how easily the Mughal historians transformed into a Mongol, and you are looking for all the Narnians.

        Mogul / Mongol ... Doesn’t it seem like never? You, my friend, in childhood, did not drop your head on the battery? (Purely academic interest. I’m trying to find out the reasons for the general, alternative giftedness of giftedness, some of the passengers).
        1. co-creator
          co-creator 10 December 2017 01: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: HanTengri
          Mogul / Mongol ... Doesn’t it seem like never?

          What does it mean? Historians, however, write and quote historical records literally. With what joy did the Mughals replace the Mongols? Maybe they changed other words and names. but they don’t tell us?
          Quote: HanTengri
          You, my friend, in childhood, did not drop your head on the battery? (Purely academic interest. I’m trying to find out the reasons for the general, alternative giftedness of giftedness, some of the passengers).

          I am not, but you? Where did I write an alternative story? It was you, instead of the Mughals, who invented the Mongols, and not I and the Russian chroniclers.
          1. Hantengri
            Hantengri 11 December 2017 23: 27 New
            0
            Quotation: blooded man
            I am not, but you? Where did I write an alternative story? It was you, instead of the Mughals, who invented the Mongols, and not I and the Russian chroniclers.

            Russian chroniclers, in general, wrote "Tatars". laughing And, here, all sorts of "unchristians" (Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Khorezmians and other Turks conquered), called them something consonant with the words "Mogul", "Mogul", "Mongol" ... nonsense?
        2. Alex1117
          Alex1117 10 December 2017 16: 18 New
          +1
          All the official history now was once alternative to some versions. Even the apostle Thomas wrote that in India there is a huge powerful Christian state ruled by Presbyter John. For a long time, this was the OFFICIAL version. For several centuries, the kings of the West and the Pope sent ambassadors to this "Presbyter". However, all in vain, none of the ambassadors found this state. But since Vermi was introduced about it very deeply, I had to invent what it was supposed to be, but it was destroyed by certain “Mongols” led by Genghis Khan. But since Christianity in the depths of Asia did not want to be abandoned, they began to declare these same "Mongols" - "yellow crusaders." After some time, having received recognition, it became official. Now it's time to review her. Do you have this inevitable process causing rejection?
        3. Alex1117
          Alex1117 10 December 2017 16: 47 New
          +1
          And you are not at all interested in the question, by virtue of what alternatine giftedness did your ordinary predecessors suddenly dislike the ordinary Mogulistan, that instead of the "Mughals" they invented and put into circulation the "Mongols" who were stationed in the east of Asia?
    2. Spnsr
      Spnsr 10 December 2017 11: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Dimmih
      I agree, Mongolia is also a mythical country
      how I agree with you about the mythical country! Especially in view of the fact that the territory that is now called Mongolia, and the population that are now called the Mongols, were called such in the third decade of the last century!
  9. Luga
    Luga 9 December 2017 15: 18 New
    +9
    He put the article "plus" but rather so, in recognition of the merits of the hero of the article than its author.
    Personally, the article did not give me anything new, all the facts set forth in it are well known, their interpretations are banal and hackneyed.
    I would like to add something to the article.
    Firstly, Alexander, being the prince of Novgorod, actively corresponded with the Pope of Rome with a view to receiving a crown in exchange for passing under the patronage of Rome, like Daniil Galitsky, and even, according to the pope’s letters to Alexander, agreed to convert to Catholicism. Not fused. But the fact of correspondence suggests that Russia will take the path — vassal dependence on the horde or struggle against it at the limit of forces in alliance with the West was decided in long and painful meditations and throwings, and the decisions were by no means obvious. In addition, this casts some doubt on Alexander’s exceptional commitment to Orthodoxy, for which he was subsequently extolled and even proclaimed an Orthodox saint.
    Nothing is said in the article about the fierce controversy in historical science regarding whether the Tatars (I will use this term as in the annals) brought Alexander to Russia for a showdown with his brother (Nevryuev army) and whether he was responsible for the pogrom of Russian lands. Nothing has been written about the campaign in Tavastland (present-day Finland) and against the Lithuanians in the 1250 years.
    It seems to me that if you took up writing an article about such a famous person as Alexander Nevsky, you need to approach this matter more responsibly, study the subject more deeply, and not be limited to general phrases that have long been filled with all the curious teeth.
  10. co-creator
    co-creator 9 December 2017 16: 55 New
    +2
    XII Legion,
    If there are political labels, then they need to be provided.

    Strange logic. The labels were stripped, but there is no record. This type of record was not found, right?
  11. romb
    romb 9 December 2017 18: 57 New
    +4
    Another schiz on the theme of heroic fantasy. The Russians almost nowhere and in some courageous way showed themselves to the nomads. The collapse of the nomadic powers occurred as a result of regular historical processes. And the Russians have nothing to do with them. They are only recipients of preferences. In particular, all Slavic associations in the CIS were founded or existed on the fragments and / or under the direct patronage of the Turkic (proto-Türkic) powers and ethno-political entities: the Huns, the Khazar Kaganate, the Berendeys, the Kumans, the Pechenegs, Kipchaks, the Volga Bulgaria, the Golden Horde, the Empire Timurids, etc.
    Even Alexander "Nevsky" was no more than a vassal who received the right to reign from a suzerain.
    1. dSK
      dSK 9 December 2017 22: 10 New
      +1
      You forgot to put a signature on your masterpiece - "Crazy hands."
    2. Spnsr
      Spnsr 10 December 2017 19: 45 New
      0
      Quote: romb
      The collapse of the nomadic powers occurred as a result of regular historical processes. And the Russians have nothing to do with them.

      Are you laughing? Nomadic power - is it a campaign glum? Yes, you darling, an incredible joker probably!
      But with the breakdown of powers, from history I surely know two at least, these are the Russian Empire and the USSR!
      But they were not nomadic!
      More empires in the collapse of which Russia took part, the speech of the Commonwealth, Sweden, and
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 10 December 2017 20: 05 New
        0
        And the Ottoman Empire, but not one of them was nomadic? Hence the question, at the expense of the nomadic powers is this a joke?
        1. romb
          romb 10 December 2017 21: 32 New
          0
          That’s what you say to them: what their ancestors Oguzes say were never nomadic people wassat
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 10 December 2017 23: 57 New
            0
            Quote: romb
            That’s what you say to them: what their ancestors Oguzes say were never nomadic people wassat

            Did you understand what you said? Nomadic nationality does not imply power!
            I will say even more, does not imply nationality. In one place where these nomads can come, they will be perceived differently than in another! And their assignment to one or another nationality is a kind of classification, suggesting a generalized view and a definite need for this, which the Romanovs did! Those. people lived, didn’t bother, they were engaged in some kind of craft, they didn’t even assume that they belong to one or another nationality, and then a learned husband appears who writes them under a certain name and describes their craft lifestyle and begins to cultivate self-awareness!
            For example, Ukrainian identity is now being brought up in Ukraine, and brought up in opposition to the Russian, through the interpretation of the civil war as a war with the Russians!
            Admit that you just wanted to mock !? Otherwise, it will be possible to perceive it as absence. Even the usual craving for understanding the essence of the issue!
            1. romb
              romb 11 December 2017 13: 54 New
              0
              Do you understand the differences between: tribal group, nationality and nation?
  12. Varyag77
    Varyag77 9 December 2017 21: 01 New
    +4
    Quote: romb
    Another schiz on the theme of heroic fantasy. The Russians almost nowhere and in some courageous way showed themselves to the nomads. The collapse of the nomadic powers occurred as a result of regular historical processes. And the Russians have nothing to do with them. They are only recipients of preferences. In particular, all Slavic associations in the CIS were founded or existed on the fragments and / or under the direct patronage of the Turkic (proto-Türkic) powers and ethno-political entities: the Huns, the Khazar Kaganate, the Berendeys, the Kumans, the Pechenegs, Kipchaks, the Volga Bulgaria, the Golden Horde, the Empire Timurids, etc.
    Even Alexander "Nevsky" was no more than a vassal who received the right to reign from a suzerain.

    Two tablespoons of iodine in the morning and glitches pass. Vision will be restored and historical materials will be available for reading. Well, or right away if the case is neglected in a hospital. Your sidekicks are already there. Napoleon, Hitler, etc. etc.
    1. romb
      romb 10 December 2017 07: 39 New
      +2
      I do not beg the heroism of the Russian people (namely, the people) during the invasion of Napoleon. And at the same moment, if you look as it was, because Napoleon did not lose a single battle of the Russian army during the active phase of his invasion of the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia. His defeat is a direct result of the miscalculations of the French themselves in planning events to properly supply their troops. Transport and logistics infrastructure was not to hell with him. And the climatic conditions were also not taken into due consideration by them.
      And so, if Russia was commensurate in territory with the average European countries, then the conflict for the “Russians” ended quickly and very badly. Napoleon's fatal mistake is that he turned out to be divorced from his European supply bases, deeply wedging himself into the territory of the inconclusively defeated enemy. Here is the result.
      According to WWII, not everything is so simple either. But I will not touch this topic, because we all know how it all ended for Hitler. And not Russians fought there, but a conglomerate of hundreds of more than a nation.
      1. Dimmih
        Dimmih 10 December 2017 09: 04 New
        0
        There is a good verse to this: He is a winner, one way or another, thanks to his ingenuity or luck. And for what reasons they won, it is possible to argue and turn up arguments for this matter until turning blue. The result is unchanged.
      2. Spnsr
        Spnsr 10 December 2017 11: 54 New
        0
        Well, Napoleon and Hitler also climbed with the whole of Europe! Or do you think that Napoleon came alone, however, but then he was met by hundreds of more than nations? Well, with Hitler it was not so simple!
        You do not distort my friend!
        And they became hundreds of nationalities according to the works of the “learned men” of the Romanovs, otherwise now they would have been the same Tatara, or the modern Tatars, and the Romanovs would have ruled not Tartar, but Russia!
        1. romb
          romb 10 December 2017 12: 43 New
          +1
          This is you about the Koshkin - cat (Turkic nomad, migrant). Ordinary Horde nobles.
          By the way, I don’t particularly remember the noblemen with East Slavic names in the time of Peter the Great.
          The only reason why they did not. Probably because the Horde did not set a goal to destroy the people who inhabited the territories under their control. Quite the contrary, it launched the process of ethnogenesis among a certain part of the Finno-Ugric peoples, Slavs and individual Turkic-speaking groups.
          1. Luga
            Luga 10 December 2017 16: 05 New
            0
            Quote: romb
            In particular, all Slavic associations in the CIS were founded or existed on the fragments and / or under the direct patronage of the Turkic (proto-Türkic) powers and ethno-political education

            Of course, I can understand the true Russophobe who, in his pathological hatred of everything Russian, can agree to "slave psychology with imperial thinking", but what you wrote, in my opinion, is already too much. Even the most ardent "pro-Westerners" have not reached this point - they only claim to Rurik and the period of the founding of the Russian state, well, then already the 18th century is also attributed to themselves.
            Can you explain why the Türks? But what about the Greeks, from whom Russia adopted Christianity? And the Swedes who founded the state for us? No, something is wrong here. I heard a lot about the complete obedience of Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich to the Khazars, about how Vladimir Monomakh bowed to the Polovtsy, I even know about the great Polovtsian khan Yuri Konchakovich, who had converted to Christianity from contempt for the Russians and was cynical mockery of the Mongol horses (Mongols are also Turks?) but he didn’t go that far in his conclusions. wassat
            Quote: romb
            This is you about the Koshkin - cat (Turkic nomad, migrant).

            What does "cat" mean? Maybe just a cat - an animal like that? After all, there were such in Russia, for sure.
            Have you heard about Andrei Kobyl? This is a historical figure, the real existence of which can only be challenged by you, the boyar, who served Simeon the Proud.
            I’m afraid to suppose, but maybe the Romanov-Zakharyin-Koshkins called themselves just because the grandfather of the patriarch Filaret (the first Romanov) was called Roman Yuryevich, and his grandfather, in turn, was called Zakhari Ivanovich, and his grandfather was called Zakhariy Ivanovich and he was the youngest son of that same Andrei Kobyla and bore the nickname ... tadam! ... Cat! - maybe? Yes, Fedor Andreyevich Koshka, his signature is on the spiritual letter (testament) of Dmitry Donskoy as a witness. Could it be that the “Cats” because the “Cat,” as you think?
            1. romb
              romb 10 December 2017 21: 28 New
              0
              Have you heard about Andrei Kobyl? This is a historical figure, the real existence of which can only be challenged by you, the boyar, who served Simeon the Proud.

              Seriously? About this character there is only one indication, and then its reliability is doubtful. Why not say that it was Glandal Cambil, or not the offspring of Romulus himself.
              And why exactly the Koshkins? And not Kotov? Moreover, a cat is female. Isn't it strange that they called a man like that? And in general, by that time, in Russia it wasn’t customary to speak a cat, but rather a kitten or cat. And the word cat began to be used only after a few centuries.
              In a word, what you are trying to prove to me here is only an attempt by Russian and Soviet historiography, to prove the homegrown roots of the imperial family. These tales arose as a counterweight from the Russophiles to the text of the Velvet Book of the seventeenth century, in which the Romanovs themselves attempted to ascribe to themselves a European origin. And as it seems to me, these are ordinary migrants from the Horde, sent to calm down the conflicts that arose as a result of short-sighted amateur performances, the son of Kalta Simion. The indicated character, due to his power-hungry character, created the most serious friction among the Horde taxpayers. So the Horde sent advisers to him who would keep him in check.
              1. Spnsr
                Spnsr 11 December 2017 00: 07 New
                0
                Quote: romb
                it wasn’t customary to say a cat, but rather a kitten or cat

                Kosh, Kosh said, my grandmother called it that!
                Maybe you’re right about the cat’s account, wherever you wandered, in the mornings only a bunch of mice was invited to the doorstep, traded for milk.
                1. romb
                  romb 11 December 2017 13: 52 New
                  0
                  Maybe. But certainly not the thirteenth century? laughing
                  1. Spnsr
                    Spnsr 12 December 2017 13: 18 New
                    0
                    Quote: romb
                    Maybe. But certainly not the thirteenth century? laughing

                    Do you know for sure what they called in the 13th century? And why not assume that borrowing is not borrowing at all, but a trace of one language?
              2. Luga
                Luga 11 December 2017 14: 14 New
                0
                Quote: romb
                And why exactly the Koshkins?

                Because Fedor Andreyevich was nicknamed the Cat. Everything is simple. They would call him a Cat, would be the Kotovs. Why I don’t know a cat, probably, his habits, his behavior was reminiscent of the habits of a cat.
                Quote: romb
                but rather a kitten or cat.

                Where did you read it? And why not a kosh or a koshara, for example?
                Quote: romb
                In a word, what you are trying to prove to me here is only an attempt by Russian and Soviet historiography, to prove the homegrown roots of the imperial family.

                No, just an attempt to rely on verified facts, not speculation. I’m not writing about the ancestors of Andrei Kobyla, about whom there are only legends, you are right trying to get the Romanovs almost from Romulus. Andrey was a mare, served Simeon the Proud, his son was nicknamed the Cat, and the Romanovs also came from him. Why assume that they are the Horde nobles?
                Quote: romb
                And as it seems to me, these are ordinary migrants from the Horde, sent to calm down the conflicts that arose as a result of short-sighted amateur performances, the son of Kalta Simion.

                But I don’t give up like that. I somehow did not hear that there were any conflicts in the reign of Simeon the Proud that required the intervention of the Horde directly in Moscow. All problems Simeon and Janibek solved in the Horde. Which, interestingly, did Simeon show "short-sighted amateur activity"? What do you have in mind?
                Quote: romb
                So the Horde sent advisers to him who would keep him in check.

                Is this written somewhere? Share, I do not know, I honestly admit. If all this just surrenders to you, then at least on the basis of what? Are there any prerequisites?
  13. Conductor
    Conductor 9 December 2017 21: 20 New
    0
    ROC and Nicholas 2 were counted :? Are you right?
  14. tezey
    tezey 9 December 2017 23: 28 New
    +3
    It is not clear to me why the battle of Alexander Nevsky with the knights of the Livonian Order is called the Battle of the Ice. There are still no finds in the area of ​​Lake Peipsi associated with the battle. And here’s what’s interesting. In the “Elder Livonian Rhymed Chronicle” the battle was described, so too few people were brought,
    (02237.) der brûdere her was ouch zû clein. (02237) the army of the knight brothers was also too small
    (02238.) îdoch sie quâmen uber ein, (02238) However, they came to a consensus
    (02239.) daß sie die Rûßen ritten an. (62) (02239) attack the Russians.
    (02240.) strîtes man mit in began. (02240) The Germans began a battle with them.
    (02241.) die Rûßen hatten schutzen vil, (63) (02241) The Russians had many shooters (63),
    (02242.) die hûben dô daß êrste spil (64) (02242) who courageously accepted the first onslaught (64),
    (02243.) menlîch vor des kuniges schar. (02243) [being] in front of the prince's squad (vor der kuniges schar).
    (02244.) man sach der brûder banier (65) dar (02244) It was visible as a detachment (65) of the knight brothers
    (02245.) die schutzen underdringen, (02245) defeated (65a) shooters;
    (02246.) man hôrte swert dâ clingen (02246) the sound of swords was heard there
    (02247.) und sach helme schrôten. (02247) and it was visible how helmets were cut.
    (02248.) an beider sît die tôten (02248) On both sides killed
    (02249.) vielen nider ûf daß gras. (66) (02249) fell on the grass (66).
    (02250.) wer in der brûdere her was (02250) Those who were in the army of the knight brothers,
    (02251.) die wurden ummeringet gar. (02251) were surrounded.
    (02252.) die Rûßen hatten sulche schar, (02252) The Russians had such a military (schar),
    (02253.) daß ie wol sechzic (67) man (02253) that every German was attacked,
    (02254.) einen dûtschen ritten an. (02254) perhaps sixty people (67).
    (02255.) die brûdere tâten wer gnûc, (02255) The Knight Brothers stubbornly resisted,
    (02256.) îdoch man sie dar nider slûc. (02256) but they were defeated there.
    (02257.) der von Darbete quam ein teil (02257) Some of the Derpts left
    (02258.) von deme strîte, daß was ir heil: (02258) from the battle, this was their salvation,
    (02259.) sie mûsten wîchen durch die nôt. (02259) they were forced to retreat.
    (02260.) dar bliben zwênzic brûder tôt (02260) Twenty knight brothers were killed there,
    (02261.) und sechse wurden gevangen. (02261) and six were captured.
    (02262.) sus was der strît ergangen. (02262) This was the course of the battle.
    (02263.) Kunic Alexander was vrô, (02263) Prince Alexander was glad
    (02264.) daß er den sig behielt alsô. (02264) that he won. No mention of the battle on the ice. The fallen fell on the grass. But where the battle took place in reality does not change. It is a fact that the squad of Alexander and the city regiment of Novgorod chopped up the adversary and took to flight, so that they couldn’t be rude for a long time in Russia, they’ll kill quickly and efficiently.
    1. Yura Yakovlev
      Yura Yakovlev 10 December 2017 08: 05 New
      +1
      “It’s not clear to me why the battle of Alexander Nevsky with the Knights of the Livonian Order is called the Battle of the Ice. There are still no finds in the area of ​​Lake Peipsi related to the battle. And that's interesting. too few people "
      It is surprising that they scored so many people, but they might not have appeared at all. At that time in the North-West of Europe there was no more powerful state than Veliky Novgorod. To understand this, you just need to pay attention to the Sigtuna battle, which resulted in the burning of the ancient capital of Sweden - Sigtuna. Now this can be compared with the capture of Berlin in the Second World War. Now Sigtuna is hushed up, and then Berlin will be hushed up.
  15. Yura Yakovlev
    Yura Yakovlev 10 December 2017 07: 47 New
    0
    "He was the direct heir to the great Kiev princes, Vladimir, the Baptist of Russia and Yaroslav the Wise, among his famous ancestors Yuri Dolgoruky and Vsevolod the Big Nest."

    Alexander was not the heir to Yaroslav the Wise. He is the heir of Vsevolod the Big Nest, which appeared through the extramarital affair of Irina and her childhood friend Olav.
  16. Alex1117
    Alex1117 10 December 2017 08: 38 New
    +3
    XII Legion,
    What kind of illogical statement do you have. If they did stripping, they would clean everything - both the texture and the so-called "chronicles". But to destroy the "labels" and at the same time continue to write about them in the "annals" and in historical works - this is some kind of madness. However ..... nothing but insanity, and it is impossible to explain whole layers of so-called "history". Of course, this is not the fault of the story itself, but those who wrote it.
  17. Dimmih
    Dimmih 10 December 2017 09: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: HanTengri
    Quotation: blooded man
    Well, the fact that you will not find MONGOL in Russian chronicles is just a documentary fact. This is how easily the Mughal historians transformed into a Mongol, and you are looking for all the Narnians.

    Mogul / Mongol ... Doesn’t it seem like never? You, my friend, in childhood, did not drop your head on the battery? (Purely academic interest. I’m trying to find out the reasons for the general, alternative giftedness of giftedness, some of the passengers).

    About the battery you are in vain, you can’t transfer the scientific dispute to the high level in a communal apartment. In our case, you need to beat the argument of the opponent.
  18. Dimmih
    Dimmih 10 December 2017 09: 09 New
    0
    Quote: romb
    Another schiz on the theme of heroic fantasy. The Russians almost nowhere and in some courageous way showed themselves to the nomads. The collapse of the nomadic powers occurred as a result of regular historical processes. And the Russians have nothing to do with them. They are only recipients of preferences. In particular, all Slavic associations in the CIS were founded or existed on the fragments and / or under the direct patronage of the Turkic (proto-Türkic) powers and ethno-political entities: the Huns, the Khazar Kaganate, the Berendeys, the Kumans, the Pechenegs, Kipchaks, the Volga Bulgaria, the Golden Horde, the Empire Timurids, etc.
    Even Alexander "Nevsky" was no more than a vassal who received the right to reign from a suzerain.

    Here you, of course, went too far and deviated from the middle ground. If you literally understand, then the Slavic states, like flowers grew on a pile of manure into which their Hunno-Turkic predecessors turned. Really, be more balanced and write without grammatical errors, it is written by Someone, not Someone.
  19. Varyag77
    Varyag77 10 December 2017 11: 01 New
    0
    Quote: romb
    I do not beg the heroism of the Russian people (namely, the people) during the invasion of Napoleon. And at the same moment, if you look as it was, because Napoleon did not lose a single battle of the Russian army during the active phase of his invasion of the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia. His defeat is a direct result of the miscalculations of the French themselves in planning events to properly supply their troops. Transport and logistics infrastructure was not to hell with him. And the climatic conditions were also not taken into due consideration by them.
    And so, if Russia was commensurate in territory with the average European countries, then the conflict for the “Russians” ended quickly and very badly. Napoleon's fatal mistake is that he turned out to be divorced from his European supply bases, deeply wedging himself into the territory of the inconclusively defeated enemy. Here is the result.
    According to WWII, not everything is so simple either. But I will not touch this topic, because we all know how it all ended for Hitler. And not Russians fought there, but a conglomerate of hundreds of more than a nation.

    Are you serious? Or pretending to be? I don’t know who you are by nationality. whose will you say so. But on the Russian site, telling what kind of Russians are so-so is funny you know.
    True, she is alone. Over 1000 years from Russia, mothers grabbed lyuley everything except the Zulus and Australian aborigines. And what about you in the parallel universe, we do not know.
    And about the Russians and other peoples of Russia. Marshal Baghramyan once said, "If there are less than 50% of Russians in a unit, then such a unit is not operational." So the shallows Emelya.
    1. romb
      romb 10 December 2017 11: 51 New
      +1
      Call me these Zulus? They even lay under the Poles - until the Turks slashed False Dmitry laughing
      Probably the only thing that they became famous for was the genocide of small nations - like the Chukchi, who fought for a quarter of a century.
      And now these Russians begin to organize hysteria in fear if they call on a couple of Caucasians wink
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 10 December 2017 14: 31 New
        0
        [quote = romb] Türks [/ quote
        Please tell me there are Türks !? Is it a race or a nation?
        Or did you mean the Turkic-speaking tribes, the language of which is spoken by people with a completely Caucasian appearance?
  20. Varyag77
    Varyag77 10 December 2017 12: 09 New
    +1
    Quote: romb
    Call me these Zulus? They even lay under the Poles - until the Turks slashed False Dmitry laughing
    Probably the only thing that they became famous for was the genocide of small nations - like the Chukchi, who fought for a quarter of a century.
    And now these Russians begin to organize hysteria in fear if they call on a couple of Caucasians wink

    have the trolls been put under arms? Boring even. More refined is necessary.
    1. romb
      romb 10 December 2017 12: 35 New
      +1
      You cannot answer this either. What discussion can be with you? winked
      1. co-creator
        co-creator 10 December 2017 21: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: romb
        You cannot answer this either. What discussion can be with you? winked

        Why do you shy. Shy of your flag?
      2. Spnsr
        Spnsr 11 December 2017 00: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: romb
        You cannot answer this either. What discussion can be with you? winked

        So you too cannot answer !? Who is the Turki? What classification should be measured? Is it a race, a nation? Or are these Turkic-speaking tribes that may belong to different races, nations, but use a certain similar language for communication.
        My friend has a wife of Slavic appearance, knows Tatar, understands Turkish enough, is she Turk?
        1. romb
          romb 11 December 2017 13: 48 New
          +2
          If you want to troll, do it less stupid. wink
          It is hard to explain to people who do not even know in general outline the history of the emergence and existence of tribes and tribal unions that arose on the territory of the Great Steppe, and did not even hear about their subsequent transformation into Turkic (nomadic) powers.
          In short: Turkic ales today are not only carriers of an ethnocultural identity based on common linguistic and historical roots. This is much more.
          As already mentioned by someone, today's Turkic-speaking are representatives of the nascent superethnos. The basis of which is not so much racial, territorial or religious identity, but rather some kind of comprehensive historical community.
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 11 December 2017 22: 25 New
            0
            Quote: romb
            : Turkic ales today are not only carriers of an ethnocultural identity based on shared linguistic and historical roots. It is much more

            And here the fun begins!
            From the end of the 18th to the beginning of the 20th centuries, this ideology played a trick on the Ottoman Empire!
            I don’t know whether they themselves thought of it, or they were advised by the arrogant Saxons, but an attempt to persuade the population of the Ottoman Empire led to the opposition of its collapse, the Ottoman Empire! And in the end, when trying to keep at least near the lying nationalities, with their resistance, to their genocide, and the Ottoman empire itself, to the territory of Turkey! Domestic policy has failed!
            Further, at the end of the 70s of the last century, this ideology was again pulled out of the farmers, here also from the filing of the Saxon Saxons, for another way the collapse of the USSR, because a large number of Turkic-speaking peoples live in the USSR. And under this topic they begin to write another round of history, which are already full and which do not fit into the time frame because of which they are stupidly pushing apart !!!
            Be more attentive to historical noise, otherwise you may turn out to be real, for example, all the wars on the planet, this is the same reference to this noise, for example, Hitler with his ideal race !!!
  21. co-creator
    co-creator 10 December 2017 14: 28 New
    +2
    parusnik,
    >> According to annalistic mentions, the Basques kept the Basques of different principalities, but information about how many there were and indications of the specific cities and principalities where they sat were not preserved. >>

    THIS IS WHICH IS WRITTEN IN THIS ARTICLE. So I repeat the question of where the viceroy from the great khan was grumbling and their names in the studio.
  22. Seal
    Seal 11 December 2017 17: 43 New
    +2
    parusnik,
    Well, what do you have on the link? Again, listing someone’s private opinions probably. We look. Well yes, it is.
    First tried to rate Basqualism Institute N. M. Karamzin. The scientist called[/ b] Basque "tyrants, and after the alleged friends of our masters"; they “representing the face of the khan in Russia, did what they wanted” 1. S. M. Solovyov held a more restrained [b] position: “Through the removal of the Basques, numerals and collectors of tribute, the princes freed themselves completely from the Tatar influence on their internal orders; but even during the presence of the Basques, we have no reason to suppose that they have a great influence on internal governance, for we do not see the slightest trace of such an influence. ”2 Offered his view on the position of the Baskak I.N. Berezin: “The Baskaks were sent from the Horde to the conquered lands to enumerate the people and collect taxes” 3.

    "Gave"; "Proposed"; "Sticking" and so on - all this is subjectivity. Facts where?
  23. Seal
    Seal 11 December 2017 17: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: romb
    The collapse of nomadic powers

    A nomadic power is a masterpiece of traditional official history.
  24. Seal
    Seal 11 December 2017 18: 02 New
    +2
    Pancir026,
    So what ? Since when do the annals go for "documents"?
    The history of the study of the Novgorod First Chronicle has more than two and a half centuries. Both of its editions were put into scientific circulation as early as the XNUMXth century..: the youngest - V. N. Tatishchev, who described in the 7th chapter of his “History” the manuscript he had found “in the forest near the schismatic” and transferred to the library of the Academy of Sciences, now known as the NPL Academic List;
    1) the eldest - M. M. Shcherbatov, for the first time introducing lovers of Russian history with the parchment synodal list.
    2) Since then, the main chronicle of the Novgorod feudal republic has been constantly in the focus of attention of historians and philologists.
    Her historiography is rich vivid observations, unexpected encounters, bold constructions and hypotheses, and no less paradoxes and misunderstandings.
    Only a few of the assumptions regarding the sources, authors, stages of composing the text of the monument can be considered proven today. Key issues in the history of the NPL text remain open and still cause controversy among researchers. A new approach to this problem will be appropriate to precede, recalling some well-known facts and at the same time outlining in general terms the circle of related discussion questions that need to be resolved.

    In contrast to the younger version of the NPL, known as a group of lists (of which the main ones are Academic (BRAN, 17.8.36) and Commission (St. Petersburg FIRI RAS, compiled by Archeogr. Com., No. 240), both of the 40s. XV century.), The elder is represented by the only parchment synodal list (GIM, Sin., No. 786). The list is defective: it does not contain the first 16 notebooks containing the text from the beginning of the annals to 6524 (1016), as well as one notebook in the middle with a description of the events of 1273-1298. In codiological terms, the manuscript clearly distinguishes two main parts - l. 1-118 (events 6524–6742) and l. 119-167 (events 6742–6838) - and additions on p. 167-169 for 6838-6860 In the first part of the Synodal List, two handwritings were traditionally distinguished (pages 1-62 and pages 62-118 rev.).

    The uniqueness of the Synodal List leads to the well-known vagueness of the notion “senior NPL”. It is not clear to the end whether [4] there is behind this concept a special annalistic code (according to A. A. Shakhmatov, “code 1333”), which has come down to us in the only list that has been preserved, or whether the Synodal manuscript was the only one from the very beginning a kind, representing a convolute, consisting of different parts. The solution to this issue depends primarily on the dating of the two parts of the monument, which, in itself, is very problematic. If the second part of the manuscript can most likely be dated to the same 1330 with which the text contained in it ends (this is evidenced by the nature of the records for the following years, made in different handwritings and inks and, apparently, modern described events), then the time of writing The first part was determined by researchers in different ways. Dominant in the XIX century. dating her XIII century. A. I. Sobolevsky contrasted the thesis of compiling the entire Synodal List in the second quarter of the XIV century.
    3) The point of view of A. I. Sobolevsky was supported by A. A. Shakhmatov (initially holding the opinion of the simultaneous creation of two parts of the manuscript), which laid the foundation for his reconstruction of the "Code of 1333."
    4) Recently, the old view of the first part of the Synodal List as a XNUMXth-century manuscript has again prevailed in literature.


    Documents where? Decrees, orders, orders, diplomatic or even private letters of Alexander? What, not a single one is left?
    1. Luga
      Luga 11 December 2017 18: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Seal
      Documents where? Decrees, orders, orders, diplomatic or even private letters of Alexander? What, not a single one is left?

      Dear, you will soon begin to demand video recordings of the conception of crowned persons, otherwise all the august persons will turn out to be bastards for you. And indeed - where is the evidence that Alexander Nevsky is the son of Yaroslav. Not? All bye. He is the son of the Tatar Murza Nevs-Bagatur (hence the nickname), and if you want to prove the opposite, show the originals of documents with evidence of eyewitnesses of conception, a mother’s medical record for the period of pregnancy, and a sketch of delivery from nature.
      Do not bring the argument to the point of absurdity if you are pressed against the wall and the arguments are over. It doesn’t color you at all, it just speaks of your perseverance, to the detriment of all your other positive qualities.
  25. Seal
    Seal 11 December 2017 18: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex1117
    Extension of sides on punts (in the absence of frames)

    5 points !!! For knowledge in shipbuilding !!!
  26. Seal
    Seal 11 December 2017 18: 43 New
    +2
    Quote: Luga
    pearls of the next Fomenko,

    Is this also Fomenko's pearl?
    In 1906, on the eve of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, the Approved Letter of 1613 on the election of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the Moscow State was re-photographed and reprinted.
    How is it remarkable? And the fact that it was the most important state act, which was not lost (like all kinds of annals), was constantly under protection, was inaccessible for revisions. Still - who dares to edit something in the most important state document !!!
    And what made editing even more difficult was the fact that there were two copies of the Approved Certificate. And on both signatures are all members of the Council. Both copies were stored together, then disconnected, then together again. At the time of publication in 1906, one copy was stored in the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the other in the Armory.
    And to the trouble of all admirers of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", in the Approved Charter of 1613 there is a section telling about the origin and formation of the Russian State.
    Yes, Batu is already mentioned in it. But in what context!
    And most importantly, there are neither Tatars nor Mongols. And just a "horde."
    So, here is the place we are interested in:
    “According to the great sovereign Vladimir Manamakh, I took the scepter of the Russian kingdom of kingdom, his son the great prince Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, and piety prosiya, and all the peasantry in peace and quiet.
    According to it, a congress at the Russian state in Volodimer, his son the prince the great Vsevolod Yuryevich, a champion of piety and a strong champion for the holy churches, and about the holy Orthodox peasant vrya.
    According to Vsevolod, the scepter of the Russian state contains the son of his prince the great Yaroslav Vsevolodich, he himself will observe God from Batu in Veliky Novograd and with his children and after capturing the godless Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faith are distributed and renewed by the holy churches.
    According to him, the Great Russian State will be taken by the scepter, his son, the brave prince the great Alexander Yaroslavich, who, like Germans, show the glorious victory on the Neva, and on the godly faith of the godless Berkai tsar, the beastly wrath in the horde of tame and glorified God’s miracle after death. ”
    And what do we see?
    The first one. Our ancestors wrote in 1613: “..when the godless Batu was captured, the holy and immaculate peasant faith was spread and the holy churches renew the packs,” that is, they still remembered that the godless Batu was captured, after which Yaroslav Vsevolodovich “spread the holy and immaculate peasant faith and renew the holy churches of Paki. ” It is a pity, it is not specified when and who Batu was captured. You can, of course, interpret it so that it was not Batu who was captured, but the Russian Land was captured by him. But then it was painfully some kind of short “captivity” that Yaroslav Vsevolodovich himself caught the end of this captivity. And not just caught, but managed to work hard to eliminate the consequences of "captivity", namely, the Christian faith spread, and updated the church. Such things are not done in a short time.

    And the second one. Our ancestors in 1613 recorded that Alexander Yaroslavich on the Neva won a glorious victory over the Germans (Germans) and not over the sveta (Swedes). Of which our ancestors in 1613 very clearly distinguished. But about the "more significant", as is now believed, the victory of Alexander Yaroslavich over the Germans on Lake Peipsi or near it, our ancestors did not mention. Didn't know about her ???
    1. Luga
      Luga 11 December 2017 20: 23 New
      0
      This is a manipulation! You yourself didn’t figure it out, or do you want to circle us consciously around your finger?
      There are two documents of 1613 - the Cathedral Vow and the Approved Certificate.
      The first is the most important state act that you are talking about, the second is a product of the work of one or more officials, created to justify Mikhail Romanov’s right to the throne. The quote you quoted refers to the second. If you read the full text of it, then you could not help but notice a bunch of egregious historical errors and omissions made CONSCIOUSLY in order to emphasize the validity of Mikhail’s claims to power and the continuity of this power from ancient times.
      How do you like this:
      From Him, however, our land Ruska has its own sovereigns to be; of their great sovereigns, 5. tsars of Russia, the root comes from the highest Caesar’s throne and the beautifully flowering and blessed root of [15] Augustus Caesar, who possesses the entire universe
      .
      Or this:
      According to the great sovereign Oleksandra Nevsky, his son the great Danil Oleksandrovich from Vladimirer sat down on Moscow, and establish the kingdom on her, and establish the highest throne of 25.
      Let it be known to you that Daniel of Moscow was NEVER a Grand Duke, and the capital was approved in Moscow only under Dmitry Donskoy and what is called "de facto". There is also something to discuss.
      The author who wrote this, so to speak,
      Quote: Seal
      The most important State Act

      He was extremely tendentious, since his goal was exclusively to exalt Mikhail Romanov, he did not care about the facts, he was engaged in conscious juggling, fitting facts to his conclusions. Should we expect recognition from him that the Moscow dynasty, starting with Yuri Danilovich, is illegal, that Yuri himself was approved by the Khan Uzbek at the Great Table despite all dynastic rights, because Yuri married his sister? Could such an author write about how all the princes, starting with Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, traveled to the Horde for labels? Yes, he would have been hung by the feet on the doors of his own cell for such a "justification" and the letter would not have been approved. Not then this panegyric made up.
      And you messed up horseradish with carrots, but I don’t know only - deliberately or out of thought and mislead people. The most important state act is the Cathedral oath, but there is nothing like it even close. So you, my dear, are either stupid or mean. Both are bad.
      Shame on you, my friend!
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 11 December 2017 22: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Luga
        If you read the full text of it, then you could not help but notice a bunch of egregious historical errors and omissions made CONSCIOUSLY in order to emphasize the validity of Mikhail’s claims to power and the continuity of this power from ancient times.

        You will forgive me generously, but if you saw a discrepancy in such a document, then why do you believe everything that comes from them?
        1. Luga
          Luga 12 December 2017 11: 48 New
          0
          Quote: SpnSr
          You will forgive me generously, but if you saw a discrepancy in such a document, then why do you believe everything that comes from them?

          Not at all. Before proclaiming any thesis drawn from any source, whether it be a chronicle, memoirs, historical research, it is checked from other sources, analyzed from the point of view of common sense and the laws of nature. The document under consideration does not represent value as a source of knowledge due to its tendentiousness.
  27. ee2100
    ee2100 11 December 2017 22: 54 New
    0
    “Alexander Nevsky is a key figure in Russian history” - not the author’s article, repeated many times, is discussed, but the attitude to the history of Russia. Another attempt for two small battles, though won, to fashion an invincible hero from Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich.
  28. Seal
    Seal 12 December 2017 08: 39 New
    +1
    Quote: Pancir026
    How can you give direct copies of the 11th-12th century or ..?

    What is the problem for you? If you are sure that your version of the story basically has authentic documents of the 11-12th century - then what is the problem for you to lay out their photocopies?
  29. Seal
    Seal 12 December 2017 10: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: Curious
    The publication you are talking about is not 1906, but 1904.

    Thank you. It’s possible. But in my opinion this (the year of publication) is absolutely not important. Nevertheless, thanks again.
    The source of any sensational discoveries did not serve.

    But this is fundamental. Really did not serve. Although there is something in it that would seem to certainly have attracted the attention of historians. However ... not attracted. The question is why? The answer is rather that what was written in the text of the Approved Charter contradicted the outline of the history of Russia that Catherine the Great herself sketched for us (well, the one that Karamzin developed and painted with all kinds of colors). Therefore, historians preferred not to notice this document (Approved Certificate). In order to avoid falling into embarrassment and historical heresy.
  30. Seal
    Seal 12 December 2017 11: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: Luga
    So you, my dear, are either stupid or mean. Both are bad.
    Shame on you, my friend!

    That’s all yours, this - pay attention to yourself.
    And this is yours
    This is a manipulation! You yourself didn’t figure it out, or do you want to circle us consciously around your finger?

    also. On yourself.
    Sorry, but now you look like the character who screams “Hold the thief” the loudest laughing
    There are two documents of 1613 - the Cathedral Vow and the Approved Certificate.

    Yes. Exactly.
    The first is the most important state act of which you speak

    And here you are, dear, either knowingly lying, or honestly mistaken. But judging by your tone, the first is more likely.
    In fact, the Collective Vow is a secondary document that appeared after the reading and adoption of the Approved Charter, which really justified the rights of the Romanov clan to the throne. Confirmation of the secondary is the mention in the text of the Cathedral oath of the Approved Charter. That is, first the reading and adoption (signing) of the Approved Charter, with which Mikhail Romanov was enthroned, and then the oath of allegiance to the chosen kingdom of Michael and his subsequent family.
    The cathedral oath, in the form of a crucifix letter to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, was sent out by the Zemsky Cathedral to the cities of Russia to take the oath to the new sovereign in the localities.
    The primacy (degree of importance) of the Approved Certificate in comparison with the Cathedral oath is confirmed by the number of signatories of both documents. Approved Certificate was signed by about 250 people. And the Cathedral oath is only about 80.
    Quote: Luga
    The approved Certificate is a product of the work of one or several officials, created to justify the rights of Mikhail Romanov to the throne

    In the same way, the Cathedral Oath is a product of the work of one or several officials, created to be read by the subjects as an oath to the newly elected tsar after substantiating Mikhail Romanov’s rights to the throne in the Approved Charter.

    I would even say, drawing an analogy, that the Approved Charter is both the Program and the Charter of the Party in one bottle. And the Cathedral oath is the oath of the Bolshevik, already accepted by voting in the party, but obliged to pronounce the oath of the party.
    The oath of 1919.
    (obligation entering into the RCP (b)

    I, ______________, knowingly, disinterestedly and without coercion,
    Joining the party of the Bolshevik Communists, I give the floor:

    1. To consider as your family all the comrades of the Communists and all who share our doctrine not only in words but in deeds.
    2. Fight for the working and peasant poor until the last breath.
    3. Work as far as one's strengths and abilities in favor of the proletariat.
    4. Defend the Soviet government, its honor and dignity, in a word, deed and personal example.
    5. Put party discipline above personal motives and interests.
    6. To fulfill unquestioningly and meekly all the duties assigned to me by the party leaders.
    7. To support the party comrades who are weak in spirit and to expose the mercenaries, if I notice those in the party.
    I COMMIT: ..

    and so on.
    Quote: Luga
    If you read the full text of it, then you could not help but notice a bunch of egregious historical errors and deliberate omissions, in order to emphasize the validity of Mikhail’s claims to power and the continuity of this power since ancient times.

    I then got acquainted with its text a long time and completely. And I have no complaints about the ancestors in terms of the text. For I believe that at that time they knew better. These are people like you who are capable of the present distant future, so it is moralizing to grit your teeth, saying that our ancestors “deliberately made a series of glaring historical errors and omissions”.
    Quote: Luga
    Let it be known to you that Daniel of Moscow was NEVER a Grand Duke, and the capital was approved in Moscow only under Dmitry Donskoy and what is called "de facto".

    Oh-oh-oh, how menacing and moralizing. Or maybe all the same it should be recognized that perhaps our ancestors at the very beginning of the 17th century were still more visible who and when this or that prince of the 14th century was? Why do you think that you know the history of the 14th century better than our ancestors at the beginning of the 17th century? For example, I believe that they had more documents at that time than we (you) have now. And even more than that of Karamzin at the beginning of the 19th century. Because, logically, documents can be lost (spoiled, lost, deliberately destroyed). But only among professional historians and people like you can documents “appear” and “self-multiply”.
    So you do not like A. Fomenko and even use the term "Fomenkovism". Tell me, do you like A.S. Pushkin? Or are you capable of pronouncing the expression “Pushkov’s” as easily as pronouncing the phrase “Fomenkovism”? Let me remind you that our great A.S. Pushkin had a very low opinion of our annals. And he directly admitted that our annals were pretty much corrected by Catherine the Second.
    So that you, my dear, are either stupid or mean. Both are bad.
    Shame on you, my friend!
    1. Luga
      Luga 12 December 2017 17: 45 New
      0
      Well you give.
      Do you really, after reading the Approved Charter, continue to believe that it was written in order to bring truthful historical information to someone? No seriously? And what, is Rurik really a descendant of Augustus? Is Daniil of Moscow the Grand Duke? And this is all and much more (too lazy to return to the text of the Charter now, to collect absurdities) only on the basis of this Charter? One single document written for purely political purposes? Unfortunately, politics and truth are almost incompatible things. Okay, your right is to believe. Such faith is irrational, it is useless to persuade.
      I only note that for witnesses of the formation of the Romanov dynasty, the events of the 14th century and before, the events of the Petrine era were like events for us and they knew about these events, perhaps even less than we do now, since there were no accessible literature on this issue in bookstores, and oral traditions as a source of information on history ... well, must understand for yourself. The boyars, of course, knew the history of their birth, but no more. They had documents, but this knowledge was sacred and was available to very few, so the Approved Certificate could well go with a bang - those who knew the truth were interested in hiding it, and the rest took it on faith.
      Regarding the relationship between the significance of the Oath and the Charter, you are also deeply wrong. The oath is the final document, for the sake of which everything was created, so to speak, the crown of the whole event, while the Certificate was just one of the preparatory measures. If not for the Oath, the Charter would have been worthless on a market day.
      Regarding Pushkin, Alexander Sergeyevich - generally a song. Nevertheless, he was a poet, a creative, impetuous personality, and certainly he could not be reproached with for anything, it was in the scientific mindset. If in the course of historical disputes we refer to the geniuses of literature, medicine or mathematics, then the dispute can be stopped (which, by the way, I am going to do).
      There are a couple of your messages below, I will answer right here.
      Quote: Seal
      Let’s not conduct empty arguments on the subject of what I “will demand soon”, and that “I will not demand soon”.

      Let's not. It's boring.
      Only now I wonder if you yourself are capable of confirming your theories with anything other than an Approved Charter, which, in the opinion of most people involved in or interested in history, cannot be a source of historical knowledge, since it was created exclusively for the sake of politicians? Chronicles are not an argument for you, hagiographic literature is probably also ... Byzantine and Arabic chronicles? Not? Chinese - about the Mongols? Not? Of course, all of them, like our annals, were copied by enemies (Jews, Masons, Anglo-Saxons) in order to distort Russian history. Somehow they forgot about the Approved Certificate, the only document untouched by the conspiracy. Thousands of copies of chronicles and chronicles were translated, read, transported, put in place, and two copies of the Charter forgotten. Well then.) What then? Archaeological research? So they unequivocally confirm the fact of the Mongol invasion and other facts described in chronicles, chronicles and similar written sources, why the latter are recognized as trustworthy. Proceedings of professional historians? Not only that, they are participants in the worldwide conspiracy of historians against Russia. What then?
      How can you confirm your speculation? Only with his fictions, Pushkin (excuse me, Alexander Sergeyevich!) And absurd, obviously impracticable requirements, as is usual with the Fomenkovites.
      And the last.
      Quote: Seal
      From the point of view of common sense and the laws of nature, the unification in an extremely short time of half-wild clans and hulk families roaming the territory of present-day Mongolia plus / minus another 100-200 thousand square kilometers into an invincible and super-disciplined army and the seizure of half-world by this army - a bit complete.
      As well as your sending "nasad" across the Black Sea

      Do not like the bastards - let's send the rooks. I do not care. There they talked about ears that are definitely not suitable not for the Gulf of Finland, not for the Black Sea.
      But I don’t agree about the Mongols and nonsense. Why nonsense? How this happened was lucidly and colorfully presented in Arabic and Chinese sources. They very competently and figuratively set out the story of how they were carried out on the battlefield by a single wicket of the wild nomads, whom before that they knew very well and did not consider themselves to be equal. And the reasons are stated - from their point of view, to justify themselves. Events are presented sequentially, cross-checks of sources reveal only discrepancies in transcribing proper names and geographical names, as well as in dating (within twelve years of the calendar cycle, more often in one to two years). If you can’t read Arabic or Chinese, try to follow my example and study the works of historians. Serious books of serious people contain relevant citations and references. Then you can find out how what you call nonsense could actually happen in the real world. However, you only believe in the Approved Certificate ... recourse
      Okay, it's time to say goodbye. If you deign to answer, I will read it. I myself will not write anymore - I'm tired of it.
      1. Seal
        Seal 13 December 2017 18: 33 New
        +3
        Well you give.

        I give, I give. I give knowledge, information, information. Who is interested - he takes. Who is not interested, such as you, that nose turns.

        Do you really, after reading the Approved Charter, continue to believe that it was written with the aim of bringing truthful historical information to someone?

        Do you believe that the chronicles were written in order to convey to us true historical information? So, I not only believe, I am deeply convinced that there is much more historical truth in the Approved Charter than in the annals. Since the Approved Certificate is a State Document of the first importance. She was read out publicly. Moreover, it should be noted that they read out even before the election of Mikhail Romanov as king - in support of his election. Let me remind you that according to the traditional version of the story, besides Michael, there were other candidates for the post of king. Prince Trubetskoy, for example. And if there were obvious jambs in the text of the Approved Charter, then they would certainly have been noticed. And they would demand a fix.
        Again. Try to understand the following. In contrast to the annals - Approved Certificate - a document. And the document is public. And the annals? Chronicles were written behind the scenes. It goes without saying that each "chronicler" acted in the interests of the person from whom he, the chronicles, was fed.
        So you pathetically wrote: “One single document written for purely political purposes? Unfortunately, politics and truth are almost incompatible things. Okay, your right is to believe. Such faith is irrational, it is useless to persuade. ”
        What about you? Chronicles? Lives of the saints?
        On the annals.
        A serious historian (you love serious historians) V.O. Klyuchevsky (in lecture No. 6, The Course of Russian History) stated:

        Even the Lavrentievsky list, which, being the oldest, cannot be recognized as the most serviceable: in it, due to the scribe's fault, many places have been missed that have been preserved in others, the lists closest to it in composition and text. Other news could be omitted for the reasons of the compiler of the code, but it was brought in by the census tellers closest in time, who were partly the editors of the census pieces and could fill in the gaps in the sources that were at hand at Sylvester and had not yet had time to get lost. But in some chronicle vaults, especially of Novgorodian origin, the first centuries of our history are set out so dissimilarly with the vault assimilated by Abbot Sylvester that such a difference cannot be explained by the incompleteness of the lists or editions. This prompted Academician Shakhmatov to assume the existence of a special, more ancient annalistic code, compiled at the end of the XNUMXth century. and served as the "main core" of which at the beginning of the XII century. compiled a vault, read by us on the Lavrentievsky list. All this leads to the idea that the Silvestrovsky vault far did not include the entire stock of stories that circulated in Russian society about the first centuries of our history, or by some chance, it was the oldest lists that kept the Initial Chronicle in abridged, and later ones in a more complete composition, as S. M. Soloviev thought.
        That is, you actually have the same thing, only worse. Your version of the story is based on “One single source (and it’s not exactly known what kind of source it is, which Klyuchevsky calls the“ Initial Chronicle ”), which is not a document written for purely political purposes, and it was written by no one knows when and by whom. From which lists (copies) are made, having their additions, exceptions, forwardings - all depending on the taste and political preferences of those who made the changes. Unfortunately, politics and truth are almost incompatible things. Okay, your right is to believe. Such faith is irrational, it is useless to persuade. ”
        1. Seal
          Seal 13 December 2017 18: 34 New
          +3
          So, remember the difference between the Approved Certificate and the annals.
          Approved Certificate:
          - document;
          - known when compiled;
          - it is known by whom it is signed;
          - compiled in public;
          - It is known that no changes or additions were made to it.

          Annals (and lists from it):
          - not a document;
          - written behind the scenes;
          - not publicly read out;
          - unknown by whom and unknown when written;
          - not signed by anyone;
          - Even the most stubborn traditional pro historians recognize the presence of corrections and additions.

          What else interesting Klyuchevsky writes?
          And here's what.
          V.O. Klyuchevsky writes: "The idea of ​​the collective development of our history arose long before Schletser ... In this respect, the 396th century is especially prominent in us: it was an era of lively chronicles ... Then extensive chronicle codes were compiled, with detailed tables of contents, genealogical tables of Russian and Lithuanian sovereigns ... In the annals of the story glimpses of historical criticism become noticeable; they try to introduce a methodological plan, even carry out a well-known political idea ... An extensive annalistic set is begun, beginning with the legend of the wedding of Vladimir Monomakh with the crown of the Byzantine emperor "[ 188], p.XNUMX

          Apparently, at this time a version of Russian history was created, starting with Vladimir Monomakh. It should be noted that, in this version, apparently, early Kievan Rus did not yet enter. That is, the story is before Vladimir Monomakh.
          Then there is a break until the middle of the XVII century, when: “By decree of November 3, 1657, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ordered the establishment of a special public place, the Note Order, and in it sit the clerk Kudryavtsev and“ write down the degrees and verges from the great sovereign Tsar Fedor Ivanovich ”, then there is to continue the Degree Book, interrupted at the reign of John the Terrible. The head of the new order was to conduct this business with the help of two senior and six junior priests ... +

          This, as it were, historiographic commission was established difficultly and far from by royal decree. She was allotted a room in a cramped and rotten изб hut ’, where prisoners with archers guarding them were sitting next to historiographers. Younger hoists were not appointed at all, and the Embassy decisively refused to issue the paper. The search for sources was associated with great troubles ... [Kudryavtsev] turned to one order, another, but received the answer that there were no books other than order cases, although after that there were very useful manuscripts and documents ... +
          1. Seal
            Seal 13 December 2017 18: 35 New
            +2
            At the end of the year 1658 the king himself drew the attention of his historiographer to the important repository of historical monuments, to the Patriarchal Library ... Kudryavtsev took out an inventory of this book depository and noted the manuscripts necessary for him. But ... the tsar’s command again remained unfulfilled ... The patriarchal order replied that with the required information about the patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops, from the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, in that order “no note was found”. Other orders, despite the persistent reports of Kudryavtsev, did not give such an answer ...
            Having surrendered his position at the beginning of 1659, Kudryavtsev left almost no tangible fruits of his 16-month historiographical efforts, "he did not begin to perpetrate any place in the Note Order to the emperor," as his successor put it. The order did not even contain the old Degree Book, which he was instructed to continue, and they did not know how it ended and where to continue it. But Kudryavtsev’s successor - the next clerk did nothing >> [396], pp. 189-190.
            From all this, the following is clearly visible.

            1) Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov - the first tsar, from the time of which direct instructions to "start writing history" have been preserved. It was in the middle of the XVII century.
            2) The people who executed his order did not find sources in the capital on the history of Russia even in the last 100 years.
            3) The famous Degree Book has disappeared.
            4) The working conditions created by this first historiographic commission mysteriously did not correspond to its status. The royal decree was practically sabotaged! +

            Apparently, V.O. Klyuchevsky, who wrote that "in then Moscow, neither minds nor documents were ready for such a thing" [396], p.190. So, the documents appeared later. Or were made.

            No wonder Kudryavtsev could not find anything. Apparently, the decree of Alexei Mikhailovich was the impetus that prompted the start of the preparation of documents. Therefore, at the end of the XVII century they already "appeared". Klyuchevsky so bluntly writes: “After that, manuscripts and documents very suitable for business turned out to be there” [396], p.189-190.

            Of course, Klyuchevsky here seems to be talking only about the sources of the late XVI - early XVII centuries. That is, about the documents of the era immediately preceding Alexei Mikhailovich. And he comes to the conclusion that the documents of this era appeared AFTER Aleksey Mikhailovich. But then it is natural to assume that if the commission could not find documents of the XVI-XVII centuries, then the situation was worse with earlier eras. For example, a logical question arises. In the era of clerk Kudryavtsev, did the above-mentioned “extensive chronicle vault” exist, describing history starting from Vladimir Monomakh, as well as the “Royal Book” describing the time of Grozny? Maybe they were written, or substantially edited, after Kudryavtsev? +

            Apparently, the very beginning of the creation of the overwhelming majority of the "ancient" Russian chronicles is palpated here. And the famous Tale of Bygone Years at that time probably wasn’t even written yet. See below. Today it is very difficult to say what genuine historical evidence formed the basis of all these future "oldest" chronicles. Of course, such evidence still existed at that time, but most likely most of them did not reach us. Today we judge the Russian history of the pre-Romanov era, peering into it through the distorted prism of chronicles written or edited after the clerk Kudryavtsev.
            1. Seal
              Seal 13 December 2017 18: 36 New
              +2
              No seriously? And what, is Rurik really a descendant of Augustus? Is Daniil of Moscow the Grand Duke? And this is all and much more (too lazy to return to the text of the Charter now, to collect absurdities) only on the basis of this Charter?


              And what really excited you so much? The traditional version of the story seems to have no doubt in the authorship of a letter from Ivan the Terrible to his King Gotsky and Vendian Yagan which says: “... we have our own seal from our ancestors, and the Roman seal is not wild to us: we are related by Augustus Caesar ...” .

              Of course, for people like you, everything is always clear: The Approved Certificate is nonsense, Ivan the Terrible is generally crazy, since he writes this. You know better than all our ancestors.
              Although, in fact, you only know what Catherine the Second composed for you, and Karamzin painted with all the colors of the rainbow.
              Although, to the honor of Catherine II, she was not imperative in part of her notes, but left room for doubt. So, for example, saying that “Vladimir was baptized in Korsun, Catherine II in the corresponding Chapter“ Grand Duke Vladimir I to Baptisms Vasily ”gives his own note:“ The writers about this city of Korsun say differently: others put Kinburn exactly; others consider the present Akhtiar harbor on the Black Sea in Crimea; still others worship the city of Kafu on the same peninsula. But more recently, chroniclers say Korsun on the Estuary, Kinburn is more likely to be seen».
              You “know for sure” that Korsun is the Crimean Chersonesos.

              I only note that for witnesses of the formation of the Romanov dynasty, the events of the 14th century and before, the events of the Petrine era were like events for us and they knew about these events, perhaps even less than we do now, since there were no accessible literature on this issue in bookstores, and oral traditions as a source of information on history ... well, must understand for yourself. The boyars, of course, knew the history of their birth, but no more. They had documents, but this knowledge was sacred and was available to very few, so the Approved Certificate could well go with a bang - those who knew the truth were interested in hiding it, and the rest took it on faith.

              But starting with Karamzin, “accessible literature” is higher than the roof and everyone should learn from this very “accessible literature”, which describes all the alternative nonsense that our ancestors knew at the beginning of the 16th century.
              By the way, once again about the annals. Do you somehow figure out with your body who is managing what you have there. Either you write that “it is full of documents” and “annals”, then suddenly it appears to you that there were only “oral traditions” and “sacred information”. The left hand does not know what the right hand is writing?
              By the way, about sacred information. What kind of “sacred information” is in FIG, if, according to all traditionally historical sources, the boyars' favorite thing was to argue about who should sit in what place and who to go under whom. In this case, the main argument in such disputes was a public (well, priboyarsky) listing of their ancestors, their ranks and ranks, and their posts and positions. What kind of sacral is it !!!! The public, not sacred, you are my opponent .... not wanting to think.
              1. Seal
                Seal 13 December 2017 18: 38 New
                +2
                Regarding the relationship between the significance of the Oath and the Charter, you are also deeply wrong. The oath is the final document, for the sake of which everything was created, so to speak, the crown of the whole event, while the Certificate was just one of the preparatory measures. If not for the Oath, the Charter would have been worthless on a market day.


                Regarding the correlation of the importance of the Charter and the Oath, you persist in your misunderstanding of simple things. The oath was already approved by the king, and not a candidate for the kingdom. And approved by the kingdom of Mikhail Romanov Approved Diploma. Therefore, it is called that. And Oaths, by and large, might not have been. After all, there was no oath to either Boris Godunov, or Dmitry, or Vasily Shuisky. Just the boyars, Cossacks, service people and people decided that in order to prevent the possibility of unrest, such an oath would not be superfluous.


                Regarding Pushkin, Alexander Sergeyevich - generally a song. Nevertheless, he was a poet, a creative, impetuous personality, and certainly he could not be reproached with for anything, it was in the scientific mindset. If in the course of historical disputes we refer to the geniuses of literature, medicine or mathematics, then the dispute can be stopped (which, by the way, I am going to do).

                Do you think you are "debating"? God be with you, you think too much about yourself. So, we ran into A.S. Pushkin, accusing him of the lack of a scientific mindset. Like, he was a creative person, impulsive. Incidentally, the Chief Designer of our Korolev rockets was also a creative and impetuous person. Even in a fit, he wrote with his own hand, “The moon is solid. Korolev. "
                Tell me honestly that you simply do not catch up with what I am telling you in the works of A.S. Pushkin. About which, incidentally, Nicholas was the first to utter a wonderful phrase.
                Sovereign Emperor after that meeting in the Miracle Monastery told Bludov:
                - Do you know that today I spoke with the smartest man in Russia?
                - With whom? - he asked.
                “With Pushkin,” the Tsar replied.
                1. Seal
                  Seal 13 December 2017 18: 40 New
                  +2
                  If in the course of historical disputes we refer to the geniuses of literature, medicine or mathematics

                  This is the problem that people like you don’t know anything and don’t want to know from related and especially from technical sciences.
                  The problem is that historians brew exclusively in their midst and therefore reproduce the next generation of historians in exactly the same way as they are today. And further. A professional in something is usually a narrow professional. For example, a chemist may not know anything in military affairs, music, or shipbuilding. A shipbuilder may not know anything in medicine and in military affairs, in painting, in music and so on. And, for example, a military infantryman may not even know anything about naval affairs. But professional historians, without being specialists in anything and knowing nothing from the field of military affairs, metallurgy, chemistry, physics, medical science, music, sculpture, painting, shipbuilding, and so on, nevertheless they brazenly undertake to explain all this to us. Moreover, they undertake to explain not the current state of affairs in these areas (professionals will quickly put them in their place), but how they were there, 1000 years ago 1500 years ago, 2000 years ago and so on !!! What is the main problem? Suppose, a historian wrote a huge professional work on an antique theme. The military read it and, from his professional point of view, noted that in terms of describing antique military campaigns and battles or the "Tatar-Mongol invasion" (and in winter !!!!) this shtafka wrote complete nonsense. But over 50 percent of all historical works are a description of ancient military campaigns and battles. But since the military is also not a chemist, not a physicist, not a metallurgist, not a shipbuilder, (and he does not understand the land military and in naval affairs); not a doctor; not an artist .. .. he understood, thought that it was only by his, on the military side, the historian wrote nonsense. Well, I wrote and wrote that, the military has other things to do, besides this historian's face in his stupidity to poke? Of course, the military read ... ... and forgot. At the same time as the military, I read the work of a historian, let’s say, a doctor. And he also noted that from his professional point of view about ancient medicine, the historian wrote complete nonsense. But since the doctor is not a specialist in the military sphere, in painting, physics, chemistry (although he probably is a little in chemistry), shipbuilding, music, and so on, and the doctor’s affairs are full, he didn’t bother with refuting professional work historian. And just like that, the historian’s work was read: - chemist; - physicist; - sculptor; - artist; - metallurgy - shipbuilder and so on. All noted that in their area is written complete nonsense !!! But since none of them sees the big picture, and even the book is full of enthusiastic reviews from colleagues of the historian - the same historians as he (she) himself (herself) - the book is published, children learn from it, films are made from it , and after some time, the next generation of historians consider that work is already a "document". Here and before and now, a lot of historians enthusiastically describe all the possible various military campaigns and battles. Name at least one official historian who had a higher military education? We do not have such. Other historians enthusiastically describe the huge five-deck, and even ten-deck antique ships. Name at least one official historian with a university degree in shipbuilding or navigation? We do not have such. Here are how many historical dissertations and "works" on the theme of "antique military campaigns and conquests" have been submitted for review to the Academy of the General Staff? ZERO !!! Historians are well aware that it is necessary to discuss all their “works” exclusively in their midst. Since if their "works", for example, on the theme of "antique campaigns and battles" officially fall under the review of a professional military, it would be such a shame !!! So among historians all the clearings have long been divided. And all historians exclusively cultivate their clearing, without climbing into other people's glades of their historian neighbors. And from these glades they have who so far are just bread, and who is already bread and butter. Some historians even have bread with butter and red caviar. And there are those who also have black caviar. And none of the historians want to lose their piece of bread. With butter. And caviar.

                  That's how you are. Caught you on the non-navigability of nasadas - you are like water off a goose,
                  “Do not like the bastards - let's send the rooks. I do not care".
                  Excuse me, but where is the afternoon of the Byzantine emperor Konstantin Bagryanorodny, who in his treatise "On the management of the empire": "About dews traveling with odnoderevki from Russia to Constantinople ... coming from outer Russia to Constantinople even wrote about the assaults, and about monoxyls ?? ? ...
                  1. Seal
                    Seal 13 December 2017 18: 44 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Seal
                    Let’s not conduct empty arguments on the subject of what I “will demand soon”, and that “I will not demand soon”.

                    You agreed.
                    Let's not. It's boring.

                    It’s great that you have now agreed not to engage in nonsense. But let's get back to the issue that you wanted to close with your bullshit. The question was

                    Luga December 11, 2017 18:36 ↑
                    Quote: Seal
                    Documents where? Decrees, orders, orders, diplomatic or even private letters of Alexander? What, not a single one is left?

                    Your comment you were trying to hide behind.
                    Dear, you will soon begin to demand video recordings of the conception of crowned persons, otherwise all the august persons will turn out to be bastards for you. And indeed - where is the evidence that Alexander Nevsky is the son of Yaroslav. No? All bye.

                    Do not hide. So, back to our sheep.
                    So where are the docs? Decrees, orders, orders, diplomatic or even private letters of Alexander? What, not a single one is left?

                    Answer. And have the courage not to hide for your second helpless children's grotesque.
                    But I’m wondering, are you capable of confirming your theories with anything other than an Approved Certificate, which, in the opinion of most people involved in or interested in history, cannot be a source of historical knowledge, since it was created exclusively for the sake of politicians? Chronicles are not an argument for you, hagiographic literature is probably also ... Byzantine and Arabic chronicles? No? Chinese - about the Mongols? No? Of course, all of them, like our annals, were copied by enemies (Jews, Masons, Anglo-Saxons) in order to distort Russian history. Somehow they forgot about the Approved Certificate, the only document untouched by the conspiracy.

                    If you are a lover of conspiracy - you are not at the right place. Yours are going somewhere else. I thought that I explained to you in a language that was understandable to you that there was no conspiracy. There was a process of compiling the history of the development of human society. Which was the only organization that had all and most importantly human and financial resources for this. Moreover, human resources worked for the idea, in the name of the victory of the Catholic Christian religion throughout the world.

                    All Catholic historiography is built on the Bible. In which (in the Old Testament, in the book of the prophet Daniel) the following is said:
                    “The same as the Archangel Gabriel told, of the following verb: the fourth beast, the 4th kingdom will be on earth, and even the kingdoms will be higher than all the kingdoms. And these truly Roman teachers are the forerunners of the church. And the first was the glorious Assyrian kingdom. In the 1nd The Medes are united in Persian, the 2rd Macedonian, the 3th is now Roman. Gabriel also makes packs of the verb 4 of his horns, 10 kingdoms will arise, and another will rise along it. Even beyond all the first with malice, not only speaks ten, but also all of them were formerly his past, but the three kings would triumph. Vedati is fitting, because of the three 10 three kings he will triumph for the sake of reigning over the osmus, and he will have heretical words on Vyshnyago ...
                    ... then ten kings will rise in Rome in different places. By the kingdom of Rome, one obedience will be. Then in Rome at that last eleventh king, the Antichrist will soon be made to possess. For the seven kings in obedience to their antichrist to the Roman throne, their servants at that time voluntarily and without scolding to seek possession. And the kings will get three packs of war and power with them. Tii, the three kings behind a single Roman king and name will begin to dwell. Bear with the command and providence of the Roman throne they will be defeated. And for the sake of it, the eighth will be called Antichrist ... "

                    That is, the Bible set the outline for Christian historiography. 4 successive kingdoms are listed - that means all Christian historiography must prove and justify this change of these particular kingdoms.
                    It is said that in Rome there are 7 kings in obedience to the antichrist of the Roman throne, and their servants at that time voluntarily and without scolding to seek possession - consider how many kings there are official history in Rome.

                    Thousands of copies of chronicles and chronicles were translated, read, forwarded, put in place, and two copies of the Diploma were forgotten. Okay.)


                    Stop, stop, stop. About the annals, I have already provided you with the opinion of a serious professional historian Klyuchevsky.


                    And then what? Archaeological research? So they unequivocally confirm the fact of the Mongol invasion and other facts described in chronicles, chronicles and similar written sources, why the latter are recognized as trustworthy.

                    Stop-stop - stop. And here in more detail please. Which archaeological research do you think clearly confirms the so-called “fact” of the Mongol (not even Tatar and not Tatar-Mongol) invasion?

                    Not only that, they are participants in the worldwide conspiracy of historians against Russia.


                    I have already told you and I repeat - if you want to discuss some global conspiracies - look for your fellow thinkers and at least discuss between yourself there.
                    1. Seal
                      Seal 13 December 2017 18: 51 New
                      +2
                      Speaking of professional historians.

                      First, let's remember who actually stood at the origins of modern historical chronology? The sources of chronology as a scientific discipline were philologist Scaliger, musician Calvizius and theologian Petavius. None of them graduated from the Faculty of History, did not write a diploma on the topic “On the Role of Marxism-Leninism in Understanding the Dynamics of Feudalism of Ancient Rus”, and did not defend a dissertation for the title of candidate of historical sciences. None of them held positions in the Department of History and was not an employee of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Nevertheless, the monster they created called “the chronology of world history from ancient times to the end of the counter-reformation” is perceived by the multimillion army of historians as a solid scientific achievement that needs neither verification nor improvement.

                      And who was the most important authority for you - Karamzin? What, is it a professional historian? No !! Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1 (12), 1766 near Simbirsk. He grew up in his father's estate. He received his initial education in a private boarding school in Simbirsk. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of professor of Moscow University I.M. Shaden. At the same time, he attended lectures by I. G. Schwartz at the University in 1781-1782.
                      Just in case, I inform you that Professor Shaden did not teach history, but aesthetics.

                      In 1783, Karamzin joined the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment, but soon retired.
                      After his resignation, he lived in Simbirsk for some time, and then in Moscow. During his stay in Simbirsk, he joined the Masonic Lodge of the Golden Crown, and after arriving in Moscow for four years (1785-1789) was a member of the Friendly Scientific Society.

                      In Moscow, Karamzin met writers and writers: N. I. Novikov, A. M. Kutuzov, A. A. Petrov, participated in the publication of the first Russian magazine for children - "Children's Reading for Heart and Mind."

                      In the years 1789-1790 he made a trip to Europe, during which he visited Immanuel Kant in Konigsberg, was in Paris during the great French revolution. As a result of this trip, the famous "Letters of a Russian Traveler" were written, the publication of which immediately made Karamzin a famous writer. Some philologists believe that it is from this book that modern Russian literature begins to count. Be that as it may, in the literature of Russian “travels” Karamzin really became a pioneer - he quickly found both imitators (V.V. Izmailov, P.I. Sumarokov, P.I. Shalikov) and worthy successors (A. A. Bestuzhev, N.A. Bestuzhev, F.N. Glinka, A.S. Griboedov). Since then, Karamzin is considered one of the main literary figures in Russia.


                      Upon returning from a trip to Europe, Karamzin settled in Moscow and began working as a professional writer and journalist, proceeding with the publication of the Moscow Journal 1791-1792 (the first Russian literary magazine in which, among other works of Karamzin, appeared the novel “Poor Liza, which strengthened his fame) ”), Then released a number of collections and almanacs: Aglaya, Aonida, Pantheon of Foreign Literature, My Trinkets, which made sentimentalism the main literary movement in Russia, and Karamzin its recognized leader.

                      In addition to prose and poetry, the Moscow Journal systematically published reviews, critical articles, and theater reviews. In May 1792, Karamzin's review of the iroicomic poem by Nikolai Petrovich Osipov, “Virgiliev Yeneid, turned inside out”, was published in the journal.
                      1. Seal
                        Seal 13 December 2017 18: 53 New
                        +2
                        What then? How can you confirm your speculation? Only with his fictions, Pushkin (excuse me, Alexander Sergeyevich!) And absurd, obviously impracticable requirements, as is usual with the Fomenkovites.

                        If you are not strong in the work of A.S. Pushkin - you do not need to hide your ignorance behind someone. From the requirements to provide documents, you decided to hide behind a primitive grotesque for children, your ignorance of the historical works of AS Pushkin - behind some "Fomenkovtsy". Well, by golly, you're like in a children's sandbox.

                        Do not like the bastards - let's send the rooks. I do not care. There they talked about ears that are definitely not suitable not for the Gulf of Finland, not for the Black Sea.

                        Forgive me, but you actually know that sailing in the Gulf of Finland now, in modern times, when the safety requirements of navigation are declared as paramount tasks, in the Gulf of Finland navigation of class "R" (river) vessels of the Russian River Register is allowed. Not everywhere, of course, to the line from Sestroretsk to Peterhof, but this was even before the construction of the Dam. And almost the entire bay is allowed to sail vessels in the class of the Russian River Register with a discharge of "O".
                        But all this doesn’t matter to you.

                        Quote: Seal
                        From the point of view of common sense and the laws of nature, the unification in an extremely short time of half-wild clans and hulk families roaming the territory of present-day Mongolia plus / minus another 100-200 thousand square kilometers into an invincible and super-disciplined army and the seizure of half-world by this army - a bit complete.


                        But I don’t agree about the Mongols and nonsense.

                        Believe me, the story of your disagreement will not suffer.
                      2. Seal
                        Seal 13 December 2017 19: 02 New
                        +2
                        Why nonsense? How this happened was lucidly and colorfully presented in Arabic and Chinese sources. They very literally and figuratively described the story of how they were carried out on the battlefield by a single wicket of the wild nomads, whom they knew very well before and did not consider themselves equal. And the reasons are stated - from their point of view, to justify themselves. Events are set out sequentially, cross-checks of sources reveal only discrepancies in transcribing proper names and geographical names, as well as in dating (within twelve years of the calendar cycle, more often in one to two years). If you can’t read Arabic or Chinese, try to follow my example and study the works of historians. Serious books of serious people contain relevant citations and references. Then you can find out how what you call nonsense could actually happen in the real world.

                        Let’s do it, if you have something specific, a specific Chinese or Arabic annals - lay out, we’ll look. Do you think you are my first one? Yes, I have dozens of your predecessors, as loud as you who claimed that they had everything, promised to certainly lay out and poke my nose. The first - about 15 years ago. I'm still waiting.
                        In fact, no "multiple sources" say anything concrete. You are sure that there is something clear in some Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Burmese, and so on manuscripts. And I’m sure that European official historians, having received at their disposal some shabby, fragmentary, without beginning and without end, “manuscripts” in the Tarabar language, which in the first translation said, for example, that “In the fifteenth year of our king’s kingdom Enemies from the North attacked our kingdom from the north and there was a difficult battle ... ", translated, looking into historical guides, correlating a certain Sage of God the Third with the right ruler and placing him in the right historical period. To the Mongols - so to the Mongols.
                        Again. The entire "World History" has one source of origin - the Vatican. The popes considered themselves spiritual (and some and not only) rulers of the whole world. And the whole story was created for themselves. And so that this story is not questioned where the Pope could not order, they (together with the Head of the Order of the Jesuits) sent Jesuit missions around the world. To Japan inclusive. And everywhere the Jesuits, even for a short period, but sought the location of the lords. In Japan, the least, in China - decently. And having achieved it, they created missionary schools in which history was taught. And they drove their version of the story into the heads of new adherents. Which then wrote down the story, imbedded by the Jesuits, in their own words and their alphabet. And after some period these records began to be perceived as the true history of those countries.
                        And besides, there were Dominicans, Franciscans, and only hell knows what orders the Pope did not create.
                        Plus, a huge number of Catholic historians just like that, out of a sense of the need to support the claims of the popes, worked on his version of the story.
                        It’s just people like you talking about certain Russophobic agents who made up a worldwide conspiracy against Russia. No, all of them, and these were hundreds of thousands of Catholic scholars (and then Protestants and Orthodox) for centuries worked on the justification of the outline drawn in the Bible. The peoples of "Gogi and Magogi" were indicated there - and so they should have appeared in the created history. And they appeared. "Huns" and "Mongols."
                        About the Arab-Muslim Rashid al-Din, I was already tortured by the way you explain.
                        Rashid ad Din is a Muslim. And he allegedly wrote:
                        JAMI AT-TAVARIH
                        CHRONICLE
                        Genghis Khan from the beginning of the tholai year corresponding to the year of the hare starting from the month of zul-kade 615 [January 9 - February 17, 1219 AD], until the end of the year of Kaka, corresponding year of the pigstarting with [month] safar 624 g. [January 21 - February 18, 1227 AD], which is a period of time of nine years.
                        Yes, any Muslim would cut off his hand, which brought out the words "year of the pig."
                        So it’s not a Muslim who wrote. Most likely .. well, you guessed it, whose work is then translated into Arabic.
                        Oh, I feel that my labors according to your admonition are like peas on a wall. C'mon, who can be smarter than you are interested in them.
  31. Seal
    Seal 12 December 2017 12: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Luga
    Dear, you will soon begin to demand videos of the conception of crowned persons

    Let’s not conduct empty arguments on the subject of what I “will demand soon”, and that “I will not demand soon”.
    There was a specific question Documents where? Decrees, orders, orders, diplomatic or even private letters of Alexander? What, not a single one is left?
    I understand that you, trying to get away from the answer (otherwise you would have to confirm that “yes, there is nothing, not a single document”), are trying to use the technique colorfully described by Ilf and Petrov in the novel “The Golden Calf”.

    That is, not having the opportunity, and, accordingly, not having the desire to either answer or object on the merits, you are already using honestly the orderly method of translating into grotesque. Well, let me give you one more analogy.
    Here you, being a guest, brought along a couple of silver spoons. The hosts, having discovered the loss and knowing that no one was with them other than you, call (or come to) you and ask if you have a pair of silver spoons. To the fact that you, having risen in a pose of extremely offended dignity, proudly declare, "Something you will soon begin to demand from me that I return the Crown of the Russian Empire to you."
    For a certain category of citizens, completely typical behavior. hi
  32. Seal
    Seal 12 December 2017 12: 48 New
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    It can be interpreted as follows: "despite the fact that they were captured by the godless Batu,
    spread the Christian faith and renew the churches. "

    I also assumed that it could be so. But still, agree that the phrase is very ambiguous. Again.
    “..With the captivity of the godless Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faiths are spread and the holy churches are renewed”

    If we admit that we are talking about the capture of the Russian Earth, then in theory the phrase should have sounded like this:
    "..In captivity Russian land the godless Batu spread the holy and immaculate peasant faith, and renew the holy churches with renewal packs ”

    But even if we admit that we are talking about the capture of our land, it turns out that the “godless Batu” had nothing against Prince Yaroslav, instead of sending money to him, godless Batu, to spend them on in the Russian land captivated by Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faith is to be distributed and the holy churches to be renewed. How strange it turns out.
    There is another option that the phrase can be interpreted so that
    “..On the end of the capture of the Russian land by the godless Batu, the holy and immaculate peasant faiths are spread out and the holy churches are renewed”
    This is much more logical. But .. it contradicts the officially accepted version of history no less than the "captivity" of Batu himself.
    For in our time, everyone has already become accustomed to the fact that
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Batu Khan was not captured, but he himself captured many: he reached the very middle of Europe without military defeat.


    Or maybe our ancestors at the beginning of the 17th century had other information?
    Well, of course, we should not forget that Batys (Batu, Batu Khan and so on) is just “Western” (not without reason historians sent him to the West of the so-called “Mongol Empire”, so you write that he reached the middle of Europe), and Genghis is East.
  33. Seal
    Seal 12 December 2017 12: 53 New
    +2
    Quote: Luga
    analyzed in terms of common sense and the laws of nature.

    From the point of view of common sense and the laws of nature, the unification in an extremely short time of half-wild clans and hulk families roaming the territory of present-day Mongolia plus / minus another 100-200 thousand square kilometers into an invincible and super-disciplined army and the seizure of half-world by this army - a bit complete. fool
    As well as your sending "nasad" across the Black Sea fool
  34. Seal
    Seal 12 December 2017 12: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: Varyag77
    True, she is alone. Over 1000 years from Russia, mothers grabbed lyuley everything except the Zulus and Australian aborigines. And what about you in the parallel universe, we do not know.

    Exactly. When Moscow sent the Pope on his erotic journey with his claims to the right to be “the spiritual leader and teacher of Russia,” and declared herself the Third Rome - The First Rome was very offended by us. And he began to invent all kinds of fables about us. For example, the "Tatar yoke" is an invention of Poles Catholics, who also had the goal of proving that Poland was the last outpost of civilization in Eastern Europe. Then, when during the Napoleonic forces, Europeans saw real Tatars in Europe and Paris and were surprised that the Tatars - exactly the same Europeans as they themselves - European historians quickly began to transform the "Tatar yoke" first into the "Tatar-Mongol", then into the "Mongol-Tatar", and now often even we ourselves are limited to one "Mongolian". And the “Khalkha” ethnic group, located almost in the far east, was appointed to the post of “Mongols”.
    Likewise, when the Swedes had to designate their "rights" to the "Kemsku parish" - the Swede Peter Petreus created the theory that once upon a time the Vikings, who are Swedes, were called to rule in Russia.
    Well, our liberalists, who already looked at the West with admiration, unanimously picked up these theories, that yes, here we are, silver-footed, 300 years under the yoke. And before that, they could not figure it out among themselves - the Varangians had to call overseas to rule us.
    Ugh ..
    In none of the birch bark letters have the words: "Tatar", "Mongol", Mongol-Tatar "," Tatar-Mongol ", Baskak", "Khan," Great Khan "," Horde "," yoke ", “Batu,” etc. But the current liberals, relying on Karamzin, spit in the souls of our ancestors, and did not suspect that they were “under the yoke.” These liberals, these duty officers, these cheap things, ready to sell for any currency, actually in fact, they are traitors to the Russian people, because day and night they inspire and inspire this idiotic fantasy about the "Tatar-Mongol yoke", like, dear Russians, it’s okay that once we were "conquered by wild nomads", it only went to us It’s okay that we were conquered, because in the end we did it ... So now there’s no big deal if we are taken over by the West and the NATO bloc for some time ..... it will only benefit us, as the notorious “Mongol-Tatar yoke" allegedly once benefited "well. We’ll sit for 200-300 years under the Western Unitary Enterprise By comparison, they inspire, so we’ll only become smarter and better.
    Ugh on them with their ideas about the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" again.
    We, Slavs - Russians never gave our land to anyone. No Mongol Tatars. And we will not give it to anyone. And let them not hope.
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. The comment was deleted.
  37. The comment was deleted.
  38. Seal
    Seal 13 December 2017 19: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: Luga
    Before proclaiming a thesis drawn from any source, whether it is a chronicle, memoirs, historical research, it is checked from other sources, analyzed from the point of view of common sense and the laws of nature.

    You see what the problem is. History consists 99% of military operations, troop movements (campaigns), preparation for military operations .. and the like, in general, with everything related to military operations. Can you personally name at least one “historian” with at least an elementary military education? And at least one historian with a higher military education?
    So what kind of devil are all these utter ignoramuses in military affairs undertaking to explain to all of us how the "army of Alexander the Great" fought there. And what kind of devil do you indulge in this?
    Maybe historians give their historical academic works on issues related to the description of ancient conquests and campaigns before they are sent to print for review at the Academy of the General Staff? Yeah, we ran away. Although they are historians, even they have the intelligence not to give their "historical works" for examination to professionals.

    Peaceful history largely consists of the development of painting, sculpture, architecture and so on.
    Can you personally name at least one historian who is at least a little recognized artist, sculptor, architect or just a builder?

    Another story consists of the development of medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy and cartography, and so on.

    You personally can name at least one historian who is at least a little recognized physician, chemist, physicist, astronomer or cartographer.

    I'm not talking about the history of shipbuilding. I guarantee you that none of the historians, even those who in their academic books extensively discuss the advantages of small Athenian ships versus clumsy Persian ones, is not closely related either to shipbuilding or to navigation (navigation).
  39. Seal
    Seal 13 December 2017 19: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: Luga
    Firstly, Alexander, being the prince of Novgorod, actively corresponded with the Pope of Rome on the subject of receiving a crown in exchange for passing under the patronage of Rome, like Daniil Galitsky, and even, according to the pope’s letters to Alexander, agreed to convert to Catholicism.

    Letters (photocopies of letters) to Pope Alexander and Daniel - to the studio !!!!
  40. Seal
    Seal 13 December 2017 19: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: Luga
    If in the course of historical disputes we refer to the geniuses of literature,

    We will be. More as we will. Here, for example, is what the French genius of literature writes.
    In the novel “Penguin Island”, Anatole France frankly scoffs at the writers of historical treatises:
    “Writing a story is extremely difficult. You probably never know how it all happened, and the more documents, the more difficulties for the historian. When only one single evidence of a fact has been preserved, it is established by us without any hesitation. Indecision arises only in the presence of two or more evidence of an event, since they always contradict one another and cannot be reconciled.
    Of course, the preference of one or another historical evidence to everyone else often rests on a solid scientific basis. But it is never so strong as to resist our passions, our prejudices and our interests or to prevent the manifestations of frivolity inherent in all serious people. That's why we constantly portray events either biased or too loose ...
    - Your Majesty! I told him. “I ask you to help me with your enlightened advice.” I put all my strength into making a story, but nothing works out for me!
    He shrugged his shoulders.
    - Why, darling, so trouble yourself with the compilation of historical work, when you can simply write off the most famous of the available, as is customary? After all, if you express a new point of view, some original idea, if you portray people and circumstances in some unexpected light, you will surprise the reader. And the reader does not like to be surprised. In history, he seeks only nonsense, long since known to him. Trying to teach the reader something, you will only offend and make him angry. Do not try to educate him, he will scream that you insult his beliefs.
    Historians rewrite each other. In this way, they save themselves from unnecessary labor and from accusations of arrogance. Follow their example, do not be original. An original-minded historian causes widespread distrust, contempt, and disgust.
    “Really, sir, do you think,” my interlocutor added, “that I would have achieved such recognition and honor if I had introduced any innovations into my historical books!” Well, what is innovation? Insolence is all! ”

    Don't you find that it painfully resembles the working methods of other professional historians? Their critical opuses directed against the authors of alternative versions contain nothing but contempt, disgust, and righteous anger. And in fact: miserable amateurs with a pork snout climb in a Kalash line, impure unclean fingers in an opening wound, ulcerate, giggle and prevent busy people from quietly copying each other.
  41. Seal
    Seal 14 December 2017 17: 58 New
    0
    Quote: Seal
    He even wrote about attacks, but about monoxyls ??? ...

    Amendment. It should be read: Even not about nadzad.
    For such unfortunate historians, everything is very simple: "nadzards" do not fit - take a "lodge". Although the emperor writes specifically about monoxyls, and not about lodges at all.
  42. Lieutenant
    Lieutenant 7 March 2020 13: 28 New
    0
    Alexander Nevsky exaggerated figure. His image as a brilliant commander and patriot is greatly exaggerated in Russian history. In reality, he was a power-hungry and cruel man. The scale of the Livonian threat of Russia and the real military significance of the clashes on the Neva and Lake Peipsi is doubtful. There was never a serious threat from the German knights. The battle of ice was not a major battle. The example of Lithuania, into which a number of Russian princes passed with their lands, showed that a successful struggle against the Mongols was quite possible. Alexander deliberately entered into an alliance with the Mongols in order to use them to strengthen personal power. In the long run, his choice predetermined the formation of despotic power in Russia.