Military Review

The defeat of the Poles under the Yellow Waters

50
The defeat of the Poles under the Yellow Waters In the battle of Yellow Waters, the Polish Potocki detachment was destroyed. This was the first serious victory of the insurgent people.


Polish offensive

For the government of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Polish magnates, the uprising in the Zaporozhian Sich and the possibility of a large-scale war in Little Russia became a matter of paramount importance. The great crown hetman Nikolai Pototsky, unable to force the rebels to capitulate, decided to go on the offensive. 21 March 1648 of the year he wrote to the king: “It was not without reflection and thorough reasoning that I moved to Ukraine with the army of your royal mercy, my pan and my benefactor. Very important motivations have led me to this: the preservation of the integrity and dignity of both your royal favor and the fatherland itself and its freedom. ”

Pototsky noted that "it is easy to destroy 500 people of rebels," but the fact is that "these 500 raised a riot in a conspiracy with all the Cossack regiments and with all of Ukraine." “This reckless person, Khmelnitsky,” wrote Pototsky, “will not bow before mercy.” All embassies to the leader of the Cossacks failed. Pototsky informed the king that Khmelnitsky called the Tatars for help, and they had already come to him.

At that time, under the banner of Pototsky, there was a large army at that time — about 24 thousand soldiers with artillery. The main forces were located between Cherkasy and Korsun. Pototsky was in Cherkassy, ​​and in Korsun hetman Martin Kalinovsky made his bid for the field. The Polish military camp was also led by Adam Sinyavsky, a nobleman, coronet carriage Kazanovsky, Polish Cossack commissar Jacek Shemberg, who had their own banners (squads). Under hetman Pototsky, his son Stefan also consisted, who dreamed of smashing the rebellious Cossacks and thereby gaining his fame as a commander. Arrogant gentry, as usual, overestimated their strength and underestimated the enemy. Time was spent in drinking and boasting how they would destroy the rebels.

In April, 1648, the Poles received news that Khmelnitsky had left Zaporizhia. At the military council, Kalinowski reasonably suggested that the entire army should immediately come out against the rebels and crush Khmelnitsky. However, the majority of Pototsky’s advisors considered it a shame to send such a large army against the “despicable gang of mean flakes”. Like, the smaller the unit, the more glory from the defeat of the rebels. As a result, not all the forces went on the march, moreover, they were divided into two groups: one went across the steppe, the other - on the ships along the Dnieper. A squad of zholner (infantry) and cavalry led by the second son of Nikolai Pototsky, young 24-year-old Stefan Pototsky, who was reinforced by experienced captain Shemberg (5 – 6 thousand people and 12 cannons), moved across the steppe. A detachment was marching along the Dnieper under the command of the general captains Esaulov Ivan Barabash and Ilyash Karaimovich (4 thousand registered Cossacks and 2 thousand hired German infantry). Both detachments were to unite at Kamenny Backwater and strike at the lower Cossacks. As a result, the fragmentation of forces, and especially the separation of the registered Cossacks into an independent column, was a major mistake of Hetman Potocki, which Khmelnytsky skillfully used.

Transition Registered Cossacks to the side of the rebels

Khmelnitsky had supporters in the Polish camp, so he knew well what was going on there. And as soon as he was informed about Pototsky’s plans and the enemy’s speeches, he immediately assembled a detachment and went towards the Poles. Along the way, the hetman decided to smash the enemy's advanced forces in parts, and then strike the main forces of Potocki. The Khmelnytsky Cossacks walked along the Bazavluk River and soon came to the Yellow Waters flow (a tributary of the Ingulets River). Here the Cossacks settled down in the camp, reinforcing it with earthen defenses. The Tatars stood aside for the swamps. Tugay-Bey decided not to hurry, but to wait when there will be a break in the battle.

On May 3, a detachment of Stefan Potocki approached the Yellow Waters and crossed over to the left bank. Having found the enemy and its fortified camp, the Poles went back across the river. On the right bank, led by Schemberg, the Poles laid a fortification in the form of a triangle. Here they decided to wait for the second detachment, which descended down the Dnieper. A report was sent to the great crown hetman Nikolai Pototsky with a request for reinforcement, but the messenger was seized by the Tatars, and the report did not reach. The Cossacks tried to attack the enemy, to bring their positions to the Polish camp, but failed. After that, minor skirmishes began, without much success of either one or the other.

However, Bogdan was able to win the first victory before the decisive battle. Khmelnitsky could seriously weaken the enemy troops and strengthen their own. On the bank of the Dnieper, Bogdan set up Cossack posts headed by Colonel Ivan Ganzha from Uman. As soon as the boats approached the coast, the patrol Cossacks began to call on the registrants to leave the lords and go to the side of the rebels. In the first kayak the Cossacks, led by Colonel Krichesky, swam. He recognized Ganju and ordered him to land on the shore. Krichevsky gladly joined Khmelnitsky, followed by other registry Cossacks. When most of the Cossacks came ashore, they gathered a rada. The Cossacks refused to shed the blood of their brothers, agreed to stand up for the faith, the Cossacks and the entire Russian people. Esaulov Barabash and Karaimovich were deposed and executed as traitors. Instead, Philo Jejelia was elected as the elder. They also killed German mercenaries with a sudden blow. Then everyone was distributed on the shelves and moved to join the main forces of Khmelnitsky. Khmelnitsky squad increased by several thousand fighters. It was a strong blow to the Poles, who had lost their former arrogance, were weakened morally and numerically.

Defeat

In the morning of May 5, Pototsky ordered the dragoons and Polish banners with artillery to leave the camp to attack the Cossacks. At this time, Khmelnitsky was preparing his army for battle. At this time, part of the Cossacks, which remained in the camp of Potocki and Shemberg, also went over to the side of the rebels. And followed by the dragoons, which were also recruited in the Ukraine. Polish cavalry with artillery had to hide in the camp. In addition, reinforcements arrived in the army of Khmelnitsky - Don Cossacks with Cossacks who were on the Don. Cossacks got a significant numerical advantage.

The next day, the Cossacks attacked the Polish camp from various sides. The Poles fought back courageously, the Cossacks failed to break them. But the Polish camp was surrounded on all sides, and the besieged were cut off from the water. The letter that was sent to the crown hetman with a request for immediate assistance and was intercepted by the Cossacks, with ridicule, showed the Poles, inviting them to "give themselves up to the mercy of the flames." The position of the Poles was desperate; they could not be besieged without food and water.

In the circumstances, the young Pototsky and Schemberg had no choice but to forget about pride and negotiate with the “slaves”. It suited Khmelnitsky, too, who did not want to linger, besieging a small Polish detachment and losing people. He said: "Do not ruin yourself in vain Panov, victory is in my hands, but I do not want brotherly blood." The Poles sent Charnetsky for negotiations, and Khmelnitsky sent Maxim Krivonos and the centurion to the Rat. Khmelnitsky tightened the negotiations, and at this time Krivonos and the Rat in the Polish camp were persuading registered Cossacks, who still remained in the Polish camp. Soon all registrars left the Poles. Shemberg, being more experienced and seeing the hopelessness of the situation, offered to accept the conditions of Khmelnitsky - to surrender the artillery with the condition that the Cossacks would allow to go to Krylov. “Not only for us, but for the whole of the fatherland, it will be more useful,” he said at the council, “if we are buying from certain death with unimportant tools; but we will gain time, we will join the army and give it the opportunity, having learned in time about the rebellion, not to let it flare up ”.

Pototsky and other commanders agreed. They only demanded that the Cossacks swear an oath to seal the promise to release them unhindered. Cossacks swore. Polish guns were taken to the Khmelnitsky camp. They were very necessary to him: he had only four guns. On May 8, the Poles hurriedly headed back from Yellow Waters, hoping to join their own soon. They calmly passed three miles, here they had to pass through the beam of Princes Bayraki. Here they were attacked by Tatars, who did not give any vows. Before this, the Crimean Tatars, as Siluyan Muzhilovsky, ambassador of Bogdan in Moscow, later wrote, “looked from the side who had a close sop”. Seeing that the Cossacks were winning, they rushed at the fleeing Poles.

At first, the Poles thought to get along quickly, but it was extremely difficult to go over rough terrain covered with shallow forests. In addition, the Cossacks earlier, when the Polish camp was under siege, dug the earth even more with ditches, made heaps of trees and stones. The path became impassable, even in conditions when it was necessary to repel enemy attacks. Then Pototsky ordered a wagenburg from the carts and a shaft to be filled. The Poles resisted desperately. The Tatars took Polish guns from the Cossacks, fired on a hastily built camp and broke into it from all sides. The carnage began. Potocki, already dying from his wounds, was taken prisoner. All his associates, who survived, laid down weapon.

As a result, the Polish squad was destroyed. Many soldiers died, survivors were injured, including Potocki and Schemberg. Khmelnitsky sent the son of the great crown hetman Pototsky to Zaporozhye and ordered to protect his eyes. But Pototsky died on the road from wounds. The rebels seized 8 guns with ammunition, a large number of firearms and cold weapons.

This was the first victory of the insurgent people. The battle of the Yellow Waters has not yet had a decisive military strategic importance. The rebels broke only part of the Polish avant-garde. However, this fight showed the weakness of the enemy - the underestimation of the rebels, the support of the rebels Cossacks from the people. Registered Cossacks and dragoons did not begin to fight with their own and went over to the side of the Khmelnitsky warriors. But Bogdan showed solidarity and ability of his troops.

Author:
Articles from this series:
National Liberation War of Bohdan Khmelnytsky

370 years ago, the national liberation war of the Russian people against the Polish invaders began
As the Poles pursued a policy of genocide of the Russian population who did not want to live in slavery
"The Russian land will rise, it has never risen as never before"
"There is no other way how to break the Poles with the power and fear of death"
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 14 May 2018 05: 46
    +3
    However, most of Pototsky’s advisers considered it a shame to send such a large army against the “despicable gang of vile claps”.
    The eternal Lyashsky "Honor" ... he brought many troubles to them.
    Then they were attacked by the Tatars, who did not take any oaths.
    Here, Khmelnitsky won all his main victories, only when the Krymchaks were for him, and in the case of their absence and victories there was not much ...
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 14 May 2018 08: 02
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Here, Khmelnitsky won all his main victories, only when the Krymchaks were for him, and in the case of their absence and victories there was not much ...

      Well, actually, from just in the battle under the Yellow Waters the Tatars did not participate. They attacked the Poles, who had already surrendered to Khmelnitsky. And in the text of the article this is stated directly and unequivocally.
      1. svp67
        svp67 14 May 2018 08: 07
        0
        Quote: Mik13
        They attacked the Poles, who had already surrendered to Khmelnitsky.

        Have you given up? There is no word about this in the text ...
        1. Mik13
          Mik13 14 May 2018 09: 10
          +6
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: Mik13
          They attacked the Poles, who had already surrendered to Khmelnitsky.

          Have you given up? There is no word about this in the text ...

          You must have joked unsuccessfully? Or do you really have such serious problems with the perception of complex texts?
          ... Schemberg, being more experienced and seeing the hopelessness of the situation, suggested accepting the conditions of Khmelnitsky - surrender artillery on the condition that the Cossacks would allow him to leave for Krylov. “Not only for us, but for the whole country, it will be more useful,” he said on the council, “if we will pay off certain death with some unimportant tools; but we will gain time, join the army and give him the opportunity, having learned in time about the rebellion, to prevent him from flaring up. ”
          Pototsky and the other commanders agreed. They only demanded that the Cossacks swear an oath to promise to freely release them. The Cossacks swore allegiance. Polish guns were taken to the camp of Khmelnitsky ...
          1. svp67
            svp67 14 May 2018 12: 59
            0
            Quote: Mik13
            You must have joked unsuccessfully? Or do you really have such serious problems with the perception of complex texts?

            And they left with banners and with arms ... Of course, you can consider it surrender, then just like that our emperor Peter 1 "surrendered" to the Turks.
            1. Mik13
              Mik13 14 May 2018 15: 53
              +3
              Quote: svp67
              And they left with banners and with arms ... Of course, you can consider it surrender, then just like that our emperor Peter 1 "surrendered" to the Turks.

              Well, actually this is the so-called "honorary surrender." Which quite often ended the battle at that time. The term "unconditional surrender" appeared only during the American Civil War in the 19 century.
              As for the Prut campaign (did you mean it?) - yes, it was the same honorable surrender. The difference is that the Turks did not attack the retreating Russian troops. However, at the same time, Russia had to agree to rather unpleasant conditions of the world. In addition, some historical sources report that the wife of Peter I had to sacrifice their jewelry, either for bribing, or for salaries to officers. And the result of the Prut campaign was the loss of access to the Sea of ​​Azov. If it is a victory, or even at least a “draw”, then how should defeat look like?
              1. svp67
                svp67 14 May 2018 18: 41
                0
                Quote: Mik13
                honorary surrender.

                But not surrender. There is a difference.
      2. svp67
        svp67 14 May 2018 13: 38
        0
        Quote: Mik13
        Well, actually, from just in the battle under the Yellow Waters the Tatars did not participate.

        Participated. In the assaults on April 30 and May 1. They departed from there on May 8-9. That did not become a secret for the Poles, apparently because of this they decided to negotiate.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 14 May 2018 09: 02
      +1
      if the Potocki army at first consisted of 24 thousand soldiers, this is a huge force at that time. The campaign went 12 thousand. minus the registered Cossacks -4tys. Altogether, 8 army of Poles was defeated. What army did Bogdan Khmelnitsky have to encircle and crush the Poles?
      1. svp67
        svp67 14 May 2018 09: 07
        0
        Quote: Bar1
        The campaign went 12 thousand. minus the registered Cossacks -4tys. total 8 thousand army of Poles was defeated.

        Poles have fewer, significantly fewer people left ... in the text clearly written ...
        At this time, part of the Cossacks, who remained in the camp of Potocki and Schemberg, also sided with the rebels. And they were followed by dragoons, who were also recruited in Little Russia.

        Yes, and reinforcements arrived
        In addition, reinforcements arrived in the Khmelnitsky army - Don Cossacks with the Cossacks, who were on the Don. Cossacks received a significant numerical advantage.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 14 May 2018 09: 08
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          Poles have fewer, significantly fewer people left ... in the text clearly written ...

          in the text the figures are given, you can count.
          1. svp67
            svp67 14 May 2018 09: 18
            0
            Quote: Bar1
            in the text the figures are given, you can count.

            Let's...
            A detachment of horsemen (infantry) and cavalry led by the second son of Nikolai Pototsky, the young 24-year-old Stefan Pototsky, who was strengthened by an experienced captain Shemberg (5-6 thousand people and 12 guns) A detachment was walking along the Dnieper in kayaks under the command of General Yesaul Ivan Barabash and Ilyash Karaimovich (4 thousand registered Cossacks and 2 thousand hired German infantry).

            The detachment of Barabash-Karaimovich partly passed to Khmelnytsky, as I understand it for the most part ... I wonder where the "German infantry" went? I do not think that after such "stress" they went to join the main forces of the Pototsky Jr. detachment. Which left 5-6 thousand ... Now we will take away from them the "Little Russian dragoons" and the detachments of the Cossacks, who went over to Khmelnytsky ...
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 14 May 2018 11: 24
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              The detachment of Barabash-Karaimovich partly passed to Khmelnytsky, as I understand it for the most part ... I wonder where the "German infantry" went? I do not think that after such "stress" they went to join the main forces of the Pototsky Jr. detachment. Which left 5-6 thousand ... Now we will take away from them the “Little Russian dragoons” and the detachments of the Cossacks who went over to Khmelnytsky


              you have problems with math
              -shore 5-6tys.
              River 4 thousand. Cossacks and 2 thousand Germans
              6 + 2 = 8tys Poles and Germans
              1. svp67
                svp67 14 May 2018 13: 15
                0
                Quote: Bar1
                you have problems with math

                It may be so, but you have something with logic.
                Once again, Pototsky Jr. had only from 5 to 6 thousand people, some of whom (Cossacks and Little Russian dragoons) crossed over to the Cossacks. As a result, they did not even have these 5 ... 6 thousand.
                At the expense of two thousand German infantry, do you have accurate data that they went to join the detachment of Pototsky Jr.? There is no mention of this. But there is a story that this infantry itself was only called "German" because of its weapons, but in fact it was recruited from the Little Russians. And yes, by the time the detachment of Barabash-Karaimovich was defeated, the detachment of Pototsky Jr. was already surrounded. And no where there is no mention that someone broke through to them. On the contrary, there is a story that it was the arrival, under the banners, solemnly, of the former detachment of Barabash-Karaimovich to the Khmelnitsky camp that influenced the decision of the registered Cossacks and Little Russian dragoons, to also go over to the side of Khmelnitsky
                And the Tatars did not sit in the "bushes"
                On April 30, 1648, the assault on the Polish camp began with the advance of the Ukrainian infantry with the support of the Tatar cavalry. The proportion of the Tatar cavalry in the assault on the Polish camp was minimal, but the presence of its regiments around the camp, ready for battle, impeded the conduct of counterattacks by the Polish cavalry against the advancing Cossack infantry.
                The fighting on April 30 - May 1, 1648 showed that such a force did not get the Polish camp.
                On May 8 - 9, the Tatar cavalry left Yellow Waters and went to the concentration area on Ingulets (now the northern outskirts of the city of Pyatikhatka), where the khan gathered all his strength to help Bohdan Khmelnitsky.
            2. Monarchist
              Monarchist 14 May 2018 13: 23
              0
              Comrade svp, generally, the text says: "German mercenaries were killed with a sudden blow." It is possible to assume that the Germans, as they say: "didn’t dig and didn’t dig" in Ukrainian, and therefore calmly landed and wondered: "what the hell are these savages so noisy"
              1. svp67
                svp67 14 May 2018 13: 28
                0
                Quote: Monarchist
                It is possible to assume that the Germans as they say: "not ear and did not dig" in Ukrainian

                The bulk of this "German infantry" and were Ukrainians.
                1. Alex
                  Alex 15 May 2018 20: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  The bulk of this "German infantry" and were Ukrainians.
                  And do not explain this passage?
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 16 May 2018 12: 42
                    0
                    Quote: Alex
                    And do not explain this passage?

                    Yes, it’s not difficult. The officers are foreigners, mostly from Germans, and the personnel are overwhelmingly local. In Russia, the "regiments of the foreign system" were also created.
                    1. Alex
                      Alex 16 May 2018 14: 20
                      +1
                      Well, then they would have written it, and did not equate Ukrainians and Germans.
                      And the regiments of the foreign system - this relates to their organization, structure, armament and tactics of use, and not to the national composition.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 16 May 2018 22: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Alex
                        And the regiments of the foreign system - this relates to their organization, structure, armament and tactics of use, and not to the national composition.

                        So it is here. At that time, the infantry was clearly divided in armament. "Spanish", "German", "Swiss" and so on. each had its own "preference" in armament and structure, as well as a place on the battlefield
                        It is also worth mentioning that in the second half of 16 in Poland in parallel there were several types of foot units - Polish, Hungarian and German infantry. Polish and Hungarian infantry were similar. Manned by a companionable set or electors. They differed in their internal structure. The company of the Hungarian infantry consisted of 100 guides (soldiers), divided into dozens at the head of which were the foremen. Each company had 1 captain, one warrant officer, one ensign, one drummer, and sometimes one clerk. In Polish companies, the structure was similar with the only difference being that there were more than 150 Polish companies, and usually 200 soldiers, with them one captain, 4 ensigns and 4 drummers.
                        During the hostilities, Polish companies were self-sufficient tactical units, while Hungarian companies in a certain amount united into regiments. There is almost no information about the armament of these regiments and their battle order in the sources of information, except for the mention that the Hungarian companies were lined up with regiments - boxes of up to 2000 soldiers, and Polish - starting from 200, that is, by company.
                        At the beginning of the 17th century, the Polish infantry was gradually reorganized into a Hungarian model and all infantry began to be called "Hungarian." The German companies were first actually European mercenary units, since 1632, they began to form Polish units on a foreign model, the infantrymen in them had the appropriate weapons and clothing.
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 14 May 2018 09: 36
      0
      In general, the symbolism of the Cossack army raises questions. If the Cossacks were Orthodox, then why are the crescents on the banners and horgvah and what did they mean?



      They argued with Shpakovsky about the Qatari crosses, but the Cossack flag and the cross are very similar to the Qatari one.

      1. Bar1
        Bar1 14 May 2018 09: 58
        0
        or here the banner is most likely already 18th century since the time of Catherine
        Historians write to us everything, Cossacks fought by sea on Cossack boats. A seagull is a single-mast low-seat small-tonnage vessel for coastal and river movements. But here is a banner on which there is a whole three-masted ship on which Cossacks are written
        This banner of the army of Her Imperial Majesty the Zaporizhzhya lower grassroots was created by the infantry of the belligerent fighting forces along the Black Sea, as well as by the rivers Dnieper and Danube.
        And so the Cossacks had ships and they fought along the Danube.
        1. Monarchist
          Monarchist 14 May 2018 13: 10
          0
          Bar, with banners there is such a hitch: chroniclers often did not mention what flags were. If with the Poles it is possible to assume with high probability that they were walking under the generic flag of the Potocki, and the Cossacks ... Figs know him. Here you have attached the flag of the times of Catherine 2, which depicts a three-masted ship. Where is the guarantee that the Cossack "gulls" were like that. It can be assumed that the author of the sketch could use the more familiar three-masted?
    4. Weyland
      Weyland 14 May 2018 13: 11
      0
      Quote: svp67
      and in case of their absence and special victories were not ...

      EMNIP, there were none at all!
    5. Weyland
      Weyland 14 May 2018 16: 04
      0
      Quote: svp67
      The eternal Lyashsky "Honor" ... he brought them many troubles

      I remember, before some of the battles of that war (perhaps just before the Yellow Waters), clandestine Poles prayed like this: "God, don’t help us or this redneck, but just watch from heaven how we give them!" . Only now the Lord, quite predictably, did not like such a prayer - so they stuck it in the clairvoyant ... laughing
    6. GUS
      GUS 16 May 2018 01: 11
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Here, Khmelnitsky won all his main victories, only when the Krymchaks were for him, and in the case of their absence and victories there was not much ...


      With whom Khan and the pan. Popular wisdom.
  2. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 14 May 2018 05: 53
    +1
    Comrade Samsonov, provokes multiple heart attacks among the gentry ... well, the superpower couldn’t be defeated, by definition ...
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 14 May 2018 06: 21
      0
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      ... heart attacks among gentry ...
      Heart attacks occur if the heart and blood. The Poles ---- neither one nor the other! They will accumulate anger.
      1. Weyland
        Weyland 14 May 2018 16: 25
        +1
        Quote: Reptiloid
        The Poles ---- neither one nor the other!

        And were there many Poles? Pototsky, Vishnevetsky, Charnetskiy, Oginsky, Kalinovsky, Sapieha - all these are Polonized Ukrainians, Belarusians and Poleshchuk who betrayed their faith! Great-grandfather of Yarema Vishnevetsky - Dmitry (aka “Cossack Baida”) founded the Zaporizhzhya Sich! Google "the curse of Princess Raina of Mogilyanka-Vishnevetskaya."
        The Poles call a wild butthert an indication of the fact that among the main characters of their "Trilogy" there is only one ethnic Pole, and the character is comic - Zagloba laughing
  3. Korsar4
    Korsar4 14 May 2018 08: 28
    0
    There was no unity in the army of Potocki. It often happens when someone else is doing something.
  4. Nagaibak
    Nagaibak 14 May 2018 08: 36
    +2
    The theme of the Tartarian elves is not disclosed. What were they doing at that time? Stormed Istanbul?))) Although no ... they took it in 1600 ... as some clowns wrote here.))))
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 14 May 2018 09: 10
      0
      Quote: Nagaibak
      The theme of the Tartarian elves is not disclosed. What were they doing at that time? Stormed Istanbul?))) Although no ... they took it in 1600 ... as some clowns wrote here.))))


      easy. For example, the name -Andrey is anti-Dar / Darius i.e. a person not in our circle.
      1. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak 14 May 2018 19: 15
        0
        Bar1 "easy. For example, the name -Andrey is anti-Dar / Darius, that is, a person outside our circle." What wrote to what?))) -Andrey is translated from Greek as - courageous. The name appeared in Russia in connection with the adoption of Christianity according to the Greek model. Wrote specifically for alternatively gifted elf fans.))))))))))))
  5. Severski
    Severski 14 May 2018 09: 20
    +2
    There is such a thing, until now different people wrote on this site that Ukraine appeared as a name in the beginning of the 20th century. And then it turns out that the crown hetman in 1648 calls Little Russia - Ukraine. Does anyone have an intelligible answer when, all the same, Ukraine appeared?
    1. Bar1
      Bar1 14 May 2018 09: 45
      0
      Quote: Severski
      There is such a thing, until now different people wrote on this site that Ukraine appeared as a name in the beginning of the 20th century. And then it turns out that the crown hetman in 1648 calls Little Russia - Ukraine. Does anyone have an intelligible answer when, all the same, Ukraine appeared?


      Is it not clear from the Russian language that
      -Ukraine is the outskirts.
      1. Severski
        Severski 14 May 2018 09: 53
        +1
        But it already existed 350 years ago, and was not invented 100 years ago, as was stated here. Yes, and the word - outskirts is in all Slavic languages.
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 14 May 2018 10: 11
          +1
          Quote: Severski
          But it already existed 350 years ago, and was not invented 100 years ago, as was stated here. Yes, and the word - outskirts is in all Slavic languages.

          If you insist that the word _Ukraine_ was used in the form of an education-state, then this was not so, the people who lived in these places of a different statehood, except the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia of Moscow, didn’t have Russians and Little Russians who spoke Little Russians and this is recorded in the census of the Republic of Ingushetia for 1897. Those. there have never been any Ukrainians.
          There was also the Crimean Khanate in which Tatars lived - Slavic genetics, religion - Islam, and early Islam Karaites are Russians who converted to Judaism.
          As for the word _Ukraine_, yes, even in Polish there was such a word, but in the middle of the 17th century there was no clear separation of languages, everyone spoke Russian, Tatars also spoke Turkish, and the division was made according to religion.
    2. BAI
      BAI 14 May 2018 10: 08
      0
      Yes, actually it was even earlier:
      Then December 27, 1595, the son of Zinovy ​​was born in the family of Mikhail Khmelnitsky. Since he was born on the third day of the Christmas holidays, when the memory of St. Fyodor the Inscribed was celebrated, he received middle name - Bogdan (translation of the Greek name Fedor, given by God).

      From the annals of Grigory Grabyanka: “The Polish chronicler Vespesian Kokhovsky, writing in Khmelnitsky, recalls from Zhmud’s country his birth, and from others, testimony from Lisyanka, Ukrainian city. And then from there or from here, and the first from Zholkevsky house will follow. When Ivan Danilovich, governor of Russia, the elder Chigirinsky was given from the king, then Khmelnytsky would go there, and be a scribe, writing names from people of tribute. Here, having lived a little, I raped my wife, and give birth to her son Zinoviy from her (after him Bogdan was a nackos)».

      But the date of the annals is 1710.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Curious
      Curious 14 May 2018 13: 11
      0
      Severski! There is an intelligible answer. But in the format of the commentary, and even under the article of the classic of the genre “historical delirium” of Samsonov, such an answer is problematic. Yes, and commentators like 60% ovium and 100% ovium such a comment does not interest. Try to find the answer yourself. This is the best option. I can suggest that he will have nothing to do with the versions on the site.
    4. Weyland
      Weyland 14 May 2018 13: 17
      +4
      Quote: Severski
      There is such a thing, until now different people wrote on this site that Ukraine appeared as a name in the beginning of the 20th century. And then it turns out that the crown hetman in 1648 calls Little Russia - Ukraine.

      As a political term - at the beginning of the 20th century. And as a geographical - Ukraine = outskirts. The crown hetman did not mean the whole of Little Russia, but the outskirts (= Ukraine) of the Commonwealth - the Yellow Waters, in fact, were generally considered the "Wild Field".
      By the way, Lesya Ukrainka in her nickname meant exactly geographical term: preserved her profile with the entry: "Lesya Ukrainka, by nationality Little Russian"
      1. Antares
        Antares 18 May 2018 22: 06
        0
        Quote: Weyland
        By the way, Lesya Ukrainka in her nickname meant a geographical term: her profile was saved with the entry: "Lesya Ukrainka, Little Russian by ethnicity"

        it is certainly good. Only a little remained - to find the Nationality column in the Russian imperial passport

        Yes, and the profile itself Kosach (Lesya Ukrainka pseudonym)
        Count nationality appeared later. When there were already republics
        Passports of the Russian Empire ceased in 1923.
    5. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 14 May 2018 13: 31
      +3
      Quote: Severski
      Does anyone have a sensible answer when Ukraine finally appeared?

      Ukraine appeared in the XI century, then it was located in the Volga-Oka interfluvial area and was called "Zalesie" or "Zalesskaya Ukraine". Later, on this land, Vladimir, Tver, Periaslavl-Zalessky, other cities, including Moscow, grew up.
      If you ask about the state "Ukraine", then it was formed in the twentieth century.
      And the fact that there was a place in the period under review at the place of present-day Ukraine is the essence of a remote state-of-the-art, poorly developed in all respects province “near the edge” of the Commonwealth on the border with the Russian kingdom. After some time, it will become the same province "on the edge" of the Russian kingdom on the border with Speech Posoplity. There is no question of any independent state in this territory.
  6. Monarchist
    Monarchist 14 May 2018 12: 52
    0
    Quote: svp67
    However, most of Pototsky’s advisers considered it a shame to send such a large army against the “despicable gang of vile claps”.
    The eternal Lyashsky "Honor" ... he brought many troubles to them.
    Then they were attacked by the Tatars, who did not take any oaths.
    Here, Khmelnitsky won all his main victories, only when the Krymchaks were for him, and in the case of their absence and victories there was not much ...

    I recalled a fairy tale about Chudo-Yudo, it boasted of Ivan sticking like a fly. The main character replies: "they did not boast about walking on the army, but boasted about walking with the rati." In my opinion this is the most correct definition.
  7. Monarchist
    Monarchist 14 May 2018 13: 44
    +2
    In fact, if you constantly watch, then there was no battle under the Yellow Waters, as such, there were two things: a) neglect of the enemy: think of some gang of slaves, and we are arrogant pans; b) banal betrayal. Ukrainians did not fight with the same Ukrainians. The Cossacks had good friends from two sides: "Cossacks led by Colonel Krichevsky sailed in the first canoe. He recognized Ganja," and the dragoons, under the influence of the Cossacks, went over to the side of Khmelnitsky. We can say that under Yellow Waters Khmelnitsky’s diplomacy won
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 14 May 2018 17: 49
      0
      Lack of unity. From the point of view of the Poles, treason. Cossacks may otherwise evaluate this transition.
    2. 97110
      97110 14 May 2018 20: 06
      +1
      Quote: Monarchist
      Ukrainians did not fight with the same Ukrainians.

      so what? The Poles did not guess to shout: "America is with us!"?
      1. Salomet
        Salomet 15 May 2018 23: 25
        0
        I’m afraid America wasn’t yet Poles and did not win. Toli case now .. laughing
        1. 97110
          97110 16 May 2018 10: 01
          0
          Quote: Salomet
          I'm afraid

          faith in a freebie, unshakable and all-embracing, has always been in this strange nation. There is no reasonable explanation for this belief, except hatred of mos.kaly, ess-no ...
  8. Lebedev Sergey
    Lebedev Sergey 14 May 2018 19: 21
    +1
    An interesting look at the same events, but only from the Polish side, Mila Kirievskaya in the song "Rzeczpospolita".

  9. dgonni
    dgonni 15 May 2018 15: 37
    +1
    The author is as if confused lol , Type of war in small Russia, but at the same time Pototsky is fighting with Ukraine :). Well, a map of the sovereign times where the borders of the Russian kingdom of the state are drawn laughing . If you believe history, at that time there was no Russian state, but there was a Moscow kingdom. so suddenly!
  10. Antares
    Antares 18 May 2018 21: 49
    0
    by author
    contemporaries write Ukraine
    “Not without reflection and thorough reasoning, I moved to Ukraine with the army of your royal mercy,

    the author writes
    in Little Russia