Military tragedy on the river Kalka

65
Military tragedy on the river Kalka

31 May 1223, a battle took place between the Russian-Polovtsian regiments and the Tatars on the Kalka River. This was the first clash of Russian troops with the forces of the state of Genghis Khan. The hard battle ended with the most severe defeat of the Russian-Polovtsian troops.

prehistory



At the beginning of the 13 century, a new empire appeared in East Asia - its creator was a talented commander and wise manager Temujin (Genghis Khan). He subjugated a significant number of tribes and peoples, became the conqueror of northern and central China, defeated Khorezm. In 1220, Chingis Khan received information that Khorezmshah Mohammed was collecting forces on the banks of the Amu Darya. To defeat him, he repaired three tumens ("darkness" - 10-thousand cavalry corps) under the command of his best commanders - Jebe, Subedei and Tokhuchara. Subsequently, the Tohuchara Corps was recalled. The pursuit of Khorezmshah resulted in a long reconnaissance campaign. Having defeated Azerbaijan and Georgia, Tatar troops crossed the Derbent pass in 1222 and invaded the North Caucasus. Here they are faced with the combined forces of the Alans and Polovtsians. After the opponents failed to win in battle, military cunning was applied - the Polovtsy were promised peace and generously rewarded. Polovtsi left their allies. Tatars defeated Alan. And then in the decisive battle on the Don, the Polovtsi troops were defeated. In battles, the khans Yuri Konchakovich and Danila Kobyakovich died, and the remnants of their tribes fled to the west and joined up with a horde of Kotyan Sutoyevich, who wandered between the Dnieper and the Dniester.

At the beginning of 1223, the Tatars invaded the Crimea and ransacked it, and the city of Sudak (Surozh) was captured. Khan Kotyan addressed his son-in-law, Galician prince Mstislav Mstislavich Udalym (he was glorified as a successful commander) and other Russian princes, asking them for help against the new formidable enemy: "Today they have taken our land, tomorrow your will be taken." It should be noted that the Polovtsy were not only opponents of Russia in the south, but often allies in the struggle of various Russian princes among themselves, or used against external enemies. So, in the spring of 1221, Mstislav, with the help of the Polovtsy, beat off Galich from the Hungarians. Russian and Polovtsy tied trade, dynastic marriages. Therefore, Kotyan's request is not surprising.

In Kiev, a council of princes of southern Russian lands was assembled, headed by three grand dukes - Mstislav Romanovich (Kiev), Mstislav Mstislavich (Galich) and Mstislav Svyatoslavich (Chernigov). After long disputes and persuasions, Kotyan and Mstislav the Remote decided: "If we don’t help them ... then the Polovtsi will stick to the enemies, and their strength will be greater." The Princely Council decides to collect troops and meet the enemy on the borders of Russia.

Trekking

The collection of troops was assigned to Zarub, near the Varyazhsky Island (the island was located opposite the mouth of the River Trubezh). More than 20 princes with their retinue took part in the campaign. The strongest troops were the prince of Kiev and Chernigov with the henchmen of princes, and the Galician prince Mstislav (under his command was the Prince of Volyn, Daniel Romanovich). In total, the Russian-Polovtsian army consisted of approximately 40-45 thousand people (the number is also called in 80-100 thousand soldiers, but this is unlikely). These were mainly professional cavalry squads of princes and boyars, the most powerful Kiev army had foot militia.

The number of Tatar troops is also unknown. Two tumens, Subedei and Jebe, had 20-30 thousand horsemen, it was a battle-hardened core army. In addition, there were a number of different vagrants, robbers, adventurers, and prey-seekers who joined the army along its path (like roving).

Russian princes made a series of serious mistakes even before the battle itself. They will decide the outcome of the battle. The princes could not agree on a single command. In fact, there were three troops, decisions were made collectively. The first army (Kiev) was headed by the Grand Duke of Kiev Mstislav Romanovich, the formal head of the campaign. It includes the Kiev regiment, guards his son Vsevolod Mstislavsky and son Prince Andrei Ivanovich (Turovsky Prince) Prince Svyatoslav Ingvarevich Shumsky, Prince Nesvizh Yaropolkovicha George, Prince Alexander Dubrovytsky Glebovich, Ovruchsky Prince Vladimir Rurik and others. Princes. The second host (Chernigov-Smolensk) was led by Prince of Chernigov Mstislav Svyatoslavich. Slaves of Pereyaslavl Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich, Kursk Prince Oleg Svyatoslavich, Princes Putivl Izyaslav Vladimirovich and Trubchevsky Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich obeyed him. The third army (Galician-Volyn-Polovtsy) was under the command of the initiator of the campaign of the Galician prince Mstislav the Remote (or Udatny). His troops included the forces of the Galitsky principality, the guards of the Volyn prince Daniil Romanovich, the Lutsk prince Mstislav Yaroslavich Nemy, the dorogobuzh prince Izyaslav Ingvarevich, the Polovtsian forces led by voivode Yarun.

Yuri Vsevolodovich, the Grand Duke of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia did not march, formally sent his nephew of Rostov Prince Vasily Konstantinovich to help the Russian army, but he did not have time to come to the beginning of the battle.

In Zaruba, Tatar ambassadors arrived at the Russian princes, they offered them an alliance against the Polovtsy. The princes considered that this was a trick and at the request of the Polovtsi they killed the envoys. Subedey and Jebe sent a new embassy, ​​which declared war on Russia: “You listened to the Polovtsy and our ambassadors were interrupted; go against us, then go; we did not touch you, let God (the judge) be to everyone ”. This embassy was sent home. Mstislav Udaray insisted on active actions - to cross the Dnieper and hit the enemy in the steppe. Mstislav Romanovich Old offered to give battle to the enemy on the Dnieper and prepare for defense. Apparently, given the lack of unity in the army, this was the right strategy. Chernihiv prince Mstislav Svyatoslavich, adopted a wait-and-see attitude, not supporting either the proposal of the Galicians or the people of Kiev.

At this time, a Tatar reconnaissance detachment appeared along the banks of the Dnieper. Mstislav the Remote, he decided to attack - together with Daniel Romanovich he crossed the river and hit the enemy. The Tatars were defeated and fled. This victory dispelled all doubts - most of the princes and boyars came out for offensive actions. Mstislav Chernigovsky stopped hesitating and agreed to the crossing. As a result, another prerequisite for defeat appeared - the Russian command overestimated its strength and underestimated a virtually unknown enemy. The Tatars used their traditional battle tactics - luring the enemy under the blow of the main shock forces.

23 May Russian-Polovtsian troops crossed the Dnieper and moved to the Polovtsian steppes. Troops went eight days. They are very stretched. Polovtsy detachments and detachments under the command of Galician prince Mstislav the Remote went ahead, they were followed by the forces of Chernigov prince Mstislav Svyatoslavich, and the whole column was closed by detachments of the grand prince of Kiev Mstislav the Old. On the way, Rusich and Polovtsy were met by Tatar patrols, who at the first collision turned to flight, lured them. The army went joyfully, the enemy fled. They beat the abandoned cattle, they ate well. We regretted that they could not overtake the enemy and take away the huge booty that the Tatars seized in the plundered lands. A sense of superiority over the enemy captured all and relaxed the warriors. Another mistake was bad intelligence - the princes did not know about the readiness of the main forces of the enemy to fight.



Bits

31 May 1223 Russian-Polovtsian troops reached the Kalka River. In a fierce battle, advanced Russian forces drove the Tatar guard units to the other side. Mstislav Udaray did not wait for the approach of the main forces and, having crossed the river, hit the first line of the enemy troops (he did not know about the main forces of the enemy). He did not inform the Kiev and Chernigov prince about his plans, what made them angry (it seemed that the Galician prince wanted to appropriate all the glory to himself). The Kiev prince did not cross the river on the run and ordered the establishment of a fortified camp.

The most experienced Tatar commanders, Subedei and Jebe, immediately took advantage of this fatal mistake of the Russian princes: the enemy himself was under attack and allowed himself to be broken into pieces. The Polovtsi and regiments of Mstislav Udory faced a powerful army ready for a fierce battle. The Russian-Polovtsian forces pressed the enemy vanguard, but then collided with the main forces of the enemy. The Galician prince understood the depth of his mistake, but it was too late. The strike of the Russian-Polovtsian advanced forces was stopped, and then they were simply crushed. Polovtsy were the first to flee, their wave smashed the order, still beating Russian squads. The Chernigov army in general found itself in a situation where the advanced detachments had already entered the battle, and other units were only crossing the river. The Chernigov regiments were crushed and could not do anything, the flight became almost general. Separate resisting units could not change the outcome of the battle. In this massacre, the warrior Dobrynia Ryazanich Zlat Belt (one of the prototypes of the epic Dobrynia Nikitich) also resigned his head. Some units did not know and did not participate in the battle, lagging behind the main forces. They were picked up by the general stream of those running and pursuing.

The regiments of the Grand Duke of Kiev Mstislav Romanovich Old remained on the sidelines of this battle. A number of researchers believe that the timely entry into battle of his troops could change the outcome of the battle. But, apparently, the situation was already irreparable, the Polovtsy, the Galician and Chernihiv rati were defeated and fled. Part of the Tatar army pursued them. It was a massacre, not a battle. Only a small part managed to escape. A part of the Polovtsy left, with a handful of warriors, Mstislav the Remote and Daniil Romanovich were able to escape. The other part of the Tatar army overlaid the Kiev camp. The first assault attempts were repulsed. Mstislav Romanovich Kievsky and his troops three more days beat off the onslaught of the enemy. Tatars could not take fortifications, and did not want to destroy a large number of soldiers. Then they went to the trick: to Mstislav and his henchmen princes sent chieftain of the roamers (predecessors of the Cossacks) Ploskin, who promised life in exchange for surrender and mercy. There was nothing surprising in this - the Polovtsy more than once released the Russian princes for something. The princes believed and surrendered. It is necessary to take into account the fact that the troops ran out of water. After that, the princes were tied up and handed over to the Tatars, and the disarmed soldiers were attacked. There was another bloodbath. The Tatars themselves laid the princes under a wooden platform and made a “feast on the bones” on it.



The outcome and significance of the battle

- The main reason for the defeat was the lack of unity of the Russian army. If the Russian army acted in the traditional Russian style of battle: in the center the infantry (Kiev militia reinforced by other troops), on the wings of heavy princely horse guards (on the right Galician-Volyn, on the left Chernigov-Smolensk), leaving the Polovtsy in reserve, There were practically no Tatars. Fought in parts, unorganized, a significant part of the troops did not participate in the main battle at all. Administrative mistakes of command, underestimation of the enemy, led to the fact that the Tatars almost gave up the victory, allowing themselves to be broken into pieces.

- It was one of the hardest defeats of the Russian troops for all their history. South Russia was drained of the loss of thousands of the best warriors. According to the chronicle data, nine out of ten soldiers who went on a campaign were killed. Among them were 12 princes, including the princes of Kiev and Chernigov. Until the invasion of troops of Batu, the South Russian lands will not be able to restore their combat potential. Apparently, the Tatars also suffered substantial losses, since they could not carry out the invasion of Kiev lands and soon suffered a heavy defeat from the forces of Volga Bulgaria.

- The reconnaissance campaign of the Tatars revealed the main weak point of Russia - the lack of unity. It is not for nothing that Subedei will become the right hand and the actual commander in the Batu's Western campaign (1236 — 1242).
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    31 May 2012 08: 49
    Samsonov Alexander writes well.

    Only now, I read historical ... materials and marvel.
    How well science knows the military structure of Genghis Khan’s troops.
    How plans, campaigns, tactics, strategy - of bygone eras and mythical heroes are worked out in detail.

    The Soviet Union, twenty years ago - collapsed clearly, purposefully. With the attraction of impressive forces from behind the hill.
    Only now - no one has yet given detailed materials - who, when, why, with whose help.
    Those. who's guilty? and what to do?
    Twenty years ... and a thousand years ago (well, eight hundred).

    Command me to believe? A well-developed legend?
    I’m better .. I’ll believe myself.
    1. Pinochet000
      +3
      31 May 2012 11: 01
      Quote: Igarr
      I’m better .. I’ll believe myself.

      Well said. +
    2. borisst64
      +7
      31 May 2012 11: 39
      We have been reading this since childhood in the works of Jan. He is recognized as a writer-historian and is not questioned. And I doubt it, and our history is all woven from such "literary events".
    3. -1
      31 May 2012 17: 10
      Igarr,
      Igor, look at the link. A lot of answers will appear.
      http://romankluchnik.narod.ru/
      A big plus for you.
      1. 0
        31 May 2012 19: 52
        Thanks, Eugene ..
        discovered a new layer for himself.
        Much is already familiar, but .. I read, I read.
    4. +1
      4 June 2012 13: 22
      The winner in the collapse does not yet want to admit his affairs, because this will show the complete impartiality of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and many others.
      It will show how and why you and I betrayed you and what award the holder of orders of the Russian Federation did not deserve, not a citizen of the Russian Federation, but a citizen of the USSR and now living in England.
  2. 0
    31 May 2012 09: 02
    Each country had its own great regiment and commander. For Mughal, it was Genghis Khan. Under him, not only a strong army was born, but also writing appeared, and trade relations developed. No wonder Mongolia was called the Golden Horde.
    1. 0
      14 May 2014 15: 31
      Genghis Khan is not a Mongol or commander.
  3. +1
    31 May 2012 09: 38
    The article is interesting. There is only one "BUT", which is described in the IGARR comment. It was too long ago and too many legends and myths were born about the "Great Tartary" and the "Mughal Empire".
  4. vostok
    +5
    31 May 2012 10: 00
    The fact that the Russian princes did not have unity is true, fragmentation is the main problem of Russia. We need to study history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
  5. +5
    31 May 2012 10: 03
    And for me, one thing is not clear, who can explain. Here lived the tribes of cattle breeders Mongol, without actually showing any aggression. And the greatest commander appeared among them, who taught the Mongol to fight and went with them to conquer half the world. The Mongols, in an incredible way, conquered territories with a population exceeding ten times the population of Mongolia (in China alone there were 30 times more population) and created their own super empire. But as you know, this empire fell apart within 200 years, and in the 16th century (after only 200-300 years) no one remembered the Mongols. And the Mongols again began to graze sheep and horses peacefully.
    If we look at the modern Mongols, tell me, can you see in them, the descendants of the once warlike and ferocious conquerors? Of course, time erases everything, but there is such a persistent thing as genetic memory that stores all the information about dozens of generations. The Mongols could not have left swords and spears so quickly and left the geopolitical arena of that time, without actually leaving any material evidence (except legends and traditions) of their domination.
    1. +7
      31 May 2012 10: 50
      Is it possible to see once-formidable Vikings in modern pampered Swedes and Norwegians? The nature of the people is determined not by genetics, but, it seems to me, first of all by the environment in which they live - natural, economic, political. Conditions change - character changes.
      1. +4
        31 May 2012 11: 21
        I do not know about the Vikings, but the fact that almost all of Europe had to deal with the militancy of the Swedes even after the Viking campaigns in the 16-18 centuries. - it is indisputable. And what about your thesis:
        The nature of the people is determined not by genetics, but, it seems to me, first of all by the environment in which they live - natural, economic, political. Conditions change - character changes.

        So in this case, the Mongols just continue to live in the environment in which they lived - Mongolia is one of the most de-urbanized countries. where the majority of the population lives in yurts. That is, theoretically, "non-liveable" Mongols can gather again and repeat the feat of Genghis Khan? Well, I cannot understand how it is possible to wage a large and successful war without having an economic and significant technological superiority over the enemy, which the Mongols could not have in principle.
        1. Green 413-1685
          +2
          31 May 2012 14: 14
          Here is more likely a question for Gumilyov with his theory of ethnogenesis and passionarity. In my opinion this is a brilliant thing that has not yet been appreciated. Many, including events, can be explained and evaluated only with its help.
    2. +1
      31 May 2012 17: 08
      Prometey,
      Very correct question! The Mongols as a people have been known for a little over 100 years, and in the 1918 year, when the Russian Bolsheviks asked them about Genghis Khan, it turned out they had no information, no legends, no records.
      But there are records that the Pope sent the embassy to Khan Batu through the Order of the Templars, proposed an alliance against Russia. And the fact that the Templars exterminated all the Magi (!!!) from Batu.
      The cavalry of the "Tatars" could make transitions up to 200 km per day (records from the Arabs have been preserved) Imagine Mongolian horses? Wouldn't you believe that today's Mongols could do that?
      There is a lot of indirect evidence that none of these were Mongols. And the portrait of Genghis Khan is tall, with a beard - he doesn’t pull on the Mongol.
      But on the ancient maps of Tartaria the Great there is an area in the north of India marked: Great Moguls. A bit of logic, Tatars-TarTars and Mongols - Moguls (Mogul translates to Great).
      Of course, this is only a version of history researchers, but do we live on 100% of proven history?
      1. +2
        31 May 2012 18: 42
        That's it .. they say correctly .. a well-posed question is half the answer.
        Alebor writes - conditions change - character changes.
        But, because we live in the same conditions. Natural. Norwegians, Scandinavians (although they are not Vikings. Vikings are Russia). Mongols, we - Russians, Germans, Greeks, Persians - yes, everyone lives in the same conditions. Or even much better ones - you don’t have to worry about food, you can stock up on canned food, freeze-dried ration and you can fight for your health.
        No ... there is a concept - the state. You just won’t fight.

        And now - imagine yourself in the place of a resident of the 12th-13th centuries. Any arela.
        To eat is only what you’ll find in the morning. There is no place to store food.
        The local khan-pahan forces himself to crap. He still has 10 brothers on the content. After 50 km, the second is the same khan-pahan. He has 12 people.
        Who will fight with whom? And for what?
        Well, they will capture together the third khan-pahan. Men finish, women raped. At the same time, they themselves will lose about 15 people. So, it wasn't women at that time who determined the material base, they fed the tribe clan. The men-miners. plowmen, shepherds.
        And, it seems to me, this couple of ours ... will immediately wrangle.
        Passionarity is there. Empire is not observed. Captures - half the world - the same.
        A good army is discipline. This is obedience skill.
        Those who have such skills will be better - among herders. roaming the steppe? Or sedentary inhabitants like Ancient Russia, Maverranahr?
        Mongols, you say .... heh.
    3. stalker
      +3
      31 May 2012 22: 07
      Read Lev Gumilyov, I recommend
    4. +2
      1 June 2012 07: 58
      The Mongols constantly fought, among themselves. Genghis Khan was able to unite all the tribes into one fist, and of course his military talent.
      1. -1
        14 May 2014 15: 33
        What battle did Genghis Khan win?
  6. -2
    31 May 2012 10: 12
    The Mongols created the largest empire in history. Russia is in fact a "splinter of the Mongolosphere," whether someone likes it or not. And what we know in detail about the actions of the Tatars is not a legend, but a consequence of the rather effective work of the Mongolian bureaucratic apparatus.
    1. Green 413-1685
      -1
      31 May 2012 14: 16
      Fomenko fan?
  7. Shuhrat turani
    +3
    31 May 2012 11: 16
    [spoiler] The main reason for the defeat was the lack of unity of the Russian army. If the Russian army acted in the traditional Russian style of battle: in the center of the infantry (the Kiev militia reinforced by other troops), on the wings are heavy princely horse squads (on the right Galician-Volyn, on the left Chernihiv-Smolensk), leaving the Polovtsians in reserve, the chances to win are in reserve there were practically no Tatars. [/ spoiler] [spoiler]
    bold conclusions ... the monogols were tactically woven tactically, their strength was not only in discipline, but also in the skills of the command staff ... They were a kind of grand masters in military affairs ... Further events fully confirm this ...
    1. 0
      14 May 2014 15: 36
      What kind of "unity" are we talking about in this battle?
      Russia and the Kipchaks performed together.
      The Mongolian technique has won. Their bows fired further: 600 meters versus 300-400.
      The Kipchaks (Polvtsy, horsemen) retreated directly to the Russian regiments and crushed them.
  8. +2
    31 May 2012 11: 20
    If there wasn’t a Mongol invasion, then it would be worth coming up with.
    Constant (wars) feuds between the principalities weakened Russia, did not want to come to an agreement among themselves, received "external control".
    1. +3
      31 May 2012 17: 20
      Leisure,
      Very precisely Sergey. After the baptism of Russia, the unity of the people was undermined and 200 years of civil strife tormented the country.
      http://romankluchnik.narod.ru/1-1-04.htm
      Batu invited one of the Russian princes to Russia.
    2. 0
      14 May 2014 15: 38
      Ladder system of inheritance weakened Russia.
  9. +3
    31 May 2012 11: 23
    Prometey, Due to the fact that the Tatars lived peacefully until Genghis Khan, you are wrong, it went mochilo, Genghis Khan himself was a slave.
    1. 0
      31 May 2012 11: 31
      Amur
      Internal disassembly was characteristic of every nation. It is not clear to me how they could capture other peoples, which it is very difficult to call pacifists.
  10. sol
    +6
    31 May 2012 12: 20
    As for the Mongols, do not forget that modern Mongols, and the Mongols of Genghis Khan are not the same. At that time, all the soldiers of Genghis Khan called themselves Mongols, the main core of which were the soldiers of the Turkic tribes.
  11. stroibat
    +1
    31 May 2012 12: 53
    Historical inaccuracy No. 1: If there were 20-30 tons of them (Mongols), then, as we know from history, each Mongol had 3-4 horses (pack, reserve, for prey ...) and the rich even have more. was 40-45 tons. And horses in 3-? more then how much fodder was needed for this (I'm afraid to say) half a million herd? And where to get it? ....
    1. Green 413-1685
      +3
      31 May 2012 14: 21
      Mongolian horse breeds differ in this from European and Arabian horses in that they are extremely unpretentious and can live on pasture. And the principle of wandering provides new pastures.
      1. 0
        31 May 2012 18: 54
        And they could not eat at all. Horses, I mean.
        Although the Mongols, too, especially from the Turkic tribes.
        The main thing for them was to shoot from their long-range, fear-catching bows, which hit 500 meters and pierced the knights through and through. Together with the knight's horses.
        But whoever made these bows to them is a great mystery.
        Because, the fearsome Mongols had a nice habit - to kill all men, rape all women and kill too. And from the rest they gathered slaves and drove to Karakoram. Moreover, the Mongols themselves did not know where this Karakorum is located (they still cannot show it in Mongolia). Half died on the way. The rest - with bare enthusiasm and bare hands - mastered super-slaughter bows. Even potters have perfected this art.

        This is not me talking.
        This is a traditional chronology that describes the Mongols. Vladimir Yang writes so.
  12. Dust
    +2
    31 May 2012 13: 10
    Oh well, it’s a stump, such articles!
    How many “ours” were unknown, how many “non-ours” were also, who were “ours”, it is not really known who exactly was part of the “non-ours”, too, it is not clear, but then a cloud of small details, who went where, who and what at what moment did they do! How did this come to be known?
    Myths are all and a pile of speculation ...
    And remember, finally, how much the same Batu looks like a Mongol - more than once his only more or less reliable portrait was shown ...
    1. stroibat
      +1
      31 May 2012 13: 20
      I agree. Somewhere I even read about the number of those taken prisoner ... And the number of participants in the "conflict" reached (according to various sources) up to 300000 people ...
      1. 0
        4 June 2012 13: 34
        It is unlikely that so many fought too many.
  13. +3
    31 May 2012 13: 25
    The word "Mongol" of Chinese origin means "people from abroad". In the "narrow" sense of the word, only a few steppe tribes correspond to this concept. In the "broad sense" - everyone who accepted the power of the khan.
    So it is with the Tatars. The Tatars were part of the Mongols, then the Mongols were part of the Tatars. In the end, completely different peoples "signed up" as Tatars.
    At the heart of the state of Genghis Khan was never a national principle.
  14. loc.bejenari
    +5
    31 May 2012 14: 43
    Genghis was not a Mongol in the modern understanding of the Mongol ethnic group
    his tribe belonged to the Turkic people and was closer to modern Kazakhs
    all the toponymy of the Golden Horde - Turkic - you will not find any names like Urga outside of Mongolia
    And about the size of the troops, it is common for all chroniclers to exaggerate the size of the armies participating in the events
    Well, the Russian lands could not expose (and contain) such a number of highly professional warriors (as combatants)
    the same - about Turkic - Mongolian detachments - here their number is overstated at times
    and the cause of the defeat, yes to the point, is action in parts and the lack of a single command
  15. Hey
    -3
    31 May 2012 15: 39
    Not a single old map has such a river called Kalka in that place. Or at least something reminiscent.
    There is a version that "Battle on Kalka" is simply field battle not tied to some kind of topographic place.
    The word slips in the annals kalki and all the time it is connected with military action, combat, in the field and is not tied to topography.
  16. +2
    31 May 2012 16: 17
    Unity is the main thing for any nation. The united nation is a monolith. Nobody will defeat him.
  17. +4
    31 May 2012 17: 56
    I do not quite understand the views of modern omniscient scholars.
    It is sometimes very useful to question certain facts, but only in order to study the issue more deeply and come closer to the truth.
    Doubting solely for the sake of the process itself is not a creative thing, but rather the opposite. Can you give arguments in support of your arguments about the inconsistency of the so-called "legends"? Wonderful. And even back up with historical documents? Spread it out! Without references to the Fomenkov, of course.
    1. 0
      31 May 2012 18: 27
      Flooding
      So I asked the question, because I can’t understand the mechanism of the Mongol conquests - how could a small people capture such a huge territory? Of course, you can give the British Empire as an example, which in the 19th century controlled vast territories. But to fight with guns, rifles and armadillos against bows and wooden spears is completely different than with an equivalent enemy in the Middle Ages.
      1. 0
        31 May 2012 19: 00
        prometey,
        I am not a historian. But I can answer a question with a question: with whom, in this case, the Japanese, Burmese, Chinese kingdoms fought (and the latter unsuccessfully)? With a small wild people? And the list goes on: India, Khorezm, etc. To whom, then, did the enlightened Europe send its ambassadors?
        Therefore, I urge you not to spoil the fever that you most likely will not be able to answer counter questions.
        1. -3
          31 May 2012 19: 13
          Flooding,
          you probably will not be able to answer counter questions.

          I can't, like most of the others here. All of the peoples listed above have fought with many people. And the "enlightened Europe" sent many ambassadors to whom, oddly enough. The Pope's emissaries crawled across the Middle East, seeking to find allies in the fight against Egypt. But what does the Mongols have to do with it?
          1. +4
            31 May 2012 19: 40
            perhaps despite the fact that these peoples were conquered by the Mongol empire? And no one in the east disputes this fact, they have not matured even before their Fomenko.
      2. Yuri
        +4
        1 June 2012 00: 30
        Quote: Prometey
        how small people could capture such a vast territory?

        First of all, discipline. The merit of Chingiz is that he was able to unite disparate tribes around his tribe, while other states (including Russia) only did what they slaughtered themselves ... You ask how backward Mongol tribes were able to conquer half the world? And how, until then, did unknown Arab tribes unite to conquer territories from India to Spain, or how did wild Turks conquer the millennial Byzantine empire? Or do you think this is also all the fabrications of historians?
        1. -3
          1 June 2012 13: 11
          Yuri Vladimirovich
          First of all, discipline.

          That is, you believe that before the Mongols, the concept of military discipline was alien to all their opponents? By the way, I never wrote about the backwardness of the Mongols, I pointed out that they did not have any military-technological and economic superiority over their opponents.
          About the Arabs ... it seems they did not go further than Iraq, there in the East the Persians stopped them. In North Africa, they did not meet full resistance at all - the Berber tribes were scattered and small in number. In Spain, the Arabs were just lucky, the fragmentation of the Spanish states gave them the opportunity to gain a foothold in part of the territory of the Iberian Peninsula - and everything, for more, the Arabs did not have the strength or the means.
          Well, about the Turks and Byzantium - this is a passage. Before starting their onslaught, the Turks put together a strong state with a developed economy at that time and a fairly powerful and modern army (note that the Mongols did not have such a state for the period of their conquest). Well, even having mobilized their economy and resources, the Turks also had a limited scope for their expansion and met with more powerful opponents than the Serbs, Greeks or Bulgarians, were stopped.
          In the same way, the Mongols could theoretically make their super conquests in the case of either a complete lack of resistance (which is unlikely at all), or if they somehow managed to mobilize and most importantly arm and feed just an army that was huge at that time, or they used weapons unknown to their opponents similar to multiple launch rocket systems. I can not find another explanation.
    2. stroibat
      +2
      31 May 2012 18: 39
      It is sometimes very useful to question certain facts, but only in order to study the issue more deeply and come closer to the truth
      So we are wondering. And where did all this Golden Horde disappear overnight if after three hundred years no one even remembered it. And the first records and publications more or less covering this fact appeared only at the beginning of the 19th century?
      1. +2
        31 May 2012 19: 09
        stroibat,
        The Golden Horde was only part of the Mongol Empire. The rest do not count? Let's say. And where do you take the Kazan Khanate? The same with which Ivan IV fought. And the Astrakhan and Siberian Khanates, the Nogai Horde?
        1. panzer
          0
          31 May 2012 21: 17
          In 1461, the Battle of Tauton took place in England, with an estimated death toll of 28000. Archaeologists found burial sites and explored the remains. In 1380, the Battle of Kulikovo took place, according to various estimates, from 30 to 000 people died. No graves found. I do not want to draw any conclusions, I just want to understand what happened and where.
          1. Yuri
            +3
            1 June 2012 00: 40
            Quote: Panzer
            I just want to understand what happened and where

            During World War II, England lost about 2 thousand people, the Soviet Union 400 million. In England, and indeed in the west, every dead person is known by name, we still have millions who are missing. With such an attitude towards their dead, to the memory of them, I think that in 25 years our descendants will ask, like you, who won this war, who shout it most, and most importantly remember and honor their the fallen, or are we Ivanes not remembering?
            1. panzer
              0
              1 June 2012 07: 28
              Recently, my whole family went to Monastyrshchina, a museum complex on the Kulikovo field. There the guide showed us the restored armor and weapons of the wild "Mongol" warrior of the Batu invasion period. I do not believe that such a complex weaponry, and even in such quantities, was made in the yurt of a nomadic cattle-breeder "on his knee". Dear Yuri Vladimirovich! I try to study the historical events of interest to me by examining them from all sides available to me. And if I do not obediently swallow chewing gum after others, and by virtue of my character I try to understand everything myself, "touch my hands, heart, brain", then you should not accuse me of a lack of patriotism, of dislike for the Motherland, our History. I do not believe that Russia they conquered, enslaved for 300 years some wild tribes, even those who received a passionary blow.
              1. Yuri
                +3
                2 June 2012 00: 17
                I do not blame you for the lack of patriotism. It’s just that Russia has such a tendency to forget and correct its history, and these corrections are being made constantly. Only in my life has history been rewritten for the third time (if not more). Hence, such a mess.
              2. Marek Rozny
                0
                20 December 2012 12: 33
                and you also google the information on the "Golden War" - generally go nuts from how the nomads worked with metal.
    3. -1
      31 May 2012 19: 03
      In a search engine ask two words - falsification of history ..
      here, for example, the link ... http: //www.stihi.ru/2012/02/20/7830
      not Fomenko ...
    4. -1
      31 May 2012 19: 57
      Quote: Flood
      Can you give arguments in support of your arguments about the inconsistency of the so-called "legends"?


      thank God I am not an omniscient scholar wink , so apparently I have so many questions about everything that is happening and past ...
      for example, a very interesting thing. They excavated the tomb of Tamerlane in 1941 and examined the remains. Anthropologist Gerasimov made an attempt to recreate the face of Timur on the found skull, and wrote a report. Very ambiguous .... Nevertheless, Tamerlane is perceived as a typical representative of the Tatar-Mongols ... And suddenly:

      “Timur's hair is thick, straight, gray-red in color, with a predominance of dark brown or red. Eyebrow hair has been preserved worse, but nevertheless, it is not difficult to imagine and reproduce the general shape of the eyebrow from these residues. Well-preserved individual hairs ... Their color is dark chestnut ... It turns out that Timur wore a long mustache, and not trimmed over his lip, as was accepted by the faithful followers of the Sharia ... Timur's small thick beard had a wedge-shaped shape. Her hair is stiff, almost straight, thick, bright brown (red) color, with significant gray hair ”

      “Even a preliminary examination of the beard hair under the binocular confirms that this reddish-red color is her natural, and not henna dyed, as historians have described”

      “However, a significant protrusion of the nose root and the relief of the upper part of the eyebrow indicate that the Mongolian fold of the eyelid itself is relatively weakly expressed”


      In the photo there is a statue of Tamerlane in Uzbekistan ... There are also medieval European miniatures .... The spilled Russian uncle ...
      1. Marek Rozny
        0
        20 December 2012 12: 35
        And Ramzan Kadyrov externally is a simple Ryazan peasant with a sly squint :)))
  18. Marat
    +7
    31 May 2012 18: 32
    First of all, it’s the affairs of days long gone — by no means can we now consider the Mongol as enemies — the Russians should perceive what happened as an old one, overgrown with legends, a showdown between relatives - because the Mongols are not a geopolitical enemy, but the allies are part of the Eurasian world

    I myself am a Polovtsian - a Kipchak - and we all remember our great khans Yuri Konchakovich and Danila Kobyakovich and the poor victim Kotyan - but there is no historical resentment or hostility towards the Mongols - although for our family it was a disaster - a huge part of the Kipchaks or fled to Europe ( Hungary) or was sold into slavery (in Egypt - Mamluks - as a result of the Mamluk coup - Kipchak Sultan Beibars later came to power - M Simashko "Emshan)

    These are the things of the past - and now the descendants of Yuri and Danila (numerous Kipchak clans) and the descendants of Genghis Khan (Tore clan) peacefully coexist in the Kazakh people, and even more so there is no claim to the Tatars - they were one people with us - mixed in the cauldron of Eurasian history

    We all - Russians, Tatars, Mongols and Kazakhs should remember that the real enemy is outside - in the south and overseas and strengthen unity
    1. Yuri
      +5
      1 June 2012 00: 43
      Quote: Marat
      We all - Russians, Tatars, Mongols and Kazakhs should remember that the real enemy is outside - in the south and overseas and strengthen unity

      could put more + ... would put while the finger on the mouse is not numb smile
    2. 0
      14 May 2014 15: 42
      Marat, how do you know that you are a Kipchak?
      This is not irony. I ask quite seriously.
  19. stroibat
    +4
    31 May 2012 19: 00
    Quote: Marat
    We all - Russians, Tatars, Mongols and Kazakhs should remember that the real enemy is outside - in the south and overseas and strengthen unity

    good
  20. +2
    1 June 2012 09: 18
    They constantly try to disconnect us (and they do it well). I don’t understand why in the fraternal countries (I’m not talking about Belarus at all) they don’t understand this? Everyone is so afraid to live in Russia that it’s just laughter ... And for some reason no one has the idea that without Russia these countries cannot have any influence in the world, any self-determination, etc. These countries are always a bargaining chip in the fight against Russia - how can it not be humiliating for them to be in these roles. Representatives of the fraternal countries may not like my words, but it’s so ... I’m saying it all with one goal (not to humiliate) ... Well, how can Belarus withstand the onslaught of some enemy, and the enemy is one and united ... like Belarus it can be a strong state — no access to the seas, oceans, economy can be strong — agricultural sector, mechanical engineering, tractors, but you can’t sell them on world markets, because there are more powerful players - who dictate their conditions to many. Where in the world you trample against Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, the USA, etc. The country has a very weak economy - constantly loans from Russia (today another one). I didn’t even dream about space, there are no minerals - well, this state cannot be self-determining ... By the way, I have a mother-in-law from Belarus ... All this I say not to humiliate, but to make it clear that Belarus cannot live self-sufficient. But it’s not even possible to imagine that we can unite in one country. Lukashenko will never agree to this - he will be the president, otherwise he will not be the president (well, a priori, Russia cannot become part of Belarus), but he is very power-hungry. But everyone understands this, and they continue to play the card of independence ... Maybe when he grows old we will unite ...
    I do not write about our rulers ...
  21. 0
    8 June 2012 00: 31
    Well, the author writes this piece of history, he just killed me as the niches of the princes could be so mistaken sorry too sorry ...
  22. +4
    17 June 2012 07: 11
    not a bad article. To all those who doubt and ask questions, there can be no dicarimonogolim could not create a weapon and the army I advise only to study more history, and not all Fomenko and other new theorists there, but normal historians.
    Let us consider Russia of that time from the point of view of military art. The rules of warfare in Russia were akin to football - much was taken from the knightly rules adopted at that time. Three repulsed assaults gave the right to leave the fortress with weapons and banners, to always warn of a declaration of war, etc.
    Further, as the battles took place .... The battle was divided into tens and hundreds of knightly fights. Knightly heavy cavalry reigned on the battlefields. About any deceptive maneuvers such as a false retreat in order to stretch the enemy, stab in the back - this is generally a shame! and there was no question. Infantry performed only a supporting role.
    Now about the mentality of sedentary peoples and nomads-nomads in relation to the conduct of war ... When some European monarch in the morning with a hangover decided not to fight for an hour with a neighbor, he did not fundamentally think about a war of destruction: after all, then he himself the meaning of the war is lost. The whole benefit from the wars was in the increase in the number of tributaries of peasants, artisans and other people - who can then be taxed and cut coupons. And now look at the attitude of the nomads to the war: the nomad didn’t need "extra" inhabitants, he needed the very land on which his family and tribe could support a larger number of livestock. You just need to estimate how much food (in calories) you can grow from 100 hectares of land if it is plowed up, and how much food from the same 100 hectares a nomad could get ... yes, even one black sheep will not survive for a nomad on these 100 hectares, so the nomads will not survive Nada was an order of magnitude more to provide for oneself with food than for the farmer. That is why, from the point of view of a nomad cattle-breeder, "superfluous" people have nothing to do on his potentially conquered territory: therefore, all peoples were cut out at the root, from small to large, only Genghis Khan ordered not to touch the clergy (priests, mules, Buddhist monks) as well as artisans who made wealth and weapons. All others were sold into slavery or simply liquidated.
    It was from here that the so-called passionarity of the Mongols arose: Genghis Khan forbade all internecine wars in his united tribes under pain of rooting, and other Mongol tribes served as the mechanism and guarantor of the execution of punishment: if tribe A attacks tribe B and destroys it completely, then tribes C E and D punish tribe A, and the lands of tribes A and B are divided between the other tribes. Naturally, peace and grace reign (recorded in the journey of Marco Polo) As a result, the population is growing and wants to eat, but there are a lot of lands around, and China and Central Asia are all mired in internecine disassembly ...
    The merit of Chinggis Khan is that he created a modern army for us in command and discipline: this was deep intelligence intelligence, then there was reconnaissance in battle, and only then a large-scale invasion. The whole army had a strict structure: ten hundred thousand thousand tumen, and not like our left-hand regiment, right-wing regiment, but how many people are there in the left-hand regiment, what is the warrior of the right-hand regiment armed and equipped with and most importantly who the prince is to obey the prince or a neighbor from that street horseradish knows him. The vassalage system made itself felt: today one boyar for you tomorrow he will go (will leave) to another prince. The Russians united and led the army on the basis of the AUTHORITY and PERSONALITY of a certain prince; the Mongols had a SYSTEM of command and submission. Therefore, Genghis Khan had an ARMY, and not just a militia of knights or boyars.
    Therefore, the Mongols beat everyone whom they met on their way at that time. And Batu reached the Atlantic, and the vaunted armored knights were powerless against the light moving maneuverable horsemen armed with bows.
    Now, regarding the Europeanism of the Mongols: why did all of them suddenly decide that the Mongols are necessarily black-haired, with a narrow section of their eyes? Not a few tribes roamed on the plains of Eurasia, including the Iranian ones, which were red-haired blue-eyed Caucasians ... These Iranian tribes subsequently mixed and assimilated, but genetics remained. Look at the Turks or Azerbaijanis - the Turkic-speaking peoples, but the Caucasians by race, take the Kazakhs with the Kyrgyz - also Turkic-speaking peoples, but already of the Mongoloid race. Therefore, let us not once again rewrite history to suit current political needs. There was an invasion of Russia, the yoke was, but there is a silver lining, the Mongols forged a nation-warriors from the Russians, who subsequently managed to reach the Pacific Ocean, were able to learn how to fight so that the Prussian king Frederick II said: it’s not enough to kill a Russian soldier, he’s also a nada knock down.
  23. DUTCH
    0
    2 July 2012 15: 10
    If you are really interested in the history of the Mongols, read Isai Kalashnikov's "Cruel Age" tome on 800 pages. Everything is written there, who fought there, how he fought, what he fought with. He described everything there, even the mentality of the Mongols can be understood. Temujin's life before Chigiskhan in general Yan is just a tabloid hack compared to Kalashnikov.
    1. Marek Rozny
      0
      20 December 2012 12: 45
      I agree, Ian and Kalashnikov cannot be closely compared. Kalashnikov lived all his life among the Buryat-Mongols, and therefore easily conveyed many of the nuances of the mentality of the steppes.
      And Ian had to rive comics for children.
  24. 0
    14 May 2014 17: 18
    Temujin's life before Chigiskhan

    Isay Kalashnikov did not say that Temujin (Temujin), is this Genghis Khan?
    Probably an interesting book.
  25. 0
    7 November 2018 19: 09
    Forgive me, Alexander, but I marvel at this very article. Is it you? An expanded retelling of the history textbook. Even Gumilyov with his theory of passionarity (in fact, the fruit of statistical analysis, but a good thing), even this "pillar of living history" does not give an answer to the motives of the actions of the two Tumens, who did not master the heritage of the Khorezmshahs, who passed the Caucasus ridges, scattered the Polovtsian hordes, and rushing into battles with the heavily armed troops of the settled principalities. As they say, we went with a "one way ticket". Psychopaths don't fight like that. The victory was too easy for the "wild" nomads. In fact, the people of Kiev alone with a camp there would be enough for a draw. Bows, bows ... It's a good thing, a long-range bow, but that's not all. One gets the impression that at once (!) All Russian governors have forgotten how to fight, organize defenses, and stop the fleeing warriors. As if there were no centuries of massacres with the Pechenegs, with the same Polovtsy. As if they did not live side by side with the steppe. Why didn't you run like that before? - No, these are not "wild Mongols", and not two tumens wandering around Eurasia. But who? - We have to deal with this. The absence of the Zalessky squads is also indicative. With Kyyans and Galicians they were then at knives, and what the chronicler allegedly dragged in about "not ripe" was the typical diplomacy of the people in relation to the princes. They even have Igor Dorogobuzhsky - the dazzler is not great, the villain was remembered. It would have been very nice and easy, but then the brodniki (of the Russian dialect, again) got out with Ploskin. All in all, a dark story. There is no trust in this historical lubok.
    1. 0
      18 December 2018 14: 10
      Anglo Byzantines dogs
  26. yho
    0
    14 January 2022 01: 32
    Why be surprised, since ancient times the world does not take the Slavs. One will be beaten, the other will silently pass by.
    If we recall the Western Slavs - encouraged, then the story is similar - the tribes that failed to reach a common agreement fell under the blow of the united Germans.
    Another example: the battle on the Kosovo field, which took place on June 15, 1389 between the united army of Serbian feudal lords in alliance with the Kingdom of Bosnia on the one hand and the army of the Ottoman Turks on the other. The Serbs have three commanders for one army.

    Expressions like "but how could some Mongols beat us, the great Russ?" - And how, some Macedonians (just look at the map) could create an empire? You should not think that the Mongols were dumber. As the great Russian commander A.V. Suvorov: "The sign of a fool is pride."

    There is an opinion (and not without reason) that the name "Slavs" is not accidentally consonant with the English slave, which translates as a slave. Slavs were sold in slave markets long before blacks were brought to the North American continent. So, the Russians may also demand to bow at their feet and ask for forgiveness from their former usurpers.