Military Review

Dmitry Donskoy. A loser prince or a great sovereign?

81
Dmitry Donskoy. A loser prince or a great sovereign?

Dmitry Donskoy at the 1000th Anniversary of Russia monument in Veliky Novgorod


The reign of Dimitry Donskoy belongs to the most unfortunate and sad eras stories long-suffering Russian people. Incessant devastation and devastation, now from external enemies, now from internal strife, followed one after another on an enormous scale.


The rise of Moscow


Although the Don massacre did not eliminate Moscow's dependence on the Horde kingdom, it changed the situation in the region. In the fall of the same 1380, the Mamaev Horde ceased to exist. In the east, beyond the Volga, Mamai's adversary, the Blue Horde of Tokhtamysh, was located. This descendant of Genghis Khan, having learned about the defeat of his rival for power in the Horde, crossed the Volga, moved to Sarai. Mamai hastily gathered a new army, but the warriors and princes went over to the side of a more successful rival. In addition, there was a good reason: Tokhtamysh was the legal heir of the shed table. Mamai fled to the Crimea with his treasury, but there he was finished off. In fact, the victory of Dmitry of Moscow helped Tokhtamysh to take the Horde throne. When the new Horde tsar informed the Russian princes of his accession, all Russian rulers sent ambassadors to him with gifts. Peace was established with the Horde of Tokhtamysh. However, the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy did not consider it necessary to personally go to the new ruler of the Golden (White) Horde to receive from his hands a label for the great reign.

A year later, there was a coup in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia. Grand Duke Yagailo Olgerdovich in September 1380 led his regiments to the aid of Mamai to crush Dmitry Ivanovich and his brothers Andrei Polotsky and Dmitry Bryanskiy. However, the Moscow sovereign managed to crush Mamai before the arrival of Yagailo's troops. The Grand Duke of Lithuania was in the same passage from the Kulikov field when he received news of the defeat of the Horde. Jagiello turned the troops back. In October 1381, Jagiello was overthrown by his uncle Keistut Gediminovich. Keistut began a policy of rapprochement with Moscow, he needed peace in the east to resist the crusaders. Keistut reached an agreement with Dmitry Donskoy at the price of abandoning claims to Smolensk and the Verkhovsk principalities (specific principalities in the upper reaches of the Oka). Andrey Olgerdovich returned to Polotsk.

Relations between Moscow and Ryazan have changed. In 1380, the Grand Duke of Ryazan, Oleg Ivanovich, was forced to submit to the power of Mamai and entered into an alliance with him against Moscow. However, he did not bring his regiments to the Kulikovo field. In turn, Dmitry Ivanovich led his troops across the Oka so as to avoid clashes with the Ryazan people. In "Zadonshchina" there is even mention of the death of 70 Ryazan boyars from the side of the grand ducal army. On the other hand, some Ryazan boyars, in the absence of their prince, who moved south with his retinue, plundered the Moscow carts that went after the Battle of Kulikovo in Ryazan. After returning to Moscow, Dmitry established control over many Ryazan volosts. In 1381, the Ryazan prince recognized himself as a "younger brother" and concluded an anti-Horde alliance with Dmitry Donskoy, similar to the Moscow-Tver treaty of 1375. Oleg Ryazansky promised to return the people captured after the Kulikovo battle.

The struggle for the place of Metropolitan of All Russia continued. The mission of Mikhail (Mityai) to Constantinople, the protege of Dmitry Donskoy, unexpectedly ended. The metropolitan candidate on his way from the Crimean Kafa (Theodosius) to Constantinople unexpectedly fell ill and died. In the retinue accompanying him, a dispute began over who to propose to the Russian metropolitans. The supporters of the Pereyaslavl Archimandrite Pimen took the upper hand. He, examining the documents of the deceased Mikhail, found blank letters of the great sovereign. In one of them, he wrote Dmitry Ivanovich's request to the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople to appoint Pimen to the metropolitan of All Russia. Other securities were promissory notes of the Moscow prince to Muslim and Italian merchants at high interest rates. The money received was used for bribery with the aim of "electing" Pimen as Metropolitan. The Holy Cathedral made this decision. The title of Kiev and All Russia was recognized for Pimen. However, his rival Cyprian was left with the title of Metropolitan of Lithuania and Little Russia for life.

Tokhtamysh invasion


Meanwhile, a new clash between the Horde and Moscow was brewing. Tokhtamysh wanted to achieve complete submission of Dmitry Ivanovich and resume the flow of tribute in the same amount. The Golden Horde king fell out with his former patron, Tamerlane. He needed a quiet rear in the west and a lot of money for the war. As a result, Tokhtamyshe decided to go to Moscow in order to pacify Dmitry, seize booty, including prisoners for sale into slavery. The preparations for the campaign against Muscovite Russia were kept secret.

Thanks to the effect of surprise and temporary weakness of Moscow Russia, which suffered huge losses in the bloody battle with Mamai, Tokhtamysh managed to implement his plan. Russian guests (merchants) in the Horde were arrested or killed so that they would not have time to report to Moscow. Numerous ships, on which the Horde army crossed the Volga, were taken away from the Russian guests in the Bulgar city. We marched quickly so that Moscow did not have time to get ready, to mobilize forces. Prince of Nizhny Novgorod Dmitry Konstantinovich and Oleg Ryazansky, in the face of superior forces, expressed complete obedience to the Horde king and avoided the pogrom of their lands. Dmitry Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod, wishing to secure his principality, sent his sons Vasily and Simeon to the army of the Horde ruler. Oleg Ryazansky indicated fords across the Oka.

Having learned about the appearance of the enemy, Dmitry Donskoy and Vladimir the Brave began to gather troops in Kostroma and Voloka, but they could no longer stop Tokhtamysh. Tokhtamyshe burned Serpukhov and calmly went to Moscow. The city was without top leadership. The Grand Duke and his family were in Kostroma, beyond the Volga. The defense of the city was entrusted to the Lithuanian prince in the Moscow service Ostey (son of Andrei Olgerdovich or Dmitry Olgerdovich) and Metropolitan Cyprian. The Metropolitan fled to Tver, which also expressed obedience to Tokhtamysh. The boyars perceived the absence of the great sovereign as a flight, and the hasty departure of the metropolitan also played a role. As a result, the nobility fled from the capital, on the other hand, refugees poured into the city from the devastated neighborhoods, small towns and villages. Muscovites raised an uprising and decided to give battle to the enemy. On August 23, 1382, the Horde reached Moscow and tried to take the capital city. The townspeople successfully repelled enemy attacks for three days, successfully used firearms weapon - "mattresses" (guns). The success in the defense turned the city around the Muscovites. They smashed the boyar mansions, cellars with wine and honey: “... and got drunk and staggered, boasting, saying:“ Do not fear the arrival of the rotten Tatars in such a strong city ... of our princes ". And then they climbed onto the city walls and wandered around drunk, mocking the Tatars, shamelessly shaming them, shouting different words, full of reproach and blasphemy "(" The Tale of the invasion of Tokhtamysh ").

Unable to take the city and suffering heavy losses, Tokhtamysh began negotiations with Ostey and the best people. The negotiators said that Tokhtamysh had come to fight not with the townspeople, but Dmitry. They promised the mercy of the Horde king. They offered to open the gate, go out with gifts and obey. The sons of the Prince of Nizhny Novgorod, Vasily and Semyon, swore that Tokhtamysh would grant peace to Moscow. The drunken and out of breath Muscovites believed that the voices of a few sober people were drowned in the hopes of the rest of the masses. The gate was opened. The Horde men chopped down the delegation and burst into the capital city that was left without protection.

And she was in the city of the slaughter of evil and outside the city the same great slaughter. And until then they whipped, until their arms and shoulders weakened and they were not exhausted.

Thousands of people died, others were taken away. Moscow was robbed and burned, the prince's treasury and church treasures were taken away. Precious archives perished in the fire.

Then the troops of Tokhtamysh went round, burned and plundered Vladimir, Zvenigorod, Mozhaisk, Yuryev, Lopasnya, Pereyaslavl. However, Tokhtamysh soon had to leave in a hurry. The detachment that approached Voloka was defeated by Prince Vladimir the Brave. Dmitry Donskoy put forward the regiments from Kostroma. The Horde detachments, burdened with prey and light pogroms, lost their combat effectiveness. The Horde tsar immediately left Moscow Russia, burned Kolomna on the way and destroyed the Ryazan region. Tokhtamysh's troops returned to the Horde with huge booty, taking tribute for several years and leading thousands of people to the full. In the fall, Tokhtamysh offered peace to Dmitry Ivanovich. In the spring of 1383, Dmitry sent his son Vasily to Sarai. Dmitry paid Tokhtamysh a "great heavy tribute" (they paid not only in silver, as before, but also in gold), and the Horde king secured the great reign of Moscow.


The siege of Moscow by Tokhtamysh in 1382. Miniature of the Litsevoy chronicle collection. XVI century (the Horde have red - Russian banners)

Recovery


The burning of Moscow did not become a symbol of its fall. The capital city burned more than once, but it was always restored and it became more and more beautiful. Dmitry Ivanovich again took up hard creative work. Towns and villages were rebuilt. Mikhail Tverskoy and Boris Gorodetsky claimed the grand princely label, but Tokhtamysh preferred richer Moscow. But the Tver Grand Duchy gained independence again. The Tver prince is no longer called the younger brother of the Moscow one, but simply a brother. Kashin was returned to the Tver land.

The Grand Duke of Moscow punished Ryazan. Already in the fall of 1382, the Moscow army made a punitive campaign against the Ryazan principality. The Moscow regiments staged a pogrom "Pushcha ... Tatar troops." In the spring of 1385, Oleg Ryazansky responded by unexpectedly attacking Moscow Russia, capturing Kolomna (in the past it was part of the Ryazan land). Moscow gathered a strong army under the command of Prince Vladimir Andreevich the Brave. The residents of Ryazan retreated to the border fortress of Perevitsk. In a fierce battle, the Ryazan people took over. According to the Nikon Chronicle, "in that battle, I killed many of the Moscow boyars and the best men of Novgorod and Pereslavl." Dmitry Ivanovich had to ask for peace and pay a ransom for numerous prisoners. Later, with the mediation of Sergius of Radonezh, Moscow and Ryazan concluded "eternal peace." In 1387, Oleg married his son Fyodor to Dmitry's daughter Sophia. In the future, the Ryazan prince Fyodor became a loyal ally of Moscow.

Moscow again had to pacify Novgorod. In 1386, the great sovereign moved his regiments to the free city. Novgorodians resigned themselves and paid a large tribute. In the western direction, the situation has deteriorated significantly. In 1384, through the mediation of Olgerd's widow Ulyana Alexandrovna, a preliminary agreement was concluded between Dmitry and Vladimir on the one hand and Yagailo, Skirgailo and Koribut on the other on the marriage of Yagailo with Dmitry's daughter and declaring Orthodoxy the state religion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia. However, in 1385 Jagiello entered into union with Poland and married the heiress of the Polish throne Jadwiga. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia underwent Westernization and Catholicization. Smolensk, with the support of Ryazan, resisted, but was defeated. Andrey Olgerdovich Polotsk was defeated and taken prisoner, Polotsk fell.


Monument to Vladimir Andreevich the Brave in Serpukhov

The question of succession to the throne


In 1388-1389. Dmitry Donskoy had a conflict with Vladimir Andreevich. Obviously it was related to the issue of inheritance. Feeling the closeness of death, Dmitry Donskoy made a will. In his will, Dmitry was the first of the Moscow princes to include in his possessions the great reign (Vladimir, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Kostroma), Beloozero, Dmitrov, Uglich and Galich. Most of the land and income went to his eldest son Vasily. Apparently, Vladimir the Brave insisted on maintaining the old ladder order of inheritance in the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Thus, the eldest of his relatives, Vladimir Andreevich, should become the heir of the seriously ill Dmitry Ivanovich. But the great sovereign transferred power to his eldest son. Moreover, he strengthened autocracy in the Moscow grand ducal house. In the event of the death of one of the younger brothers, his inheritance was divided among all the remaining brothers. But if the eldest son died, then his possessions were entirely transferred to the next oldest son of the Grand Duke.

Dmitry Donskoy was able to maintain order inside the Moscow princely house. The great sovereign arrested the Serpukhov boyars who were in Moscow and took Dmitrov and Galich from Vladimir Andreyevich. Then he bequeathed Galich, Zvenigorod and Ruza to the second son Yuri, and Dmitrov and Uglich - to the fourth son Peter. The enraged Vladimir left for Serpukhov, and then for Torzhok. In 1390 he made peace with the new Moscow sovereign Vasily Dmitrievich. He recognized his cousin's nephew as the “elder brother” and the Grand Duke of Moscow, and renounced claims to Dmitrov and other privileges. In return, he received half of Volokolamsk and Rzhev (then exchanged them for Uglich and Kozelsk). Vladimir the Brave again began to lead the Moscow regiments.

The great sovereign of Moscow Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy passed away on May 19, 1389. He was not even 39 years old. During his reign, Moscow became the recognized leader of North-Eastern Russia, challenged Lithuania and the Horde. That is, Muscovite Rus became a contender for the role of the main Russian center. The Grand Duchy of Vladimir became the "patrimony" of the Moscow sovereigns. The Moscow Grand Duchy was significantly expanded due to the territories of Pereyaslavl, Galich, Beloozero, Uglich, Dmitrov, part of Meshchera, as well as the Kostroma, Chukhloma, Starodub and Perm lands. Moscow received a white-stone Kremlin. Under Dmitry Ivanovich, minting of a silver coin was first started in Moscow. New fortress cities and monasteries were built, cultural and economic life flourished. The Grand Duke limited the power of appanage princes, including his relatives, and created a military base among the boyars and nobles. Muscovite Rus creates a powerful army that can successfully withstand the strongest neighboring powers: the Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.

On the other hand, the period was extremely difficult for Russia, accompanied by bloody wars, battles, strife and pestilence. Dmitry Donskoy spent most of his life in wars with Tver, Novgorod, Ryazan, Lithuania, Horde and other neighbors. Therefore, some historians believe that the reign of Dmitry Ivanovich was unsuccessful and tragic. Here is the opinion of Nikolai Kostomarov:

The reign of Dimitry Donskoy belongs to the most unfortunate and sad eras in the history of the long-suffering Russian people. Incessant devastation and devastation, now from external enemies, now from internal strife, followed one after another on an enormous scale.

Moscow Russia, apart from minor raids, was twice devastated by the Lithuanians, survived the pogrom of Tokhtamysh. The Ryazan region was defeated several times by the Horde and Muscovites, the Tver land - several times by the Moscow army, Smolensk - several times by the Lithuanians and Muscovites, Novgorod suffered from the campaigns of the Tver and Muscovites. According to Kostomarov, Eastern Russia was then a poor and poor country. Under Dmitry, the devastated Rus' had to "crawl and humiliate itself before the dying Horde" again.

Another famous Russian historian, Nikolai Karamzin, assessed Dmitry's reign in this way:

The magnanimous Dmitry defeated Mamai, but saw the ashes of the capital and cringed to Tokhtamysh.

Obviously, Kostomarov and Karamzin are too biased. Kostomarov was a supporter of the "Ukrainian idea", and Karamzin was a Westerner, who designed in Russia a "classical" (pro-Western) version of history.

Dmitry Ivanovich's life was short and swift, but he immortalized his name on the Kulikovo field. Under him, Moscow began a long journey of gathering Russian lands, including Lithuania and the Horde.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
Articles from this series:
Dmitry Ivanovich, prince-warrior. War between Moscow and Tver
How Dmitry Ivanovich destroyed the Horde army on the Vozha river
Mamaevo massacre: Russians fought with Russians?
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 31 October 2020 05: 35 New
    -1
    It is a thankless task for Alexander to write his views on the history of past years in Russia ... you will get nuts from the adherents of official history, and fans of Fomenko and Nosovsky will not agree with you ... but your interpretation of the life of Dmitry Donskoy is still interesting. hi
    1. Interlocutor
      Interlocutor 31 October 2020 23: 07 New
      -1
      It's a thankless job Alexander to write his view of the history of the past years of Russia

      So he doesn’t write them. He throws them up ... 2 publications ..
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 31 October 2020 23: 56 New
        -4
        The whole problem was that Tokhtamysh was not a khan, but a uniform scumbag! The question is, why did Tokhtamysh suddenly appear under the walls (note the stone ones) of Moscow? - did the Muscovites' intelligence work splendidly? Answer: Oleg Ryazansky showed all the fords and vulnerabilities in the Moscovites' zip system, in exchange that the Horde would not destroy the Ryazan lands. As a result, Tokhtamysh deceived the defenders of Moscow by promising that if they opened the gates, he would not ruin the city! On the way back, he "thanked" his benefactors from Ryazan by ruining their principality. True, he missed Timur, he could not be thrown and Tokhtamysh received what he deserved, like a vile thug. Dmitry Donskiy had an obvious mistake that he perceived Tokhtamysh as a tsar, and not as a cheap gopnik, and the price of this delusion was appropriate!
        1. Snail N9
          Snail N9 1 November 2020 09: 55 New
          +2
          To judge someone from the height of other knowledge and experience ...
          F.I. Tyutchev
          Cicero.
          Roman orator spoke
          Amidst civil storms and anxiety:
          "I got up late - and on the road
          Rome was caught at night! "
          So! but, saying goodbye to Roman glory,
          From the capitoline height
          You saw in all the greatness
          Sunset of her bloody star! ..

          Blessed is he who has visited this world
          In his fateful moments -
          He was called by the All-good,
          As an interlocutor for a feast;
          He is their high spectator spectator,
          He was admitted to their council,
          And alive, like a celestial,
          He drank their immortality from the cup.
        2. ecolog
          ecolog 2 November 2020 16: 28 New
          +1
          Tokhtamysh - Chingizid, sits in the capital of the Horde, how else to perceive him? Like a king. The ROC remembered him in prayers as a tsar, for which he did not pay taxes to the horde.
          Against Mamai (not Chingizid) and not the tsar, a coalition of princes headed by Donskoy gathered.
          And they did not support him against the king. And not because "by surprise".
          1. Proxima
            Proxima 2 November 2020 17: 09 New
            0
            As you all don’t understand that the Mamayev Horde was a completely legitimate state, and that Chingizid, who nominally “ruled” the Mamayev Horde, had no power - that is their business. This Chingizid in terms of legitimacy was no different from Tokhtamysh.
            1. ecolog
              ecolog 5 November 2020 23: 30 New
              +1
              There must be one horde. Then there is order, trade, then there are no private raids of local horsemen. As they say, a virgin in gold will travel through the entire empire and remain virgin (if she does not want the opposite) and not robbed.
              And when there are several hordes and give everyone - guys, you first decide who is the main cheburek, and then come for a share. Something like this.
  2. Diviz
    Diviz 31 October 2020 05: 53 New
    +1
    The confusion of these events in history is of no order.
    The Huns and the Takhtamysh, as a litmus test, determined who was their own and who was a stranger.
    And so yes, man came from a monkey. And the barbarians were like a thorn in the Byzantines and the Inquisition had so much work.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 31 October 2020 05: 58 New
      +1
      And so yes, man descended from a monkey.
      And how did the monkey have a mind ... the ability to think logically ... a soul at last? smile
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 31 October 2020 06: 25 New
        +8
        This is all the tricks of the reptilians.
        For reference, man is not descended from a monkey, he is a monkey.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 31 October 2020 06: 34 New
          +3
          For reference, man is not descended from a monkey, he is a monkey.
          Let's look deeper ... deeper ... according to Darwin, we originated from an amoeba that flew to us from space.
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 31 October 2020 06: 38 New
            +2
            Everything is much more interesting, go to YouTube, hammer Drobyshevsky in the search and enjoy the education.
            1. Local from the Volga
              Local from the Volga 1 November 2020 19: 39 New
              +2
              the same Fomenko, only in a different place!
          2. ee2100
            ee2100 31 October 2020 08: 58 New
            +2
            According to Oparin from water, gases and electricity.
            1. Same lech
              Same lech 31 October 2020 09: 00 New
              +2
              According to Oparin from water, gases and electricity.

              Someone in that much ... some from borscht, some from broth ... it is difficult to check only these versions and it is impossible to say with 100 percent certainty that life on Earth originated in this way.
              1. ee2100
                ee2100 31 October 2020 09: 03 New
                +3
                There are many theories, but none of them "works" remain Anunnaki
          3. Catfish
            Catfish 31 October 2020 09: 39 New
            +1
            And if it is still the spirit of God? wink

            Are we all cartoon characters?
            1. Astra wild2
              Astra wild2 31 October 2020 19: 43 New
              +1
              Konstantin, good evening. You, as always, with illustrations. For the most part I like them: what is called "in the subject"
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 31 October 2020 19: 44 New
                +3
                Thank you, Vera. smile
          4. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 31 October 2020 15: 21 New
            +4
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            . according to Darwin we descended from an amoeba, which flew to us from space.

            Charles never did that.
        2. sergo1914
          sergo1914 31 October 2020 09: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Cartalon
          This is all the tricks of the reptilians.
          For reference, man is not descended from a monkey, he is a monkey.


          Now it has become very insulting. Is there no hope at all?
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 31 October 2020 19: 48 New
            0
            What kind of hope do you need?
      2. AK1972
        AK1972 31 October 2020 09: 51 New
        +6
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        And how did the monkey have a mind ... the ability to think logically ... a soul at last?

        Namesake! And who told you that the monkey has no reason and the ability to think logically? To assert this, you need to get into the brain of a monkey, think like a monkey and act like a monkey, but unfortunately this is not available to us humans (by the way, also related to great apes). In general, looking at people, I see that there is much more logic in the behavior of animals than in humans. In their life, absolutely everything is logical: to produce offspring, feed, protect, train and send to free bread. It is we who are always tormented by doubts, we think about how to act in each specific situation, we often make mistakes, and then we reproach ourselves. As for the soul, this is a dark subject and is not subject to research. You cannot argue with arguments that monkeys do not have a soul, but I knew and know many Homo sapiens who, if they have a soul, it is so disgusting that it would be better if it did not exist at all. If I'm not mistaken, Mark Twain said that the most useless feeling in a person is conscience, because she gnaws at you when you can no longer fix anything.
        "Everything that is real is rational, everything that is rational is real."
        1. Kwas
          Kwas 31 October 2020 17: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: AK1972
          And who told you that the monkey has no reason and the ability to think logically?

          I will add one more. Many apex predators have such sophisticated hunting behavior that it is simply stupid to claim that they lack reason and logic. Wolves, foxes, polar bears and so on ...
          1. Astra wild2
            Astra wild2 31 October 2020 19: 49 New
            +4
            Colleague Kvass, I remembered a dialogue from one cartoon
            -Man is the king of nature
            -However, she doesn't know about it
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 31 October 2020 11: 36 New
      18
      There was no confusion in fact. Everything was easier. Dmitry Donskoy, like other Russian princes, was a vassal of the Khan of the Golden Horde. Feudalism was in the court. He did not pay tribute, but exits, that is, taxes. The one who had the label for the great reign, collected taxes from the other princes and took them to Sarai, naturally without offending himself. The princes fought for this right. request
      And then the era of civil strife began in the Horde. Mamai was not Chingizid, which means he was an upstart and usurper, while Tokhtamysh was. Under the pretext that it is not clear who occupies the throne, Dmitry Donskoy racked the collected taxes for many years. He was still from the Rurik family - bearers of the golden paizi, and Mamai is generally not clear who. Mamai needed money for the war and he climbed to punish the rebellious vassals. But ogreb for the tomatoes. But when Chingizid Tokhtamysh came for money, the situation was already different. The princes were not going to resist the lawful lord, and neither did the Muscovites. They also opened the gates in their opinion to the legitimate ruler of the Horde. Tch Tokhtamysh conducted a punitive raid against the rebellious vassal and made him pay what he had been rats for years. From the point of view of feudal society, he was in his own right. Well, Dmitry Donskoy, in principle, defeated the usurper and helped Chingizid to take the throne, and therefore was able to come to an agreement with Tokhtamysh by giving the money. request
      Another thing is that the victory over Mamai gave a lot in terms of the fact that the princes understood that the Horde people could be defeated. And not just any small feudal lords, namely the khan's army. The Golden Horde continued the civil strife and after 100 years weakened so much that the Rurikovichs were able to declare their independence. Well, Ivan the Terrible then reassembled a significant part of the disintegrated Golden Horde already on a Russian basis, in fact, having declared the Rurik clan equal to the Chingizids.
      1. maktub
        maktub 31 October 2020 14: 23 New
        +3
        Simple and tasteful!
  3. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 31 October 2020 08: 48 New
    +1
    Not a bad article, well-reasoned. Respect to the author. I would like to see an answer to it, but not in the form of a comment, but in the form of a similar article. I'm waiting.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 31 October 2020 15: 25 New
      +2
      Quote: Aviator_
      Forward.

      wait, there are already two of us, this article is cool
      1. Sinugamb
        Sinugamb 31 October 2020 15: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        Quote: Aviator_
        Forward.

        wait, there are already two of us, this article is cool

        I'm also waiting ... There are already three of us, etc. hi
        1. depressant
          depressant 31 October 2020 17: 34 New
          +2
          I also join. I'm wondering why Dmitry Ivanovich died so early? Or was it normal in those days?
          1. Sugar Honeyovich
            Sugar Honeyovich 1 November 2020 05: 02 New
            +1
            The chronicle describes him as a severely obese person towards the end of his life. Perhaps he was a core.
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 31 October 2020 21: 04 New
      +1
      In fact, I almost like today's Samsonov. If you don't think too much, it's a good job.
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 31 October 2020 09: 37 New
    +7
    Obviously, Kostomarov and Karamzin are too biased. Kostomarov was a supporter of the "Ukrainian idea", and Karamzin was a Westerner, who designed in Russia a "classical" (pro-Western) version of history.
    And the author of "The Tale of the Invasion of Tokhtamysh" was also a supporter of the "Ukrainian idea" or a "Westernizer"?
    Or was it the Germans in the Vatican who faked this source?
    Under him, Moscow began a long journey of gathering Russian lands, including Lithuania and the Horde.
    And under him the tradition of Moscow princes to abandon their capital in the event of a serious external threat was "laid".
    In 1408, the son of Dmitry Donskoy "left" Moscow due to the approach of Edigei, in 1480 Vasily III acted in the same way when the horde of Akhmat approached, in 1571 even Ivan the Terrible left Moscow, leaving it to be plundered by the Crimean Khan Devlet Giray, who also did not break the tradition and burned Moscow to the ground, taking away about 60 people.
    In short, obscurantism was on Fridays, now on Saturdays.
    1. ee2100
      ee2100 31 October 2020 10: 06 New
      +4
      What do you think the author is not right?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 31 October 2020 10: 11 New
        +7
        What do you think the author is not right?
        In what he undertook to write.
        1. ee2100
          ee2100 31 October 2020 10: 14 New
          +1
          Briefly. How about Chekhov?
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 31 October 2020 14: 26 New
            +8
            Briefly. How about Chekhov?
            Chekhov's participation in the analysis of Mr. Samsonov's "creativity" is too great an honor for him (Samsonov). I already wrote yesterday that his "works" are a consolation for the poor and mentally mournful. Judging by the cons, there are some on this site.
            1. Normal ok
              Normal ok 31 October 2020 23: 35 New
              -2
              Quote: Undecim
              Briefly. How about Chekhov?
              Chekhov's participation in the analysis of Mr. Samsonov's "creativity" is too great an honor for him (Samsonov). I already wrote yesterday that his "works" are a consolation for the poor and mentally mournful. Judging by the cons, there are some on this site.

              And their name is legion.
      2. Hantengri
        Hantengri 31 October 2020 11: 00 New
        +8
        Quote: ee2100
        What do you think the author is not right?

        For example, in that he persistently titled Dmitry Ivanovich "The Great Sovereign" (ie, tsar, ie, emperor).
        Samsonov does not care that Dmitry Ivanovich is only the Prince of Moscow and the Grand Duke of Vladimir, he is an artist, he sees it that way!
        1. ee2100
          ee2100 31 October 2020 11: 05 New
          +2
          And that's all you can show?
          1. Hantengri
            Hantengri 31 October 2020 11: 11 New
            +5
            Quote: ee2100
            And that's all you can show?

            In my opinion, this is quite enough to judge Samsonov's literacy as a historian.
            1. ee2100
              ee2100 31 October 2020 11: 20 New
              +1
              Here everyone has long recognized that he is not a historian, but this is not enough for reasoned criticism. He called it a great sovereign, so what? He can see so.
              1. Hantengri
                Hantengri 31 October 2020 11: 54 New
                +9
                Quote: ee2100
                Called a great sovereign, so what?

                Indeed, "and what" ... He just called the duke - the emperor ... Just think, what a trifle! Especially in comparison with the Tartarian Ruso-Aryans. lol
                1. ee2100
                  ee2100 31 October 2020 12: 26 New
                  +4
                  If these are all claims against the author, then there is nothing to discuss, otherwise he is right am
    2. maktub
      maktub 31 October 2020 14: 31 New
      +2
      Attempts to "comb" history laughing
    3. Jünger
      Jünger 31 October 2020 20: 27 New
      +6
      Quote: Undecim
      And under him the tradition of Moscow princes to abandon their capital in the event of a serious external threat was "laid".

      All Rurikovichs adhered to this "tradition" - Yuri Vsevolodovich, who left the capital before the invasion of the Tatars, Daniil Galitsky, and if we dig into the ancient, we will find more examples.
      This is not a tradition at all, but pure common sense based on the then realities.
  5. Konstantin Shevchenko
    Konstantin Shevchenko 31 October 2020 14: 31 New
    +1
    The siege of Moscow Tokhtamysh, depicted not just a red banner, but with a yellow (gold) stripe. The crown on the head, European beards, factory equipment. Doesn't look like wild nomads. Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov also had a golden banner with a red square (there was an image in it). Despite the civil strife, the Slavic (Russian) princes weakened each other, no one attacked from the outside. It turns out that everyone was in the same team in the golden horde, but the customs are cruel. About the assessment of the Golden Horde by the West, I don't remember that the West spoke well of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR.
  6. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 31 October 2020 14: 35 New
    +6
    I read the article in the morning, but only now came to a comment.
    Well, well, here some users wanted critics on the merits - if you please. Usually, the articles of this author about Ancient Russia are below any criticism, but today the author, one might say, pleased me. There is something to highlight.
    To begin with, I will say that, oddly enough, the author stated the texture, in general, is correct. All the events listed in the article really took place. It only remains to add something and summarize.
    So.
    The defeat of Mamai allowed Tokhtamysh to re-unite the Horde after the great suppression. Tokhtamysh ruled in it without any internal resistance for 15 years, until he was finally defeated by Timur. After Tokhtamysh, the Horde actually ruled for fifteen years, changing the khans, and that, we can say that for the next thirty years, thanks to the policy of Dmitry, the Horde again became one. Against the background of the policy of Metropolitan Alexy, regent under the young Dmitry, who in every possible way supported the hush-up in the Horde and used it to reduce the output, to unify the Russian lands, this achievement of Dmitry, obtained on the Kulikovo field, seems to me very doubtful. The proverb "a miser pays twice" seems to be about this very case.
    About Lithuania.
    After Olgerd's death, a squabble began between his children for the inheritance. Olgerd's brother Keistut, who remained the oldest in the family, supported, as promised to Olgerd his eldest son from his second wife Yagailo, Andrei and Dmitry Olgerdovichi, the eldest children from his first wife, Orthodox, were forced to flee to Russia, to serve Dmitry. In 1382, Jagailo treacherously kills Keistut (the author does not write about this) and begins his struggle with Keistut's son Vitovt for Lithuania. An excellent excuse for Moscow to interfere in Lithuanian affairs, supporting the Orthodox Olgerdovichs in this struggle, especially since Keistut is dead, but Dmitry did not make any attempts in this direction, unleashing a war with Ryazan instead, which he lost in one wicket and was forced to ask for peace from Oleg Ryazansky.
    Dmitri did not succeed in tying Jagiello to the Moscow princely house by a marriage union - he preferred Poland, which resulted in the Kreva union, the main condition of which was the Catholicization of Lithuania. Just a catastrophic political defeat, the price of which is a continuous chain of wars up to the XNUMXth century.
    Church politics.
    The author says nothing about such a character as Metropolitan Pimen. By scam and direct forgery, Pimen, in order to obtain the metropolitan dignity, achieved in Constantinople the division of the single Russian metropolis into western (Lithuanian) and eastern (Moscow) - yet another political defeat, for Lithuania received its own metropolitan, controlled by its princes. Olgerd just dreamed about it in his time, but could not achieve it, but here it is just a gift from Moscow. So, Pimen became the metropolitan of eastern Russia, the Bulgarian Cyprian - western. Dimitri, dissatisfied with the division of the metropolis, exiles Pimen with his power and summons Cyprian to him. Everything seemed to be fine, the unity of the metropolis was restored, but already in 1382 Dmitry had a quarrel with Cyprian and summoned Pimen from disgrace, Cyprian was expelled to Lithuania. But Dmitry immediately quarreled with Pimen and sent to Constantinople to appoint another candidate - Bishop Dionysius, and against Pimen he made an investigation and removed him from his post. Dionysius on his way back to Kiev was captured by the Lithuanians and died in captivity. Dmitry never reconciled with Cyprian, and he spent most of his time in Lithuania. As a result - through the efforts of Dmitry in the church environment for many years from 1378 to 1390. a mess was spread, which led to a weakening of the position of the Orthodox Church in Lithuania and created the preconditions for the Union of Kreva, with the subsequent Catholicization of Lithuania.
    The author's account of the invasion of Tokhtamysh is generally correct. The princes, according to the tradition laid down during the wars with the Polovtsy, fled to the corners, leaving the capital to its own devices, there is nothing to be surprised that Moscow and the surrounding area were burned to the ground by the Tatars.
    Now about the succession to the throne.
    Like, Dmitry managed to betray power to his son, and not to his brother according to the rule of law, and, like, he invented an inheritance between children to divide unevenly with a big bias in favor of the elder.
    Firstly, Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovskoy could not claim the Great Reign by the law of the forest, since his father, Andrei Ivanovich, the son of Kalita, was not the Grand Duke.
    Secondly, for the first time, it was not Dmitry who invented the uneven division of the inheritance, but his grandfather, Ivan Kalita, who was really a great personality.
    Thirdly, Dmitry himself did not do anything at all to secure the order of inheritance from father to son, he did not draw up or approve any normative acts on this matter. It's just that there were no other heirs besides Vasily, his son - so power passed to him without any problems. Well, Vasily had to buy off a small amount of land from his uncle Vladimir, not much sadness. The problem arose after the death of Vasily, when his brother, Prince Yuri Dmitrievich, began to claim the grand ducal table, and he received it to the detriment of his son Vasily Vasilyevich, the future Dark. Later, this conflict spread to the children of Yuri and grew into the so-called. "Great Feudal Won" in Russia, which lasted thirty years. If Dmitry had really tried to streamline the issues of succession to the throne, these troubles most likely would not have happened.
    Have I forgotten anything? smile
    And the last:
    Dmitry Ivanovich's life was short and swift, but he immortalized his name on the Kulikovo field. Under him, Moscow began a long journey of gathering Russian lands, including Lithuania and the Horde.

    Your mother ...
    I have already said a lot about the significance of the Battle of Kulikovo for Russian history, I will not repeat myself.
    But about the beginning of the path of gathering ... This is already too much. It is possible, of course, extolling the incompetent ruler-loser, who has suffered defeat in all his endeavors, to invent something, but this is really too much. All of Dmitry's predecessors on the Moscow table are well, very offensive to hear this, but Ivan Kalita, I think, is just crying in the afterlife. He, just for this gathering, did like no one else, but he was not the initiator of this path. Daniel of Moscow - the ancestor of the Ude dynasty annexed Kolomna and Pereyaslavl, Yuri Danilovich - Mozhaisk and something else, I don’t remember, the first of the Moscow princes received the Great Reign, Kalita joined so many that you don’t remember everything, but, damn it, it turns out the collection of Russian lands started with Dmitry ...
    Well, in general, I have everything.
    I exhaled. smile
    Whoever disagrees with the fact that Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy as a statesman failed to prove himself and caused Russia more harm than good - please argue reasonably.
    1. Marine engineer
      Marine engineer 31 October 2020 17: 07 New
      +2
      Everything seems to be harmonious both in this commentary and in the previous ones, where you assess Dmitry Ivanovich.
      You can't argue with the facts, but after the triumph of the Battle of Kulikovo there was general cowardice of the princes' henchmen, including relatives (with the exception of Vladimir Andreevich), and there were no allies at the critical moment from the word "absolutely" just for some reason do not say that the policy of the principality under Dmitry for almost two decades, Metropolitan Alexy (Byakont) and therefore the first and second "Litovsk", the war with Tver and the loss of an ally in anticipation of a possible collision with the horde, Moscow is not obliged to Dmitry, who at that time looked into the mouth of the mentor, but to a completely different person.
      And then the Moscow prince became simply a hostage of the situation
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 31 October 2020 17: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: Marine Engineer
        the policy of the principality under Dmitry for almost two decades was determined by Metropolitan Alexy (Byakont) and therefore the first and second "Litovsk", the war with Tver and the loss of an ally in anticipation of a possible collision with the horde, Moscow owes not to Dmitry, who at that time looked into his mouth a mentor, but a completely different person.

        While Dmitry was a minor and was completely "in the will" of Alexy, there were no problems. They began when Dmitry "got old" and began to try to show independence. The milestone date - 1368 - the capture of Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy in Moscow during negotiations. Over the next ten years, the influence of the metropolitan steadily declined, and the belligerence of Moscow increased.
        1. Marine engineer
          Marine engineer 31 October 2020 23: 57 New
          -1
          In 1368, Dmitry is eighteen years old, the wrong age of the code, the issues of war-peace are resolved in one mug without discussion with advisers who are richer for years and experience than the young Moscow prince.
          Alexy could not or maybe did not want to solve the Tver issue lovingly, if Tver was needed as an ally, the Muscovites would find something to butter up the Kashirsky prince, so that the filthiness with the capture of Mikhail and everything that then followed on the conscience of the metropolitan, who was quite capable in 1368.
          I suppose, looking at the ashes of Moscow in 1382, Dmitry Ivanovich realized that he had "broken the wood" with both Mikhail and Velyaminov. If they were nearby, this would not have happened. It turned out that all these Yuryevsk, Suzdal, Nizhny Novgorod princes are eagerly ready to burn, smash the Tver, Ryazan, Smolensk land, but they are not able to throw a serious challenge to the horde - they all have political enuresis. They say "you, of course, Dmitry Ivanovich is an authoritative prince, but we won't go against our natural sovereign Tokhtamysh, we need to feed our families ......."
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 1 November 2020 12: 10 New
            +1
            Quote: Marine Engineer
            in one mug

            In general, nothing is ever decided, even in the era of absolutism, before which it was still a very long time. The question is what kind of people to surround yourself with, what advisors to listen to.
            I marked the year 1368 not as some kind of sharp line, after which "everything changed", but as the line of the beginning of these changes, the time from which Dmitry began to seriously influence the policy of the Moscow principality, gradually pushing Alexy and his henchmen from the helm. Comparing the management methods used by Alexy and Dmitry, the capture of Mikhail should certainly be attributed to Dmitry's methods.
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 31 October 2020 17: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      Well, well, here some users wanted critics on the merits - if you please.

      Still I did not understand - who are you criticizing, the author or Dmitry Ivanovich?
      Quote: Trilobite Master

      The defeat of Mamai allowed Tokhtamysh to re-unite the Horde after the great suppression.

      Those. do you accuse D.I. of uniting the Horde? Did Donskoy have a choice? Don't you think that all your accusations against Donskoy are based on afterthoughts?
      It seems to me that you have taken a stupid position of criticism of Donskoy, because if Donskoy does what you think is correct, then it is not known (completely unknown !!!) how everything would turn out.
      The article is written in the spirit of the official history. To criticize it is to come under attack from critics of alternative history, i.e. to become a "Fomenkovite" and therefore you decided to "ride" the prince?
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 31 October 2020 17: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        Those. do you accuse D.I. of uniting the Horde? Did Donskoy have a choice?

        There is always a choice.
        Ivan III faced approximately the same situation, only instead of the Mamayev Horde he had the Crimean Khanate, whose possessions were located practically on the same lands as the possessions of Mamai. Ivan managed to establish allied relations with the Krymchaks and this played a key role in the question of Russia's gaining independence. The coordination of actions between Ivan and the Crimean khans perfectly helped both crows in the fight against both Lithuania and the Great Horde.
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        You have taken a stupid position of criticism of Donskoy

        No one has proven that she is stupid. In any case, no one, including you, has given any intelligible arguments in favor of such a statement. So I give you the word "stupid" with good reason - wear it to your health, at least until I hear from you something constructive and to the point. smile
        The conversation, it would seem, is not about me, but about Dmitry Ivanovich. laughing
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        The article is written in the spirit of the official history. To criticize it is to come under attack from critics of alternative history, i.e. to become a "Fomenkovite" and therefore you decided to "ride" the prince?

        I never criticize just for the sake of the process. Only if I see a mistake, delusion or outright deception. Even when it comes to Samsonov. laughing
        A positive assessment of the results of Dmitry Donskoy's activities, in my opinion, is due not to an objective analysis of his achievements, but to the fact that he is the ancestor of the Moscow tsars, nothing more.
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 31 October 2020 18: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          laughing
          A positive assessment of the results of Dmitry Donskoy's activities, in my opinion, is due not to an objective analysis of his achievements, but to the fact that he is the ancestor of the Moscow tsars, nothing more.

          Maybe. But, I repeat, all of this is based on afterthoughts.
          I repeat, even though you didn’t like it, it’s stupid to criticize a person in whose “shoes” you were not. Because it is not known how you would have acted in his place. In addition, we are not aware of many aspects of the political, economic. the military situation at the time. Absolutely unknown! Most of the operational information influencing Donskoy's decision-making is hidden by a centuries-old layer of dust and repeatedly rewritten chronicles from you and not only. Therefore, it amazes me with what ease you undertake to judge the correctness or incorrectness of decisions made by anyone.
          Are you taking advantage of the fact that Dmitry Ivanovich cannot answer? wink
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 31 October 2020 18: 37 New
            +4
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            It is foolish to criticize a person in whose "shoes" you were not.

            I have already answered such reproaches.
            Who, if not we, the descendants, will sort out the affairs of our ancestors, learning from their mistakes? And what can we learn from them if we see only their achievements, but not see mistakes?
            I believe that I have every right to criticize any of the historical figures, if I am able to substantiate this criticism, as I do in relation to Dmitry Donskoy.
            And it is stupid to see only good in ancestors, deliberately closing our eyes to their mistakes.
            1. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 31 October 2020 19: 07 New
              +2
              Quote: Trilobite Master

              And it is stupid to see only good in ancestors, deliberately closing our eyes to their mistakes.

              Have you completely forgotten how to read? Am I talking about this? I'm talking about -
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              Most of the operational information affecting Donskoy's decision-making is hidden by a centuries-old layer of dust and repeatedly rewritten chronicles

              Well, what am I talking about? After all, the main thing for you is to reveal the mistakes of your ancestors, without worrying whether it was a mistake or a forced decision. After all, we cannot know that it would not have been possible to break Prince Mamai. How would the story turn? There are no answers to this question and cannot be. Therefore, we act easier - the prince is to blame for stopping the hush up in the Horde. If Mamai had not been defeated, the zamyatnaya would have continued and Tokhtamysh would not have been, and Timur, too.
              This is why I hate finding bugs with coffee grounds. Because all these "mistakes" are not obvious !!! And it is not possible to prove that these are errors (!) Due to the lack of evidence. All your evidence is the seventh water on jelly. hi
              1. vladcub
                vladcub 31 October 2020 21: 22 New
                +3
                My friend Krasnoyarsk, history is so good and bad that it does not like fortune telling on chamomile.
                Let Astra guess on a chamomile: "he loves, does not love. Kisses and sends to hell", but we guys will not guess on a chamomile.
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 31 October 2020 23: 51 New
                  0
                  Quote: vladcub
                  My friend Krasnoyarsk, history is so good and bad that it does not like fortune telling on chamomile.

                  My friend Svyatoslav, is it you for me? But I say this to the Trilobite Master, but he disagrees. Says - Saturday, I want to sleep.
                  And I do not scold the Romanovs. I perceive all their actions without value judgments.
              2. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 1 November 2020 12: 41 New
                +2
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                All your proof is the seventh water on jelly.

                I repeat once again: the Russian princes at that time were faced with two tasks that they fully realized: reducing dependence on the Horde and uniting the Russian lands.
                We really cannot say what would have happened if this or that character had made a decision different from what he actually made. But we can fully assess the results of the decision he actually made. And if you soberly and without emotion assess the results of Dmitry's activities, you will see what I have already described: the Horde united for thirty years, the Krevsky union, the lost wars and the suspension of the unification of the Russian lands.
                This is despite the fact that Dmitry had quite favorable prerequisites for solving the main tasks - a huddle in the Horde, strife in Lithuania, the presence of a strong ally in the steppe in the person of Mamai, who could provide support in the fight against Lithuania and the Horde, plus Tamerlane .. Ivan III acted in much more difficult conditions.
                This is not the first time I call on opponents on this issue - tell me at least one achievement of Dmitry as a ruler, a politician. So far only Engineer (Denis) has answered, now I will answer him.
                Yes, and about
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Says - Saturday, I want to sleep.

                smile
                You know, I’m not at work here and don’t owe anything to anyone. I can answer on the merits, I can send without explaining the reasons, I can keep silent if I knock my fingers on the keyboard with my fingers. And if you have a certain conviction that I am "obliged" to answer to everyone, immediately get rid of this conviction. In matters of my comments appearing here, the only meaning is my "want", and not someone else's.
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 1 November 2020 18: 05 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Trilobite Master

                  I repeat once again: the Russian princes at that time were faced with two tasks that they fully realized: reducing dependence on the Horde and uniting the Russian lands.

                  And of course you are right. But ... Each of these princes saw the "unification of the Russian lands" purely under his own leadership. Hence, their actions were not only not in a single tactical, but often even in the opposite direction. And, therefore, Mamai could have been an ally to Oleg Ryazansky, but he could not have been an ally to Dmitry of Moscow. (I am not saying this, it’s me for you to understand the possible state of affairs in the realities of that time) For reasons unknown to us, there MAY be a situation in which Dmitry could not use Mamai as his potential ally, but only as an implacable enemy. I emphasize that we do not know this. But I don't think Dmitry and his boyars were so stupid as not to consider Mamai as a potential ally even before they stopped paying him the Horde exit. Maybe that's why they stopped paying because it became clear to them in the futility of "friendship" with Mamai. Or do you think that one day Dmitry woke up with a hangover and said - I won't pay Mamai anymore. if he is not a real king. And his Duma boyars, without hesitation, immediately agreed with the prince?
                  Do you really think Dmitry made decisions on his own? Without regard to the opinion of the Duma boyars and close associates?
                  How simple it is with you. I laid out on the shelves and hushed up in the Horde and strife in Lithuania and Mamai as allies, without asking, wrote it down ... It was smooth on paper ...
                  Study, research - yes. To put grades? Who are we to judge them?
          2. vladcub
            vladcub 31 October 2020 21: 24 New
            +1
            And how do you scold the Romanovs, "use that they cannot answer"? Shyutka
        2. Kwas
          Kwas 31 October 2020 19: 20 New
          +2
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          There is always a choice.
          Ivan III faced approximately the same situation,

          I think the situation in 100 years was fundamentally different, first of all, the Crimean Khanate was no longer trying to conquer Moscow. And Mamai climbed, for his own reasons, and Dmitry, in general, did not have a "window of opportunity". I think it's better not to consider the option to surrender and recognize Mamai. I managed to break in - great! Was there a chance to organize independence? In my opinion it was, and it was necessary to try. And what did not work out - so the future is generally unknown to anyone. It's good to speculate in hindsight! And that there were mistakes - so it is also necessary to talk about this!
        3. vladcub
          vladcub 31 October 2020 21: 35 New
          +1
          "The ancestor of the Moscow tsars" here I am with you a little disagree in the assessment.
          In my opinion, Dmitry Ivanovich was an extraordinary person, and already this is enough to treat him differently. Basically, I agree with your assessment of Donskoy: as a statesman he was not up to par, but now I cannot remember: who was a statesman from that time?
    3. Engineer
      Engineer 31 October 2020 19: 29 New
      +4
      Tver separatists strike back laughing

      As a result - through the efforts of Dmitry in the church environment for many years from 1378 to 1390. a mess was spread, which led to a weakening of the position of the Orthodox Church in Lithuania and created the preconditions for the Union of Kreva, with the subsequent Catholicization of Lithuania.

      Moscow has only benefited from this in the long run. The exodus of princes from Lithuania to Moscow was massive
      An excellent reason for Moscow to intervene in Lithuanian affairs, supporting the Orthodox Olgerdovichs in this struggle, especially since Keistut is dead

      There was something that was already there. Made the prince
      Just a catastrophic political defeat, the price of which is a continuous chain of wars up to the XNUMXth century.

      Rhetorical exaggeration. Both Moscow and Lithuania were strong and stable enough not to fall from the poke. Confrontation was inevitable anyway.

      thanks to Dmitry's policy, the Horde became united again

      No.
      Watching timing
      The conflict with Mamai began no later than 1376
      Tokhtamysh at that moment was groveling in Samarkand in front of one lame Turk. Nobody knew him
      To assume that this loser on the third attempt would capture the White Horde, and then the Golden Horde, no one could then

      Dmitry did not undertake, instead unleashing a war with Ryazan, which he lost in one wicket and was forced to ask for peace from Oleg Ryazansky.

      Well done Ryazan, they beat the Muscovites. Who is Kolomna behind?)
      And what happened after Oleg, and when Ryazan became the object of the policy of the Moscow-Lithuania-Horde triangle?)
      If Dmitry really tried to streamline the issues of succession to the throne, these troubles most likely would not have happened
      .
      Even if he did not order it, it is not Dmitry who is to blame for the Great Feudal War.

      Have I forgotten anything?

      Forgot the most important thing:
      1.As a result of the reign of the unsuccessful prince, the Great Table in Vladimir was not only retained by Moscow, but was not contested for 50 years.
      2. Tver has ceased to be a competitor to Moscow. Forever and ever. The rejection of any claims to the Vladimir reign meant that its absorption was only a matter of time
      3. Ryazan has ceased to be a competitor to Moscow. Forever and ever. Yes, yes, and the world after Perevitsk was "more honorable than profitable" for Ryazan, I will use the words of the master, although they were said on another occasion.
      4. Repulsed the most powerful onslaught of ON in history. Olgerd was really stronger than Moscow, but she resisted. And this is also the merit of the prince.

      Dmitry collected and drove races unthinkable for his predecessors and even descendants. What speaks about his authority. This medal also had a downside - he believed too much in the power solution of problems. That often came out sideways. We justly criticize him for this.
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 31 October 2020 23: 13 New
        0
        There is something to argue about, but I'll be tomorrow. Saturday evening ... smile
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 1 November 2020 13: 51 New
        +2
        Well, I got to your comment, Denis. smile hi
        There are objections on almost every point.
        Quote: Engineer
        Moscow has only benefited from this in the long run. The exodus of princes from Lithuania to Moscow was massive

        Did I understand correctly that, in your opinion, the Catholicization of Lithuania was beneficial for Moscow? That the reception of Orthodox Lithuanian emigrants compensated for the need to fight for the lands they had abandoned?
        Quote: Engineer
        Rhetorical exaggeration.

        Do you disagree with the fact that the Krevsk Union was the beginning of the formation of the Commonwealth - one of the most consistent and strong opponents of Russia, right up to the XNUMXth century?
        Quote: Engineer
        The conflict with Mamai began no later than 1376
        Tokhtamysh at that moment was groveling in Samarkand in front of one lame Turk. Nobody knew him

        Why Tokhtamysh? And before Tokhtamysh there were applicants, and after him there would have been ... There was such a Khan Murad (or Murut), a capable ruler ... It began to grow stronger - Moscow supported Mamai - Murad died. There were a lot of applicants for the Sarai in the steppe - choose whoever you want. The main thing is to maintain a balance so that no one wins completely. Tokhtamysh became what we know only because Russia, with the hands of Dmitry, cleared the way for him. Don't get hung up on it.
        Quote: Engineer
        Well done Ryazan, they beat the Muscovites. Who is Kolomna behind?)

        Moscow started the war with Ryazan and with his victory Oleg for a long time discouraged her from repeating this experience. A clean victory for Ryazan.
        Quote: Engineer
        Dmitry is not to blame for the Great Feudal War.

        Not Dmitry. But it is also not necessary to say that he established a new order of succession to the throne. He did not do anything in this matter either.
        Quote: Engineer
        1.As a result of the reign of the unsuccessful prince, the Great Table in Vladimir was not only retained by Moscow, but was not contested for 50 years.
        2. Tver has ceased to be a competitor to Moscow. Forever and ever. The rejection of any claims to the Vladimir reign meant that its absorption was only a matter of time

        Oh is it? The great table has survived, but in a somewhat curtailed version: two more were formed - Tverskoy and Ryazan, not accountable to Moscow. Tver as early as 1382 made claims to the great reign. The "question of time" dragged on for Tver for a hundred years, and for Ryazan for a hundred and fifty years. smile
        Quote: Engineer
        Repulsed the most powerful onslaught of the ON in history. Olgerd was really stronger than Moscow, but she resisted. And this is also the merit of the prince.

        Question: why was Olgerd stronger than Moscow? Is it because Moscow was weak under Dmitry? smile With Moscow, under the leadership of Simeon the Proud, Olgerd did not behave like that. There was even no talk of invasions into the territory of the Moscow principality, but under Dmitry - please. At least three times. smile
        Quote: Engineer
        Dmitry collected and drove races unthinkable for his predecessors and even descendants.

        Once. And this was, in many respects, not yet completely wasted legacy of the late Metropolitan Alexy. More Dmitry did nothing. The authority he inherited from his mentor was destroyed by Tokhtamysh in 1382 and Oleg in 1385.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 1 November 2020 14: 26 New
          -1
          Did I understand correctly that, in your opinion, the Catholicization of Lithuania was beneficial for Moscow?

          Absolutely right.
          In a situation where Lithuania had already taken possession of many Russian lands, this delimitation gave Moscow a clear ideological advantage. Moscow is the defender and pillar of Orthodoxy
          Do you disagree with the fact that the Krevsk Union was the beginning of the formation of the Commonwealth - one of the most consistent and strong opponents of Russia, right up to the XNUMXth century?

          I agree. But an Orthodox or tolerant Lithuania with freedom of conscience is Moscow's worst nightmare. See above. And so nice. More on beauty. ... For the Orthodox faith ... Go ahead, beat the papists ... Moscow is the third Rome, .. It's better not to come up with it. The war has already been won ideologically.
          Moscow started the war with Ryazan and with his victory Oleg for a long time discouraged her from repeating this experience. A clean victory for Ryazan.

          The victory is clear. Muscovites are to blame. And no sense. Whose Kolomna ?. And Ryazan is already heading for this very thing. The fight for resources is de facto lost.
          But it is also not necessary to say that he established a new order of succession to the throne.

          Nobody argues. And kicking Samsonov is unsportsmanlike tongue

          Oh is it? The great table has survived, but in a somewhat curtailed version: two more were formed - Tverskoy and Ryazan, not accountable to Moscow. Tver as early as 1382 made claims to the great reign. The "question of time" dragged on for Tver for a hundred years, and for Ryazan for a hundred and fifty years.

          And they were unaccountable anyway. And after Dmitry, Tver did not show anything. The presentation box fell off. Forever and ever . And the "question of time" should be asked to the stupid heirs who had Dmitry's ambition, but not his military abilities.
          Question: why was Olgerd stronger than Moscow? Is it because Moscow was weak under Dmitry? smile With Moscow under the leadership of Simeon the Proud Olgerd did not behave like that. There was even no talk of invasions into the territory of the Moscow principality, but under Dmitry - please. At least three times.

          Ai dissemble. It was not Simeon who was cool, and Olgerd had not matured yet. In 1345 he just sat down
          If Simeon knew what kind of rats Dmitry would drive, he would not have died of plague, but of envy, judging by his character
          And the war with Tver and Lithuania was started not by Dmitry, but by your beloved Alexey. Dmitry in 1368 was 17-18 years old. And it was the Metropolitan who did the nasty combination
          And Dmitry won the war with Lithuania and Tver. It was he

          Once. And this was, in many respects, not yet completely wasted legacy of the late Metropolitan Alexy. More Dmitry did nothing. The authority he inherited from his mentor was destroyed by Tokhtamysh in 1382 and Oleg in 1385.


          Ai dissemble. At least three. The first time .... Yes, yes, to her, darling wink
          And where can you find out about the collapse of authority ??
      3. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 1 November 2020 13: 52 New
        0
        Well, I got to your comment, Denis. smile hi
        There are objections on almost every point.
        Quote: Engineer
        Moscow has only benefited from this in the long run. The exodus of princes from Lithuania to Moscow was massive

        Did I understand correctly that, in your opinion, the Catholicization of Lithuania was beneficial for Moscow? That the reception of Orthodox Lithuanian emigrants compensated for the need to fight for the lands they had abandoned?
        Quote: Engineer
        Rhetorical exaggeration.

        Do you disagree with the fact that the Krevsk Union was the beginning of the formation of the Commonwealth - one of the most consistent and strong opponents of Russia, right up to the XNUMXth century?
        Quote: Engineer
        The conflict with Mamai began no later than 1376
        Tokhtamysh at that moment was groveling in Samarkand in front of one lame Turk. Nobody knew him

        Why Tokhtamysh? And before Tokhtamysh there were applicants, and after him there would have been ... There was such a Khan Murad (or Murut), a capable ruler ... It began to grow stronger - Moscow supported Mamai - Murad died. There were a lot of applicants for the Sarai in the steppe - choose whoever you want. The main thing is to maintain a balance so that no one wins completely. Tokhtamysh became what we know only because Russia, with the hands of Dmitry, cleared the way for him. Don't get hung up on it.
        Quote: Engineer
        Well done Ryazan, they beat the Muscovites. Who is Kolomna behind?)

        Moscow started the war with Ryazan and with his victory Oleg for a long time discouraged her from repeating this experience. A clean victory for Ryazan.
        Quote: Engineer
        Dmitry is not to blame for the Great Feudal War.

        Not Dmitry. But it is also not necessary to say that he established a new order of succession to the throne. He did not do anything in this matter either.
        Quote: Engineer
        1.As a result of the reign of the unsuccessful prince, the Great Table in Vladimir was not only retained by Moscow, but was not contested for 50 years.
        2. Tver has ceased to be a competitor to Moscow. Forever and ever. The rejection of any claims to the Vladimir reign meant that its absorption was only a matter of time

        Oh is it? The great table has survived, but in a somewhat curtailed version: two more were formed - Tverskoy and Ryazan, not accountable to Moscow. Tver as early as 1382 made claims to the great reign. The "question of time" dragged on for Tver for a hundred years, and for Ryazan for a hundred and fifty years. smile
        Quote: Engineer
        Repulsed the most powerful onslaught of the ON in history. Olgerd was really stronger than Moscow, but she resisted. And this is also the merit of the prince.

        Question: why was Olgerd stronger than Moscow? Is it because Moscow was weak under Dmitry? smile With Moscow, under the leadership of Simeon the Proud, Olgerd did not behave like that. There was even no talk of invasions into the territory of the Moscow principality, but under Dmitry - please. At least three times. smile
        Quote: Engineer
        Dmitry collected and drove races unthinkable for his predecessors and even descendants.

        Once. And this was, in many respects, not yet completely wasted legacy of the late Metropolitan Alexy. More Dmitry did nothing. The authority he inherited from his mentor was destroyed by Tokhtamysh in 1382 and Oleg in 1385.
    4. Astra wild2
      Astra wild2 31 October 2020 20: 05 New
      +1
      , Michael, hello. I have already noticed that you know and love the history of princely strife
    5. vladcub
      vladcub 31 October 2020 21: 43 New
      +1
      "According to the foliage law, I could not claim the Great Reign" for you, I could not, and Samsonova everything is possible, but if the facts are opposite. So it is their fault and Samsonov will forget them. What he often does
  7. Ua3qhp
    Ua3qhp 31 October 2020 17: 04 New
    +4
    In general, this is a strange three-hundred-year yoke. The "subordinate" principalities have armies of many thousands, stone fortresses, firearms of all stripes. Tribute is paid if they can take it away. They went on a raid, if it turned out they collected a tribute, it didn't work out, it came in the face, well, we'll collect it later.
  8. vladcub
    vladcub 31 October 2020 21: 16 New
    +1
    "he designed the classical (prozapodnu) version of history", but nothing that Pushkin called Karamzin: "Father of Russian history." Klyuchevsky and Soloviev studied with Karamzin and for some reason kept silent about the fact that Karamzin was "the wrong story", and Stalin's Karamzin was in the library. Probably Fomenko was needed.?
  9. ee2100
    ee2100 31 October 2020 22: 48 New
    +3
    This article, and most importantly the comments to it, once again showed that history is only an instrument in the hands of the ruling class.
    Today he is a hero, and tomorrow he is a "loser prince".
    And after that, calling it science is somehow strange.
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 1 November 2020 06: 56 New
      +3
      Well, in general, yes, official propaganda, like it or not, even affects historians. But besides, historians have new data, sources, excavations, they draw new conclusions, etc. And of course, in terms of credibility, history is not a good spot for physics, for example. Historians, of course, will be offended, but alas, the specifics cannot be verified by experiment, statistics cannot be collected.
      1. Hantengri
        Hantengri 1 November 2020 08: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: Kwas
        And of course, in terms of credibility, history is not a good spot for physics, for example. Historians, of course, will be offended, but alas, the specifics cannot be verified by experiment, statistics cannot be collected.

        There are sciences: natural, unnatural and unnatural ... laughing
    2. Hantengri
      Hantengri 1 November 2020 09: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: ee2100
      This article, and most importantly the comments to it, once again showed that history is only an instrument in the hands of the ruling class.
      Today he is a hero, and tomorrow he is a "loser prince".
      And after that, calling it science is somehow strange.

      You should not confuse history as a science and an ideologically sustained brew from it, intended for feeding the plebs.
      After all, each historical event is so multifaceted and, often, ambiguous, that it is possible, without changing the factology, to obtain the desired propaganda effect, just by placing the accents "correctly".
      1. ee2100
        ee2100 1 November 2020 13: 11 New
        +2
        "After all, each historical event is so multifaceted and, often, ambiguous that it is possible, without changing the factology, to obtain the desired propaganda effect, simply by" correctly "placing the accents."
        And I mean it. Today, the authorities are pleased with one figure, another power came and ordered the historians to reconsider the opposite, and the "historians" happily ran to fulfill the order in the light of the "newly discovered" facts. am
        1. Niel-le-Calais
          Niel-le-Calais 2 November 2020 10: 46 New
          -1
          Quote: ee2100
          Today, the authorities are pleased with one figure, another power came and ordered the historians to reconsider the opposite, and the "historians" happily ran to fulfill the order in the light of the "newly discovered" facts

          the official version of what happened and unofficial at the moment (even persecuted and infuriating the "righteous anger" of the official fans)
          History as a subject in schools is the most deceitful subject in all education.
          And the simplest for the instincts of young people used for their own purposes. Brains are fragile, instincts are stronger. In general, trusting the history textbook of any country is a crime against the truth and history itself.
          1. ee2100
            ee2100 2 November 2020 15: 22 New
            0
            No one knows what drove the participants in historical events and how it really happened.
            Some historians admit that, as they agreed, they interpret a certain historical event and very often it is torn out of chronology.
            History is second only to religion in terms of reliability.
            Do you really live in France?