Where did the great Mongols go?

152

Nomads. Parking in the steppe. Miniature of the XNUMXth century. Topkapi Museum. Istanbul.

After the departure of the Mongols from China under the pressure of the Ming troops, which we wrote about in previous articles, as often happens, strife began in the camp of the losers.

About historical sources


For the previous period of the Mongolian stories we had, although not so many, but enough historical sources (chronicles, chronicles, descriptions). For example, in the Russian chronicles, entries about the Mongol invasion are extremely lapidary in nature, and much that “experts” like to talk about is the fruit of the work of historians who reconstructed events and nothing more.



With the death of the Yuan empire in China, Mongolian history again became peripheral.

In Chinese sources, she took the same place that she occupied before the creation of the Yuan empire. That is, the Mongols were interested in the Chinese in so far as.

And many events of this history are restored by professional historians according to sources - records of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, created, most likely, from oral stories.

Given the fact that oral retelling has its own specifics, and its authenticity needs to be checked and rechecked, then, accordingly, the history of this period is quite fragmentary.

Here is an example.

In the comments on VO to one of the articles on the Mongols, my skeptical remark about the "Buryat scientists" aroused indignation.

The fact is that there really are Buryat sources on the early history of the Mongols, but ... these are oral stories recorded in the second half of the XNUMXth century, and this source naturally raises questions.

Where is the grain of truth, transmitted after several hundred years, which is already problematic in itself?

And where is the mental processing of the knowledge acquired by storyteller grandmothers in the Soviet school in history lessons?

In our work, we relied on professional research of historical sources that have come down to us for this period.

In 1378, the great khan or khan, emperor Ayushiridara or Biligtu (1338–1378), who was born in Yuan, died when the Mongols ruled the entire territory of China. He left to his heir an empire called the Northern Yuan.

His successor was Togus Temur or Tegus-Temur (1342-1388), brother or, according to some sources, son of Ayushiridar.

"Nomadic Empire" and the structure of society


The attempts of the Mongols, which we already wrote about in VO, to regain power over the agricultural territory were unsuccessful.

The nomadic structure of the Mongolian state, like other similar but smaller nomadic empires, was completely parasitic in nature with an appropriating type of economy.


Mongol. Chinese drawing of the XNUMXth century. This is how the Mongol warriors looked like in the view of the Chinese artist. Here there are both hypertrophied elements of weapons and traditional elements of Chinese weapons. At least as they have been portrayed since the Tang Dynasty.

The maintenance of the population of nomadic unions was possible only through war, if possible, to carry out exo-exploitation in the form of tributes to the “unable”, as they were defined by the ancient Russian chronicles, raids and robbery.

The parasitic military superstructure of the Yuan Empire was confirmed by erosion as early as the middle of the Yuan Dynasty.

Wars, due to the fact that expansion ran into its natural limits and was directed at poor (compared to the Chinese empires) countries, brought significantly less income.

The costs associated with preparing for battles and maintaining troops exceeded income, which had never happened before in the history of Mongol campaigns. They were no match for the wars against the Chinese empires and states in the west, which brought much more profit.

And the parasitic use of the income received, the absolutely consumer type of nomadic society at this stage of development, quickly absorbed them.

As an example, I have repeatedly cited a situation when, upon returning from a western campaign (!) Genghis Khan needed an urgent campaign against Jin, due to the fact that everything captured had already been spent or disposed of.

After the expulsion of the Mongols from China, the situation in the parasitic society worsened dramatically.

The new Ming empire took active actions against the Mongols: there were constant campaigns in the steppe, the defense line was strengthened, military settlements were created, the Ming contributed to civil strife among the Mongols.

And the capture of routes to Turkestan cut off Mongolia from the western trade routes.

Troubles


The great khan, or rather khan, Togus Temur was poisoned by his nuker, he was replaced by Enkhe-Dzorigtu (1359–1392), and after him in 1393 his younger brother Elbeg (Elbeg-Nigulesugchi, 1361–1399), who was khan in the period of wars with the Ming and the fierce civil strife of the Mongol clans.

Despite the fact that in such difficult conditions he pursued a policy of appeasement, for which he received the nickname Merciful, he could not extinguish the strife, and Mongolia split into two parts: eastern and western.

He also killed the Oirat, Western Khagan Khudhai-Taya. Although the reason for the murder, which the Yellow History writes about, was the contention around the beautiful wife of the great khan, who took her from his brother, killing him.

After that, the wife avenged her husband, telling the Great Khagan that Khudhai-Tayu tried to take possession of her:

“The khan set off in pursuit. Huhai shot off the khan's finger. [Khagan] killed Huhay-dai, took off his skin and gave it to Goa-beiji [wife].”

And his sons were accepted into the service, and they were instructed to manage the alliance of the Western Mongols-Oirats.

In 1399, Elbeg khan was killed by the sons of Khudhai-Tayu, the Oirat Monke-Timur ascended the throne, but he, in turn, was killed by the noyons, returning the throne in 1400 to Elbeg’s brother, Gun Timur or Oldzei Temur Khan (1377–1402). .):

"After that, the Mongols lived in peace for some time and arranged their lives."

He was killed in 1402.

In 1403, the throne was seized by Ugechi-khaskha or Guilichi (Ugechi Khashigu or Orug Temur-khan), who killed Elbeg khan. He liquidated the Yuan dynasty, with which he had no connection, and proclaimed the Dadan Empire.

But his reign was short-lived.

Buniyashiri or Uldzei-Temur (Ului-Temur, 1379-1410), the second son of Elbeg, regained power for a short time, restoring the Northern Yuan. His associate, Aruktai, who was once a slave to the Oirats, contributed to the strengthening of the khan.

He was succeeded by his brother, Delbag (Dalbe, 1395–1415).

In the Ming Empire


While the Ming strengthened its position.

After the threat from the “great lame” Timur to China, his son preferred to establish trade relations with the Celestial Empire.

But in Dadan, the Chinese saw a potential threat, so the emperor-commander Zhu Di (Yong-le) himself went on a campaign against them in 1409. He defeated the taisha Arugtai. But did not solve the Mongolian problem.

Zhu Di again invaded Mongolia in 1420, but Arugtai migrated to the north, avoiding the battle with the Mins.

Soon the emperor-commander died of a heart attack during the next campaign against the Mongols in the Gobi desert in 1424. Like a true warrior, he could not bear the fact that the enemies fled and did not allow him to show his prowess on them.

He was succeeded by his son Zhu Gaochi, who soon died, and his son Zhu Qizhen (Ying or Mingzong) ascended the throne in 1425. He was very young, although he had already taken part in the campaign of his great grandfather, the commander Zhu Di.

Taking advantage of his youth, the eunuch Wang Zheng actually seized power in the Ming.

Where did the great Mongols go?
Statue on the tomb of Emperor Zhu Di. Changping area. Beijing.

Strengthening of the Oirats


In 1425, Arugtai installed Adai Khan (1425–1436) on the khan's throne.

He decided to take advantage of the strife in the Oirat alliance, defeated them together with Adai Khan, capturing his grandson Khudhai-Taya.

In revenge for the fact that he was a servant in captivity of the Oirats, he performed a rite on the boy, turning him into a servant too:

“He is a descendant of enemies! They forced me, Arugtai-taishi, to wear a basket-arug and therefore gave such a name!” [Arugtai], having put Bahama under an overturned togon cauldron, gave him the name Togon and made him a servant.”

After that, Togon began to graze the sheep of Arugtai, and then was released. The leader of the Vala tribe, after some time he gathered an army of Oirats.

The Chinese continued the traditional policy of "divide and rule", supporting the Western and Eastern Mongols, and the Mongols (1428) and Oirats (1431 and 1434) carried out war-raids on the borders of China.

The grown-up Togon claimed that the Mongols live carelessly and are not ready for war.

The Oirats attacked in 1434 and ended with the defeat of the Eastern Mongols: Arugtai was killed.

And in 1438 Toghon also killed Adai Khan. Togon became taishi, and he elevated to the khan's throne through the election of Daisun (or Taisun) khan (Togtoga-Bukh) at the kurultai (1439–1452).

His successor as taishi was his son Esen (1407–1454) under the great khan Daisun.

But Esen pursued an independent policy. Both the interests and positions of Daisun and Esen often did not coincide.

Mongolian power is back?


Esen abruptly changed the policy towards China.

He was able to temporarily unite all the warring tribal associations of the Mongols.

The requirements for the Ming Empire were not global, but rather standard for China's relationship with the "barbarians": trade and permanent embassies with merchants in the Celestial Empire.

On the Chinese side, the mechanism to ban trade with nomads has always played an important role. On the part of the nomads, the choice was simple: if it is impossible to get what you need by exchange, then by war.

By the way, the same trade expeditions were made by the Rus to the agricultural empire of Byzantium.

But the nomads would not have been nomads, they, of course, went in huge numbers to the embassy, ​​since according to the rules of etiquette it was necessary to give gifts to all those who arrived.

So, by the way, both the Tatars in Russia and the Crimean Khan acted. In 1448, 3 "ambassadors" arrived, and the Chinese refused to supply all of them with gifts.

Esen, who believed that he now had enough strength, decided to strike at the farmers using this excuse.

Of course, there could be no question of conquering the Ming Empire, it was just a raid of all the Mongols for booty and preferences.

But who knows how things can turn out in a war?

So, three columns of Oirats moved to China, Esen moved to Datum (modern Shanxi province), where he defeated the 40th Ming army.

Zhu Qizhen (Ying Zong) (1439–1449), the grandson and great-grandson of the warrior-emperors, did not possess military talents himself.

But on the advice of the all-powerful eunuch Wang Zheng, he personally led the army. A huge army was recruited in the south, and without any preparation moved north. Wang Zheng, who profited from supplies to the army, in reality did not provide her with food on the way.


Chinese cavalry. A still from the contemporary series "Empress Ming".

The campaign was organized as a parade, Wang Zheng and Zhu Qizhen thought that the northern barbarians, seeing huge forces in armor and with banners, would scatter.

Despite reports from the head of the department of astronomy that the stars did not favor success, the emperor continued to move.

In addition, in the month of August, a terrible bad weather began. The same bad weather as before the arrival of Genghis Khan in Jin.

But Wang Zheng drove the troops forward, since he and his relatives had land holdings in the Datum district.

The Mongols defeated the Chinese vanguard and beat the approaching troops in parts.

Members of the government tried to beg the emperor to sit out the bad weather with the army behind the walls of the fortified Xuanfu, but the "first" minister forced them to kneel all day and did not allow them to the emperor. The chancellor of the academy offered to kill the usurper eunuch, but there were no daredevils.

And the hungry army in the most inclement weather walked along the road, littered with the corpses of recently dead comrades. A black cloud appeared in the sky, in such conditions the nerves of the soldiers could not stand it, and they began to retreat.

An attempt to make the withdrawal more or less orderly ran into resistance from Wang Zheng, who was afraid that the troops would pass through his lands and devastate them. He himself invited the emperor to rest in his estate.

During the retreat, it rained endlessly, when the army built a camp for a halt, a black cloud rose over the camp again, and light remained around it.

On this day, a message came that the Oirat-Mongolian army had defeated the rearguard and was on its heels. The new army sent to the rearguard was defeated by the Oirats.


Chinese cannon XV century. Beijing History Museum. China. Photo of the author.

The army had the only salvation - to go beyond the Great Wall of China.

But even here, as is often the case in history, where there is no place for formal logic, chance intervened.

Tumubao Incident or Battle


The army went out into the desert zone, where the rain had stopped.

At the Tumubao (or Tuma) postal station near the city of Huailai, the army was now without water, Wang Zheng did not have time to evacuate his property, so he forced the troops to wait for the arrival of his convoy.

And instead of the wagon train, steppe warriors arrived.

Esen quickly orientated himself in the situation, cutting off the Chinese from the only source of water, the river. When trying to break through to it, the Mongols defeated part of the army and attacked the camp.

On September 1, 1449, Zhu Qizhen and Wang Zheng tried to break through, but the Mongols drove them back to their camp.

Wang Zheng was shaking with fear, as he was found by the commander of the Tumubao garrison Fang Zhong, who killed the hated usurper with a club.

The Mongols urged the soldiers to surrender and immediately killed them.

During the general panic, all the commanders and all the top dignitaries of the Ming were killed.

The rain of arrows swept away everything in its path. And the emperor sat down on the ground and began to expect death.
Thus was born the legend of Emperor Ming's immortality.

But he was captured and taken to Esen, who was speechless from unexpected luck.


Forbidden City built during the reign of the first Ming emperors. Beijing. China. Photo of the author.

But Esen was not only speechless.

After the complete defeat of the huge Ming army, the path to the capital Beijing was completely free. In the battle (or rather, the beating), all the main dignitaries of the Chinese state were killed, and there was no one to defend the capital.

Esen did not take advantage of this, but having plundered the surroundings, he went north, where he began to expect the Chinese embassy.

The Ming army was led by Yu Cang, who at the military council spoke in favor of cutting off the heads of all cowards and fugitives from the ranks of the army. His proposal was supported.

The Chinese put things in order, fortified the capital, and declined a fantastic ransom for the emperor. Moreover, as they say, a holy place is never empty and there are no irreplaceable rulers either.

They became Cheng Zhu Qiying.

In October 1449, having lost precious time, Esen approached Beijing; in the battle for Beijing, the Chinese massively used artillery. The Oirat commander Monokhai and the younger brother of Esen died from the core, the nomads were unable to break through the defenses, and after the shelling from artillery and siege weapons, the cavalry of the empire went on the attack.

Esen began to retreat, his attempt to reorganize the troops failed, and there was a wholesale flight of the Oirats.


Bronze cannon (da junjunpao). National Museum. Beijing. China.

In March 1450, he launched another attack on Beijing, but it was unsuccessful. Esen was forced to release the emperor and conclude a mutually beneficial trade agreement.

Various sources tell in different ways about how the emperor lived in captivity, but all report miracles associated with him: some say that he favorably influenced the life of the Oirats, others say that, on the contrary, it rained and there were endless storms and death.

Soon the emperor returned to China. The superstitious nomads quickly released the powerful lord with honors.

I already wrote in an article on VO dedicated to the creation of the empire of the Yuan dynasty by Khubilai that it was common for the medieval mentality to deify rulers and attribute supernatural properties to them.

As for the deterioration of weather conditions, they really took place during this period: from China to the West, in 1453 the same “signs” were before the fall of Constantinople.

But in Mongolia, new problems were brewing. And they were also associated with the luck of the leader.

Esen did not manage to take advantage of the captive emperor in any way, he could not bring the benefits that both the Oirats and the Mongols expected from him.

In the steppe, the right to leadership had to be constantly confirmed by deeds, after not very successful campaigns in the southern direction, the great Khagan Daisun decided to finally put an end to dual power in the Mongolian steppe.

So in 1454, the troops of the western and eastern Mongols met.

Yellow Story says:

“Two armies began to fight each other. Then the two armies formed a circle. [The Mongols] chose and put up a descendant of Khasar Bagatur Shigustei, the Oirats, the Hariyad Guilinchi-Bagatur. Shigustei put on a two-layered (80) shell, and strengthened the belly on the liver. Guilinchi put on a two-layer helmet. They met in a duel between two armies. Guilinchi fired and pierced through a two-layer shell with an underbelly.

But the Oirats lured his brother Dayan Khan to their side and defeated him, the Khan died.

And Esen declared himself the "August Great Khagan of the Yuan Dynasty" in 1454. But that didn't help him much.

The Mongolian tribes, as it were, returned to the period that was before Genghis Khan was able to unite them, placing supra-tribal structures above the tribes and clans.

The specifics of economic activity constantly returned the nomads to the whirlwind of petty tribal grievances and showdowns. The descendants of the Great Khan from the dynasty turned into just a clan. With the loss of the main goal of enrichment through war with the agricultural peoples, the need for concentration of power disappears.

And the lack of resources, which they had already managed to seize once from the weak Tanguts at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, did not make it possible for the tribes to rally to concentrate forces and to capture just these same resources. It turned out a vicious circle.

So, the leader of the right wing of the Oirats came out against Esen and ... defeated him.

The Khagan fled, but was captured by the Mongol Bahu. It was the son of Bukhe-Sorsun, whom Esen had once killed.

The son fully avenged his father by hanging the “khan of the Yuan dynasty” on a tree.

But this is not the end of the story.

To be continued ...
152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    29 January 2022 05: 00
    It is difficult to remember most of the names without colliding systematically. Cauldrons with baskets give a thread. I also liked the habit of visiting with a large embassy.

    Maybe even now to find out where gifts are distributed, and we will find partners.
    1. -5
      29 January 2022 05: 26
      I do not trust anyone, especially "historians". The whole story is completely false.
      1. +12
        29 January 2022 05: 36
        Quote: Aerodrome
        I do not trust anyone, especially "historians". The whole story is completely false.


        Well, as one writer said: if you remove all the lies from the story, this does not mean that only the truth remains. As a result, there may be nothing at all.
        1. +12
          29 January 2022 14: 33
          Most people tend to confuse the science of history and its distorted portrayal by politicians, publicists and novelists. Apparently, this writer also had difficulty distinguishing science from all this.
          1. -1
            29 January 2022 17: 35
            Let me disagree with you. History is not made, history is written. Take any country and you will see that the history, even the latest one, is different for all countries.
            1. +11
              29 January 2022 17: 49
              Quote: Carat
              History is not made, history is written.

              This aphorism was invented by those who retroactively try to change history. In general, history is not written, but studied. Feel the difference?
              1. +2
                29 January 2022 18: 01
                Feel. Please answer one question: what is the number of Batu Khan's troops during the invasion of Russian lands? At least approximately. While history is a science, the answer should ideally be accurate.
                1. +2
                  29 January 2022 21: 06
                  Approximately 120-140 thousand people. But this number does not reflect the number of "sabers", because the Mongol army at the time of the start of the Western campaign is a rather complex structure.
                2. +3
                  29 January 2022 21: 20
                  While history is a science, the answer should ideally be accurate.
                  What is science in general?
                3. +3
                  29 January 2022 22: 01
                  Quote: Carat

                  Feel. Please answer one question: what is the number of Batu Khan's troops during the invasion of Russian lands? At least approximately.

                  What degree of approximation would suit you?

                  Quote: Carat
                  While history is a science, the answer should ideally be accurate.

                  You know, astrophysics is, oddly enough, also a science. And it has such a problem, for example, how to determine the nature of the secondary density maximum in clusters of galaxies.
                  Will it suit you if the accuracy with which you can answer the question about "the number of Batu Khan's troops" is the same as, at the present level of knowledge, you can judge the nature of the nuances of the large-scale structure of the Universe?
                  If yes, please let me know. Do not be shy. I will tell you how to calculate these Mongols with a given accuracy, honestly! Even formula. for calculations, I will provide! laughing
                4. +6
                  29 January 2022 23: 48
                  Hello.
                  Tell me, what to do next with this exact amount? What are the conclusions? Lot? Few?
                  So for these conclusions absolute values ​​are not needed.
                  If you are one, and there are five enemies, then there are many enemies. If your forces are a thousand, and the enemy is five thousand - again, there are many enemies. This can be continued. That is, it is necessary to operate with relative values. Compare immediately with the forces that our princes could put up.
                5. +2
                  30 January 2022 11: 11
                  Quote: Carat
                  Please answer one question: what is the number of Batu Khan's troops

                  Are you talking about how this number decreases over time? From half a million in the XVIII century. up to thirty thousand in XXI? smile
                  History, like any science, develops, improving its tools and refining knowledge. In any science, examples of errors or misconceptions can be given, which were later abandoned, replacing them with more perfect and reliable knowledge - why history should be an exception and why only the historian is "lie" and "hidden", while mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists and others just honestly wrong?
                  According to modern estimates, the total number of Batu troops, as a colleague has already answered you, is about 130 thousand horsemen in total. Some of them were involved in the Middle Volga, in Bulgaria, which was not yet completely conquered, part of Batu was forced to leave in the steppe in the south, since the Polovtsians were also not completely conquered. About seven tumens took part directly in the capture of Ryazan at the beginning of the invasion, about four in the battle of Kolomna (part of the troops had to remain to cover from a possible Russian counterattack from the Kiev-Chernigov region, two tumens from these particular forces later came to the aid of Batu under Kozelsky), and further this number was constantly decreasing after each skirmish and due to sanitary losses.
                  Will such an answer satisfy you? smile
                  1. +2
                    31 January 2022 10: 40
                    Directly in the capture of Ryazan at the beginning of the invasion, about seven tumens participated

                    Anyway, a huge number in those days ... belay
                    1. +1
                      31 January 2022 11: 20
                      At the time the invasion began, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality - by far the strongest at that time in Russia - according to calculations, could put no more than ten thousand soldiers into the field, counting not only princely and boyar squads, but also city militias.
                      Such a squad, of course, would easily scatter an army through the bushes, for example, Svyatoslav Igorevich, with whom he went to the Khazars, or the combined army of Yaroslav and Mstislav, who fought each other near Listven in 1023.
                      But Russia had no chance against the Mongol Empire. Even if all the Russian lands united and put in the field, well, let’s say twenty thousand people, against Batu’s army, which is five times larger than the total Russian army (which was never assembled), and in terms of mobility and controllability I’m afraid to even guess how much , there was no chance of repelling the invasion.
                      Theoretically, Batu's army, along with himself, could even be covered and completely destroyed near Kozelsk - it still would not change anything.
                      The forces were simply incomparable.
                      1. +3
                        31 January 2022 11: 36
                        Theoretically, Batu's army, along with himself, could even be covered and completely destroyed near Kozelsk - it still would not change anything.
                        The forces were simply incomparable.

                        To destroy near Kozelsk, you would need very strong luck, and a military genius commander ...
                        It turns out that there really was no chance.
                      2. +1
                        31 January 2022 12: 20
                        Luck? No, it seems to me. Still, the company against Suzdal was planned by Batu with errors, despite all his intelligence and organization. He was too late in the north and did not have time to return before the thaw. It didn't take a genius to exploit this mistake. Yes, and there were talented commanders in Russia - the same Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, although as a military leader there weren’t enough stars from the sky, he would have coped with such a task. In the south sat a young and energetic Daniil Romanovich, the future Galitsky, also an experienced warrior by that time. The second one certainly could have tried to gather at least a couple of thousand soldiers and cover Bata near Kozelsk before the arrival of Kadan and Storm. I think the sick, hungry and horseless Mongols could not oppose him.
                        But ...
                        At the time of the arrival of the Mongols, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was sitting in Kiev with his own retinue of three hundred people (the people of Kiev refused to go with him to help Suzdal), and his main forces were in his fiefdom and, most likely, died in the battle of Kolomna. Daniil, on the other hand, spent all his strength in the fight against Mikhail Chernigov in that terrible strife that they unleashed ten years before the arrival of the Mongols because of Kiev and Galich, mutually exhausting each other. They could not recognize the Mongol threat, at least temporarily reconcile and unite.
                        There was also Smolensk land, but there, just on the eve of the Mongol invasion, a feud broke out between Smolensk proper and Polotsk, so that a year later Smolensk was already captured by the Lithuanians, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich recaptured it ...
                        So we have a picture: Chernigov, Volyn, Kiev and Galich are exhausted to the limit by a long ten-year strife, in which they squandered all the strength not only of their own, but also of their neighbors - Hungarians with Poles, Smolensk is mired in strife that has just begun, Suzdal is defeated, Novgorod, taking the opportunity , as usual, he sent everyone to hell, like "my hut is on the edge" ... There was simply no one and nothing to fight the Mongols with ...
                        However, even if Batu died along with the army near Kozelsk, this would not change anything.
                        Well, let's say, in the City, Yuri would have managed to survive and save the army. Suppose the Mongols did not find it. By the beginning of March, quite a decent contingent would have gathered there, and this contingent would set off in pursuit of Batu. Naturally, I would have lagged behind, this is understandable. But Batu was stuck near Kozelsk for six weeks. They could easily catch up. Well, if they had caught up without wandering along the road, then the matter for the Mongols this time could well have ended very badly.
                      3. +3
                        31 January 2022 15: 04
                        Quote: Pane Kohanku
                        It turns out that there really was no chance.

                        There was no maximum of some local success. hi
                      4. +3
                        31 January 2022 12: 17
                        Quote: Trilobite Master
                        Even if all Russian lands were united and put in the field,

                        In this case, the Mongols would say thank you for bringing everyone to one place, there is no need to run through the forests after you.
                        Something similar was already on Kalka: if not everyone gathered, then at least it was quite representative. We know the result. hi
                      5. +1
                        31 January 2022 12: 25
                        Absolutely.
                        There was a quite distinct army on Kalka - all of southern Russia and Smolensk, which joined it. The result is known, although it is unlikely that the Mongols had a large numerical advantage in this battle.
                      6. +4
                        31 January 2022 12: 41
                        The result is known, although it is unlikely that the Mongols had a large numerical advantage in this battle.

                        And it was? Some historians believe that the numerical advantage on the Kalka was on the side of the Russian-Polovtsian army.
                      7. +1
                        31 January 2022 13: 14
                        It is hard to say. Two tumens started a campaign, suffered losses... After Kalka, the Mongols defeated the Bulgars, but 4000 people still returned. How many of them were on Kalka? Less than 20000 but more than 4000. smile Suppose, after the defeat, half of the Bulgars survived (there was talk of an ambush, so the losses of the Mongols should have been significant), so after Kalka there were about 8000 of them. What were the losses on Kalka? The defeat of the advance detachment, plus a three-day assault on the camp of Mstislav Kievsky, there must be losses. We will assume that before the start of the battle there were about 10000 of them.
                        Let's look from the other side. twenty thousand Mongols went on a campaign two years earlier, fought several thousand kilometers, crossed the Caucasian mountains. Perhaps they replenished a little in the Black Sea steppes, but quite insignificantly. Considering that during the campaign they did not suffer military defeats, the loss of half of the payroll as a result of small skirmishes, plus sanitary ones, also seems to be quite a normal number. The same ten thousand.
                        Plus or minus. It's all very speculative and hypothetical.
                        How much could the Russians put up?
                        Galich, Volyn, Kiev, Smolensk and Chernigov. There was no militia, only professional equestrian warriors. If each of the listed lands fielded at least a thousand soldiers (which is hardly possible), then there are no more than five thousand Russians. Plus the Polovtsian contingent of unknown numbers. If we assume that there were as many Polovtsians as Russians, then the same 10000 are obtained.
                        That's what it comes out to.
                      8. +3
                        31 January 2022 13: 17
                        If we assume that there were as many Polovtsians as Russians, then the same 10000 are obtained.

                        Usually there is a figure several times larger ...
                        Mikhail, is the exact place of the battle on Kalka known?
                      9. +2
                        31 January 2022 14: 18
                        Nah ... smile
                        Actually, there are disputes about even the river itself - which one is Kalka. That is, there are many versions, but so far nothing has been found, there is no need to talk about establishing a place.
      2. +3
        29 January 2022 06: 35
        Quote: Aerodrome
        I do not trust anyone, especially "historians". The whole story is completely false.

        Especially written, like a stream of consciousness, by farmers. request
      3. +2
        29 January 2022 09: 59
        Quote: Aerodrome
        I do not trust anyone, especially "historians". The whole story is completely false.

        You always need to read such articles "armed" with the Internet and search there, though you may not find anything .....
        1. +1
          30 January 2022 11: 19
          Quote: Grim Reaper
          You always need to read such articles "armed" with the Internet and search there, though you may not find anything ..

          Or get completely confused. The Internet is an unreliable mess that has nothing to do with history or reality. Not historians are sitting on the Internet, but dropouts and charlatans, posing as scientists.
          (And by the way, they're not bad at it.)
      4. +16
        29 January 2022 10: 50
        Quote: Aerodrome
        I do not trust anyone, especially "historians".

        Tell me, who do you mean by "historians". Can you name names, studied works ...
        And then here we have a tradition - to reproach historians with lies and fraud, judging their works from the words of exclusively all sorts of Fomenko, perky and other clowns.
        So what works on history have you been honored to study in order to talk about distrust of historians?
        1. +2
          30 January 2022 11: 26
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          So what works on history have you been honored to study in order to talk about distrust of historians?

          In our country now, anyone who has written any little book considers himself a historian. Even Bushkov writes on historical topics, but at least he says everywhere - "I'm not a historian." But many are not historians, such as Solonin: they consider themselves historians, and create libels about the Great Patriotic War (and not only).
      5. +1
        30 January 2022 11: 02
        Hello, I often meet people who disagree with history.
        I must say that history is a very complex science in which it is easy to get lost and unfortunately it is used for political purposes, but the assertion that the whole history of lies is an erroneous opinion based on ignorance of the object.
        I am not a specialist in medieval history, but I can give an example based on recent events.
        Now there are people who claim, for example, that the Second World War was all lies and the USSR started the war (especially Suvorov's books are cited as evidence). With a deep study of the facts, Suvorov's theory falls apart, for example, when reading books by Churchill, Garth, Schairer, documents and memoirs, for example, Walters about the diplomacy of the 30's, a real picture of events appears, but for this you need to study materials for a long time as in other things and in any science.
        A superficial review can lead to misconceptions and errors, plus political interests, but one cannot deny history as a science and declare it false.
    2. +9
      29 January 2022 08: 55
      "And we, with such mugs,
      Let's take it and let's take it
      To Alice!" (C)
      1. +5
        29 January 2022 09: 53
        “Isn't it time, my friends, for us to take a swing at William, you understand, our Shakespeare?
        - And what?! And let's swing!" (With).
        1. +4
          29 January 2022 09: 59
          "There is no doubt that Othello is better than Iago,
          But both links are the essence of one loop. "(C)
          1. +4
            29 January 2022 11: 07
            “Someday in paradise, where dancing in the sky
            Cheerful swarm of shadows - you crawl to me,
            Thin, calloused, gloomy, large-mouthed, -
            And, envying my aerial jump,
            You will ask: “Dragonfly, let me into the circle!”
            And I will say: “Friend! Go to work!”” (c).
      2. +5
        29 January 2022 11: 04
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        "And we, with such mugs,
        Let's take it and let's take it
        To Alice!" (C)

        "There came people - twelve people, if you can call them people. In size and appearance they are more like trolls than ordinary people." (With)
        1. +4
          29 January 2022 11: 11
          "And nine rings were given to people. Judging by their vile mugs - in vain!" (WITH)
          1. +6
            29 January 2022 11: 22
            And what else should they have faces? If, for twelve snouts, only nine rings were thrown? The most vile faces, you see, were those who did not get the rings. And the rest, looking at the faces of the disadvantaged, realized that, right now, they had problems and also frowned.
            1. +5
              29 January 2022 11: 34
              "Orcs are elves who grew up in depressed neighborhoods" (C)
              1. +1
                30 January 2022 11: 36
                Quote: 3x3zsave
                "Orcs are elves raised in depressed neighborhoods"

                These cannot create, but only destroy. For 2000 years from RH they have not created anything, they have not written great works and paintings, although many of them are not stupid people.
                1. +3
                  30 January 2022 12: 23
                  You are wrong, colleague.
                  In the Middle Ages, full-fledged states existed on the African continent. The ruler of one of them managed to bring down the economy of the Mediterranean and subsequently Europe, simply by making a hajj to Mecca.
  2. +9
    29 January 2022 05: 09
    Interesting article. Thank!
    I love Mongolia for its open spaces, air and blue-blue sky.
    1. +5
      29 January 2022 06: 38
      Quote: mmaxx
      I love Mongolia for its open spaces, air and blue-blue sky.

      Always add - Northern Mongolia! For in the Gobi desert the sky is not entirely blue, and the air is mixed with sand ... If you have been there, you should know.
      Selenga, Kerulen, Small Yenisei... This is very attractive...
      1. +4
        29 January 2022 09: 57
        I don't need to add. Just the Gobi - all mine.
        1. +6
          29 January 2022 10: 16
          Quote: mmaxx
          Just the Gobi - all mine.

          Lord ...
          Sayn-shanda, Sayn-shanda - blue gave!
          We have seen you, Sain-shanda "far away"...
          Greetings from all of our former Choir from the 272nd Motorized Rifle Smolensk Red Banner, Order of Suvorov II Regiment.
          drinks
          1. +8
            29 January 2022 11: 09
            And hello to you from the 51st Tank Division of the 468th Tank Regiment (Bulgan).
            1. +3
              29 January 2022 15: 04
              Recently, with a friend on Wikimapia, we looked at what is there under Bulgan.
              1. +3
                29 January 2022 15: 17
                Everything was looted there. But the places were beautiful. The officers fished and hunted, once they chased hares with a company commander on the BMP-2, he watered directly from the Kalash (were driving from the training ground), leaning out of the hatch :).
          2. +3
            29 January 2022 15: 01
            Sambainu, campan! Sayn-Shand 86-88.
            1. +3
              29 January 2022 15: 05
              Quote: mmaxx
              Sambainu, Campan!

              That's right: Sayin bina uu...
              I myself would ... Yes, health does not accept ... smile
              1. +2
                29 January 2022 15: 47
                I also know: Zogs, budahab! O!
                1. +2
                  29 January 2022 16: 44
                  Quote: mmaxx
                  I also know:

                  Also remember:
                  Nayramdal - friendship, mitikuyu - I don’t understand, chichik-child, bahkui - no, hukhen - girl, woman, chi - you, darga - boss, cyric - soldier ...
                  hi
            2. +3
              29 January 2022 15: 22
              And hello to you. 87-89 I got right under the withdrawal.
      2. +1
        30 January 2022 11: 40
        Quote: yuriy55
        Always add - Northern Mongolia! For in the Gobi desert the sky is not entirely blue, and the air is mixed with sand...

        Here, where I was born, in Haranor, there is also no less sand in the air than in the Gobi.
    2. +2
      29 January 2022 11: 16
      The article is interesting. Truth is confused. Who killed whom. Yes, the Mongol rulers did not live to old age. We look forward to continuing.
      1. +1
        30 January 2022 13: 24
        Quote: 210ox
        Who killed whom. Yes, the Mongol rulers did not live to old age.

        Well, as Sukhov said - "The East is a delicate matter" .... and the life of a ruler is short.
  3. +7
    29 January 2022 05: 49
    In the comments on VO to one of the articles on the Mongols, my skeptical remark about the "Buryat scientists" aroused indignation.

    what about Buryat scientists ..... The American government !!!! In their opinion, Ukraine was first captured by the Mongols, then the Tatars came, drove the Mongols out and again captured Ukraine!
    And the article is interesting, he talked with one Kazakh, he told a lot of interesting things about how the Horde was organized. But basically, he talked about the strife between the sons and grandsons of the great khan (Chingizids).
    1. +1
      30 January 2022 12: 03
      Quote: Nikon OConor
      And the article is interesting, he talked with one Kazakh, he told a lot of interesting things about how the Horde was organized. But basically, he talked about the strife between the sons and grandsons of the great khan (Chingizids).

      Well, the Kazakhs are still those scientists and Genghisides, although they have something from the Mongols, but not much more than ours. The Buryats and Mongols know more (more precisely, their scientists), but more about the history of the Mongols is written by Chinese scientists (and they have more faith).
  4. +6
    29 January 2022 06: 12
    Guilinchi fired and pierced through a two-layer shell with an underbelly.


    I wonder what this Guilinchi shot from, and from what distance?
    1. +3
      29 January 2022 08: 13
      I wonder what this Guilinchi shot from, and from what distance?
      ..It doesn't matter, the fact that the armor did not protect.
      1. +1
        29 January 2022 08: 15
        It doesn't matter to him, but I do. smile
        1. +2
          29 January 2022 08: 21
          He fired from a bow, a red-hot arrow, not from a pistol smile
          1. +2
            29 January 2022 08: 23
            And the belly, also an arrow? Something I'm not sure. belay
            1. +4
              29 January 2022 08: 30
              Do you think you struck with a "fiery spear"? smile
              "- I fired at a girl, fired at a good one" (c) laughing
              1. +2
                29 January 2022 08: 42
                Namely, I sin on a firearm. smile

                And don’t shoot at girls, they are intended for other things. wink
                1. +1
                  29 January 2022 08: 54
                  Namely, I sin on a firearm.
                  ..Tormented by vague doubts smile
                  1. +7
                    29 January 2022 09: 24
                    Well, why, they had this

                    And it could well have been
                    1. +5
                      29 January 2022 10: 37
                      Quite possible .. But .. "While your horse with four legs is one-two-three-four, the boy is on two legs - one-two, one-two!" (c)
                      1. +3
                        29 January 2022 11: 09
                        "Yes - was there a boy, maybe there was no boy?". (C) laughing
          2. +7
            29 January 2022 10: 17
            Quote: parusnik
            He fired from a bow, a red-hot arrow, not from a pistol

            I watch Historical Sketches, and the History of Russia on the RGPU channel with E.Yu. wars of conquest, which is why they still graze horses and sheep in the desert, having dissolved in more advanced civilizations.
            1. +3
              29 January 2022 10: 34
              Mongolia as an empire collapsed that did not progress either technically or in terms of assimilation with life and way of life with other peoples, content with the loot in the wars of conquest
              No doubt
  5. +5
    29 January 2022 06: 27
    The Mongols themselves did not suspect (for almost a thousand years) that they were "great conquerors" - and they had a formidable leader - Genghis Khan ... - But the Europeans made up so much - as much as three boxes; that the Mongols themselves believed in it !!!
    - This is the same about gypsies - first, the Russian writer Anatoly Kalinin wrote the novel "Gypsy"; and then Russian directors, actors, etc. - created vulgar, sentimental serials about Budulai and about the return of Budulay, etc. ...
    - And in this case - the gypsies probably too - they themselves did not suspect that they were so "honest and noble" - but they were "helped" by Russian writers (and not only Russians) - and Pushkin, and Gorky, and many others writers ... - And then the serials about Budulay also "greatly helped" - And the gypsies became - also "great" ...
    - That's what it means - think well and write well !!!
    1. +1
      29 January 2022 07: 18
      The author's research fits very well with the Radical Catastrophe Theory Hypothesis https://aftershock.news/?q=node/379579
      It turns out that Mongolia is one of the fragments of the Great Empire, which was lucky enough to survive in the global cataclysm. Next - degradation, loss of purpose. It is interesting that China, as a state entity, according to the GRTK, is no more than 700 years old.
      1. +2
        29 January 2022 11: 06
        But what about Kalmykia and Dzungaria, what is this?
        1. +1
          29 January 2022 13: 27
          Other fragments. Only, unlike the Russian (Horde, order, imperial) tradition, where it was unbearable to become a leader of warriors by clan, it was different in these fragments. Yes, and the Empire was gone ...
    2. +4
      29 January 2022 10: 23
      It's the same for gypsies
      Here, please, about the gypsies. Written 600 years ago.
      “When they settled in the Faubourg Chapelle, flocked there to look at them, such a great number of residents of Paris, Saint-Denis and other Parisian environs, as no one had ever seen even at the consecration of the Lundy fairs in Saint-Denis. Indeed, their children , and boys and girls, possessed extraordinary dexterity, almost all had pierced ears, and they wore one or two silver rings in them - they said that this was the custom in their country. The men were extremely black, with curly hair, the women were swarthy and unheard of ugly, all had ulcerated faces and black hair like horse tails, instead of a dress they wore an old shawl, like a coarse blanket of wool or cotton, which was fastened around the shoulders with thick strings of fabric or rope, under the shawl they there was only an old blouse, in short, they were the poorest creatures that ever appeared in France.For all their poverty, among them came across sorceresses who read hand and revealed to people their past and future; and they did not sow discord in one family, saying to the husband: “Your wife cuckolds you,” but to the wife: “Your husband deceives you.” Worst of all, however, was that while they were talking to a client, the contents of the wallets of those who listened to them were being transferred to them—by magic, the devil, or just sleight of hand. So, at least, they said, because, to tell the truth, I talked to them 3 or 4 times and not once did I notice that on my return I lacked at least one denier, and I did not see them guessing by hand. But the people were talking about it everywhere, and this rumor finally reached the ears of the Bishop of Paris, who came to them, accompanied by a minor brother, called the Little Jacobin, who, by order of the bishop, gave them an excellent sermon and excommunicated everyone who was engaged in fortune-telling. or to whom they were guessing and who showed their hands for this purpose. After that, they were forced to leave the suburbs, and in September, on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, they went to Pontoise. "(c)
      1. +2
        29 January 2022 11: 14
        Hello Anton!
        About 8 years ago I came to Paris (Grand Palace) to an exhibition called "La Boheme". The exhibition was devoted to the "formation" of this word. The Romani people arrived in Western Europe, specifically France, from Bohemia. The first exhibit is a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci of a young gypsy woman. And so, from exhibit to exhibit and the end of the exhibition, you understand the modern meaning of the word "bohemia", acquired in the XNUMXth century. drinks
        1. +5
          29 January 2022 11: 24
          Hello Alexander!
          I quoted from a manuscript called "Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris" (1405-1449). Perhaps this is the earliest mention of the gypsies in Europe.
          1. 0
            29 January 2022 12: 02
            Your comment reminded me of a quote. Here is what S. Solovyov writes about the Tatars (Mongols), based on the works of Carpini and Rubruk.
            “A Tatar has as many wives as he can support, they marry without considering kinship, they do not take only a mother, daughter and sister from one mother; they buy wives at a high price from the parents of the latter. They live in round yurts made of brushwood and thin poles, covered with felt; at the top there is a hole for lighting and smoke, because in the middle of the yurt they always have a fire.Some of these yurts are easily disassembled and folded again, some cannot be disassembled and are carried on carts as they are, and wherever the Tatars go , to war or so somewhere, they carry them everywhere with them. Their main wealth is in livestock: camels, bulls, sheep, goats and horses; they have as many livestock as there are in the rest of the world "
            Don't you think that these two are describing some kind of camp? They don't go to war with the entire "economy"! But when people move - yes, maybe they were gypsies, it’s quite a version.
            1. +4
              29 January 2022 12: 23
              And there is. Carpini and Rubruk describe a tribal community characteristic of all nomads. The Gypsies were stuck in this state for centuries, perhaps the only ones of the Indo-Europeans. I had the opportunity to observe one Russian-Gypsy family. After the death of her husband, a gypsy, all his blood relatives unanimously "refused home" to "Russian strays."
              1. +2
                29 January 2022 12: 31
                You probably did not pay attention to "to the war or somewhere else, they carry them everywhere with them." According to Solovyov, it turns out that they went to Russia with all their households. laughing
                I read a legend about gypsies, which they themselves do not refute.
                And life made them nomadic. All European states denied them territory.
                1. +1
                  29 January 2022 12: 51
                  Well, this is according to Solovyov ...
                  To trust our classics from history is such an occupation, too much in their works depended on the "political moment" and personal predilections. I judge by Grigulevich.
                  1. +2
                    29 January 2022 12: 57
                    Do you trust Vashchenko?
                    1. +4
                      29 January 2022 13: 07
                      Good question!
                      I do not always agree on issues related to modern general consciousness, but, yes, I trust. At least in connection with the fact that he, being a professional historian, did not "bronze" in the dogmas of historical science, but considers it as a living, constantly developing branch of human knowledge.
                      1. +1
                        29 January 2022 13: 33
                        Clarified. Thanks!
      2. +1
        29 January 2022 11: 40
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        So, at least, they said, because, to tell the truth, I talked to them 3 or 4 times and not once did I notice that on my return I lacked at least one denier

        )))

        As they say ... stereotypes)
        1. +3
          29 January 2022 11: 48
          There were always enough crooks in Paris even without gypsies, just look through the "Criminal Register of the Grand Chatelet Fortress".
          Good morning Victor! I hope you are already in Torino?
          1. 0
            29 January 2022 12: 19
            Hi hi yes... from the 22nd

            One of the most common stereotypes of all time about gypsy children is stolen. Moreover, in all countries. I remember reading a study in Italy on this topic. In general, over the past 50 years in Italy there have been exactly 0 (zero) such cases)
            1. +2
              29 January 2022 12: 41
              The gypsy community is too closed and incomprehensible for the European mentality and gives rise to dense phobias, such as comprachicos.
            2. +1
              29 January 2022 15: 59
              We had a friend. She was stolen by gypsies as a child. Lived with them for 3 years.
    3. +5
      29 January 2022 14: 49
      Quote: gorenina91
      The Mongols themselves did not suspect (for almost a thousand years) that they were "great conquerors"

      Nonsense, replicated by various freaks and other clowns, such as those familiar with history. One nitpick nafunyachil in due time, the rest with pleasure inhale and repeat.
    4. 0
      1 February 2022 19: 29
      And it's good to take it off as well. From Gorky's story on one page, Makar Chudra, they shot a magnificent film "The camp goes to the sky." They write that the gypsies bought up the entire cinema and watched in a motley crowd. But they were not entirely satisfied. There were many impossible things.
  6. -2
    29 January 2022 08: 02
    Good morning!
    The phrase jarred me: "For example, in the Russian chronicles, entries about the Mongol invasion are of an extremely lazy nature" (c)
    In the Russian chronicles there is not a word about the Mongols. And it's very interesting what the author means by the word "lyy"?
    And yet "there is the fruit of the work of historians who reconstructed events and nothing more" (c)
    The method of event reconstruction is very important. Maybe the author has his own opinion on this matter))))
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +2
      29 January 2022 11: 19
      Bug fixed by google. Not lanny, but lapi..darny character. Doesn't understand Cyrillic laughing
      1. +5
        29 January 2022 15: 05
        Lapidary. This is how you should write. smile Corrects not Google, but the internal editor of the site, as far as I understand. Replace one letter in the desired word with the same Latin letter - and voila!
        In my understanding, lapidary means simplified, primitive. With this word, I would characterize the view of history, for example, Samsonov. Well, maybe I would add "inverted". smile
        You can disagree with Edward, you can argue, but it's hard not to take into account his position.
        1. +2
          29 January 2022 15: 49
          Hi Michael!
          So it seems to me that Edward's statement would have sounded something like this: "Russian chronicles described the Tatar-Mongol yoke in a simplified way."
          And as a result, well, yoke and yoke laughing and what is the problem to do with it?
          1. 0
            30 January 2022 11: 26
            Chronicles did not describe the yoke at all. "Yoke" is a much later term. Chronicles described the invasion and its consequences. I don’t quite agree that it’s so lapidary, but, obviously, I would like more detail and detail. smile
            It is not historians who make the problem out of the invasion, but those who, due to congenital or acquired dementia that developed against the backdrop of Great Russian chauvinism, are trying to prove to us either that there was no invasion, or that there were no Mongols, but Russian Cossacks were in their place ...
        2. +4
          29 January 2022 16: 59
          Probably still short. Synonymous with concise. The services of stone carvers were expensive. So they carved - a little, but expressively. They contributed to Latin aphorisms.
          1. +1
            30 January 2022 11: 16
            In my head, this concept has a certain negative connotation and differs from "laconic" precisely in that part of the meaning is sacrificed for the sake of brevity.
            1. +2
              30 January 2022 11: 42
              I wonder why, Michael?
              I don't think I have any negative associations.

              And part of the meaning almost always remains behind the scenes. The question is when this makes the message lightweight and when it doesn't.
              1. +2
                30 January 2022 12: 11
                Quote from Korsar4
                I wonder why, Michael?

                But the devil knows him. smile The word "zamkompomorde" for me is a classic example of lapidarity. For me, for example, such a construction would be natural: the desire for conciseness should not lead to lapidarity.
                1. +2
                  30 January 2022 13: 11
                  No. This is an excess of abbreviations, which really causes rejection.

                  However, this is probably a question for philologists. And the way grandfather Shchukar puts words in different concepts.
                  1. +2
                    30 January 2022 13: 42
                    I read somewhere that 90% of conflicts arise because people misunderstand each other. Many times I had to make sure that there is a rational grain in this maxim - people really do not understand each other well, including due to the fact that they attach different meanings to the same terms.
                    That is why I considered it necessary to explain how the concept of "lapidary" is understood by me.
                    Quote from Korsar4
                    It's too many abbreviations

                    This is the desire to put the maximum information in the minimum volumes. The same as in the inscriptions on the stones.
                    1. +2
                      30 January 2022 14: 05
                      Thought of Descartes. I saw it in different interpretations.
                      Something like this: "Clarify the meaning of words, and you will save humanity from half of the delusions."
                      1. +2
                        30 January 2022 14: 57
                        Well, well, Descartes was a nice enough idealist... smile
  7. +3
    29 January 2022 08: 19
    The Mongolian tribes, as it were, returned to the period that was before Genghis Khan was able to unite them, placing supra-tribal structures above the tribes and clans
    . As it was written in the World History of the Satyricon: "fell into nothingness." Thanks to Edward for the article.
  8. +12
    29 January 2022 09: 12
    For example, in the Russian chronicles, entries about the Mongol invasion are extremely lax in nature, and much that “experts” like to talk about is the fruit of the work of historians who reconstructed events and nothing more.

    Well I do not know. There are a lot of references to the Mongols in Russian, Chinese, Persian, Arabic, and European chronicles. Somewhere they were called Tatars, but many sources indicate that this name is erroneous. The presence of the epic about Genghis Khan among the Mongols themselves was confirmed by Russian travelers of the 19th century.
    The fruit of the work of historians is excavations in the first place. During the invasion, out of 74 Russian cities, 49 were destroyed, of which 14 were not restored, 15 turned into villages. Izyaslavl is very indicative - 2,5 thousand bones were found in burial places, the city was covered with arrowheads, which the Slavs and close peoples did not have, but the Mongols did.
    Well, I'm by no means an expert, but... request
    1. -2
      29 January 2022 13: 43
      Eduard, the author, has previously acknowledged, and it is true, that in the Russian chronicles there is no mention of the word "Mongol" at all. There is no desire to touch on other sources, but even there everything is very confusing.
      On the territory of the European part of the USSR there are no Mongolian burials, 1 (one) skull of the Mongolian type is mentioned. And the "main" evidence is fork-type arrowheads. So-so proof.
      There was an invasion and no one argues with this. Chronicles specifically point to the Tatars.
      1. +6
        29 January 2022 14: 04
        Quote: ee2100
        Eduard, the author, has previously acknowledged, and it is true, that in the Russian chronicles there is no mention of the word "Mongol" at all.

        I'm afraid this is a play on words.
        Quote: ee2100
        There was an invasion and no one argues with this. Chronicles specifically point to the Tatars

        Well, yes. And Roman chronicles often mention barbarians, although there were no people with such a self-name near the borders of the Roman Empire. Is it worth drawing far-reaching conclusions from this?
        1. -1
          29 January 2022 14: 26
          "Eduard, the author, previously admitted and it is true that in the Russian chronicles there is no mention of the word" Mongol "in general" and where is the play on words?
          About the barbarians, this is a separate issue and they are considered the ancestors of the Balto-Slavs. If the Russian language has the concept of "fritz", then many foreigners who know Russian need to be explained.
          It is always easier to criticize than to express one's own thoughts, especially since videos from the YouTube channel are often used here as arguments.
          1. +5
            29 January 2022 14: 36
            Many Russians need to be explained that calling a Texan "Yankee" can be smashed into a tambourine. laughing
            1. +1
              29 January 2022 14: 54
              Where is the vaunted political correctness?
              1. +2
                29 January 2022 14: 59
                So she is praised for that, in principle, she does not exist.
          2. +5
            29 January 2022 16: 12
            Quote: ee2100
            "Eduard, the author, previously admitted and it is true that in the Russian chronicles there is no mention of the word" Mongol "in general" and where is the play on words?

            I did not mean. what are you playing with words hi I meant that the Mongols were called by a different name and I do not see anything supernatural in this.
            Quote: ee2100
            About the barbarians, this is a separate issue and they are considered the ancestors of the Balto-Slavs.

            Officially, those who did not speak Greek, and later - Roman, are considered barbarians :)
            Quote: ee2100
            Criticizing is always easier than expressing your own thoughts.

            I do not agree. In addition, thoughts must have a justification in order to be considered at least a version.
            Quote: ee2100
            especially since often here, as arguments, videos from the YouTube channel are given.

            So the level of articles is often such that sometimes they are inferior to commercials
            1. +5
              29 January 2022 16: 39
              Those who did not speak Greek are officially considered barbarians,
              Is that really "official"? The poor fellow Alexander was so pressed into the Athenian school that he even reached India, proving that he was a Hellenic, not a barbarian. laughing
              1. +1
                29 January 2022 18: 36
                Anthony, thanks for the moral support. drinks
            2. 0
              29 January 2022 18: 34
              "I meant that the Mongols were called by a different name and I don’t see anything supernatural in this" (c)
              The author does not write that this is an ethnic group or something more.
              There are many works devoted just to the analysis of the word "Mongol". You can take a look.
              I am not very interested in what others called them, but why do I read the Tatars in the annals, and they stubbornly prove to me that these are the Mongols.
              "I disagree. In addition, thoughts must have a justification in order to be considered at least a version" (c)
              I did not write the article, and therefore my comments do not need justification. If you ask, on the basis of what this or that opinion of mine has developed, I will answer.
              About YouTube channels. Yes, there are serious videos and very well-reasoned opinions, but the person who cites them as an argument, with whom does he propose to argue with me?
              1. 0
                30 January 2022 10: 35
                Quote: ee2100
                The author does not write that this is an ethnic group or something more.

                Alexander, what do you want to say? That the invasion took place - you do not argue. Then what do you disagree with? What attacked those whom we today call the Mongols? If - yes, then what does not suit you in the official version, on the basis of what do you refute it?
                Quote: ee2100
                Yes, there are serious videos and very well-reasoned opinions, but the person who cites them as an argument, with whom does he propose to argue with me?

                With the arguments set out in the video
                1. 0
                  30 January 2022 12: 06
                  I believe that there was an invasion and the neighboring tribes attacked under the common self-name "Tatars". So it was considered until the middle of the XNUMXth century, until books about the Mongols appeared (secret legend and yellow history). Why Russian historians changed their minds under the influence of these rather murky sources is not clear to me.
    2. +1
      29 January 2022 15: 28
      Yes, you are, Andrey! Well, where did the Mongols get iron, bows and armor from! True, it turns out that there was no iron in that Russia either. That is, all weapons that are iron, where they unearthed there, are all completely imported.
      So all the tricks of aliens. Who else? Or how are they? Hyperboreans or Atlanteans.
    3. +4
      29 January 2022 16: 31
      Andrew,
      good day,
      I'm on the road today, so I can't write much.
      There are neither many nor few sources. About "epics", these are of course fairy tales.
      All the legends written in the 16th-18th centuries give very little material about the initial history of the Mongols and are limited to the period of the 15th century. translate or convey information. of them is extremely difficult.
      As for the contribution of historians, I repeat, the entire dispute that is being waged today by both amateurs and historians of other directions is possible only thanks to historians who more or less adequately translated texts into modern languages. Since, on many points of translation, and not only the history of the Mongols, disputes have been going on for 300 years. Those. Solovyov, undoubtedly a scientific figure, would not have written anything if the translations had not been made by Tizenhausen, Rosen, etc. And archeology is one of the branches of history, but without written sources, it is a solid hypothesis.
      I will give an example on a topic close to you - the fleet. But not ... 1905
      We all know from school that Peter 1 built a fleet, there are memories, memoirs, newspapers of the Peter the Great era, that is, narrative sources, about the ships of the fleet. There are also works about this, starting from the 19th century, but no one studied the documents of the construction of Peter 1. The one who did this work spent 3 years (!!!!) - THREE - in the Archives, restoring the full composition of Peter's fleet.
      Imagine how much time and effort!
      And then the "experts" will write: that one, historians are engaged in nonsense, but I think that it was like this ... well, "the province went to dance."
      I am writing all this as an example, the problem is that you can talk superficially on any topic, here in the comments there is both "life experience" and "common sense", but reasoning is not professional work.
      With best regards,
      Edward
      1. 0
        30 January 2022 10: 41
        Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
        There are neither many nor few sources. About "epics", these are of course fairy tales.

        That is what fairy tales are, since it was about oral creativity, legends. I don't see anything unscientific in this.
        Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
        Since, on many points of translation, and not only the history of the Mongols, disputes have been going on for 300 years. Those. Solovyov, undoubtedly a scientific figure, would not have written anything if the translations had not been made by Tizenhausen, Rosen, etc.

        Eduard, I understand correctly that you made translations of Persian and Arabic sources yourself, and found that
        Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
        Tizenhausen, Rosen, etc.

        were they mistranslated?
        Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
        And then the "experts" will write: that one, historians are engaged in nonsense, but I think that it was like this ... well, "the province went to dance."

        Eduard, one of the key features of a professional is the ability to simply explain complex things within his competence :)
        That is, simply put, if there is a logical chain, evidence, facts that can cast doubt on officialdom, then it will be possible to agree with this or disagree, but it will be impossible not to recognize it as a version. And where is she, this chain in terms of the Mongols under discussion?
        1. +1
          30 January 2022 13: 25
          Andrew,
          good day,
          I do not want to seem uneducated, but I did not expect such primitive reasoning from you.
          What does the translations have to do with it, where did I say that I made them? I wrote that the information was conveyed to the readers by the historian Solovyov, otherwise, no one would have known about it.
          I repeat, I wrote that if historians had not translated sources from different languages, had not studied the translated documents for years and worked in the archives, historians would not convey information in such works as Solovyova, "History" about different countries and even Wiki, then there would be nothing to talk about "astute readers." This is the key thesis, without a historian - no one would have known anything about history, except for the tales about Ivanushka the Fool.
          An indicative dispute is here in the comments: history would be a science if it said exactly how many Tatar-Mongols participated in the invasion of Russia ...
          A Soviet anecdote about passing history when you need to flunk a student comes to mind:
          when was WWII? - answered, how many fighters were there in the Red Army? - answered, and now call by name.

          Well, such phrases, thrown in passing, often warp:
          “Just like fairy tales, since it was about oral creativity, legends. I don’t see anything unscientific in this.”

          Of course, the question immediately arises whether you can retell the theory of Propp or A.F. Losev on this account? How Fraser assessed oral folk art, what works can you list according to the oral sources of the Icelandic Sagas or Russian Chronicles, etc.
          Agree, it sounds strange to give advice to a professional in this matter?
          I myself strive to make it as accessible as possible the latest trends in scienceAnd not gag or fruits of my "logical" fabrications.
          Here is an example. I write in this article:
          “And the parasitic use of the income received, the absolutely consumer type of nomadic society at this stage of development, quickly absorbed them.”

          And further in the text. By the way, in almost every article about the Mongols I repeat this thesis in one way or another, not counting the fact that Karakarum was looted and burned several times, which I wrote about in several articles.
          Here is the question in the comments:
          “I read and watched a lot, but I can’t find a clear answer to a simple question - where did the huge wealth stolen by the Mongols go?”

          What can I say ...
          Everyone has the right to their own arguments and thoughts, I write about this all the time here, but ... when you suddenly start arguing with a professional, be kind enough to follow the same path of research as he did. Otherwise, it's empty talk.
          Best regards,
          hi
    4. +5
      29 January 2022 19: 56
      The fruit of the work of historians is excavations in the first place.

      What is true is true.
  9. +2
    29 January 2022 10: 22
    Alternatively, it will not help the gifted, but the rest will be interested:
    https://youtu.be/Qnx-rwFFvAg
  10. -1
    29 January 2022 11: 03
    When I see Vashchenko's articles, they arouse genuine interest in me. I can't figure out what is more in them, stupidity, arrogance of a "certified historian", racism, or simply a misunderstanding of simple life things?
    The Mongols and Manchus occupied a prominent place in the history of Asia for a reason, by the will of the chroniclers. It is difficult to name a country or a people in Asia that was not subjected to military defeat and political dominance of the Mongols. The Mongols occupied high military positions even in Qing China in the 19th century. Xi Jinping and that Mongol.
    Any dominance always has an economic basis. The Mongolian steppe, together with Manchuria and China, as an industrial base could put up 200-300 thousand excellent horsemen with outstanding physical and moral qualities. food. Yes, and who were their rivals - Khan Kotyan, who, having stripped his bloomers, dumped Kalka from Kalka, leaving his allies, Yuri Vsevolodovich "gathering troops" in the wilderness, leaving Vladimirtsev? During the "struggle" with the Mongols, he robbed and massacred Tbilisi.
  11. 0
    29 January 2022 13: 17
    Someone else believes in the greatness of the Mongols.
  12. +2
    29 January 2022 14: 45
    "da junjunpao"
    Jun... Jun... Jun...
    Pao... pao... pao...
    Rapid fire gun.
    :)
  13. +1
    29 January 2022 15: 13
    When I served, I heard such a story from, in general, competent people. The Chinese dragged Buddhism for the Mongols. And the lamas were trained in Chinese monasteries. There, young Mongolian lamas were infected with syphilis. And since a custom has appeared that it’s very cool (grace, or what?) To spend the first wedding night with a lama for a young wife, the outcome is clear. When Mongolia became independent, by the 20s the Mongols were a dying people.
    Our doctors practically saved the Mongols from extinction. They worked there for a long time on the treatment and prevention of syphilis. And that epidemic still haunts them.
    Such is the revenge for the conquest.
    1. +2
      29 January 2022 15: 22
      Syphilis, as an STD, appeared on the territory of Eurasia after 1492.
      1. +1
        29 January 2022 15: 43
        So the Mongols became Buddhists not only but even earlier. It was possible to instill syphilis after. Yes, and in conditions of unsanitary conditions and illiteracy, the spread was not restrained by anything.
      2. +5
        29 January 2022 16: 14
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Syphilis, as an STD, appeared on the territory of Eurasia after 1492.

        "How long can you explain that I'm not a syphilitic, but a philatelist?!!!" (With)
      3. +1
        31 January 2022 13: 00
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Syphilis, as an STD, appeared on the territory of Eurasia after 1492.

        Good afternoon Anton! hi
        During the excavations of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in the Mikhailovsky aisle, 5 burials in logs dating back to the end of the 15th century were unearthed (excavations by G.Yu. Ivakin). In one of the burials, the bones of a 20-25-year-old man affected by syphilis were found. As doctors note, a long period of up to 30 years is necessary for bone damage with syphilis, that is, in this case it seems that syphilis was congenital. hi
        1. +1
          31 January 2022 14: 45
          Hello Sergey!
          I didn't mention STDs for nothing. This species was brought from the New World.
          1. +1
            31 January 2022 14: 54
            Quote: 3x3zsave
            I didn't mention STDs for nothing. This species was brought from the New World.

            It can be like another "modification" (how is it called correctly?), and syphilis has been known for quite a long time.
            Recently I came across information, if I’m not mistaken, about the Alanian settlement of the epoch of the VPN (5th-6th century), destroyed and burned: people were apparently taken away, and several elderly and sick women were simply killed and syphilis was found in all of them. hi
            1. +1
              31 January 2022 15: 07
              (What is the correct name for this?)
              Strain.
              It's like the plague. The bubonic form accompanied man for many millennia, but plague pneumonia and plague sepsis appeared only in the first half of the XNUMXth century.
    2. 0
      29 January 2022 15: 33
      An interesting story, but I think fictional. The Mongols under all dynasties of China made up a significant and important part of the armed forces. The Mongols took an important part in the fight against the Dzungars in the 18th century, suppressed the Muslim uprising in Xinjiang, and even fought with European invaders, including leading positions. In the Qing empire, the small Mongols made up 30 percent of the troops. So there was no reason for the Chinese to reduce the population of the Mongols in such an intricate way. This is not counting the fact that the Mongols received Buddhism from geographically and culturally, closer Tibet (contacts with the nomadic tribes of Tibet and Mongols - they are neighbors) were long before the establishment of Buddhism in India in the 3rd century BC. arrival of the latter in China.
      1. +2
        29 January 2022 15: 44
        In fact, I've only heard this version once. The only confirmation can be documents on the work of our doctors there.
  14. 0
    30 January 2022 06: 50
    Good afternoon/evening everyone
    I read and watched a lot, but I can’t find a clear answer to a simple question - where did the huge wealth robbed by the Mongols go?

    Ripped off a good half of Asia and Europe. Only during the capture of Beijing they looted the most I can’t. At a later time, how many Russian princes brought to the khan's headquarters in order to receive a label for reigning. But during excavations they find mostly some broken shards and all sorts of nonsense.
    In Mongolia itself, too, special treasures were not found. Centuries passed, and the Mongols were left to drag out a miserable existence in their frail yurts, which have not changed for a thousand years.. "Where is the money, Zin!". They say it was stolen. Suppose they stole and then what?
    If anyone knows, please reply, thanks in advance.

    1. 0
      30 January 2022 13: 27
      Here in the article:
      “And the parasitic use of the income received, the absolutely consumer type of nomadic society at this stage of development, quickly absorbed them”

      and hereinafter.
      And in all the articles of this cycle everywhere about it.
      hi
      1. 0
        30 January 2022 14: 17
        Thank you for taking the time to answer, but the answer is not very informative. Absorbed wealth? What is it like ? And where do they end up?
        1. +1
          30 January 2022 16: 07
          Simply put, they ate and broke both luxury items and captured masters. Such a structure of society, everything is in a meat grinder, nothing is put aside for development.
          Please see other articles in this series for more details.
          And compare with the Crimean Tatars, it seems they robbed all the neighborhood for 400 years, and the palace in Bakhchisaray, well, it very much resembles a barn.
          And speaking in general, very little from that period has come down to us. We have little from the early Ming and Yuan period: vases, dishes, ornaments...
          There is almost nothing in the museums of China, in Taiwan there are crumbs in New York and London.
          However, as in other historical periods, and this is taking into account that something was postponed in agricultural civilizations)
          Plus, the same Karakorum was plundered more than once at the end of the Yuan and the early Ming. And Kublai moved the capital to Khanbalik (Beijing) and decorated it, and again, there was practically nothing left in Beijing. The same "forbidden city" was erected after the expulsion of the Mongols.
          Best regards,
          hi
          1. -1
            30 January 2022 17: 39
            Respect to the author for the cycle. I must admit, a lot of work, and with skill. However, I do not believe in all these invasions, except in China. He was close at hand, far and no need to go. And to conquer Russia, even scattered, and even Europe, no Mongols would be enough. Add to this logistics, supply and other mercantile affairs.
            1. +1
              30 January 2022 17: 49
              Strange .. Was Russia there at that time? There were principalities, so they conquered them.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. 0
            31 January 2022 08: 50
            Thanks to Eduard Vashchenko for taking the time to answer again. More clarity this time. The Crimean Tatars were especially convinced, I visited their palace - everything is really modest ... But, by the way, Topkapi in Istanbul was also not impressed, but there was a great empire - far from the Winter in St. Petersburg.
            I understand that carpets, wooden furniture, rich clothes, fragile dishes not made of metal - everything has been disposed of over many centuries, not the Colosseum ...
            1. +2
              1 February 2022 08: 36
              Good morning,
              I agree with you completely:
              "I understand that carpets, wooden furniture, rich clothes, fragile dishes not made of metal - everything has been disposed of over many centuries, not the Colosseum ..."
              The same Karakorum or Saray was destroyed more than once and to the ground. Please note that Russia seemed to be subjected to no less destruction, but the agricultural civilization nevertheless contributed to greater accumulation)
              hi
            2. 0
              3 February 2022 14: 09
              Capital buildings in traditional East Asian architecture were made on a frame basis, they did not have load-bearing walls. The piers were made of densely packed earth and lined with raw or baked bricks. The main element that ensures the integrity of the structure was the roof, which protected from precipitation. If the frame is destroyed (for example, as a result of a fire), the roof will fall, and in a few decades only a swollen earth mound will remain in the place of such a building. Actually, such hillocks are visible on Google Maps at the site of the Karakorum.
            3. 0
              3 February 2022 14: 29
              The problem is also that the funerary traditions of the Mongols were, apparently, under the great influence of Zoroastrianism. The dead body was not considered to be of any value, it was disposed of in any convenient way without luxurious burials and the expenditure of inventory items. This is the difference between the Mongols and the same Xiongnu or early Turks, who used burial principles close to Chinese, coming from the Kurgan culture.
  15. 0
    30 January 2022 18: 11
    Where did the "Great Conquerors Mongols" go - and where did the Elephants on which the Earth rested and the Whale on which the Elephants stood - the Mongols also go.
    Trusting Chinese chronicle sources is just nonsense. They had a rule - after the change of ruler, burn all books - records of the previous period.
    There was such a Real Conqueror - Napoleon was called. You probably know.
    So he attacked Russia in the Summer in the summer. Grass to the waist. I don't want to eat. But approaching Smolensk, Napoleon lost half of the convoy horses. Causes - Lack of feed (oats) and poor veterinary care. Horses died due to Hunger and improper Feeding-Care. On the way back from Moscow, in general, the French threw Proviant because of the lack of horses. Which almost all died because of the Hunger. And winter was gone yet.
    So here's a strange thing - the physiology of the horses did not change, and the Real conquerors' horses will die in the absence of a grain additive in the feed (barley oats), while the Mythical ones do not. Under a meter and more layer of snow, grass is mined at night in the Camp and nothing lives.
    And the ancient Romans gave their war horses 6 liters of oats every day, regardless of grass or hay. Like the ancient Greeks.
    By the way, why invented Horseshoes. Just without horseshoes No Cavalry. The physiology of horses does not allow it. But those who believe in the "great conquerors of the Mongols" are not interested in the physiology of horses.
    So you want to believe in the great Foreign. And just Velikorosskoe-fi.
    1. 0
      3 February 2022 14: 34
      Among the French, the death of horses was catastrophic, but did not become an equally large-scale problem for the Russian army and irregular troops. You will not argue that the horses in the Russian troops were as important as for the French? Do you remember the cavalry of Ataman Platov, Denis Davydov?
  16. 0
    1 February 2022 15: 27
    There is no material evidence of the so-called. "Mongol Empire", no reliable documents. Word of mouth is not serious. In general, the existence of such a state formation and / or a regular army capable of operating at such distances is, in principle, impossible.

    There is no word "Mongols" in the annals, there is the word "Tatars", but what it meant is a question. In an era close to Ivan the Great, this word apparently meant precisely ethnic Tatars, and if you look more broadly, then all sorts of people of southern origin and Asian culture. There could well be real Mongols among them, but this does not mean anything, just as the presence of the Irish in the United States does not indicate the existence of an "Irish empire" from Britain to North America.

    And initially this word, most likely, meant the European crusaders.
    1. +1
      3 February 2022 14: 48
      Sources in Russian, describing the events of only 80 years ago, feature Germans and Nazi invaders, although there have never been a people with such a self-name, as well as invaders of this category. The people have the self-name Deutsche, and the aggressive ideology is Nazism. The bottom line is that the exonym is not always the same as the autonym.
      1. 0
        5 February 2022 10: 14
        The array of information in Russian nevertheless makes it possible to understand that the word "Germans" long before the start of the Second World War meant the Germans (who are "Deutsche" in German), and the same with the identification of Nazism and fascism from the point of view of the left (and vice versa, the identification of socialists , communists and other left from the point of view of the right)

        However, for older texts, such identifications are incorrect. For example, in medieval Russia, any Western European could be a "German", and in the time of Caesar, "Germans" lived not only in modern Germany.

        And what are the grounds for identifying "Tatars" in ancient chronicles and modern Mongols?
    2. 0
      4 February 2022 20: 23
      Tatars are originally Warriors of a strictly defined Troop. The most likely origin is from the word Tartarara - from the ground. As they say, the Tatars were from the Slavs and Polovtsy. There were also Tatarized Chinese in the 17th century. Then this name spread to warlike tribes and nationalities. According to the ethnographic expedition of the Kazan State University, there are more than 30 Tatar languages ​​in the European territory of Russia. And one is being heavily planted.