Oleg Ryazansky. The life and fate of the famous prince

46
Oleg Ryazansky. The life and fate of the famous prince
Oleg Ivanovich Ryazansky. Reconstruction by T. S. Balueva and E. V. Veselovskaya


В previous article we talked about the Ryazan principality, ending it with a message about the first mention of Oleg in a chronicle source (Nikonovsky vault) in 1353. Today we will continue the story and talk about the difficult and difficult life and fate of this prince. His father is named by the Sovereign Rodoslovets (a genealogical book of Russian princely and boyar families, created around 1555) as Ivan Ivanovich Korotopol, who died in the war against the Pron principality. However, back in the middle of the XNUMXth century, D. Ilovaisky suggested that Oleg was the son of another Ivan, Alexandrovich. Who, by the way, was the son of Alexander Mikhailovich Pronsky, who was killed by Ivan Korotopol. And in Oleg’s letter of grant to one of the monasteries you can read:



“By the prayer of my father, the great Prince Ivan Alexandrovich.”

This version is now the main one.

The date of birth of Oleg Ivanovich is unknown, but already in 1353 we see him at the head of the army of the Ryazan principality:

“That same summer, in Petrovo Retreat, on the 22nd day of June, I took Ryazantsi Lopasna. Their prince Oleg Ivanovich was still young then, and seized the governor, Mikhail Alexandrovich, and took him to Ryazan, and there he was in exhaustion, and then barely ransomed him, and so he went home.”

(Nikonovsky vault).

Let us note that Lopasnya is an original Ryazan city, captured by Muscovites in 1300, along with Kolomna. One can only guess how “young” Prince Oleg could have been - he was probably about 15 years old at the time. But his future rival Dmitry (Donskoy) was not yet three years old at that time - he was born on October 12, 1350. The Moscow principality was ruled in 1353 by his father, Ivan Ivanovich the Red, who died in 1359.

In 1358, Oleg met with the Tatar prince Muhammad-Khoja, who was tasked with determining the borders of the Ryazan and Moscow principalities. It is curious that this high mission did not prevent the Horde from ravaging the lands of both.

And in 1365, the combined troops of Oleg Ryazansky, Vladimir Pronsky and Titus Kozelsky defeated the army of the Tatar prince Tagay, whose ulus was located on the territory of modern Mordovia, near the Shishevsky forest (in the modern Shilovsky district of the Ryazan region).


“Evil battle at the Shishevsky forest”: Oleg Ryazansky, Vladimir Pronsky and Titus Kozelsky during the battle with Tagai

In 1370, when Moscow was besieged by the troops of the Lithuanian prince Olgerd, Oleg sent a detachment of his son-in-law, Prince Vladimir Dmitrievich, to help Dmitry. But already in 1371, Vladimir, having quarreled with his father-in-law, turned to Dmitry for help, and Muscovites under the command of Dmitry Mikhailovich Bobrok-Volynsky defeated Oleg’s army in the battle of Skornishchev. Vladimir Pronsky took the Ryazan throne, Oleg had to knock him out with the support of the Tatars, Murza Solokhmir, who came to his service. Solokkhmir then converted to Orthodoxy, becoming Ivan Miroslavich, and married Oleg’s sister Anastasia. He became the founder of the noble families of the Apraksins, Rataevs, Kryukovs, Shishkins, Chebotarevs and some others.

In 1375, Oleg Ryazansky acted as an arbitrator in a dispute between Dmitry of Moscow and Mikhail Tversky.

In 1377, the united army of the Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod principalities suffered a shameful defeat on the river with the “speaking” name Piana:

“And a great army gathered, and they went across the river beyond Piana. And the news came to them that Tsarevich Arapsha was on Volchya Voda... They behaved carelessly, not thinking about the danger: some put their armor on carts, while others kept them in packs; shields and spears were not prepared for battle. And everyone rode, unbuttoning their fasteners and lowering their clothes from their shoulders, warming up from the heat, for it was a hot time. And if they found honey or beer when they were alive, then they drank without measure, and got drunk, and drove around drunk... And the elders, and their princes, and the older boyars, and the nobles, and the governors, they all left to hunt, they made fun for themselves, It was as if they were at home.”

(“The Tale of the Massacre on the Piana River”).

By the way, the “abuse” of two traditional Erzya drinks, buza based on rye malt, and pure honey mash, was probably fatal for the allies then. Especially the second one. This is how P. Melnikov-Pechersky describes the action of pure in “Essays on the Mordovians”:

“If an unaccustomed person drinks a glass of this drink, which tastes very pleasant, his head will remain fresh, but his legs seem to be taken away, the leg muscles do not obey the will of the person at all. After sleep there is a terrible headache that lasts for a day or more.”

Let us also note that Prince Arapsha is Arab Shah Muzaffar, a descendant of the fifth son of Jochi Shiban. Karamzin writes that Arapsha

“he was a king of the camp, but a giant in courage, cunning in war and fierce to the extreme.”

There are coins that date from May 1377 – April 1378. minted in the name of the Arab Shah, as the khan of the Golden Horde. That is, the Shibanid Arab Shah was an opponent of Mamai and his next puppet, Muhammad Sultan. Arab Shah was apparently expelled from Sarai by Tokhtamysh.

But let’s return to the events of 1377, when on the Pyana River the Arapsha army easily defeated the allied Russian army. After this, the Nizhny Novgorod and Ryazan lands were devastated. Pereslavl-Ryazan was also captured; Oleg, wounded by arrows, barely escaped capture. The following year, the army of Murza Begich set off on a campaign against Moscow. And then Dmitry literally “framed” Oleg by meeting the Tatars on Ryazan soil - Mamai accused him of letting the Moscow army through. On the Vozha River (20 versts from Pereyaslavl-Ryazansky) Dmitry Moskovsky and Danila Pronsky defeated the Horde. When Mamai organized a punitive campaign against Ryazan the following year, Dmitry, who provoked this attack, did not provide Oleg with any help. The Nikon Chronicle says:

“When the Tatars came, they took the city of Dubok and burned it, and they burned Pereslavl, and they burned other cities, and they fought and burned the volosts and villages, and having gathered a large crowd, they returned home, making the land of Ryazan empty.”

After this, Mamai began to gather forces for a campaign against Moscow - the same one that ended with the battle on the Kulikovo Field.


Mamai's army is crossing the river in a miniature of the Face Vault, 1656-1676.

Oddities of behavior of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila and Oleg Ryazansky


Lev Gumilev wrote:

“The army of Muscovites, Vladimir, Suzdal, etc. went to the Kulikovo field, and the army of Russians returned.”

But it is not so. Everyone understood that Mamai was going to punish the rebellious vassal - ulusnik Dmitry of Moscow, who had not paid tribute to the Tatars since 1374 and for many years had offended his Russian neighbors. By the way, many years later the author of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” had no doubt about Dmitry’s obligation to pay “exit” to the Horde; only the size of this tribute was subject to discussion. According to him, Metropolitan Cyprian, who in fact was known for his anti-Horde position (and he was not in Moscow at that time - he would be admitted to it only in 1381), did not doubt this either. But, according to the “Tale...”, the following conversation took place between Dmitry and Cyprian:

“The Metropolitan answered the Grand Duke: “Tell me, my lord, what you did wrong before him (Mamai)?”
The great prince said: “I checked, father, everything was accurate, that everything was according to the behests of our fathers, and even more, I paid tribute to him.”

That is, it is emphasized that Dmitry is not a rebel or a rebel, but a law-abiding ulusnik, an obedient vassal of the Horde. There is not even any talk about the “liberation of Russian lands from the Tatar yoke.” According to the “Tale...”, Mamai’s campaign against Rus' was not provoked by anything - the devil incited him to it, with the connivance of God, and even the “old Tatars” told Beklyaribek about the super-successful campaigns of Batu Khan. Let us recall that Batu’s invasion of Rus' took place in 1237-1241, and it is scary to imagine the age of the “old Tatars” who remembered them.


This is how Mamai is represented in the painting by I. Glazunov (from the series “Kulikovo Field”, 1980)

As for neighborly grievances, these are the words the author of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev” puts into the mouth of Cyprian, to whom Dmitry came to complain about the Ryazan and Lithuanian princes:

“The Right Reverend Metropolitan said: And you yourself, sir, have not caused any offense to both of them?”

Dmitry, of course, did not remember anything like this, and the author of “The Tale ...” believes him as if he were his own, but the very fact of mentioning such an acute and uncomfortable issue in a panegyric essay is already very alarming. But the Ryazan prince Oleg considers himself offended and allegedly writes to Mamaia from himself and from Olgerd of Lithuania:

“We received a great insult from this Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich.”

And the reason for Oleg’s offense in this source is called the most reliable: the strategically important city of Kolomna, near which the Moscow River merges with the Oka, was taken from Ryazan. True, it was a very long time ago - 80 years ago, there are more recent grievances, but this is the most painful, unhealing one. In Pereyaslavl-Ryazan they remember whose city this is, and in 5 years they will take it away from Muscovites.

Further, the author of the “Tale...” reports that it has been three years since the deceased Olgerd of Lithuania rose from the grave and also “sneaked” at Mamaia:

“Prince Dimitry of Moscow inflicts a great insult on your ulusnik, Prince Oleg of Ryazan, and he also does great harm to me... Let your attention, O Tsar, turn to our suffering from the Moscow prince Dimitry Ivanovich.”

It further turns out that Oleg Ryazansky sent letters to all interested parties: a loyal letter to Mamaia, warning Dmitry, and he also did not forget to write to Olgerda, which made the deceased very happy. But for some reason Oleg ignored the living Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello. We also note that Dmitry’s constant interlocutor, Metropolitan Cyprian, was admitted to Moscow only in 1381. This is all about the reliability of the information in this document, the anonymous author of which, no earlier than 80, or even 100 years after those events, is the only one accusing Oleg of treason, calling him “damned" and "new Svyatopolk».

Oleg informed Dmitry that Mamai was gathering an army against both Moscow and Ryazan, that he could not help him, but would not interfere with those people who wanted to join the Muscovites as volunteers. In “Zadonshchina” it is stated that 70 Ryazan boyars took part in the Battle of Kulikovo - of course, not alone, but with their servants. However, it was written (obviously imitating “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”) at the end of the XNUMXth or at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, as is believed, by a certain Zephanius of Ryazan. Some consider him a boyar of Prince Oleg, others consider him a Bryansk boyar who ended up in his old age in one of the Ryazan monasteries. Historians question such a massive participation of Ryazan volunteers in this battle.

Other principalities independent of Moscow did not help Dmitry either: according to modern data, the Novgorod Republic (the Novgorodians were “late”), Tver, and Nizhny Novgorod still did not send their troops. The possibility of participation of detachments from Pronsk and Vyazma is allowed. The sons of Olgerd, Andrei Polotsky and Dmitry Bryansky, who went over to the side of Moscow, brought squads from Pskov and Pereslavl-Zalessky.


Dmitry Donskoy meets Andrei Olgerdovich Polotsky and Dmitry Olgerdovich Bryansky, miniature “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”, 17th century.

It is clear why the late Olgerd did not take part in the battle on the Kulikovo field. But no one can say for sure why the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello and Oleg Ryazansky evaded. Indeed, in “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamai” they are directly called allies of this temnik-beklyaribek and tearfully beg Mamai to punish Dmitry for the insults inflicted on him, and the moment for settling accounts is more than auspicious.

Many now believe that the goal of the movement of the army of the Principality of Lithuania to the east was to restore power in the Bryansk, Novgorod-Seversky, and Chernigov lands. Part of these territories was captured by the Yagaila brothers Andrei and Dmitry Olgerdovich who fled to Moscow - with the support of Vladimir Serpukhovsky and Dmitry Bobrok-Volynsky. By attacking these lands, Jagiello, of course, opposed Moscow, and therefore he can really be called an ally of Mamai. But, solving his own problems, the Lithuanian prince, apparently, did not even plan to participate in the battle on the Kulikovo field.


Jagiello

Oleg, having gathered an army just in case (the action took place near the borders of his principality, and you never know how things could have turned out), probably acted on the principle of “two fight, the third stay out.” And then with satisfaction I could remember the words of Mstislav Vladimirovich, brother of Yaroslav the Wise, spoken by him after the battle of Listven:

“Who wouldn’t be happy about this? Here lies a northerner, and here is a Varangian, and his own squad is intact.”

They claim that Ryazan detachments attacked returning Muscovites, captured convoys and even took prisoners. The Lithuanians did the same.

The following year, 1381, through the mediation of Metropolitan Cyprian, Oleg and Dmitry concluded an anti-Horde treaty, in which the Ryazan prince recognized himself as the “younger brother” of Moscow. Under the terms of this agreement, he also freed Dmitry’s soldiers captured a year earlier.

The mysterious campaign against Moscow of Tokhtamysh


And in 1382, a new legitimate khan came to Rus' - Tokhtamysh, who by that time had defeated the usurper Mamai.


Tokhtamysh on the throne of the Golden Horde. Miniature of the Facial Chronicle Code

Tokhtamysh's campaign is another Russian mystery stories. After all, Dmitry (like all other princes) recognized the power of Tokhtamysh and had no intention of organizing a new Battle of Kulikovo. They write that Dmitry refused to pay tribute, but this is unlikely: Tokhtamysh, unlike Mamai, was a real “king”, whose power no one in Rus' was going to challenge. There were no grounds for refusing tribute to Tokhtamysh, just as there were not enough forces to openly challenge him. On the Kulikovo Field, after all, only a temnik was defeated, who, having become a beklyaribek (something like the “head of the administration”), usurped power in part of the Horde’s territory. By the way, he had big problems with the control of these lands, and his Chingizid proteges were repeatedly expelled from Sarai. Muhammad-Sultan (Mamat-Saltan), for example, was khan from 1370 to 1379, but he owned Sarai only in 1371-1373, 1374 and, possibly, in 1375-1376.

Thus, Mamai’s resources were not comparable to those of the khan. Moreover, he has not received tribute from Moscow for 6 years.

But why did Tokhtamysh almost immediately go on a campaign against his Moscow tributary and destroy his possessions? It is clear that you cannot collect taxes from burned cities and villages and you cannot send “exit” from them to the Horde.

Dmitry’s behavior looks very strange: if you follow the official version, for some reason he actually fled from well-fortified Moscow, which the Tatars were then able to take only by cunning. Allegedly he went to Kostroma to gather troops. But I didn’t collect it, because suddenly

“Disagreement emerged among the princes, and they did not want to help each other, and brother did not want to help brother.”

Two years ago, the princes did not refuse to help Dmitry against Mamai, but now for some reason they “didn’t want to.” Even his cousin, the hero of the Battle of Kulikovo, Vladimir Serpukhovskoy, who withdrew his troops to Volok Lamsky, refused to join the Grand Duke. Agree that dividing forces during a large invasion of the Tatars is not the best idea: they will be broken up in parts, as has happened more than once. And in Moscow at this time events were taking place that were very similar to the rebellion against Dmitry. The townspeople robbed the houses of the boyars and "got drunk", the gate was controlled not by vigilantes, but by some strangers "with naked weapons, Rogatins and Sulitsa" Following the prince, Dmitry's wife Evdokia and Metropolitan Cyprian fled from the city with great difficulty - also robbed by Muscovites. At the same time, Evdokia went to her husband in Kostroma, but Cyprian went to the Grand Duke of Tver Mikhail Alexandrovich, who was not a friend of Dmitry Donskoy. And who undertook to defend Moscow from the Tatars? Some Lithuanian prince Ostey, grandson of Olgerd, who previously came to fight with Moscow three times, and now “hailstone rebellion tamed" And Tokhtamysh, it turns out, is first of all interested: is Prince Dmitry in Moscow now? And, having received a negative answer, he does not go to look for the tributary who allegedly does not want to pay the “exit”, but besieges the city, which is ready to submit to submission - in order for it to open the gates for it, you just need to recognize the coup that took place in Moscow and the new Prince Osteya. Which Tokhtamysh pretended to do three days later. And then the khan burned Moscow and confirmed the label for the Great Reign for the fugitive debtor Dmitry.

It is suggested that in fact the uprising of Muscovites was not a consequence of Tokhtamysh’s campaign, but its cause: Dmitry was expelled from Moscow, and the khan came to the aid of his vassal. And the reason for the rebellion could be an increase in taxes - just to pay tribute to Tokhtamysh. They receive an explanation for the actions of the Nizhny Novgorod princes Vasily Kirdyapa and Semyon Dmitrievich (whose sister was the wife of Dmitry Donskoy), who convinced the Muscovites to open the gates. It is quite possible that Vasily and Semyon acted as allies of Dmitry, who was expelled from Moscow, and acted in his interests. On the way back, the Tatars also plundered the Ryazan lands, but it is likely that individual detachments did not ask Tokhtamysh for permission to do this, and the khan could not control the troops stretched over many miles. A clash between Vladimir Serpukhovsky’s squad and some minor Tatar detachment (most likely, a marauder detachment that broke away from the main forces) was also noted. Dmitry, not daring to engage in battle with the Tatars, attacked the Ryazan principality - as if taking revenge on Oleg for showing the Horde fords on the Oka (which, by the way, was not particularly necessary - they were well known to the Tatar merchants and cattle traders ). Most likely, Dmitry simply wanted to improve his rather shaky financial situation at the expense of his neighbor.

Military successes of Oleg Ryazansky


In 1385, Oleg was finally able to return Kolomna, captured by the Muscovites, and then, near Perevitsk, he defeated the Moscow army of Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky (Brave). They claim that the Ryazan people captured half of his army. The son of the Lithuanian prince Andrei Olgerdovich, Mikhail, who participated in the Battle of Kulikovo, also died in the battle. This time, Sergius of Radonezh became a mediator in concluding peace between Ryazan and Moscow. In 1386, Oleg's son Fyodor married Dmitry's daughter Sophia. In 1400, their daughter was married to the son of the above-mentioned Vladimir of Serpukhov.


Fyodor Olgovich on a miniature of the Front Chronicle Vault

Oleg had to repel the raids of the Tatars. So, according to the Nikon Chronicle, in 1394

“The great prince Oleg Ivanovich Ryazan defeated the Tatars of the Takhtamysh Hordes, who came into exile to the Ryazan authorities.”

In 1400, according to the same source:

“In the borders of Cherlenago Yar and in the guardhouses near Khopor to the Don, the great prince Oleg Ivanovich, with the Pronsky princes and with the Murom and Kozelsky, beat up many Tatars, and captured Tsarevich Mamat-Saltan Yasha, and other Orda princes.”

Please note: in this case, Oleg does not fight off the Tatars, but makes a deep raid on Horde territory - the place in question is located approximately 500 km south of the Kulikovo Field.

For some time, Oleg’s son Rodoslav was held hostage in the Horde, but he managed to escape. On the side of his son-in-law, Prince Yuri Svyatoslavich of Smolensk, Oleg successfully fought against Vitovt of Lithuania, who captured Smolensk. At the same time, the new Moscow prince, Vasily (Dmitry Donskoy died in 1389), Vitovt’s son-in-law, did not provide any help to the Smolensk people.

The last years of Oleg Ryazansky's life


In 1402, the Ryazan army, led by Rodoslav Olgovich, was defeated by the Lithuanians in the Battle of Lubutsk. Oleg’s son was captured, from which only a few years later the new Ryazan prince, Fyodor Olgovich, managed to redeem him. And Oleg and his wife Euphrosyne (daughter of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd, sister of the wife of Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky) soon after the defeat at Lyubutsk took monastic vows: Oleg, who took the name Joachim, settled in the Solotchinsky monastery he founded, and Euphrosyne, who became Eupraxia, in Solotchinsky Women's Zachateisky.

Oleg died in June 1402, his wife survived him by either two or four years.

In October 1769, by decree of the Holy Synod, the remains of Oleg and Euphrosyne were transferred to the Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Solotchinsky Monastery. In 1923 they were transferred to the Ryazan Provincial Museum, and in 1990 they were returned to the Church. Currently, their common tomb is located in the Nativity of the Mother of God Cathedral of the Solotchinsky Monastery (in 1994 it was revived as a women's monastery).


Photo from the website of the Ryazan Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve

In the 2010s. famous anthropologists T. S. Balueva and E. V. Veselovskaya reconstructed the face of Prince Oleg based on his skull. You saw a photograph of this sculpture at the very beginning of this article.

On May 16, 2023, by resolution of the Synod, Prince Oleg was included in the Cathedral of Ryazan Saints.


Oleg Ryazansky on a modern icon

The decline of the Ryazan principality


Under the new Ryazan prince Fedor, Oleg’s son, the Tatars were defeated in 1404:

“The Tatars came as exiles to Ryazan, and the great prince Feodor Olgovich, Ivanov’s grandson, sent an ambassador after them in pursuit; As they walked, the Tatars were full of food, and they caught many Tatars, and returned to Ryazan with much joy.”

(Nikon Chronicle).

The battles with the Tatars in 1410 and 1425 were successful: the Ryazan people overtook the Tatars who came as “exiles,” crushed them and recaptured the captives.

In 1460, Ryazan (more precisely, Pereyaslavl-Ryazan) unsuccessfully tried to capture Khan Akhmat, who, according to the Simeon Chronicle, stood at the city walls for 6 days and “retreat from him in shame" And the Ermolinsk Chronicle reports that Akhmat besieged Ryazan for three weeks

“They approached the city every day and killed many of its Tatars... they left with great shame.”

Ryazan maintained its independence from Moscow longer than other Great Duchies: Nizhny Novgorod ceased to exist in 1447, Tver - in 1485. The Great Ryazan Principality, although it became a vassal of Moscow in recent years, held out until 1521.

The grandson of Oleg Ryazansky, Ivan Fedorovich, dying in 1456, left his 8-year-old son Vasily and daughter Feodosia in the care of the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily II (Dark).


Vasily and Feodosia of Ryazan come to Moscow to visit Vasily II

Moscow governors began to rule Ryazan, but in 1464 another Moscow prince, Ivan III, returned Vasily Ivanovich to Ryazan and in December of the same year married him to his younger sister Anna. Vasily Ivanovich ruled for 19 years, maintaining the most friendly relations with Moscow. Vasily's eldest son, Ivan, became the penultimate Grand Duke of Ryazan, and the youngest, Fedor, transferred his inheritance to Ivan III. The last Ryazan prince, Ivan Ivanovich, great-great-great-grandson of the famous Oleg, was arrested in Moscow in 1520 by order of Vasily III (father of Ivan the Terrible). His mother was sent to a monastery. The okolnichy I.V. Obraztsov-Simsky Khabar became the Moscow governor in Pereyaslavl-Ryazan. History expert Valery Bryusov, whom Gorky called “the most cultural writer of Russia”, this is how a poem written in 1899 talks about it:

Balalaika is a know-it-all!
Sing to us merrily
Your own song
Sing to us noche you, noche you, noche you...
Like the Ryazan prince sitting under lock and key,
He sits under lock and key, looking at Moscow,
Duma thinks, he recalls,
As full of Moscow people without guilt,
How they led him through the streets just now,
Natural Prince, Svyatoslavich,
How the Moscow people looked at him,
He saw me off, laughing, from the Kaluga Gate.
And he, the prince, deserves honor:
In your seniority, sit on the golden table.
Here it is burning in the crown, and there are rays all around!
The princes - the Monomakhovichs - worship.
But he is glad to love those with all his soul,
In Rurik's tribe, everyone is the elder brother.
Here he will shout the cry, who is ready to fight!
On horseback he himself will lead his army
To Sveya, to Lithuania, to the rotten Crimea...
(If anyone doesn’t want to, go to others!)
The guslars will sing about the glorious battle,
They will have fun and glorify ancient Ryazan.
But all around is dark - silence -
Behind the bars, Moscow is visible through the window,
No one will hear the daring cry,
The last Olgovich sits behind the castle.
They will lead him, wait, among the thieves
For an evil execution in the Kremlin ditch.

In 1521, Ivan Ivanovich managed to escape, but the Moscow governor was already firmly in Ryazan, who was not going to let the Ryazan prince into his city. Ivan Ivanovich spent the rest of his life in Lithuania, where he received the Stoklishki estate from King Sigismund I. Since then, the Ryazan lands have finally become part of the Moscow state. Many believe that it was then, by order of the Moscow Prince with the aim of ideologically justifying the annexation of Ryazan lands, that the literary work “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev” was written, in which Prince Oleg Ivanovich is declared a traitor to all-Russian interests.
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    27 February 2024 05: 30
    Quote: Ryzhov V.A.
    “abuse” of two traditional Erzya drinks – buza based on rye malt
    This is the same beer, only without adding hops to it. The entire Volga region and the Urals drank it. Russians, Mordovians and Tatars, just have time to serve! wink
    1. +3
      27 February 2024 09: 10
      The verb “buzit” apparently comes from buza. So, getting drunk on booze was real. But the especially lethal one, of course, is pure - it’s simply amazing: people knew that their legs would be paralyzed for a while, their heads would hurt - and they drank anyway!”
  2. +2
    27 February 2024 06: 16
    In 1385, Oleg was finally able to return Kolomna, captured by the Muscovites.
    He captured the governor of Kolomna, Alexander Ostey, with the boyars, and his namesake or relative died during the siege of Moscow by Tokhtamysh.
  3. +2
    27 February 2024 07: 08
    Quote: Dutchman Michel
    It's the same beer

    It's more likely bob. I drank this in Tatarstan...
  4. +4
    27 February 2024 07: 48
    Thank you, Valery! hi

    It was very interesting and pleasant to read your article! hi
  5. +4
    27 February 2024 08: 22
    And now the author comes from the other side: the Lithuanians were going to unite with Mamai, Oleg also walked next to the army. Dmitry Donskoy ordered no evil to be done in the Ryazan lands. What we have in reality: Oleg could not join Dmitry, exposing his lands, but he protected himself from the Lithuanians.
    1. +3
      27 February 2024 10: 10
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      And now the author comes from the other side: the Lithuanians were going to unite with Mamai, Oleg also walked next to the army. Dmitry Donskoy ordered no evil to be done in the Ryazan lands. What we have in reality: Oleg could not join Dmitry, exposing his lands, but he protected himself from the Lithuanians.

      Moreover, no one stopped Oleg from striking the Moscow lands, which he did not do. Was there betrayal? Most likely there was an agreement.
      1. +5
        27 February 2024 10: 37
        Thus, the article denies betrayal - both legal and factual. On Oleg's part - pure pragmatism and concern for the interests of his independent principality. He was on his own. Dmitry ordered not to touch the Ryazan lands during the campaign - but not because there was some kind of agreement, but because he was afraid that in this case the offended Oleg would actually join Mamai. After the battle, Oleg robbed the convoys of the Moscow army and took prisoners not because he had an agreement with Mamai, but because “it was possible.” Considering how many times Muscovites ravaged his lands, he did not feel any remorse.
        1. +1
          27 February 2024 12: 16
          Quote: vet
          Thus, the article denies betrayal - both legal and factual. On Oleg's part - pure pragmatism and concern for the interests of his independent principality. He was on his own. Dmitry ordered not to touch the Ryazan lands during the campaign - but not because there was some kind of agreement, but because he was afraid that in this case the offended Oleg would actually join Mamai. After the battle, Oleg robbed the convoys of the Moscow army and took prisoners not because he had an agreement with Mamai, but because “it was possible.” Considering how many times Muscovites ravaged his lands, he did not feel any remorse.

          If there had been pure pragmatism, then Oleg would have struck Moscow. What would force Dmitry to send part of the army back, this could decide the outcome of the battle in favor of the Horde. So most likely there was a secret agreement.
          1. +2
            27 February 2024 12: 52
            No, it seems to me that Oleg could not be interested in the complete defeat of Dmitry and the excessive strengthening of Mamai. Neither one nor the other were friends of his principality, which was “between a rock and a hard place.” The best option is to significantly weaken both.
  6. +2
    27 February 2024 08: 47
    History expert Valery Bryusov, whom Gorky called “the most cultural writer of Russia,” talks about it this way in a poem

    It’s amazing how the author loves to endow the poets of the Silver Age with almost prophetic qualities (or present them as academicians from historical science). Well, it’s like studying the history of the Middle Ages from Shakespeare...
    1. +3
      27 February 2024 09: 04
      Quote: Vladimir80
      History expert Valery Bryusov, whom Gorky called “the most cultural writer of Russia”

      Quote: Vladimir80
      It’s amazing how the author likes to endow the poets of the Silver Age with almost prophetic qualities (or present them as academicians from historical science)

      Gorky was embarrassed to say that everyone called Bryusov a “great magician”; it was believed that Valery Yakovlevich had made a deal with the devil.
      All this Silver Age public, of course, was not entirely healthy.
      1. +1
        28 February 2024 04: 01
        Gorky himself was suspected of making a deal with the devil. Apparently it was a common business at that time... laughing
    2. +1
      27 February 2024 09: 13
      Why not quote verses on the topic, if they are good? And Bryusov, indeed, has very good historical books that have somehow been forgotten - about medieval Germany, about Ancient Rome.
      1. +2
        27 February 2024 09: 27
        Why not quote verses on the topic, if they are good?

        yes, I myself like some of the poems of Yesenin or Mayakovsky, or Gumilyov... but why cite them as an argument in an article in the “history” section? They don’t quote Yesenin in “the world around us (natural history)” lessons!
        1. +3
          27 February 2024 10: 11
          Or you can quote it. For example, Mary Mape Dodge's good children's book "Silver Skates" is evidence that in the second half of the 19th century canals froze in the Netherlands every winter. And now it is very rare. In 2021, by the way, despite all the “horrors of global warming,” they suddenly froze.
          1. 0
            28 February 2024 21: 55
            Wiki says: "Set in the Netherlands, the novel provides a vivid, artistic portrait of Dutch life in the early 1840th century, as well as an inspiring tale of youthful honor... Holland, XNUMXs, St. Nicholas Eve..."
  7. +4
    27 February 2024 08: 55
    Ivan Ivanovich, great-great-great-grandson of the famous Oleg, was arrested in Moscow in 1520 by order of Vasily III
    Prince, not guilty of repression. Although since 1514, Ivan Ivanovich Ryazansky has ruled independently. Despite the fact that Moscow governors and garrisons left the Ryazan principality. Ivan Ivanovich stopped participating in the campaigns of Vasily III of Moscow, literally at all. Ivan Ivanovich, wanted to get rid of Moscow vassalage, for this he needed support and he turned for support to the boyars who wanted the independence of the Ryazan principality. But this was not enough, he turned to the Crimean Khanate for support against Moscow, serious military force was required. Prince Ivan Ivanovich promised to marry one of the daughters of Mehmed I Giray. But Vasily III saw through this matter and, under a plausible pretext, invited him to Moscow and immediately upon arrival put him in prison, and the Moscow governor was returned to Ryazan. Yes, by the way, Ivan Ivanovich was never married and his marriage to the daughter of the Crimean Khan was a serious threat to the Moscow state.
    1. 0
      27 February 2024 09: 15
      An attempt to defend your sovereignty, recognized by everyone around you, is, of course, a serious crime smile
      1. +5
        27 February 2024 10: 07
        Vasily III was not the politician who declared: Take as much sovereignty as you want.
        1. +2
          27 February 2024 10: 17
          If Ryazan at that time was part of the Moscow state, yes, one could agree with you. But Ryazan still retained its independence, albeit with an eye on the predatorily looming Moscow. However, now, of course, we can say that Vasily III acted as a progressive ruler, collected lands and so on. But no one had yet explained this to the Ryazan people (and especially the Ryazan prince).
          1. +1
            27 February 2024 12: 06
            I could agree with you.
            What do you disagree with? With the fact that Vasily III collected Russian lands around Moscow? Different ways? For example: shouldn’t he have fought for Smolensk from the ON?
    2. +1
      27 February 2024 09: 26
      Ivan Ivanovich was never married and marrying the daughter of the Crimean Khan was a serious threat to the Moscow state

      This is actually a masterpiece: it turns out. The independent Ryazan prince can no longer marry, since this threatens the interests of the Moscow prince. smile
      1. +3
        27 February 2024 10: 09
        This is generally a masterpiece:
        In case of marriage, Ivan Ivanovich received military support from the Crimean Khanate. And significant and could resist the Moscow prince, but the Ryazan principality was not located in Kamchatka.
  8. 0
    27 February 2024 09: 20
    Vasily and Feodosia of Ryazan come to Moscow to visit Vasily II

    Please note: Princess Theodosia is not on some kind of cart, but on horseback! Not in a modern drawing, but in a 17th century miniature! ! "Ryazan Amazon"!
  9. +2
    27 February 2024 09: 38
    Ryazan maintained its independence from Moscow longer than other Great Duchies: Nizhny Novgorod ceased to exist in 1447, Tver - in 1485. The Great Ryazan Principality, although it became a vassal of Moscow in recent years, held out until 1521.


    Most likely, the assertion about the existence of completely independent principalities on the territory of ancient Rus' is erroneous. All the princes, throughout the history of ancient Rus', fought among themselves for the right to be called the Grand Duke of all Rus'. This is a typical feudal struggle, or civil war. For some reason, no one calls France a set of independent states when absolutely identical events took place there. For some reason, we are talking about the absence of central power in ancient Rus', despite the fact that its presence was recognized by the Mongol-Tatars and other surrounding states. One can talk about the extreme weakness of the central government, about periods of disobedience, but any of the princes considered themselves and their principality part of Rus' with a single spiritual center.
    1. +3
      27 February 2024 09: 43
      Quote from Eugene Zaboy
      For some reason no one calls France a set of independent states when absolutely identical events took place there
      The duchies of medieval France were de facto independent and usually sent the king to hell
      1. +5
        27 February 2024 10: 02
        Parody "General History, processed by Satyricon":
        The French throne was occupied by the Capetian line. It was not easy for this dynasty to break into the people; in those days you could be a king, but not be accepted in society.

        smile
      2. 0
        27 February 2024 10: 03
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        The duchies of medieval France were de facto independent and usually sent the king to hell


        It was “de facto” that were considered independent, just like the ancient Russian principalities. Absolutely identical. For some reason, on this basis, no one questions the existence of a united France with a central authority, albeit weak, in the person of the king. This mantra, from the Khrushchev period, about the complete collapse of ancient Rus' into appanage principalities, was needed to create Ukraine, to show the failure of Russia, that’s all. It was for this purpose that it was necessary to hammer this into the heads of each and everyone, and today it is used as an anti-Russian slogan from the territory of Ukraine.
    2. 0
      27 February 2024 19: 43
      All princes, throughout the history of ancient Rus', fought among themselves for the right to be called the Grand Duke of all Rus'. This is a typical feudal struggle, or civil war.

      One can argue long and tediously about the “typicality” of the feudal system on the territory of the Russian principalities.
      De jure, the united Russian state (which is also debatable) ceased to exist under Vladimir Monomakh and his son. De facto, after Yuri Dolgoruky’s refusal to sit on the Kiev table. Subsequently, the round of fragmentation of Russian lands took an even sadder turn, and to the events described in the article, the Grand Dukes of Moscow, Tver, Ryazan and Smolensk stood in line for the label of a Grand Duchy. Moreover, this is against the background of the dominant ON.
      1. +3
        28 February 2024 06: 51
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        De jure, the united Russian state (which is also debatable) ceased to exist under Vladimir Monomakh and his son. De facto, after Yuri Dolgoruky’s refusal to sit on the Kiev table.


        Can the transfer of the capital to Moscow and the refusal of the Principality of Kyiv to recognize this fact be considered the reason for the end of the existence of the Russian state? What was the Principality of Kiev on the scale of ancient Rus'? The distance between Kiev and Chernigov is 156 km, and from Kyiv to the borders of the Chernigov principality is even less. A point on the map of ancient Rus'. Kyiv, at best, controlled the course of the Dnieper up to the Dnieper rapids, and a little upstream. The best thing they did was transport from coast to coast, and apparently they got their income from this. The Dnieper has never been a trade route. While Novgorod conducted trade relations from Copenhagen and Berlin to Astrakhan, other Russian cities (Ryazan, Tver, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, etc.) did not lag behind, but did the same thing, using the bed of the Volga and its tributaries. Moreover, it can hardly be said that they completely ignored the central government, like Kyiv. The revolt of Kyiv led Rus' to approximately the same situation as it was before Rurik, but even then it was recognized as existing in written sources. And how could Novgorod use the Volga if a friendly population did not live there? For the appearance of Rurik in Novgorod, a bridge was built across the Volkhov, about half a kilometer long. This fact alone speaks volumes about the level of development of the city and the scale of trade. Is it worth paying attention to the dissatisfied statements of Kyiv historians about the collapse of Rus'? Even today they say that Russia does not exist. Only it not only exists, but also turns Ukraine into a virtual state, and very quickly and effectively, despite the scale of Ukraine, compared to the library Kievan Rus.
        1. +1
          28 February 2024 11: 52
          I'm talking a little about something else.
          The institution of the state presupposes the existence of a system for managing its territory. The term “focal state” you use implies the presence of three classes of society in it. Alas, in the Russian principalities of the 10th-14th centuries there were no serfs as a class in principle. So any processes in “Rus” are conditionally indirectly connected with feudal ones. However, like a civil war, with whom and against whom, if everyone considered himself a navel on a level field.
          The generality of the idea was much later, although its beginnings found a response both among the masses (PVL and the Lay of Igor’s Campaign) and among the rulers, both secular and ecclesiastical.
          1. 0
            28 February 2024 15: 10
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            The term “focal state” you use implies the presence of three classes of society in it. Alas, in the Russian principalities of the 10th-14th centuries there were no serfs as a class in principle. So any processes in “Rus” are conditionally indirectly connected with feudal ones.


            I completely agree. It would be a stretch to call the Russian princes of that period feudal lords, and it would most likely be incorrect. As well as the fact that they did not receive princely rights by inheritance, but in most cases they were either invited or appointed. Therefore, it also seems incorrect to call the principalities of ancient Rus' appanage.

            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            However, like a civil war, with whom and against whom, if everyone considered himself a navel on a level field.


            Each of the princes sought to become the only Grand Duke of Rus' and for this they fought wars among themselves, and this is already a typical civil war.
          2. +2
            28 February 2024 23: 56
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Alas, in the Russian principalities of the 10th-14th centuries there were no serfs as a class in principle.


            By the way, a very interesting problem. There are no visible tribal relations in Russian cities of the 10th-14th centuries, there is no feudalism either, what remains? In fact, this issue is hushed up and attributed to unrest and anarchy. Although, even from Moscow, the dissatisfied population expelled the prince. It’s scary to imagine, but the governance structure of Russian cities was based on the principles of democratic governance; there’s no other word for it.
            1. 0
              29 February 2024 20: 46
              There are no visible tribal relations in Russian cities of the 10th-14th centuries, there is no feudalism either, what remains? In fact, this issue is hushed up and attributed to unrest and anarchy.

              Look on the VO resource for the works of Eduard Vyashchenko, he has published a number of works on this topic.
              Regarding “democracy” in Rus', not everything is so simple. This is the topic of a long discussion between two domestic historical schools, St. Petersburg and Moscow.
              1. -1
                29 February 2024 23: 46
                Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                Look on the VO resource for the works of Eduard Vyashchenko, he has published a number of works on this topic.
                Regarding “democracy” in Rus', not everything is so simple. This is the topic of a long discussion between two domestic historical schools, St. Petersburg and Moscow.


                Along the way, we note that such concepts as “controlled anarchy” or “segmental society” are still trying to apply to this period of Slavic history, but these concepts are not particularly clear (M. Nistazopulu-Pelekido, F. Kurt).

                Byzantine authors saw in the Slavic tribes a society that “is not controlled by one person, but since ancient times have lived in democracy (democracy),” as Procopius of Caesarea wrote, and as the author of the Strategicon added:

                “Since they have different opinions, they either don’t agree, or even if they agree, then the others immediately violate the decision, because everyone thinks the opposite of each other and no one wants to give in to the other.”
                Eduard Vyashchenko


                Apparently, the Russians and Slavs used, let’s say, an “archaic form of democracy” for their government. Due to the lack of written sources and archaeological monuments in the form of stone buildings, detailed information about this form of government is not available. It is precisely because of this that this form of government has not received recognition among historians.
  10. +1
    27 February 2024 11: 27
    and then near Perevitsk he defeated the Moscow army of Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky

    In 1386, Oleg's son Fyodor married Dmitry's daughter Sophia. In 1400, their daughter was married to the son of the above-mentioned Vladimir of Serpukhov.

    They lived happily in Rus'. They'll either fight or get married.
    1. +2
      28 February 2024 04: 03
      And not only in Rus'. And not only at that time.
  11. 0
    27 February 2024 15: 42
    I read different authors giving different versions. Maybe we stand on the position of a modern understanding of all the events that took place? Why did the princes of feudal Rus' fight with their neighbors? to receive tribute from the vanquished, taxes from the population, and so on in the same spirit. Was there a “deep goal” to unite the principalities into a single state without material interest “everything around is mine!” - very unlikely. A certificate from the Horde gave the opportunity to be richer. Did you think about the people? - a slave was cheaper than cattle, which was the case before 1861. So there is hardly any need to idealize the historical figures of those eras (I won’t list them, they are all well known from the 4th grade textbook on the history of the USSR). Power gives wealth, wealth gives power. And so on until socialism. If there are no ideal people and rulers in the modern world, where did they come from in the past? Prince Oleg took part in battles against the squads of neighboring princes - he participated (according to the article). The Slavic neighbors attacked the Ryazan lands - they attacked. Did Oleg Ryazansky's squad join Mamai - no (according to all available documents). So there is no need to distribute pasted labels.
  12. +1
    27 February 2024 16: 25
    In Rus', the princes brought more grief and misfortune than the Horde. Pride. greed, envy... The first Russian saints were killed by their brother. And, after all, they are all relatives one way or another. Even the Great Lithuanian Prince Jagiello, who is not related to the Lithuanians by any tribe. wink
  13. +4
    27 February 2024 17: 55
    You, the author, I think, were too clever in suggesting that Tokhtamysh’s campaign against Moscow was dictated by the desire to “protect” Dmitry’s rights from the rebellious population. Moreover, there is not even a hint about the uprising in the sources. In general, Tokhtamysh had a peculiar feeling of gratitude - Dmitry smashes his main rival - Mamai, “in gratitude” Tokhtamysh ruins Moscow. Tamerlane-Tokhtamysh placed him on the throne of the Golden Horde, and Tokhtamysh also thanked him with attacks on Timur’s lands. Moreover, the first war ended with the defeat of Tokhtamysh at Kondurch. But, which completely failed Tokhtamysh, the result was the Terek and the subsequent brutal defeat of the Horde lands and the flight of Tokhtamysh. These actions of Tokhtamysh cannot be explained at all - knowing Tamerlane’s military machine from the inside and being personally acquainted with him, nevertheless he constantly bit until his teeth were knocked out. If you really wanted to keep your Beks busy with the war, so as not to become another beaten down Chengizid, Europe is nearby, it has already made good money for 150 years, after the pogroms of Batu. But no, he chose the most dangerous opponent and at the same time constantly ran from the battlefield in the midst of the battle. It turns out that he himself was afraid of Khromts to the point of losing control over himself and nevertheless, he attacked him with senseless frenzy.
    Most likely, for Tokhtamysh, being a khan and being a thinking person are two different things.
    1. +1
      27 February 2024 18: 19
      So, I think the reason for the march on Moscow and the unpreparedness to repel it was an ordinary dispute about the amount of tribute. Tokhtamysh wanted Dzhanibekov’s piece, but Dmitry believed that it was possible to have a smaller one, “we just helped you a lot, have a conscience.” But Tokhtamysh had already been crushed by the crown and took any disagreement as a personal insult. I don’t see any other reason for the ruin of Moscow and the war with Timur than Tokhtamysh’s pride.
    2. VLR
      +2
      27 February 2024 18: 29
      How is it that there is not even a hint about the uprising in Moscow in the sources, if they directly speak about this uprising? And is it directly called rebellion? It is reported that Dmitry fled the city in fear, leaving his wife. True, some chroniclers bashfully explain that he was afraid not of the Muscovites, but of Tokhtamysh, who, I remind you, could not take Moscow, and could not - because he “went into exile” and there were no siege engines in his army. At most, he could have plundered the surrounding area, but there was no need to worry about well-fortified Moscow. Sources talk about the robberies of boyar households and the control of city gates by some “leftist” armed people - not a squad. And even that
      “The people of the Stasha Vechem, the Metropolitan and the Grand Duchess robbed and barely let them leave the city.”
      (Tver Chronicle)"
      Finally, about the Lithuanian (!) Prince Osteya, who previously came to fight against Moscow three times, and now, “he has tamed the rebellion (namely, rebellion!) in the city.” Or - not tamed, but led? And then, such a disinterested well-wishing and benefactor, undertook to defend Moscow - like a fox a henhouse. All the princes who went with Dmitry to the Kulikovo Field suddenly refused to obey him - even his cousin Vladimir Serpukhovskaya. Dmitry's wife's brothers are helping Tokhtamysh to capture Moscow by cunning - pure traitors? But no reaction from the prince. He then ruins the Ryazan land for some unknown reason (Oleg showed everyone the long-known fords across the Oka? It’s not even funny). And Dmitry does not touch the Nizhny Novgorod lands of oath-breaking relatives, because of whom Moscow was burned. Tokhtamysh burned Moscow, which was ready to submit to him, and, allegedly, who did not want to pay the “exit” to the “rebellious” ulusnik Dmitry, confirmed the label for reign. This is only what is on the surface.
      1. +1
        27 February 2024 19: 00
        Do you take the time factor into account? The rebellion, the flight of Dmitry, when should Tokhtamysh have found out about this? And then gather an army and go into exile. This is not now - I sent an SMS or via video call. Then it took much longer. And the facts you cited are easy to interpret differently - Dmitry leaves Moscow, mind you, leaves his family there, which means he does not abandon the city, but goes to gather an army, sitting under siege, the army cannot be gathered - but the Muscovites considered themselves abandoned, Cyprian, instead of spiritual support for the people, himself he runs, taking the family of the Grand Duke, the boyars gave him slippers, their yards were allowed to be plundered. Then Ostey turned up, the Muscovites accepted him, the fact that he went to Moscow with Olgerd does not mean anything - today we are at war, tomorrow we are allies, an example in the article is Oleg Ryazansky, Dmitry Moskovsky. So, dear author, you have already gone to the alternative. Yes, and you have already reduced Dmitry to a complete coward who runs away leaving his family. But he fought like a simple warrior on the Kulikovo field, here the man is clearly not a coward.
        1. VLR
          +3
          27 February 2024 19: 32
          Dmitry's disguise is the strangest and most "murky episode" of the Battle of Kulikovo. But, if we remember what we know about him from a work of fiction
          “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamai,” where Mamai offers prayers to Hercules, Perun and Khors, then everything falls into place: the anonymous writer gave free rein to his imagination and was unable to stop in time.
        2. +2
          28 February 2024 09: 58
          time factor

          What time? It now seems that everything was happening quickly, as it is now. And then, by our standards, it was very leisurely and slow. Simultaneously with his departure from Moscow, Dmitry apparently sent a messenger to Tokhtamysh: they drove away me, your faithful ulus, and who will pay you tribute? He collected everything he had at hand and went to Moscow as if on a raid - lightly and without siege engines. At the walls of Moscow they tried to calm him down: they say, there will be tribute to you, only you recognize our new prince. But Tokhtamysh, apparently, decided that Dmitry would be more reliable than Ostey, behind whom the Lithuanians stand. And such an opportunity, under a plausible pretext, to plunder a rich city, yourself, everything you want to take - how can you miss it?