Ice, Sword, and the Fate of Rus'

13 640 140
Ice, Sword, and the Fate of Rus'


It's the spring of 1242. Rus' lies in ruins. Batu Khan's Mongols swept through it with fire and sword three years ago. Vladimir is burned. Kyiv has fallen. Ryazan has been wiped off the face of the earth. It seemed that only the name remained of the Russian lands. Europe, both secular and ecclesiastical, decided that the opportune moment had arrived.



The Danish knights, the German crusaders of the Livonian Order, and the Swedish warriors all received Rome's blessing to complete what the Mongols had begun. If the eastern nomads had destroyed the body of Rus', the western knights intended to destroy its soul. The Vatican failed to subjugate Moscow.

The Novgorod land, rich, commercial, and proud, proved to be the primary target. It was the starting point. The Order of the Brothers of the Sword, later transformed into the Livonian Order, captured Izborsk, then Pskov. Danish troops landed on the coast. The Swedes advanced along the Neva. The plan was well-thought-out: squeeze Novgorod from three sides, cut off access to the sea, and then finish it off.

But the crusaders didn’t take one thing into account: in Novgorod there lived a man whom they underestimated.


Alexander Yaroslavich turned twenty-one the year of the Battle on the Ice. By this age, he had already repelled the Swedish invasion on the Neva, earning him his famous nickname. He had already liberated Koporye. He had already driven the crusaders out of Pskov.

The chronicles left us no portrait of him. No height, no eye color, no facial features. But they preserved something else about his style. Alexander didn't commit his army to battle until he had studied the terrain. He didn't attack until he understood the enemy. He didn't attack until he was sure the time had come. Thirty years of military experience in twenty years would be how a modern military analyst would characterize his style.

In the spring of 1242, the prince led his army onto the frozen shores of Lake Peipus. He chose a position on the eastern shore, closer to the narrow strait between Lake Peipus and Lake Pskov. Behind the Russian soldiers lay a steep, wooded bank. There was nowhere to retreat. But then, there was no way around it either.

"The cost of defeat in the Battle of the Ice for the Germans was not high. Compared to the time of the invasion, they lost nothing."

the doctor will write later historical Roman Sokolov, a professor of science. He's right. For the Crusaders, this was a gamble; at worst, they'd retreat and return in a year. For Rus', it was the last frontier.


Early in the morning of April 5th, both armies took to the ice. The exact number is a matter that historians still debate. Some say ten to twelve thousand on the German side. Others say as few as four hundred. Whatever the case, experts agree on one thing: the Russians had a slight numerical advantage.

The German knights formed a wedge formation, the so-called "pig." The heavily armed cavalry was at the forefront, while the infantry covered the flanks and rear. The classic tactic of the Order: smash into the enemy's line with the tip of the wedge, split it, and finish it off piecemeal. This technique worked flawlessly against the Baltic tribes. Against the Russians, it didn't.

Alexander organized his army differently. The center was weakened. The flanks were strengthened. The vanguard regiment with archers was in front. The cavalry was behind.

The wedge crashed into the front line, crushing it, and breaking through to the center. The knights rejoiced; everything seemed to be going according to plan. But the plan wasn't theirs.

At that moment, the Russian regiments attacked the flanks. The cavalry outflanked the enemy. The encirclement was complete.

The Life of Alexander Nevsky, compiled by a younger contemporary of the prince, describes these moments:
"And the battle was fierce. The crack of breaking spears, the sound of clashing swords... And the ice was not visible, because it was covered in blood."



There's a beautiful myth about knights, burdened with heavy armor, falling through the ice and drowning by the thousands. We know this image from Eisenstein's film, and it makes an indelible impression. But the truth is both more modest and more terrifying.

The first mention of people falling through the ice appears only in the fifteenth century, two hundred and fifty years after the battle. The Sofia First Chronicle reports that the Russians pursued the Livonians for seven miles across the lake, and they ended up on a "sigovica"—a patch of thin ice. "And the water drowned others," the chronicle states.

But neither the Russians nor the Germans would have been foolish enough to venture out onto the thin ice voluntarily. Archaeological expeditions working on Lake Peipus in the 1950s and 1960s found no evidence of widespread underwater deaths. The lake's silt was as dense as rock, and no armor was found in it.

Knights perished from swords, spears, and Russian hooks—special devices used by warriors to pull steel-clad riders from their horses. The infantry routed the cavalry. This was one of the first such cases in European military history.

According to Russian sources, the order's losses amounted to four hundred knights killed and ninety captured. For medieval Europe, it was a catastrophe. The Chud who fought on the side of the crusaders perished "countless."


The battle was over by midday. The crusaders fled. Alexander didn't pursue them to Dorpat; he had other things in mind.

Several months after the battle, the Livonian Order concluded a peace treaty. The Order renounced all claims to Russian lands, returned captured territories, and agreed to an exchange of prisoners.

The crusade against Rus' failed. Not for a year, not for ten, but for centuries.

“For Novgorod Rus, it was literally a question of its physical existence as a political and cultural phenomenon,”

Roman Sokolov emphasizes. And this is the main meaning of the Battle on the Ice. Not the number of killed and captured. Not the tactical tricks. It is that Rus' remained itself.

Alexander Nevsky died at the age of thirty-six. He spent the fifteen years after the Battle on the Ice traveling, negotiating, fighting, and intriguing—settling relations with the Mongols, defending borders, and building churches. He never lost a single battle. But his greatest battle took place on the ice of Lake Peipus on an April day in 1242.


A sculpture of a prince and his retinue stands on the lakeshore. It was unveiled in 2021 in the village of Samolva in the Pskov region. The bronze warriors look out over the water. The water is silent. And the people they protected then are still alive.

Since April 18, 1995, Russia has celebrated Military Glory Day, the day commemorating the Russian soldiers' victory over the German knights at Lake Peipus. A formality? Perhaps. But formalities that remind us that our survival was no accident are never unnecessary.

***
The Battle on the Ice is no longer just a textbook chapter. It's the point at which it was decided whether Rus' would exist as an Orthodox civilization or become a fringe of the Catholic world. Alexander Nevsky made the choice for us.
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 10
    April 18 2026 03: 38
    ❝ The Battle on the Ice is no longer just a textbook chapter. It is the point at which it was determined whether Rus' would exist as an Orthodox civilization or become a fringe of the Catholic world. Alexander Nevsky chose for us ❞ —

    — “Descendants are grateful to you, Prince!” ...
    1. +6
      April 18 2026 08: 44
      Quote: Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
      "Descendants are grateful to you, Prince!" ...

      Alexander Nevsky was the last Prince of Kiev. No matter how much they want to erase his memory in Ukraine. And, yes, today on the Culture TV channel at 10:15 a.m., the film "Alexander Nevsky" is shown. I know many myths have been created about the "massacre," but the film is wonderful, inspiring, and powerful. God grant that today's filmmakers will make something similar.
      1. +3
        April 18 2026 09: 27
        It's a fact that the Ice Age was the beginning of Rus'! Alexander Nevsky became the unifier of Rus'! These German ki are trying to shift all of history!
      2. +4
        April 18 2026 13: 17
        Quote: Egoza
        A. Nevsky - the last prince of Kyiv.


        By that time, Kyiv had already lost its status as the capital city. Alexander became Prince of Vladimir. Because by this time, it was no longer "Kievan Rus" but "Vladimir Rus."

        As for this battle, it has merged in popular memory with the previous battle with the Crusaders, more accurately called the "Ice Battle." Alexander participated in that battle as well, but it was his father, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who commanded the Russians.
        1. +2
          April 18 2026 19: 27
          By that time, Kyiv had already lost its status as the capital city. Alexander was Prince of Vladimir. Since by this time, it was no longer "Kievan Rus" but "Vladimir Rus."

          I agree about Kyiv, but the latter remained the capital of the appanage principality for almost another century.
          Regarding Kyivan Rus', it's important to understand that for anyone versed in history, it's primarily a period, not a geographic location. After Vladimir Monomakh's son, it was the capital city of first status, but far from significant. However, after Yuri Dolgoruky, Kyiv not only lost its status but also ceased to be "desirable." Andrei Bogolyubsky didn't even sit on the throne there. Under Alexander Nevsky, it was a wasteland. There were many more centers—between four and seven Grand Duchies, just off the top of my head.
          1. +2
            April 19 2026 09: 35
            Appanage principalities in the 13th century - as "regional subjects" in the Russian Federation.
            Of course, this is a period. And it was the Vladimir-Suzdal princes (Yuri and Andrei) who ended Kyiv's status as the capital. Andrei Bogolyubsky destroyed Kyiv so completely that the city never fully recovered. When the Horde arrived, Kyiv was already a backwater.
            1. +4
              April 19 2026 12: 29
              Kyiv's problem was that it wasn't a specific city, meaning princes occupied it based on seniority within the family line (not family). By the 13th century, Kyiv had become a "passageway" for a succession of princes from the Chernigov, Smolensk, and Galician principalities. And the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality became a separate center of power.
      3. +4
        April 18 2026 16: 16
        Quote: Egoza
        A. Nevsky - the last prince of Kyiv

        Far from the last. Until 1362.
        Russians ruled there, and then Lithuanians.
        1. +2
          April 19 2026 07: 47
          Quote: Cympak
          Up to 1362 years
          Russians ruled there, and then Lithuanians.

          Please name the Lithuanian princes.
          1. +3
            April 19 2026 12: 02
            Quote: Egoza
            Names of the Lithuanian princes

            Vladimir Olgerdovich, Skirgailo, etc.
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8C%D1%8F_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5#%D0%A2%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BB_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0
  2. +5
    April 18 2026 03: 57
    This is the point at which it was determined whether Rus' would exist as an Orthodox civilization. or become the outskirts of the Catholic worldA. Alexander Nevsky chose for us.

    Today, we find ourselves at this point again. And once again, the choice is being made for us. Our Orthodox country now risks becoming the outskirts of the Muslim world—if it hasn't already been there. But our Tsar isn't fighting this phenomenon; he's leading it: importing millions of Muslim migrants to replace the dwindling native population and provide cheap labor.
    1. -7
      April 18 2026 08: 54
      Quote: Stas157
      Our Orthodox country now risks becoming the outskirts of the Muslim world.

      Have you forgotten that our Orthodoxy was banned, shot, imprisoned, and destroyed for 70 years, and its Orthodox population was cut up by national borders and states, turned into collective farms, kulaks, deported, and robbed for the benefit of the "dying" Muslim outskirts, while Russian exiled girls and women, dying, dug irrigation ditches and canals in Central Asia

      The result is that the population of Turkestan under Soviet rule increased SIX times, and by 91 the Russians were already dying out.

      Alexander Nevsky defended Orthodox Rus' and the Orthodox population.
      1. + 14
        April 18 2026 09: 09
        So, now your Orthodoxy is riding high, churches are everywhere, priests are meddling in every aspect of life. And what's going on? Is Russia thriving? Are our people living happily and with dignity? Are we ahead of the rest of the world in our accomplishments? Are our numbers increasing every year, with families having at least three children? There are no foreigners in sight on our land, only Slavic faces on the streets? Huh?

        Ugh.
        1. +2
          April 18 2026 12: 29
          Reality (being) and faith are different things.
          Marxists have stated very clearly: Being determines consciousness (reality). I generally agree. But humans are not machines; they will always believe in something. Be it God, the afterlife, or the Freemasons. Take away our faith, our hope for a better tomorrow, show us the future—then why live at all?
          1. -1
            April 18 2026 12: 40
            Marxists said that consciousness determines life. Faith can be based on a forecast of the future based on existing factors, or on some fairy tales invented at an unknown time, by an unknown person, and for unknown purposes.
            1. +3
              April 18 2026 12: 56
              What I'm getting at is that people will always have faith. Without it, there's essentially no point in living.
          2. +8
            April 18 2026 13: 12
            Don't confuse hope and faith.
            A reasonable person can live quite well without faith. It's enough to have a well-founded calculation and hope.
            And the place of faith is where there is no place for knowledge.
            1. +3
              April 18 2026 14: 05
              The place of faith is where all hope in this world is gone...


              The problem of the lack of churches in society is solved by building schools and universities.
              If people don't have enough churches, it means they need to build more schools and universities.
              And build until there are enough temples...
              (C)
              1. +1
                April 18 2026 23: 30
                We have a higher proportion of people with higher education than Japan and Israel; without a diploma, you'll probably soon be unable to sweep the streets. We have a ton of universities, but they're useless, because, unless we're talking about medical schools or conservatories, they train people like whalers in the middle of the Sahara—they impart useless knowledge without providing what's needed for work.
              2. +2
                April 19 2026 09: 28
                Quote: paul3390
                The place of faith is where all hope in this world is gone...


                Where there is no hope, there will be no place for faith; it is useless.
                Hope can exist without faith, but faith without hope is dead.

                Remind me of the famous office that had a sign on its gate that read, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here!"? There's no room for hope in Hell, and it's too late to believe there, either.

                Churches will never fully replace schools and universities. Faith and religion alone won't get you very far, especially in our time.
            2. Fat
              +6
              April 18 2026 14: 28
              Faith in knowledge is also faith. The cult of knowledge has a special name: scientism. It is no less "dark" than any other cult.
              Most people seem to need transcendence. So they search for something to believe in...
              During the French Revolution, the Convention's "cult of reason" lasted only a year. Robespierre replaced it with the cult of a supreme being, and with his death, so too did it. Christianity returned to the forefront... And so, year after year, one faith is overthrown and inevitably replaced by another...
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. +1
    April 18 2026 05: 16
    Thanks for posting.
    Is the map scanned poorly or even worse? Try reading the name of the lake between Pskov and Peipus. And the hikes. Where from and where to.
  5. +7
    April 18 2026 05: 27
    A small addition to the decision to celebrate this date. According to the historical calendar, the date is April 5th, as is appropriate for determining dates before October 15, 1582. The fact that our bond-bearers have once again screwed up illustrates the value of their work.
    The feat of Alexander Nevsky is that he managed to preserve a piece of Ancient Rus in its Northwest, which gave hope for the liberation of all Russian lands from the Yoke.
    1. +5
      April 18 2026 06: 14
      The feat of Alexander Nevsky is that he managed to preserve a piece of Ancient Rus in its Northwest, which gave hope for the liberation of all Russian lands from the Yoke.

      The Tatars never reached Polotsk. In terms of resource concentration, the Galicia-Volyn lands had far greater potential than the Sushchdal-Volodymyr lands.
      Here the marker is different: the rich and, most importantly, not affected by the Tatar-Mongol invasion, Lord Veliky Novgorod and Pskov sought help from the devastated lower land.
      It was this symbiosis that initially formed Rus' and allowed it to survive the yoke.
      True, in the early Rus' of Oleg, Vladimir, and Yaroslav, the Novgorod militia placed their prince on the throne of Kiev. Later, conversely, Novgorod was helped to defend its northwestern borders. First, by the princes of Kyiv, Smolensk, and Chernigov, then by those of Vladimir, Tver, and Moscow.
      1. +6
        April 18 2026 06: 53
        Every village is important in this symbiosis, every little church.

        And why did Moscow have to be a kingdom, and who knew that Moscow would be considered a state?
      2. +3
        April 18 2026 23: 33
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        rich and, most importantly, not affected by the Tatar-Mongol invasion, Lord Veliky Novgorod and Pskov

        By that time they were no longer so rich, since thanks to the efforts of other crusaders, one end of the route from the Varangians to the Greeks had been destroyed.
        1. 0
          April 19 2026 05: 56
          Quote from alexoff
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          rich and, most importantly, not affected by the Tatar-Mongol invasion, Lord Veliky Novgorod and Pskov

          By that time they were no longer so rich, since thanks to the efforts of other crusaders, one end of the route from the Varangians to the Greeks had been destroyed.

          Contrary to popular belief, Novgorod was a hub between west and east, not north and south. The main flow of trade was along the Volga, not the Dnieper.
          1. +2
            April 19 2026 09: 23
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Contrary to popular belief, Novgorod was a hub between west and east, not north and south. The main flow of trade was along the Volga, not the Dnieper.


            This didn't stop Novgorod from trading grain with Northern European countries, which it received from the "lower" principalities. Novgorod was quite a border state.
    2. -2
      April 18 2026 06: 23
      And it is imperative to award Lake Peipus the title of "Hero Lake"!
  6. +9
    April 18 2026 06: 04
    Yeah, right. The steel-clad knights were clad in chainmail—plate hadn't been invented yet. So was the prince's retinue. This "Battle on the Ice," if memory serves, is practically never mentioned by contemporaries. 12-14 thousand knights couldn't have been there—that's a huge army by medieval standards. And the prince could only counter with his retinue, since the militia wasn't mobile. And the retinue was horsemen. So there were 200-600 men on each side. No more. A so-so article.
    1. +6
      April 18 2026 06: 24
      The militia, however, was
      1. -1
        April 18 2026 23: 41
        The militia remained at the border, and this was a princely cavalry raid to visit the enemy after the Germans in Pskov imprisoned Yaroslav Vladimirovich for a couple of years.
    2. +9
      April 18 2026 06: 49
      Quote: Lykases1
      And the prince could only counter with his retinue, since the militia was not mobile. And the retinue consisted of horsemen.

      At that time, the term "militia" was not understood to mean peasants from the plow, but boyar squads, so the number could be more than half a thousand, although, of course, not 12-14 thousand.
      1. +2
        April 18 2026 07: 02
        I don't remember exactly now, and I don't feel like digging into it, but I think 20 knights died in the battle. Okay, you've convinced me. But it's unlikely to have been more than 2, including the baggage train. About 1 in the battle. Half were killed—precisely 20 knights. But no more.
        1. + 10
          April 18 2026 08: 23
          Quote: Lykases1
          I don’t remember exactly now, and I don’t want to dig around, but I think 20 knights died in the battle.
          So, most of the participants weren't knights. Knights are the elite and leadership of the order, while most are of lower rank.
          Quote: Lykases1
          But it is unlikely that there were more than 2 thousand together with the convoy.

          Yes, 1,5-2 thousand including service is realistic by the standards of that time.
        2. +2
          April 18 2026 08: 50
          A knight isn't just a man in armor on horseback; he's also a retainer, including those armed and ready for battle. Pikemen, crossbowmen, shield-bearers, and so on and so forth. In our terms, a knight is a tank and an infantry platoon, plus a support force, aka a mobile rearguard.
      2. -2
        April 18 2026 10: 10
        Plus the police and archbishop's regiments. He probably dug another 500-600...
    3. + 10
      April 18 2026 07: 12
      Quote: Lykases1
      This is a huge army by medieval standards.

      Nowhere do they lie so much as in war and hunting. The number of knights at the Battle of the Lake can be determined with a fair degree of accuracy. The number of castles in the Order's territory where mobilization took place was 90. Each had two knights, not just the owner of the castle and his castellan. They had a maximum of 20 warriors. Not knights! In 1241, there was the Battle of Legnica, where the Order also participated and suffered losses. What kind? "Large." Well, at least 10 knights were killed? And what about the wounded, the sick? The Order couldn't have fielded more than 80 men under any circumstances! The "Livonian Chronicle" (a document for internal use) mentions 5 (!) brothers who died. Prayers were to be offered for them. And praying for the dead, knowing they are alive, is a terrible sin. So exactly 5 died. No exaggeration. That's the whole battle! By the way, the article in Pravda from April 5, 1942 does not say a word about the drowning of the knights in the lake, although all the newspapers Izvestia and Krasnaya Zvezda wrote about it as a fact and published drawings of knight-monks with horns on their helmets.
      1. +4
        April 18 2026 08: 00
        Quote: kalibr
        Nowhere do they lie so much as in war and hunting

        super!
        the real truth...
        1. +6
          April 18 2026 09: 51
          Quote: Rodez
          super!

          Dear Sergey! Here on VO, I previously had a whole series of articles about these events. Just type in your full name and "Battle on the Ice" and all the articles will pop up.
          1. +1
            April 19 2026 13: 55
            I'm actually surprised that after your analysis, "opuses" like this are still popping up here. I immediately assumed it was Samsonov's "for another date," which is already a habit. It turns out he's not the only one keeping the site alive with the principle: "Let's give the country coal, albeit small, but... a lot."
            1. +2
              April 19 2026 14: 19
              Quote: Vagabung
              I am generally surprised that after your analyses, “opuses” like this still appear here.

              Alexander! There's a 90+1 rule. Every advertiser knows it. That is, a non-professional completely forgets everything after 90 days. And that's 90%. So, after 90 days, you can repeat everything again! And my articles were published two years ago. That means COMPLETE AMNESIA.
      2. +3
        April 18 2026 08: 23
        By the way, the article in Pravda from April 5, 1942 does not mention the drowning of the knights in the lake.

        Well, to discover the truth about the battle, expeditions to these sites were organized only after the war. In 1942, this battle was still quite mythologized, but it was necessary to lift the nation's spirit.
        1. +5
          April 18 2026 09: 42
          Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
          but it is necessary to raise the spirit of the people.

          Absolutely true. But the fact that Pravda's editorial, which Stalin himself usually edited, doesn't mention the drowning at all is telling.
          1. +6
            April 18 2026 10: 24
            Quote: kalibr
            There is no mention of drowning - it's telling

            "There is an opinion" that the episode with the "drowning on Lake Peipus" was borrowed from the 1234 battle on the Omovzha River (father of Alexander Nevsky), where some of the knights actually drowned...
            1. +7
              April 18 2026 12: 28
              Quote: Rodez
              on the Omovzha River

              Yes, there is such a version.
      3. +2
        April 18 2026 08: 28
        Each knight had two, not only the owner of the castle and his castellan.

        There were few aborigines, yes, but knights from all over Europe went to the Baltics on safaris to hunt wild Chud, Zhmut, and so on. It was like the recent Crusades.
        1. +1
          April 18 2026 08: 52
          Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
          Each knight had two, not only the owner of the castle and his castellan.

          There were few aborigines, yes, but knights from all over Europe went to the Baltics on safaris to hunt wild Chud, Zhmut, and so on. It was like the recent Crusades.

          Exactly. It was a crusade against Rus'. Therefore, in addition to the knights of the order and the bishopric, there were also knights – guests of the order.
          Each knight has armed servants. And how many knights does it take to form a pig, not a pig? Well, at least 300 men. And each knight has five to ten servants. Plus, they rounded up the Finns; there were probably more of them than the Germans. So it turns out that the Order fielded an army of no less than five to six thousand, which is quite comparable to the Crusades in the Holy Land. And the Russians were more numerous. Could Alexander Nevsky have assembled an army of eight thousand men at that time? Yes, easily. Novgorod is a large city plus its suburbs, and Pskov and its suburbs.
          And most importantly, the war with the Order ceased for many years. So, they got a good beating, it was remembered. So, don't downplay the significance of the Battle on the Ice. And the fact that the armor wasn't found at the bottom means nothing. Over so many years, iron, not modern stainless steel, could have rotted and become encrusted with silt. The stainless steel grates in my pool are rusted. That's how bad it is.
          1. +5
            April 18 2026 09: 33
            Quote: Bearded
            Yes, easily.

            I don’t remember the month, but somewhere around the end of 1241, Alexander received a letter from Khan Batu: “And if you want to save your land... then bow to me...” (The essence of the text). And Alexander dropped everything and went to the khan in the lower reaches of the Dniester (or Dnieper), it doesn’t matter. The point is that he dropped everything at such a difficult moment, managed to go to the khan and return exactly by April. Moreover, there were no planes then, and the roads were muddy. And further in the chronicle... “And then the brothers were surrounded...” After which they immediately fled. Why? Because Alexander brought with him auxiliary troops from the horde, the same black hoods, not necessarily Mongols. And seeing them, remembering Legnica, the knights immediately “gave a slap”. And why did Batu need this? It’s very simple: the law of Iasi said “Ambassadors are not to be killed!”, and knights, like our princes, ambassadors The Mongols were killed. And according to the law of Yassy, ​​they were to be avenged for this until death. So Batu helped Alexander! This could very well have happened, by the way. Gaps in our chronicles suggest that everything connected with the "pagans" was exterminated.
            1. 0
              April 18 2026 09: 57
              Quote: kalibr
              Quote: Bearded
              Yes, easily.

              I don’t remember the month, but somewhere around the end of 1241, Alexander received a letter from Khan Batu: “And if you want to save your land... then bow to me...” (The essence of the text). And Alexander dropped everything and went to the khan in the lower reaches of the Dniester (or Dnieper), it doesn’t matter. The point is that he dropped everything at such a difficult moment, managed to go to the khan and return exactly by April. Moreover, there were no planes then, and the roads were muddy. And further in the chronicle... “And then the brothers were surrounded...” After which they immediately fled. Why? Because Alexander brought with him auxiliary troops from the horde, the same black hoods, not necessarily Mongols. And seeing them, remembering Legnica, the knights immediately “gave a slap”. And why did Batu need this? It’s very simple: the law of Iasi said “Ambassadors are not to be killed!”, and knights, like our princes, ambassadors The Mongols were killed. And according to the law of Yassy, ​​they were to be avenged for this until death. So Batu helped Alexander! This could very well have happened, by the way. Gaps in our chronicles suggest that everything connected with the "pagans" was exterminated.

              Who knows how it really was?
              But your hypothesis raises doubts. Batu never reached Novgorod. Nor did he reach Smolensk, Polotsk, or Minsk. If Batu had sent aid to Yaroslavich, it would have been at least a tumen. A tumen couldn't have passed unnoticed through the unconquered lands of Smolensk, Minsk, and Polotsk. They would have plundered and slaughtered the locals. And there's no evidence or archaeological data to support this. So, it's a lie.
              That Veliky Novgorod was a powerful principality is obvious. From the very beginning of Rus', Novgorod installed a prince in Kyiv, and then the Grand Prince's eldest son ruled Veliky Novgorod until the city's citizens expelled Vsevolod, son of Mstislav the Great. From then on, Novgorodians invited princes from the Rurik dynasty to rule. The Novgorod principality was not subject to feudal fragmentation; the princes had no territorial holdings within the principality. The only reason for their dependence on the Vladimir princes was the supply of grain. Thanks to trade with the West, the locals lived quite prosperously and could afford weapons, which they manufactured themselves.
              There also couldn't have been few Crusaders, because in Palestine they were beaten and kicked out, but the habit of plundering remained with them.
            2. +1
              April 19 2026 08: 25
              Quote: kalibr
              Why did Batu need such a thing? It's very simple: the law of Yassy stated, "Ambassadors are not to be killed!" and the knights, like our princes, killed the Mongol ambassadors.


              At most, it was a pretext. The Horde viewed the Russian lands as vassals, their tax base. Who would want to lose taxpayers? Who would collect taxes from then? And Novgorod was the richest city in Rus', a major trading hub.
              Yes, the Horde demanded submission, but in return, they provided protection. And all these "Yasa laws" are more than just fiction... These "Yasa laws" didn't prevent the Horde from adopting Islam and Sharia law (which have different laws) a few decades later.
              1. +1
                April 19 2026 08: 34
                Quote: Illanatol
                Yes, the Horde demanded submission, but in return, they provided protection. And all these "Yasa laws" are more than just fiction... These "Yasa laws" didn't prevent the Horde from adopting Islam and Sharia law (which have different laws) a few decades later.

                Yes, that's exactly how it was, or something like that.
        2. +4
          April 18 2026 09: 24
          Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
          Yes, but knights from all over Europe went to the Baltics on safari to see the wild Chud, the Zhmut

          After the terrible battle at Legnica, where the cream of Western chivalry perished, the number of hunters has diminished, eh?
          1. +6
            April 18 2026 11: 23
            It didn't diminish. People went on similar "safaris" for another 170 years, and even Jean le Maingre II (Boucicaut) managed to make his mark.
      4. +6
        April 18 2026 08: 48
        Quote: kalibr
        The Livonian Chronicle (a document for internal use) speaks of 5 (!) dead brothers.


        Was it possible to capture Novgorod in 1242 with even 90 knights, accompanied by a retinue of 20 warriors each, given that Novgorod at that time had a population of up to 30? It's unlikely the knights were suicidal or intended to suffer irreparable losses in this campaign.
        In the mid-13th century (including 1242), Novgorod's population, according to historians, was approximately 20,000–30,000. At that time, it was one of the largest cities in Rus' and Europe.


        The chronicles are most likely correct. Where the Order recruited such an army is shrouded in mystery, but Novgorod could not have been captured otherwise. Regarding the five dead, we need to check the records of those killed at that time throughout Western Europe. The army did not come from the Baltics alone, and that's obvious. This battle most likely significantly changed the knightly composition over a significant area. Unfortunately, this issue hasn't been thoroughly studied, which is a shame.
        1. +2
          April 18 2026 09: 39
          Quote from Eugene Zaboy
          Was it possible to capture Novgorod in 1242 with even 90 knights, accompanied by a retinue of 20 warriors each, given that Novgorod at that time had a population of up to 30? It's unlikely the knights were suicidal or intended to suffer irreparable losses in this campaign.

          However, when it was captured, they weren't afraid to leave a garrison of two knights and some infantry. I don't remember the exact numbers, but something around 200. And no one bothered with this meager number.
          1. +6
            April 18 2026 11: 25
            However, when it was captured, they were not afraid to leave a garrison of two knights and some infantry in it.
            Most likely Izborsk.
          2. +2
            April 18 2026 12: 25
            Because Izborsk was captured and the army from Pskov that came to help was defeated near it.
            Pskov opened its gates itself.

            That's why there were only 2 bailiffs.
            They are rather just representatives of the order.
          3. 0
            April 18 2026 15: 10
            Quote: kalibr
            However, when it was captured, they weren't afraid to leave a garrison of two knights and some infantry. I don't remember the exact numbers, but something around 200. And no one bothered with this meager number.


            It's probably necessary to consider the situation in 1242. The Russian principalities to the east and south were being destroyed or annihilated. A huge number of refugees sought to reach the Novgorod Principality from both the east, south, and west. Forming an army of 5 to 20 trained warriors was no big deal. If Novgorod had a peacetime population of up to 30, in 1242 this number could have at least doubled, and that doesn't include the population of the principality and its allies.
            Novgorodians are not such weak and feeble guys as Sergei Eisenstein portrayed them in his film.
            For example, just like in the old days, they love Ladoga smelt. Just from Novgorod to Ladoga, you have to travel 200 km to fish. This is either through snow or mud, as the smelt spawns in early spring, or with the ice drift. So the principality was considerable, powerful, and deservedly owned and controlled vast territories. A clash with the Livonian Order was quite feasible for them, and they didn't see it as a mortal threat to the principality.
            1. +2
              April 18 2026 20: 17
              Debatable. What would they eat if their population doubled overnight? And the mobilization potential was unlikely to be even one in ten.
              1. 0
                April 18 2026 23: 26
                Quote: Lykases1
                Debatable. What would they eat if their population doubled overnight? And the mobilization potential was unlikely to be even one in ten.


                You can conduct a comparative analysis using the example of the North Caucasus Military District and Ukraine since 2014. Populations migrate from areas where military action begins to relatively calm or more protected regions. The same thing happened at that time. Amid rumors of approaching troops, some of the population migrated, and those who remained sent their families away. This is a normal, natural process, which also occurred during Napoleon's attack. It is also important to understand and accept that not all defenders of fallen fortresses perished, and some, often significant ones, managed to escape, even under siege, and then join other garrisons, including Novgorod. There is ample evidence of this, spanning hundreds of years of history, both in the Russian Empire, Rus', and in world history. Thus, the Novgorodians did not need to increase their food supply for their population to increase dramatically; they simply opened their gates to refugees and accommodated them, which they certainly did repeatedly throughout the history of the Novgorod Principality. Long before the start of military action, the population begins to migrate from dangerous regions and mostly military personnel remain.
        2. +5
          April 18 2026 09: 40
          Quote from Eugene Zaboy
          but there was no other way to take Novgorod.

          If it weren't for Alexander, they would have opened the gates for the knights themselves!
          1. -1
            April 19 2026 08: 19
            Quote: kalibr
            If it weren't for Alexander, they would have opened the gates for the knights themselves!


            Well, some people clearly weren't against it; similar renegades were shown in the film.
            What can you do? There were already supporters of the "Western democratizers" in our country back then, and there were "Smerdyakovs" in Novgorod too.

            P.S. If Alexander hadn't existed, there would have been another prince. His own forces wouldn't have been enough; reinforcements from the "lower" principalities would have arrived anyway. In the worst case, the Horde would have intervened and turned these "god's rhetoricians" into mincemeat.
      5. +4
        April 18 2026 10: 08
        Quote: kalibr
        90. Each knight had two, not just the castle owner and his castellan. They had a maximum of 20 warriors with them. Not knights!

        The Estonian militia took part in the battle on the side of the order and were defeated without number
        1. +1
          April 18 2026 20: 13
          When was this written? Three hundred years after the battle?
      6. +5
        April 18 2026 12: 17
        According to the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, 20 Order brothers died and 6 were taken prisoner.
      7. +5
        April 18 2026 12: 19
        Nowhere do they lie so much as in war and while hunting.

        And even before the elections...
      8. +3
        April 18 2026 13: 36
        On the eve of the battle, the entire Livonian Order numbered just over 50 "brothers." Nevertheless, the Livonian Order was considered a significant military force. The loss of almost half of its "brothers" (killed and captured) in this battle was a severe blow to the Order.

        As is well known, the highest priority of warriors under their knight was to protect their knight. Die yourself, but don't let your knight die. And more often than not, this was accomplished. So if a knight died, then his entire troop was certain to perish. Conversely, a knight might survive, even though almost his entire troop was destroyed.

        The drowning of the knights probably didn't actually happen; the battle took place on the shore of a lake. But what does that fundamentally change? Nothing.
        1. 0
          April 18 2026 20: 12
          Well, yes. I think there's a record somewhere that the slain fell on the grass. You're right—in any case, the Russian soldiers won.
    4. 0
      April 18 2026 09: 40
      Do you even believe this nonsense? Several hundred men rode on horses to take a city with a population of 20-30 thousand. And that's not even counting the lands under Novgorod's control. To repel their attack, the Novgorodians had to assemble a veche (meeting) and even go to bow to the previously exiled Prince Alexander. Those few hundred aggressors, the women in the city, would have been beaten to death with pokers, and that would have been all.
      1. +3
        April 18 2026 12: 32
        Quote from lako
        Yes, these couple of hundred aggressors,

        10 knights are worth 100 infantrymen. A saying from those days.
        1. +1
          April 18 2026 20: 03
          Ten knights are about three hundred men.
      2. +3
        April 18 2026 16: 10
        Quote from lako
        Do you even believe this nonsense? Several hundred people rode on horses to take a city with a population of 20-30 thousand.

        The article, based on propaganda articles and a feature film by Eisenstein, is written in nonsense. It was a raid to plunder, not an invasion aimed at conquest. Pskov was not subordinate to Novgorod and was a rival at the time. Some believe that the Pskovites formed a military-political alliance with the knightly orders against Novgorod. There was no unified Russian people at the time: Novgorod was separate, Pskov was separate, Kyiv was separate, and so on.
        Alexander Nevsky did not live in Novgorod at that time, but was called up as a mercenary military commander with his own PMC squad.
        1. 0
          April 18 2026 21: 13
          Before marching on Novgorod, the Order's knights captured Izborsk and slaughtered its retinue, over 600 men. They then took Pskov, only through treachery. They sent a dozen knights and a couple hundred nobles against Novgorod. If this had been a simple raid on the borders of Novgorod, there would have been no need for the Novgorodians to bow to Alexander, whom the townspeople had previously turned out. Only a grave threat could have pushed them to that point. Therefore, they needed a man with military talent and a strong retinue.
        2. +1
          April 19 2026 08: 14
          The crusaders came to the region specifically to establish themselves, not simply to plunder. That's exactly how they operated, subjugating the locals and imposing Christianity with fire and sword. The religious knightly orders were, after all, different from mere bandits. That's why they came to Rus' for precisely this purpose, just as they had come to the Prussians earlier.
          The Russian people were still united, although there was no unified state, which was typical at that time.
          Alexander Nevsky enjoyed the same rights as other princes in Novgorod. By that time, princes had more authority than simply being the head of a private military company. He had the ability to exercise judicial functions and collect taxes.
      3. -3
        April 18 2026 20: 08
        Seventy thousand barbarians approached great Rome, with a population of over a million. And the barbarian leader said, "Thick grass is easier to mow." He also, it seems, later said, "Woe to the vanquished."
    5. +6
      April 18 2026 11: 12
      Long ago, in my youth, I read a very detailed pre-revolutionary book dedicated to this event. It stated that the German army consisted of a detachment of the Livonian Order (approximately 20-25 knights) and a detachment of the Bishop of Dorpat (approximately 40-50 knights). The total number of warriors should be approximately 10-20 times larger, due to the infantry and cavalry units, as well as the knights' retinue. The servants and baggage train, which did not participate in the battles but could double the number of food, should also be counted separately. Therefore, the Germans' number of warriors should fluctuate between 1000 and 2000.
      1. +1
        April 18 2026 12: 33
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        a very detailed pre-revolutionary book

        Don't remember the name?
        1. 0
          April 18 2026 13: 55
          Unfortunately, I don't remember. I only remember reading it at the Lenin Library.
      2. +1
        April 18 2026 13: 42
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        Thus, the number of German soldiers should fluctuate between 1000 and 2000 people.


        That's close to the truth. But the local natives, who also participated, were usually not counted. They weren't Germans, after all.
    6. +1
      April 18 2026 13: 25
      It's mentioned, though. And the Livonians suffered heavy losses, having to merge with the Teutons.
      It wasn't just the squads that fought; there were also foot militias, on both sides. And it wasn't just the Russians fighting the German-Livonians; there were also locals, the Esty-Livonians, on both sides. Mobility wasn't particularly important; armies weren't particularly mobile back then. Even mounted warriors couldn't manage without a supply train and carts.

      The number of troops was, however, higher (from 3 to 5). Of course, there couldn't have been 12-14 knights; the number of knights was in the tens. But even a common knight was a "chest of drawers" by modern standards, and a "brother" of noble birth could command as many as a hundred warriors.
      In general, medieval battles weren't particularly large-scale. Hundreds, sometimes a few thousand warriors. By the standards of the time, this was a significant battle.
      1. +2
        April 18 2026 15: 00
        Quote: Illanatol
        It wasn't just the squads that fought, there was also foot militia, on both sides.

        Fantastic! Infantry trudging along behind cavalry through the spring mud? No noble warrior would have expected it. It was humiliating for a noble warrior to depend on foot soldiers. How many times had knights trampled their own infantry in battle... In battle! And then a campaign...
        1. +1
          April 19 2026 08: 38
          Quote: kalibr
          Fantastic! Infantry trudging along behind cavalry through the spring mud? No noble warrior would have expected it. It was humiliating for a noble warrior to depend on foot soldiers. How many times had knights trampled their own infantry in battle... In battle! And then a campaign...


          There was no spring mud, and Lake Peipus was covered in thick enough ice to actually walk across. Keep in mind that the so-called "Little Ice Age" was in effect at the time, and the climate was harsher. As a reminder, fairs were held on the frozen Thames in England in the 13th century.

          Yeah, and the knights' horses were turbocharged and could do 40 miles an hour... you surprise me terribly. laughing Or do you think the knights carried everything they needed for the campaign on their horses? I'm afraid I'm sorry... even the knights' armor and weapons were carried in the baggage train, on carts. And carts move at walking speed, so the infantry was in no way separated from the mounted warriors. The Horde, with several horse-drawn carriages, could be more mobile, but not always. Loot taken from the vanquished also had to be transported on carts (or some other carts).

          Your ideas are too bookish. Noble warriors weren't just show-offs; they were practical warriors and understood that infantry was essential in war. Yes, sometimes they trampled their own infantry to attack the enemy, but this was rare, a necessary measure and the result of tactical miscalculations. Sure, they didn't feel sorry for the natives, the Estonians and Livs, but they still valued their own knights, their own fighting serfs. Otherwise, they might as well be left without serfs; they don't breed like rabbits and have value.
          1. 0
            April 19 2026 08: 41
            Quote: Illanatol
            I'm sorry to disappoint you... even the knights' armor and weapons were carried in the convoy, on carts.

            I know about the carts... And everything else... well, you think so, I think differently...
            1. 0
              April 19 2026 09: 07
              So, give specific examples of the lightning campaigns of Western knights. Specifically, when only the knights' cavalry could storm well-fortified cities.

              Well, if we're talking about carts (although, given the season, it was more likely sleds and sleds), do you know what kind of infantry lag we're talking about?
      2. +1
        April 18 2026 15: 31
        Sorry, I'm relying on Klim Zhukov's videos for guidance. He may not be an expert, but he's charismatic, speaks more or less sensibly, and is generally smarter than me. He has a degree in history, I believe.
    7. +2
      April 18 2026 16: 04
      Quote: Lykases1
      Yes indeed. Steel-clad knights wore chainmail—plate hadn't been invented yet.

      At this time, knights began to wear early brigandine armor.
    8. +4
      April 18 2026 16: 46
      There couldn't have been 12-14 thousand knights there.

      Batu brought about 30 thousand nukers and that was enough.
      So so article

      My comment with a similar rating was third on the list, and was deleted “faster than a pig’s squeal.”
      feel
      1. +3
        April 18 2026 20: 00
        So Rus' was fragmented. There was no real state. Again, I don't remember where, but there was a battle where several princes united and gathered unprecedented forces. About seven thousand warriors. And they lost with enormous losses. 30, although I think it was more, a formidable force for fragmented Rus'. I'm sorry the comment was deleted.
        1. +2
          April 19 2026 09: 01
          Battle of the City River.
          Gathering troops from all over Rus' was an impossible task back then. It would have taken too much time, and the enemy wouldn't have waited.
          Dmitry Donskoy did not gather an army from all the principalities for the battle with Mamai, but it still took a lot of time.

          Rus' at that time could not have been more fragmented, given its large territory, small population, and difficult communications.
          1. 0
            April 19 2026 11: 05
            It was fragmented, however, I think, for another reason. Dmitry couldn't gather forces from all the principalities because some were outright opponents. If I'm not mistaken, for example, Tver. And he gathered around 12-14 thousand, which, of course, was a massive army for those times. And he most likely gathered them because they were rebelling against the temnik. And when the tsar turned his attention to Moscow, Dmitry was forced to flee, and the city was burned.
            1. +2
              April 19 2026 13: 06
              Everyone was fragmented back then, and the reasons were largely the same. Who in Europe was united then? Feudalism, however. The economic structure itself was not conducive to centralization.
              Well, there weren't any overt opponents; many simply didn't support it. Oleg of Ryazan, although he didn't get along with Moscow, didn't openly oppose it, nor did Tver.

              Well, Mamai was an impostor, but Tokhtamysh was frankly afraid of him; otherwise, he would have dealt with Mamai alone. But he likely chose to form an alliance with Dmitry. This explains the course of the Battle of Kulikovo perfectly. Mamai considered himself fortunate that Dmitry had decided to fight him alone, so he didn't bother to interfere with the Russians' crossing of the river. The worst possible outcome for Mamai would have been a battle against the combined forces of Dmitry and Tokhtamysh.

              Regarding later events, I doubt Tokhtamysh acted so harshly towards Moscow. This episode is patently illogical: the tsar allegedly burned Moscow and left Dmitry alone, although it should have been the other way around. Most likely, Tokhtamysh's repressions against Moscow were exaggerated; he didn't burn the city, but merely punished some who supported the Moscow prince in his quest to rise above the Horde. This tale was invented later. If Moscow had truly been burned, its restoration would have taken many decades, perhaps even centuries. Rebuilding a large city at that time, especially one with a sharp decline in population, is quite a task. And Tokhtamysh certainly wouldn't have granted Moscow the title of Grand Prince a few years later. No overlord would grant privileges to yesterday's rebels; that's simply absurd.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. +3
    April 18 2026 07: 02
    For example, in Soviet history classes, we were told that Alexander Nevsky's troops defeated the Teutonic Knights at the Battle on the Ice. But that's not true. Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Order's units—the Livonian Order and the Dorpat bishopric. Why did they emphasize this so much in Soviet schools, and lie about it so much? Because schoolchildren would see that Livonia back then is today's Soviet Latvia and Soviet Estonia, and Dorpat is now Soviet Tartu. This is similar to how the USSR effectively kept silent about the atrocities committed during World War II by the descendants and heirs of those who, in 1242, marched from Livonia to destroy and enslave Rus', only to be defeated by Alexander Nevsky.
    1. +4
      April 18 2026 07: 13
      Quote: north 2
      For example, in Soviet history classes, we were told that Alexander Nevsky's troops defeated the Teutonic Knights at the Battle on the Ice. But that's not true. Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Order's units—the Livonian Order and the Dorpat bishopric. Why did they emphasize this so much in Soviet schools, and lie about it so much? Because schoolchildren would see that Livonia back then is today's Soviet Latvia and Soviet Estonia, and Dorpat is now Soviet Tartu. This is similar to how the USSR effectively kept silent about the atrocities committed during World War II by the descendants and heirs of those who, in 1242, marched from Livonia to destroy and enslave Rus', only to be defeated by Alexander Nevsky.
      with

      Exactly. Truth lies in silence!
    2. 0
      April 18 2026 07: 58
      Quote: north 2
      Because the schoolchild will see that Livonia then is today Soviet Latvia and Soviet Estonia, and Dorpat then is today Soviet Tartu.

      Well, to be completely honest, why wouldn't this have been obvious anyway, even from those same maps in that same history textbook? The entire Baltic coast from Hamburg and Lübeck to Riga was under the influence of the Hanseatic Leagues that grew out of those orders, and if a "schoolboy" had visited the center of Riga and the Dome Cathedral... then that wouldn't have presented any difficulties :)
    3. -2
      April 18 2026 13: 45
      Stop distorting the facts. Soviet textbooks even wrote that it was the Livonians who were defeated at Lake Peipus.
      And the remnants of the Livonian Order became a "branch" of the Teutons after their defeat in this battle, as the Livonians became too few in number and were forced to unite with the Teutons.
      1. +4
        April 18 2026 15: 04
        Quote: Illanatol
        And the remnants of the Livonian Order became a "branch" of the Teutons after their defeat in this battle, as the Livonians became too few in number and were forced to unite with the Teutons.

        The unification took place in 1237.
        The Livonian Order (full name: "Brotherhood of the Knights of Christ in Livonia") was formed as a regional branch (landmastership) of the Teutonic Order. Its creation resulted from the incorporation of the remnants of the Order of the Brothers of the Sword into the Teutonic Order, which had been defeated by the Samogitians in 1236 at the Battle of Saule.
        Key stages of the process:
        1237 – The Marburg Chapter decided to accept the surviving Brothers of the Sword into the Teutonic Order. A detachment of 60 knights, led by the Prussian Landmeister (Master) Hermann Balk, was sent to Livonia. From this point on, the new structure operated under the auspices of the Teutonic Order, obeying its statutes. Its seat was established in Riga, on the site of the Brothers of the Sword's former base ("St. George's Court").
        June 7, 1238 – signing of the Treaty of Stensby (Stenby). The document secured:
        the formal status of the Livonian Order as part of the Teutonic Order;
        alliance obligations with Denmark;
        the transfer of a number of possessions in Northern Estonia (including Reval) to the Danish Kingdom in exchange for support for the expansion of the order in the region.
        Important nuances:
        The Livonian Order enjoyed broad autonomy within the structure of the Teutonic Order—it independently resolved many military and administrative issues, although it was formally subordinate to the Grand Master.
  9. +3
    April 18 2026 07: 28
    Quote: kalibr
    Nowhere do they lie so much as in war and hunting
    And also before the elections wink
  10. +5
    April 18 2026 08: 04
    The Order of the Swordsmen, later transformed into the Livonian Order, captured Izborsk, then Pskov

    The transformation of the Order of the Brothers of the Sword into the Livonian Order is in itself an interesting chapter in history, as it was not simply a change of "signboard," that is, of name...
    1. +1
      April 18 2026 13: 01
      The defeat by Mindaugas played a role there. That is, the unwashed Balts defeated the German Order.
  11. +8
    April 18 2026 08: 12
    A school essay, not a serious article.
    1. +2
      April 18 2026 09: 37
      Quote: Igor Belobrov
      A school essay, not a serious article.

      Yes, it would be a good idea to cite excerpts from the chronicles and the Livonian Chronicle. It wouldn't be that difficult...
      1. -3
        April 18 2026 13: 46
        Well, the "Livonian Chronicle" is certainly very objective. Much like Goebbels's speeches...
        1. +8
          April 18 2026 15: 05
          Quote: Illanatol
          very objective.

          Very much so! People back then knew for sure that God wasn't a fool, that He saw the truth. And they feared God's wrath.
          1. -3
            April 19 2026 08: 48
            No, not really. And there was no crime the "holy fathers" didn't commit, hiding behind the name of the Almighty. Deliberate lies and outright propaganda aren't the most serious.

            What are they afraid of? In the name of the triumph of the true faith, anything is possible. The practical experience of the Crusades has amply proven this. If the "liberators of the Holy Sepulchre" in the First Crusade practiced cannibalism (according to European sources), then why bother tweaking the figures in the chronicles?
            1. +3
              April 19 2026 08: 51
              Quote: Illanatol
              They practiced cannibalism (according to European sources), so it’s not necessary to slightly adjust the figures in the chronicles.

              You can't eat anyone when you're hungry, but editing numbers when you're full... why? What's the point? They were simple people back then, not like today.
              1. -3
                April 19 2026 09: 18
                What do ordinary people have to do with it?
                What for?
                1. For reporting to higher authorities, who needed to pull the wool over their eyes.
                2. For PR and self-promotion – that's how good we are, envy us, dear descendants. There were five of us, twenty-five of them, and both of us had brass knuckles... but we would have given them a run for their money if we'd caught up! laughing

                You yourself wrote that in war they lie, just like in politics... so the official history consists mainly of lies and propaganda.
                1. +2
                  April 19 2026 09: 40
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  You yourself wrote that in war they lie, just like in politics... so the official history consists mainly of lies and propaganda.

                  Yes, but in history it's best not to guess. There is a document. We don't know how true it is. But it's better than nothing.
                  1. -3
                    April 19 2026 12: 51
                    Quote: kalibr
                    But it's better than nothing.


                    Sometimes it's even less than nothing. Information can also be negative.
                    And more often than not, documents lie, while tales and legends contain grains of truth.
                    1. +2
                      April 19 2026 13: 08
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      And more often than not, documents lie, while tales and legends contain grains of truth.

                      How to separate one from the other? Criteria, technologies???
                      1. 0
                        April 19 2026 13: 21
                        Quote: kalibr
                        How to separate one from the other? Criteria, technologies???


                        I wish I knew the exact answer myself, but alas...
                        The search for truth in such matters has some similarities with forensic science, and perhaps some of its methods should be borrowed. And, of course, we should ask more often: "Who benefits from this?"
                        Alas, history, regardless of one's preferences, is always politicized. And concepts like the "Norman theory" still have their supporters, including abroad, among our dear "partners."

                        "If Novgorod isn't actually a Russian city, but rather Holmgrad, founded by Scandinavians, then why does it belong to Russia? Let Russia, to restore historical justice, return this city to the Scandinavians, along with the territories at least as far as the mouth of the Dvina." Unfortunately, this is more than simple trolling; there are those who take this seriously.
    2. +4
      April 18 2026 09: 53
      Quote: Igor Belobrov
      A school essay, not a serious article.

      Dear Igor! Here on VO, I wrote a whole series of articles about the massacre, with links to everything you could find. Find them and read them, so you'll have something to compare them to.
  12. +3
    April 18 2026 09: 35
    Watch Klim Zhukov's video about this battle; everything is clearly laid out there, instead of spreading all sorts of myths.
  13. -3
    April 18 2026 10: 16
    ...whether Rus' will exist as an Orthodox civilization or become a fringe of the Catholic world. Alexander Nevsky chose for us.

    From the "notes" of MAYAKovsky:

    Listen!
    Through the ages
    through ice and rubble,
    Do you hear the footsteps?
    iron march?
    These are not guests
    with a good soul -
    This is a cross
    Order mince!

    We're out!
    They prick the sky with their helmets.
    Clad in steel -
    bank to bank.
    They want to grab it
    our will,
    Trampling Rus'
    into lake spikes.

    But he stood up
    Alexander!
    Shoulder to Shoulder.
    Eyes -
    like an alarm,
    voice - steel.
    "Hey, knight!
    I am your bones
    I'll grind it up,
    So that within our borders
    poke one's nose in
    "stopped!"

    And the thunder!
    Crunch!
    Jaw to jaw!
    The Neva flashed
    combat hardening.
    Crusader arrogance -
    unnecessary trifle,
    Went under the ice,
    like a leaky barge.

    Get lost, you pig!
    Burst, ice!
    Your armor is heavy
    for Russian water.
    Who's with the sword?
    on our threshold
    will rise -
    That one from the sword
    and it will go
    bury yourself!

    Remember, Europe!
    Remember this:
    In the western lands -
    our guard.
    Nevsky
    through the abyss
    brings victory,
    So that the enemy
    into the icy
    grave
    dived!

    She stood!
    Worth it!
    And it will stand holy!
    Earth,
    where they forged
    Victorious granite.
    And those,
    who is in crosses, -
    let them look guilty,
    While their Chudskoe
    in the abyss
    keeps!


    And who hasn't seen it?
    running to the screen:
    Eisenstein
    stirred up
    an old wound.
    Through the frame and ice
    we see the truth:
    Nevsky
    accustomed
    Europe
    to the post!
    1. 0
      April 18 2026 11: 18
      On blue and wet
      The cracked ice of Lake Peipus
      At six thousand seven hundred and fifty
      From the year of Creation,

      On Saturday, April 5th,
      In the damp dawn
      Advanced reviewed
      A dark line of advancing Germans.
      ...........
      K. Simonov, The Battle on the Ice. Poem.
      Highly recommend.
    2. +2
      April 18 2026 12: 35
      Quote: Roman_Vasilevich
      Nevsky
      accustomed
      Europe
      to the post!

      The poems are good, but they are only poems.
  14. 0
    April 18 2026 11: 40
    It's sad to read such a wonderful patriotic article and stumble over mistakes.
  15. +7
    April 18 2026 11: 42
    The pathos spilled across the screen... What's the point of such bravura articles that contain so little description of the actual events? It's some kind of panegyric for a significant date on the calendar, instead of an honest and enlightening review of those events, instead of knowledge – myth.
    1. -4
      April 18 2026 12: 12
      Quote: Voyager-1
      The pathos spilled across the screen... What's the point of such bravura articles that contain so little description of the actual events? It's some kind of panegyric for a significant date on the calendar, instead of an honest and enlightening review of those events, instead of knowledge – myth.

      On April 18, Russia celebrates Military Glory Day in honor of the victory of the Russian soldiers of Prince Alexander Nevsky over the German knights of the Livonian Order on Lake Peipus.

      This article is exactly about this - Day of military glory!

      If you want more details, from a scientific point of view and without myths, then this is the place for you:
      https://xn----btbbheccxu6abcbl8m.xn--p1ai/history/istoriografiya
  16. +5
    April 18 2026 12: 19
    I wrote a term paper in the early 2000s on the topic of the struggle of Rus' in the early 13th century with German and Swedish invaders.
    To be precise, even the site of the Battle on the Ice is now impossible to find. The main sources—the Novgorod Tale and the Chronicle of Henry of Latvia—are also of no help. There couldn't have been any thousands of warriors there. Even my classmates criticized me for this in my term paper. For some reason, the historical significance of the Battle of Rakovor in 1268, where thousands of troops actually did exist on both sides, is being downplayed and hushed up?!
  17. +3
    April 18 2026 12: 31
    Quote: Maxim G
    According to the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, 20 Order brothers died and 6 were taken prisoner.

    Yes, of course. I was too lazy to go online, and my memory... my memory started to fail me.
  18. +2
    April 18 2026 15: 54
    My God, what kind of infantry is this, Karl hooks)))))) The cavalry battle, like on the Don, will also be cavalry
  19. 0
    April 18 2026 16: 29
    Quote: paul3390
    The place of faith is where there is no longer any hope in this world...[/i] (c)

    To the point.
  20. +3
    April 18 2026 17: 12
    In the very first paragraph:
    Danish knights, German crusaders of the Livonian Order, and Swedish warriors all received Rome's blessing to complete what the Mongols had begun. If the eastern nomads had destroyed the body of Rus', the western knights intended to destroy its soul. Moscow failed to subjugate the Vatican.

    What do you mean? Are Western knights in league with the Muscovites?
  21. +6
    April 18 2026 17: 25
    From the very first lines, there's pure nonsense about a practically united Catholic Europe, which was asleep and could see how to destroy the holy Russian spirit... Novgorod's interactions with neighboring lands are entirely in the spirit of feudal Europe. Both sides quite literally attacked each other for profit. Just look at the city of Pskov at that time. Whose lands were they, and what kind of relationship did they have with Novgorod? In short, it was a typical feudal slaughter for resources and influence. And Russian feudal lords were no different from European feudal lords. And here, as usual, they're trying to tack on a national liberation movement. Back to the Middle Ages! Very funny.
    1. +1
      April 19 2026 08: 32
      Quote: cast iron
      In the Middle Ages!

      And how many times did those same Novgorodians join the crusaders against the Lithuanians? I know at least one example for sure. I wrote about it here...
  22. 0
    April 18 2026 18: 40
    The Mongols marched with their horde and burned Russian cities. Did the princes unite against the Mongols? Who even sent an army to defend Ryazan? Which prince? Or did they continue their internecine strife?
    Moscow emerged, and with fire, sword, gold, and rivers of blood, it began to gather everyone into a single principality/kingdom. And gradually, one-sixth of the world's land became a single country.
  23. +3
    April 18 2026 19: 04
    Alexander Nevsky was a great politician who saved Rus', a successful military leader, and the father of the first Moscow prince. But why so much pathos around a relatively insignificant battle in an era when the Mongols were wiping out entire Russian principalities in the east?
    Modern historians estimate that only slightly more than 2,000 warriors participated on both sides. There was no super-offensive on Novgorod at that time, just a typical medieval internecine war. The Pskovites themselves opened the gates to the Order's troops, and after the change of power, they drove them out. There were only two German knights and their escorts in the Pskov Kremlin.
  24. 0
    April 19 2026 00: 03
    Quote: Eula
    It's sad to read such a wonderful patriotic article and stumble over mistakes.

    Exactly. He took seven years of the prince's life. He died at 36—that's what the author writes. But in 1263, he was 43.
  25. +1
    April 19 2026 08: 30
    Quote: Illanatol
    If Alexander hadn't existed, there would have been another prince. Their own forces wouldn't have been enough; reinforcements from the "lower" principalities would have arrived anyway. In the worst case, the Horde would have intervened and turned these "divine rhetoricians" into mincemeat.

    Yes, most likely that would be the case!
  26. +1
    April 19 2026 09: 13
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    Batu brought about 30 thousand nukers and that was enough.


    30 (9 tumens) was a very large army for those times. If they had managed to gather troops from all the Russian principalities, it would have been no more than 30, maybe less.

    And, for your information, 30 wasn't enough! Batu's first campaign against Rus' ended, effectively, in failure. The Horde managed to "visit" only a portion of the Rus' principalities, and only 4 warriors returned, without any loot. Batu's brothers came to his aid, helping him raise a new army. The Horde launched several campaigns against Rus' to subjugate it. However, some northeastern lands remained untouched.
  27. +4
    April 19 2026 10: 49
    Politicized PR.
    I once read the breakdown of dates from those years.
    Feudal lords clashed there almost every year. Everyone wanted to grab land from their neighbors. Today it was one against the other, tomorrow it was the other against the first.
    favorite entertainment, similar to the organized crime group today.
  28. +1
    April 19 2026 13: 26
    Quote: Illanatol
    "If Novgorod isn't actually a Russian city, but rather Holmgrad, founded by Scandinavians, then why does it belong to Russia? Let Russia, to restore historical justice, return this city to the Scandinavians, along with the territories at least as far as the mouth of the Dvina." Unfortunately, this is more than simple trolling; there are those who take this seriously.

    Well, this is just ridiculous. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
    1. +1
      April 20 2026 08: 17
      It would be good if things stayed that way. But we need to be wary of our Western partners and keep the plutonium in its bins dry.
      And anyway, the clouds are murky. The USSR once seemed like a caravan, too, ignoring the barking of Western mongrels (like the Voice of America). But we know what happened next, and geographically, our country regressed to roughly the 18th century.
      1. +1
        April 20 2026 08: 51
        Quote: Illanatol
        But with Western partners we must be on guard and keep the plutonium in its containers dry.

        I don't dispute that, and I'm sure they're thinking the same thing "at the top." But with the USSR, things weren't so smooth. Who thought so? Even I didn't back then. But what difference did that make? Moreover, there's one curious nuance: I'm sure that our rulers of that time subconsciously didn't feel 100% legitimate. You know how they were elected back then... And they knew it, too! The level of government legitimacy is also declining today, but... not that much. And subconsciously, this decline isn't perceived as a threat.
        1. +1
          April 21 2026 08: 26
          Come on. If someone had told you in 1980 that the USSR would cease to exist in 12 years, you wouldn't have believed it yourself.
          The legitimacy of power here means little; it's just a veneer, nothing more. What do elections have to do with this? For most of human history, the bravest won and became ruler. The foundation of power is force, primarily armed force. Force begets power, not the other way around. The Romans understood this perfectly well. It's no coincidence that the words "lego" (law) and "legion" (well, obviously) have the same root. Legions are how Rome enforced its order and laws.

          The collapse of the Soviet system wasn't caused by a loss of legitimacy. It's simply that those at the top of that system decided that a different system would personally benefit them. In this, they found solidarity (and support) with Western elites. Let's recall how Animal Farm ended. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal" must be followed by "all animals are unequal." And this is the fundamental principle of Western capitalist society. The collapse of the communist system was accomplished by renegade communists, because this was the most effective way to achieve this goal.
          1. +1
            April 21 2026 09: 51
            Quote: Illanatol
            If in 1980 someone had told you that the USSR would cease to exist in 12 years, you yourself would not have believed it.

            I wouldn't have believed it. When they told me in '88 that this would happen in '95, I still had a hard time believing it, hoping that everything would settle down.
            Quote: Illanatol
            And the collapse of the Soviet system was not caused by the loss of legitimacy.

            I didn't claim that. It's all just a tidbit.
            Quote: Illanatol
            The collapse of the communist system was carried out by the hands of renegade communists, since this was the most effective way to achieve such a goal.

            A fish looks for the deep end, while a person looks for the best. The thing is, the renegades were those same Soviet people—Pioneers, Komsomol members, Party members. So what changed them lay deeper, right? And deeper—those three to five years, when a person learns more about life than they ever will. That is, from the foundations of socialization and upbringing.
            1. 0
              April 21 2026 12: 28
              Quote: kalibr
              A fish looks for the deep end, while a person looks for the best. The thing is, the renegades were those same Soviet people—Pioneers, Komsomol members, Party members. So what changed them lay deeper, right?


              Not necessarily. Many people change their ideological preferences even in adulthood. Many anti-Soviet cadres in the West arose from members of their communist and socialist parties. But even in childhood, one can become a renegade if one's parents are also closet anti-Soviet renegades. Again, individualism, vanity, and other "birthmarks of capitalism" are factors.
              1. +1
                April 21 2026 12: 38
                Quote: Illanatol
                Many people change their ideological preferences even in adulthood. Many anti-Soviet cadres in the West arose from members of their communist and socialist parties. But even in childhood, one can become a renegade if one's parents are also closet anti-Soviet renegades. Again, individualism, vanity, and other "birthmarks of capitalism" are factors.

                All things are possible.
  29. 0
    26 July 2026 22: 46
    Where did the steel in armor come from? There's malleable iron.