We are told that there was no invasion. And if it was, then the Mongols were quite a bit. And if the Russians were broken by a miserable little group of little men on small horses, it was only because they themselves were to blame - they decayed and degraded. The Mongols generally did not want to attack the Russians, but wanted to drink koumiss together and chew the cud of the world. And they attacked only because the mean Russian princes killed the Mongolian ambassadors on the eve of the battle on Kalka, which angered the Mongols, who hated those who killed those who trusted, and they revenged terribly.
The princes were not only crushed by the "backs of the heavy Tatars", but tens of thousands of residents of Kiev, Chernigov, Vladimir Volynsky were killed (the last nails were driven into the head), and then Russia paid XHNUMX reparations for years.
The Suzdal and Ryazan prince of the Mongolian ambassadors, however, did not kill, and even more so they negotiated with them friendly, but they just needed to be attacked to provide the Tatar cavalry with urgently needed food from the Murom forests, without which the Eurasian liberators could not crush the worst the enemy of Russia is the West.
The Mongols stormed only those cities that did not capitulate, and those that capitulated spared, so the Russians themselves were to blame if they were killed somewhere a little. But in general, the destruction caused by the Mongols is greatly exaggerated: it is impossible to have every 30-centimeter layer of ash and a mountain of unburied bones of those killed by cold weaponsattributed to the Mongol invasion!
And in any case, this is such a trifle, compared with the fact that the Mongol-Tatar detachment defeated the terrible Germans on Lake Peipsi, and the Russians entered the great Eurasian family of nations, into one historical and the cultural space with the Peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which exists to this day, unless, of course, it is destroyed by artful opponents of migration and visa holders. After all, it is obvious that Batu fought for a visa-free regime between Russia and Uzbekistan!
The author of these lines already had to say in the first part of these essays and in the essay “Fictional Kingdom” that Genghis Khan never was a “conqueror of the world”, that “there was never a single political space” from Moscow to South China. And the “common fate” - or rather common slavery - the Russians and the peoples of Central Asia had absolutely 19 years - from 1243 to 1262 - and after that they almost never met before 1865.
The myth of the “united Eurasia”, part of which after the invasion of Batu was Russia - demagogic and not based on anything. Therefore, let us talk about other myths concerning the Batu invasion itself and the period following it, designated in the later historiography as “yoke”.
Let's start with the murder of ambassadors sent by the temnik Subedey to the Russian princes on the eve of the battle of Kalka in 1223. Paradoxically, but the fact is that historians who repeatedly criticized many other aspects of the Gumilyov apology of the Mongol-Tatars did not enter into this controversy with this popular and persistently put into practice by L. Gumilyov and his followers of the historical mythological mythology.
After the defeat of the Khorezmshah state in Central Asia, the best commanders of Genghis Khan Jebe and Subedey went to a long raid to the West, in which they defeated Georgians, Alans and Polovtsi, forcing the latter to seek protection in Russia.
When the Polovtsian Khan, the son of the Polovtsian Khan, who was famous for “Word of the Regiment of Igor”, came for help, the Russian princes reasonably decided that the old and many times beaten enemy was better than the new, strong and unbeaten, and the Polovtsi decided to support. It was then that the ill-fated subedean ambassadors appeared. Here is how the Novgorod First Annals tells about it:
“As far as Tatars are concerned, go to the Russian princes oppose them, and send ambassadors to the Russian prince:“ here we hear the objese, go against us who listened to Polov; and we shall not bury your land, neither your city, nor your village, nor with your dowry, but with your daughters on the serfs and at your stable on the foul Polovcha; and you will bring peace with us; Even to run out to you, and beat them out of the way, and eat the goods by yourself: a heap of hearing, like you and a lot of evil; the same for us, and we biem.
The princes do not obey the same ruststiny, ambassadors of Izbish, but they themselves go against them; and not doshish Olha, Forward. And sending Tatari’s ambassadors to the second, more tacos: “But they listened to Polish, and our ambassadors beat us, but you go against us, you will go; but we didn’t see you, but still God ”; and letting go of the ambassadors of them. ” (Novgorod first chronicle of the senior and junior izvoda. M.-L., 1950. P. 62).
The Mongolian ambassadors really "came in peace": they suggested that the Russians betray their old enemies, the Polovtsy, attack them and, together with the Mongols, rob and destroy. L.N. Gumilyov reproaches the Russian princes for not believing in the sincerity of the embassy sent from the bottom of their hearts, in unjustified cruelty. G.V. Vernadsky even suggested that ambassadors were killed not because they were Mongols, but because they were Nestorian Christians (G. Vernadsky. Were 1223 ambassadors were Christians? - "Seminanum Kondakovianum", t.3 . Praha, 1929). They say that the heretics in Russia were hated more than the pagans, and the "dissecting Christ in two" was cut in two. In his early works L.N. Gumilyov also adhered to this version.
The reproach of unjustified cruelty is completely unfounded. And to think out the reasons for the execution of ambassadors is absolutely not necessary. Executed them for coming to the Russian princes with a false ultimatum. The Mongols lied.
In general, the main quality, which is noted by the Mongols and the Arab-Persian, and Chinese sources, and Russian chroniclers - is "flattery" - the ability to lie aggressively and ingeniously shamelessly. No one followed Sun-Tzu's principle that “war is the path of deception” with such consistency and freedom from all chivalry. But the lies of Subadei were too obvious, because he had just deceived the Polovtsians themselves with the very same technique.
Two shabby Mongolian tumens could not cope with excellent warriors Alans and Polovtsy, and then Subedey decided to quarrel and break them in pieces. Here is what the Arab historian Ibn al-Athir tells a contemporary of events:
“Then the Tatars were sent to the Kipchaks to say:“ we and you are of one kind, and these Alans are not yours, so you have nothing to help them; your faith is like their faith, and we promise you that we will not attack you, but bring you money and clothes as much as you like; leave us with them. ” The matter between them settled on the money that they bring, on clothes, etc .; they brought them what they had reprimanded, and the Kipchaks left them (Alan). Then the Tatars attacked Alan, beaten between them, abused, robbed, took prisoners and went to Kipchaks, who calmly dispersed on the basis of the peace between them, and only found out about them when they attacked them and invaded their land. . Here they (the Tatars) began to attack them time after time, and took away from them twice against what they had been brought. ” (Golden Horde in Sources (ZOI). T. 1. M., 2003. P. 26).
Of course, the Russian princes knew about this betrayal of those who trusted, and when they tried to catch the same bait, they could not but respond very sharply. The provocation, after all, was designed for obvious fools and outright scoundrels: to betray the allies in order to be devotees. The Vienna Convention did not exist yet, in international relations, especially in relation to those who put forward arrogant ultimatums, the style “This is Sparta!” Was more accepted. Ambassadors killed.
It should be borne in mind that the Mongolian ambassadors had a well-deserved reputation as shameless spies. The Mongolian ambassador, a Muslim merchant Jafar-Khoja (Muslim merchants generally played a huge role in Mongolian intelligence, making up Genghis Khan's excellent special service, and in return receiving taxes from cities, including Russians), arrived in the Chinese empire Jin demanding to obey. He was not killed, just refused and released.
This nobleness of the Jinas did not save this brutal massacre, but when he returned, Jafar became the conductor of the Mongols directly to the capital Jin Nankou and was appointed governor of Beijing for his services (Khrapachevsky. RP The army of the Mongols of the conquest of Ancient Russia. M. 2011. C 152).
But, perhaps, no matter how disgusted the insidious offers of the Mongols, no matter how serious their suspicions, it was not worth killing them, because "the Tatars have a custom to never make peace with those people who killed their ambassadors in order to take revenge on them" - as the papal ambassador Plano Karpini, who traveled to Batu and Guyuk khans, wrote (Plano Karpini. History of the Mongols. The last chapter. §2). It is on this statement of the papal diplomat L.N. Gumilev built the mythology of the Mongol invasion of Russia in "Search for a fictional kingdom" as a grand revenge for the murder of ambassadors, developed in subsequent books to ambitious pathos:
“But this is a dastardly crime, hospitality, betrayal of the one who trusted!” And there is no reason to consider the Mongolian peace proposals as a diplomatic trick. The Russian lands covered with dense forest were not needed by the Mongols, and the Russians, as a settled people, could not threaten the indigenous Mongol ulus, that is, were for the Mongols safe. The Polovtsy were all dangerous - allies of the Merkits and other opponents of Chinggis. Therefore, the Mongols sincerely wanted peace with the Russians, but after a treacherous murder and an unprovoked attack, the world became impossible.
However, the Mongols did not show hostility and vindictiveness to all Russians. Many Russian cities during the campaign of Batu did not suffer. Only Kozelsk was declared the “evil city”, whose prince Mstislav Svyatoslavich of Chernigov was among those “great” princes who decided the fate of the ambassadors. The Mongols believed that the subjects of an evil ruler were responsible for his crimes. They themselves had it that way. They simply could not imagine the prince outside the "collective". Therefore Kozelsk suffered. ” (Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. M., AST, 2002. S. 529).
Gumilyov is trying to convince us that the killing of the ambassadors so offended the Mongols, so contrary to their picture of the world that there were circumstances of insuperable force. They could not but destroy the Russians, even if they wanted to, because the voice of blood, the duty of revenge and the ashes of the slain were knocking on their chest.
The revenge of the Mongols is an undoubted fact. Any aggression, any genocide - like, for example, the genocide of the Tatars tribe, were justified by Genghis Khan by referring to the need for revenge. As the outstanding Russian orientalist E.I. notes in his biography of Genghis Khan. Kychanov: “It was Chingis who raised revenge into a cult, he provoked and carefully prepared the wars and waged them extremely cruelly” (Sovereigns of Asia. M., 2004. P. 418).
Although the extermination of an entire country in retaliation for the death of several ambassadors would indicate an extreme degree of mental inadequacy. It is as if the Russian Federation today, in retaliation for beating the diplomat Borodin, sent a ballistic missile to the Hague.
But in the construction of the deadly grievance experienced by the Mongols, there is a snag. And not even one. First of all, the statement "the world has become impossible" obviously contradicts the chronicle story. Having learned about the murder of the first ambassadors, Subedey with reproaches sends the second ones, which, by the way, are safely released. Why send new ambassadors, risking and killing them, if the road to peace is closed and you just have to fight?
Dozens of pages of stories of contemporaries in various languages are full of stories about how the Mongols send, send and send envoys, hoping to convince opponents to surrender. And they act with exceptional meanness with surrendered, as, for example, with the residents of Samarkand, as Ibn al-Athir (ZOI) tells. T. 1. M., 2003, p. 17:
“The infidels told them:“ Give us your weapon, your property and your cattle, and we will send you to your [relatives]. ” So they [the inhabitants] did. But, having taken away their weapons and cattle, [the Tatars] laid a sword on them, beat them to the last ”(“ betrayal of the one who trusted ”- say?).
In the Hungarian literacy cited by Julian to the Hungarian king from the Mongolian kaan, it says, “I sent ambassadors to you for the thirtieth time” (Anninsky, SA, News of Hungarian Missionaries of the XIII-XIVth Centuries about the Tatars and Eastern Europe // Historical Archive, Volume III. M.- L. 1940. C. 89).
Awesome perseverance. The unwillingness of the Mongols to continue negotiations with those who killed their ambassadors is a fantasy. But, perhaps, continuing the negotiations, the Mongols were acutely worried about what happened? Nothing like this.
The only source mentioning the beating of ambassadors by Russian princes is ... Novgorod first chronicle. That is a Russian source. Not a single Arabic, Persian or Chinese source, not a single author who wrote from the Mongolian side, does not mention the episode with the ambassadors in a single word. Rashid ad-Din, the most detailed and thorough chronicler of the acts of Genghis Khan, talks about the Battle of Kalka as follows:
“Then they attacked the country of the Uruses and the Kipchaks there. By this time, they had enlisted help and collected a large army. When the Mongols saw their superiority, they began to retreat. The Kipchaks and the Uruses, believing that they retreated in fear, pursued the Mongols at a distance of twelve days of travel. Suddenly, the Mongol army turned back and hit them, and before they got together, they managed to kill [a multitude] of people. They fought for one week, eventually the Kipchaks and the Uruses fled. The Mongols began to pursue them and destroyed the cities until most of their areas were deserted. ” (Rashid ad-Din. Collection of chronicles. T. 1, KN. 2 M.-L., 1952. S. 229).
Ibn al-Athir, who described in detail how Subedey deceived the Polovtsy, gives a detailed picture of the battle (ZOI, T. 1. M., 2003. S. 26-27). As the princes decide to confront the Mongols, as the Mongols attack, the Russians and the Polovtsi go to meet them, as the battle went on for several days. About sending ambassadors a word.
Let us note, by the way, that all sources from the Mongolian side describe Subadei’s campaign against Russia as offensive, as an attack on the Uruses, as aggression, and not as a forced self-defense after failed negotiations. The book "Yuan Shi" is a detailed description of the history of the Mongol dynasty, in the spirit of Sima Qian, accompanied by biographies of outstanding commanders.
Detailed biography of the “hero” Kalki Subedey-baatur: “They also reached the Kalki river, met and had one battle with the older and younger Mstislavs, who belong to the Russians. Captured them. They pacified the people of the Asses and returned ”(ZOI, vIII, M., 2009. P. 228). Not a word about ambassadors.
I repeat again. We know only about the murder of the Mongolian ambassadors from the Novgorod chronicle. If the chronicler did not consider it necessary to mention this - we would know nothing about it and the reasoning about the Mongol invasion as “revenge for ambassadors” simply would not exist.
Isn't it strange? Considering, if you believe Gumilyov, the killing of ambassadors for the unconditional casus belli against Russia, the Mongols are silent about this fact, as partisans are under interrogation, although they should shout to everyone that their war with the Uruses is fair. And on the contrary, a Russian chronicler from northern Novgorod (well, well-informed, much better than his southern colleagues) talks about this episode.
Without obvious condemnation, but gradually incorporating into his story the idea of punishing the princes for sin, which permeates the whole story of the Battle of Kalka. Obviously, it was not the Mongols, but only and exclusively the Russian chronicler who saw in this murder of ambassadors something morally faulty.
The Mongols also willingly used the assassination of ambassadors as a pretext for revenge (as cautious Plano Karpini reports, without any metaphysics invented by Gumilyov), but, in the case of Rus, they clearly did not notice this excuse. Just forgot about it. It is possible that when reporting on his campaign (let's not forget that the chronicler knows this story from the Russian participants of the battle, and the Persians, Arabs and Chinese - from the reports of Subadei), the commander did not even consider it necessary to mention this episode, which made him not a very successful diplomat, as a minor detail.
And finally, the main thing. Let us estimate the metaphysical revelations of L.N. Gumilyov from the Quest for a Fictitious Kingdom (M., 1970. S. 291): “The murder of the one who confided is an insult to nature, therefore to a deity. People involved in the betrayal should not live and produce descendants, because the Mongols recognized the collective responsibility and the presence of hereditary traits (we would say - the gene pool) ”.
Let us remember the harsh sentence of the Eurasian thinker: the descendants of the one who killed the ambassadors should not live in this world, should be forever removed from the gene pool.
And now let us return to Rashid ad-Din, a remarkable Persian historian, Vizier of the Khulagids, descendants of Genghis Khan, who ruled Iran, who made up his extensive history in the spirit of panegyrics to the great conqueror. Here is his story about how great-grandfather of Genghis Khan Habul-han dealt with the ambassadors of Emperor Jin:
“Following [they] rode the sent ones. His sister-in-law, taken from the Kuralas tribe, by the name of Mati, had a newly-made tent. He was smashed for ambassadors and placed [there]. Then, since the sons of [Kabul Khan] were absent, he told [his] daughters-in-law and servants [Hadam]: “For this purpose I took you and hold so many servants and servants [Khasham] so that at such a moment of mortal danger all of you would be with me unanimous. We will kill these ambassadors, but if you refuse, I will kill you. When hitai attack me, I will not stay alive, [but] at first I will end with you, for they say that peace and death are red! ” [Then] they agreed and attacked the ambassadors of [Altan Khan] with him, killed them, and [themselves] safely escaped from this trouble. ” (Rashid ad-Din. Collection of chronicles. T. 1, KN. 2 M.-L., 1952. C. 36).
So. Temujin's father Esugey-Bagatur. Temujin-Genghis Khan himself. His sons Juchi, Chagatai, Ogedei, Tolui and others. Their grandsons are Batu, Berke, Guyuk, Haidu, Munke, Hulagu, Khubilai, Arik-Buga and others. Ilkhan Odzhetu is the lord and patron Rashid al-Din, according to the “religious ideas of the Mongols” as presented by L.N. Gumilev, belonged to the “damned seed” - to the descendants of the murderer of the Jin ambassadors of Habul Khan (he has monuments as the founder of Mongolian statehood throughout Mongolia).
The whole genus of Genghis Khan, if you follow the logic of L.N. Gumilyov, was not supposed to live and produce descendants. And Rashid ad-Din sets forth a story about the terrible crime of Genghis Khan's ancestor so calmly and cheerfully, as if it were a feat. At the same time, homemade Habul Khan was clearly not thrilled with this idea. He had to threaten to kill them, so that they would decide to share a crime with him (it was not ethics here, they were simply afraid of revenge from the Chin people for revenge).
The Mongols did not see any blasphemy in such a murder and, if they referred to the killing of ambassadors as a reason for revenge, then according to the principle “you are guilty of the fact that you want me to eat”. So it was, for example, after a really terrible slaughter, organized by order of Khorezmshah in Otrar, where 450, sent by the Mongols, merchants and ambassadors (read spies) - Muslims, was killed. Interestingly, after this massacre, Genghis Khan first tried to force the Khorezmshah Muhammad to apologize, which little corresponds to the Gumilyov myth of sacrilege and an irresistible thirst for revenge.
The fiction about the extreme rejection by the Mongols of the killing of ambassadors is refuted by the Russian historical tradition. "The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan Batu" contains a story about the murder of Batyam of the Ryazan ambassador, Prince Fedor Yuryevich, because he refused to give the Mongol ruler his wife Eupraxia.
“And the ambassador of his son, Prince Fyodor Yurevich Rezanskoggo, to the godless king of Batu for the great gifts and prayers that the Rezansky land should not fight. Prince Fedor Yuryevich came to the river on Voronezh to the king of Batu, and bring him the gifts and prayers of the king, so that Rezansky did not fight the land.
The godless King Batu, flattering bo and mercy, gifts and descendants do not conquer Rezansky land. And yaruya praising voyavati Russian land. And start asking for the caretaker sisters or the sisters on the bed from the Ryazan princes. And from the welfare of the inhabitants of Rezansky, the envy of the godless king Batyi against Prince Fedor Yuryevich Rezansko, is supposedly in possession of a princess from the royal family, and is completely red. The king of Batu, slyly eating and merciless in his unbelief, we roast in the lust of his flesh, and tell Prince Fedor Yuryevich: "Give me, prince, all your beauty's wives!"
The Blessed Prince Fyodor Yurevich Rezanskaya both laugh and speak to the king: “It’s not useful for us, a Christian, to ungodly a king, to lead our wives for fornication, then our wives have started our wives”. The godless king Batu saw and be grieved and ordered to kill the blessing of Fyodor Yuryevich, but he also ordered his beasts and birds to be torn apart; Ineh princes, the deliberate people of war beat. "
Representatives of the modern “Horde historiography”, that is, the authors who followed L.N. Gumilyov (and significantly “bolder” him in his conclusions) apologize the Mongols, Baty and their conquest of Russia, sometimes without neglecting frank anti-Russian attacks, dismiss this story as a “folklore work of the XVI century” (a typical example of such Horde historiography: Pochekaev. R. Y. Tsars of Orda. Biographies of khans and rulers of the Golden Horde (St. Petersburg, 2012. C.14).
This is an obvious stretch. Firstly, the “Folk history of the Mongols”, the main source for the life of Genghis Khan, is a folk monument in all its formal features. And yet it is used without a twinge of conscience. Secondly, as D.S. Likhachev (Selected Works. L. 2, 1987, C. 261), despite the fact that we know the handwritten tradition of “The Tale of Nikola Zarazsky”, which includes the story of the destruction of Ryazan, goes back to the XVI century, internal criticism of the text shows that it could not have been written later than the middle of the XIV - the author knows the realities that were already long forgotten in the 16th century.
By the way, L.N. Gumilyov obviously accepts the Ryazan novels as genuine - he considers Evpatiy Kolovrat a historical figure and, moreover, based on the story about the actions of his detachment, he offers his hypotheses about the number of Mongols invading Russia (From Russia to Russia. M., 1995. C. 131) .
But ... and Fyodor Yuryevich and Yevpaty Kolovrat are known to us only as characters in the Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan Batu. We do not have any verification sources. If one character is historical - Evpaty Kolovrat, then another is historical - Fedor Yuryevich. The devastation of Ryazan was so terrifying, and its circumstances were so shocking that, of course, such an unusual fact as the murder of a prince sent to Batu was to be preserved in people's memory. According to the leading modern researcher Batu invasions D.G. Khrustaleva: “The fact of the murder of Russian ambassadors in the Mongolian headquarters is beyond doubt” (Russia: from invasion to “yoke”. 30-40 of the XIII century. St. Petersburg, 2004. C. 89).
Active diplomatic exchanges before the beginning of the war between Batu and Ryazan, Batu and Vladimir-Suzdal principality are also recorded in other sources. And these sources show that there was no use for the tender treatment of the Baty ambassadors.
“Behold, the wonderful prince of Yuri, preach God's commandments and keep God's fear in your heart, remembering the word of the Lord, as you say:“ You will know all seven about all human beings, for my students. If you love one another, not only your friend, but your enemies also love. And do good to those who hate you. "
Every kind of mischief, prejudice of the godless Tatars, let go, are blessed with biahut, the ambassadors sent their names to the bloodshed, rekusche: “Put up with us.” But he is not the same, as the prophet says: "The glorification of the ray is the world of the stud." Xi bo is godless, living with a false world, a great dirty trick for the earth to create, and here and there many many evil works ”(The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. T. 1. Laurentian Chronicle. Art. 468; Sheet 163 vol.).
Prince Yury Vsevolodovich of Suzdal released Tatar ambassadors with peace, which did not prevent Batyi from attacking his land, ruining it, killing the prince’s sons (one of them, another child, Vladimir Yuryevich was captured earlier in Moscow and executed under the walls of Vladimir, after the city refused to surrender), and the commander of Baty Burunday, suddenly attacking the prince himself, killing, decapitating, and dragging his head into an identification bag in Batyev’s headquarters.
There is no fundamental difference between the fate of the ambassadors Yuri Vsevolodovich who killed and the ambassadors who killed the princes who died in Kalka, between the fate of the lands whose princes executed the Mongolian ambassadors and those whose princes gave them, is not noticed. On the contrary, the actions of the Mongols against the Russian princes are strictly subject to the logic of decapitating their opponents.
Of all the authors who wrote about this, this Mongolian rule of Plano Carpini expressed the most aphoristic: “Noble and respectable people are never spared ... their plan is to dominate the earth with them, so they look for cases against noble people to kill them "(Plano Karpini. History of the Mongols. Chapter 6. §V; Chapter 7 §I).
The Mongols were looking for any excuse to destroy the Russian aristocracy, so that there was no one to rule, there was no one to lead the uprising and to throw a new challenge to the Mongols.
However, this is the next story.
Let's summarize. The thesis that the Mongols considered the killing of ambassadors to be the most terrible intolerable crime, after which the criminal must be destroyed, subjected to genocide, directly contradicts the fact that Genghis Khan (and, accordingly, his entire "Golden Clan") was the great-grandson of Habul Khan, who killed the Jin ambassadors. Russian legends cite the facts of the murder of Russian ambassadors by the Mongols.
Russian chronicles give facts of reprisals against princes who treated the Mongolian ambassadors affectionately. Eastern sources, unlike the Russian chronicles, do not notice any episode with the ambassadors, although they tell in detail about the Kalka battle. The only person on earth who was bothered by the killing of Mongolian ambassadors was the compiler of the Novgorod First Chronicle.
From the foregoing, we can conclude that the created L.N. Gumilyov and the myth that the Mongol campaign against Russia, the murder, the burning of cities, the robberies were a “punitive operation” for the murder of the Mongolian ambassadors by the Russian princes, was actively exploited in modern Horde historiography.
Attempts to present Russians as vicious and insidious, and for the Mongols as “noble savages,” guided by simple moral principles and sincere indignation, are frankly strung. We have before us attempts to justify the robber invasion and defeat, which, from our point of view, have no excuses and cannot have them.