Military Review

"Imaginary Eurasia"

72
The handsome men, the beautiful boys and the beautiful boys of the Eurasianism of the Moscow and Kazan branches have created an extensive discourse on the topic “Batu is nothing non-queeny”. More regarding the constructions of the ancestor of this discourse L.N. Gumilyov a joke arose: "There was no yoke, there was the introduction of a limited contingent of Mongol-Tatar troops." Since then, the argument has expanded considerably.


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.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/opinions/2013/10/24/656084.html
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 25 October 2013 08: 11
    +4
    The normal move on the part of Gumilyov, it is necessary to become famous for something, so the peasant decided to rewrite the story. Whether this story (nonsense) is accepted or not does not matter, the main thing is that he achieved his goal - he became famous.
    1. APES
      APES 25 October 2013 11: 13
      +3
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      the little man decided to rewrite history


      he is more appreciated for the Passionary theory of ethnogenesis

      It is as if the Russian Federation today, in revenge for beating a diplomat, sent a ballistic missile to The Hague


      It would be funny, maybe something has changed in the world - for the better fellow
    2. OTTO
      OTTO 25 October 2013 15: 38
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Normal move from the side of Gumilyov

      Lev Nikolaevich just somehow "squeeze" the Mongols into common sense, since it is difficult to believe what the "official" history writes about them. With what fright the nomadic tribes unite and go somewhere? At the same time, backward nomads swept away the more developed states from their path and literally adopted advanced technologies from them on the fly. And where did they get the human resources for their army (nomadic peoples, as opposed to sedentary, are few in number)? The "official" history does not give clear explanations, but Gumilev managed to substantiate everything somehow.
  2. tolan_petrovich
    tolan_petrovich 25 October 2013 08: 30
    +6
    What a BAD just do not push us, from all sides!
    Hold on to Russia!
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 25 October 2013 11: 37
      +4
      I don’t remember where, in Google you can search, according to the Chinese chronicles Temujin was a red-haired and green-eyed. Was the exorcised Mongol really?
  3. Lindon
    25 October 2013 08: 31
    14
    The murder of the Mongolian ambassadors as a justification for the whole theory that the Mongols fought with Russia because of this looks, of course, ridiculous. It's sad that in proving his theory, the author pulls quotes from different sources by the ears, mixing them into one pile. In Khorezm, the killing of ambassadors as a pretext was also used by the Mongols for war, and therefore it is actually incorrect to prove that the Mongols did not use the killing of ambassadors as a casus belli. On the other hand, it is also ridiculous to deduce the whole base that the Mongols took revenge for decades for this embassy. It is just as absurd as to prove that the Russians stood up for the Polovtsy before Kalka "because the Russian princes reasonably reasoned that the old and many times beaten enemy is better than the new, strong and unbeaten, and they decided to support the Polovtsians." Then the Russians did not intercede for the Polovtsians or the Bulgars, although they did not cut the embassies, unlike the Mongols.
    In the eastern sources, neither in Yuan Shi, nor in Rashid ad Ding, nor in Juvaini, there is no fact that the campaign of Subedei 1220-23 was offensive against Russia. Battles, peoples and everything are simply recorded. This can be seen from the quotes given by the author. The sources record only battles and their results. Nothing is said about the plans and nuances of the campaign.
    1. Lyubimov
      Lyubimov 27 May 2014 11: 52
      0
      The killing of Mongolian ambassadors as a justification for the whole theory that the Mongols fought with Russia over this


      Yes, this is the American pattern of democratic wars, where in some country a citizen of America suffered and in this country the leadership changes immediately.
  4. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 25 October 2013 08: 33
    +6
    Centuries will pass and historians of the future will judge our life by the works of various kinds of interpreters, as by the creation of a Novgorod chronicler about the Horde invasion! From the whole heap of myths and fabrications, they will choose what they think is more interesting and profitable. History and its interpretation is a very dangerous thing, I want to remind you the words of one clever person: "... when shooting History (past) with a pistol, you can get an answer from a gun ..."! Perhaps not quite literally, but the meaning is this. In any "reworking" of history, look first of all for and who benefits from it and why it was done. I want to remind that Western historians, since the time of Peter the Great, have done everything to deprive us of the past. And it is known that a people deprived of the past has no future!
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 25 October 2013 11: 44
      +1
      Quite right. Uvazhuha. Winners write history. For example, the name "Kievan Rus", Vladimir the Great was called Khakan. we ourselves must believe it.
  5. Imperial
    Imperial 25 October 2013 08: 34
    +5
    You read Gumilyov and marvel, in his opinion, the yoke began in 1312, when Uzbek Khan converted to Islam, and before that everything was a bunch, but did you read the chronicles, or what? And there about the winter raid of 1237-1238 it is said very clearly: and to be empty all over the earth, and after that there was 1240, which Gumilyov called the "summer campaign" oh how! not a predatory raid, but a company, a little more and one can believe in the observance of the Geneva convention by the Mongols.
  6. Humpty
    Humpty 25 October 2013 08: 44
    -3
    In my opinion, L. Gumilyov was a charlatan, mixing personal speculation with his own mystical ideas. This compote poured into history.
  7. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 25 October 2013 08: 54
    +2
    Reached only to the middle. Well, here’s how, HOW to take this seriously ... this ... obscenities cannot be ... WHAT MONGOLS ?! Some delusional and wild, sucked completely from the finger fabrications are countered by others. The author has not the slightest trace of any thinking at all.
    Well, look. He cites a piece of text in which the chronicler calls the enemy Tatars. TATARAMI !! And, with all the "logic" and "analysis" characteristic of our historians, he calls them ... Mongols. To a normal person, this resembles the dialogues of a fully stoned: cows do not fly, they have udders. Because with hooves? Because the green ones ... No, these are not the consequences of syphilis, our editors-in-chief "think" that way.
    Guys, this is all nonsense, stupid, funny and worthless. If a person does not have excellent marks in mathematics and physics, he cannot be a historian. And for this uncle, the brain department responsible for logical thinking was never involved. Spit ...
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 25 October 2013 11: 47
      0
      As Baron Munchausen used to say: “Laugh gentlemen, laugh.” They don't deserve more
    2. copper49
      copper49 25 October 2013 13: 10
      +5
      As for the name of the people "TATAR", not everything is simple. Traditionally Muslim peoples were called Tatars in Russia. For example, L. Tolstoy's story "Cossacks" refers to a completely pure-blooded Chechen as a Tatar. In those days, all the steppe dwellers were called Tatars, with whom they had to fight and trade too. The Mongols came from the same steppes - from the Volga. No wonder they were called Tatars too. How much later in Russia all Western foreigners were called Germans.
  8. Egoza
    Egoza 25 October 2013 08: 58
    +2
    I think that to some extent A. Bushkov is right in assuming that there were internecine wars of the Russian princes, which were later completely attributed to the Mongols.
  9. Tatarus
    Tatarus 25 October 2013 09: 00
    +3
    Theories about not independence of Slavs constantly appear. Either the Varangians (Swedes) came to put things in order, then the Mongols made a moral campaign. And the Slavs only from the forest in an embrace with bears? Nonsense. The Vikings were Slavs, and the Mongols savages that did not wash and crap in the saddle.
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 25 October 2013 11: 51
      +3
      And how else to convince us that we are worthless people? Say that we have Gagarin, Lomonosov and Mendeleev? Do they (the rulers) need it?
  10. Sunjar
    Sunjar 25 October 2013 09: 14
    +7
    People describing Russian Civilization as a bunch of savages, slaves, fools have always been a dime a dozen. All such people have a common feature: in their opinion, all other countries are always more developed, more civilized, more noble, and we are vile, cowardly and generally a historical mistake. And there is a very good remedy against people like them: liars watering our land and our homeland should be beaten in the snout, as Lomonosov did in his time (he gave a nose to a German historian who claimed that statehood in Russia came from Normandy). It is inhumane of course, but after all, when someone in our life is brazenly lying about our family, about us, and despite the truth you have said, he continues the same line, while absolutely understanding that he is lying, he will certainly be slap on the sides - a fair answer ( the more we are savages)
    1. ele1285
      ele1285 25 October 2013 11: 54
      +2
      He broke his nose to the German Miller. It’s humane in those days. He didn’t pierce it with a skewer. Like a butterfly and could break his neck with HIS health
    2. Jogan-xnumx
      Jogan-xnumx 25 October 2013 13: 09
      +2
      People describing Russian Civilization as a bunch of savages, slaves, fools have always been a dime a dozen. All such people have a common feature: in their opinion, all other countries are always more developed, more civilized, more noble, and we are vile, cowardly and generally a historical mistake.

      good And who are the judges ???
    3. riding
      riding 25 October 2013 14: 46
      +5
      Lev Gumilyov, the son of the poets N. Gumilyov and A. Akhmatova, did not show Russian civilization as a bunch of savages in any of his works. He extolled her. But what can you do, A. Nevsky loved more than Daniil Galitsky, who gave his lands to the Poles. In the veins of Lev Gumilyov, Tatar blood flowed through the mother's side, this, perhaps, explains the interest in the East, which spilled over into Eurasianism. And what's wrong? The Eurasians were among the first among the emigrants to take the side of Soviet Russia when they saw in the policy of the Bolsheviks the continuation of the policy of imperial Russia, and they, in turn, took a course towards creating a powerful Eurasian empire from the Horde (I do not touch the nuances). The Eurasian empire, according to representatives of this direction, based its power on the union of peoples that historically fell into the field of civilization. Gumilev sat in the Gulag, but it is known that he bitterly regretted the collapse of the USSR.
  11. pensioner
    pensioner 25 October 2013 09: 21
    +5
    In the scientific community, it is customary, after disputes on the merits of the issue, to get personal and blame the opponent for all mortal sins, or even scribble a denunciation. Gumilev's historical theories are just theories. And no need to dress him up in the clothes of a Russophobe and a collaborationist. Moreover, he died long ago. If I were alive, I could stand up for myself and my theory. And his book "The Geography of Ethnic Groups in the Historical Period" is one of the most remarkable in the genre of popular science literature. It was there that he popularly expounded his, already famous, theory of passionarity. And in general ... How much Russia is rich in geniuses, but L.N. Gumilyov in this row would not be lost ...
    1. Sour
      Sour 25 October 2013 10: 03
      +9
      I am familiar with the works of Gumilyov. He is characterized by three things that are not permissible for a professional historian.
      1) Attempts to make assumptions (that is, build versions) not based on facts, but on the basis of other assumptions, most often of their own.
      2) Not building a theory from facts, but fitting facts to a theory.
      3) Ignoring or directly hiding inconvenient facts.
      Of course, he is not a Russophobe or a collaborator. But he treats history as a work of art that you can paint at your own discretion, however you like. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as it is beautiful and original. Now there are a lot of such "historians" divorced, and they can be considered Gumilyov's students.
      1. ele1285
        ele1285 25 October 2013 11: 57
        0
        Each person has his own truth, only one truth. And who knows? History is not physics and not chemistry. Everyone has their own opinion
      2. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 20: 12
        0
        Quote: Sour
        He is characterized by three things that are not permissible for a professional historian.

        Hmm .. well so absolutely all historians sin this. Lomonosov took a lot of things out of thin air, Tatishchev was biased, and Rybakov, the main ideologist of 20th-century Russian history, was constantly accused by his colleagues in the historical workshop of the gag during his lifetime. Gumilev was the first to dig the topic of the normal interaction between Russia and the Steppe. He made many mistakes, for example, he does not connect the ancient Usuns with the modern Uysuns who live in southern Kazakhstan (in the same place as the Usuns), which is very surprising for the Kazakhs.
        Moreover, Gumilyov himself in one of the last interviews in his life said that he would have written many things that he would have written differently if it had not been for the dogma of Soviet ideology, which nevertheless rigidly pushed historians into the framework outlined by Rybakov.
        In a word, the historian always tries to reconstruct the past, which is no longer fully accessible to us. Another thing is how much he relies on facts known to science. Gumilev generally adhered to historical documents, just looked differently at many things from a different angle.

        But the galaxy of alternative artists from among Fomenko, Nosovsky, Murad Aji - this, of course, is a complete paragraph.
      3. Zymran
        Zymran 25 October 2013 20: 30
        +1
        Quite right, therefore, in professional editions, for example, in the journal Voprosy istorii, you will not see references to his works.
  12. andrejwz
    andrejwz 25 October 2013 09: 59
    0
    In English:
    order (order, sequence, order, property) - wordser {them
    (also: accuracy, obedience to laws) - wordserliness
    In German:
    order - die Ordvoltage
    and no Mongol-Tatar invasion.
    1. Sour
      Sour 25 October 2013 10: 13
      +2
      It is not entirely clear what is the connection between the languages ​​of the German group and the Mongol invasion.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 25 October 2013 10: 44
        -1
        Quote: Sour
        It is not entirely clear what is the connection between the languages ​​of the German group and the Mongol invasion.

        HORDE - putting things in order, obeying the laws ... probably this was what the distinguished Andrey wanted to show!
        1. Sour
          Sour 25 October 2013 10: 52
          +4
          He also forgot that in Latin, order is ordo.
          And what follows from this? The ancient Romans borrowed this word from the Mongols? Or something different?
          Phonetic harmonies are in any two languages, if desired, can be found.
          For example, from the site "New Herodotus"
          In one well-known Etruscan text, telling about the inglorious acts of a certain military leader and the reasons for his failures, we find the following fragment, which has not yet been deciphered by anyone:
          perpri sec partunucve vel sac lta
          We apply this method and get:
          perpri sec = ensign
          partunucve = footcloths
          vel = stole
          sac lta = stock
          Fine? Quite. The reason for the military failures is revealed completely. wink
          To draw parallels between the German "order" and the horde - sorry, complete inadequacy.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 October 2013 22: 26
            0
            Quote: Sour
            He also forgot that in Latin, order is ordo.

            Quote: Sour
            Phonetic harmonies are in any two languages, if desired, can be found.

            You see, there is not only phonetic harmony, but also semantic unity, and this is already serious.
            1. Sour
              Sour 25 October 2013 22: 40
              +1
              You see, there is not only phonetic harmony, but also semantic unity, and this is already serious.
              And where did you see the semantic unity?
              The German "Ordnung" means order. Türkic "Horde" means the headquarters of a nomadic ruler.
              In what place is semantic unity?
              Let's be delirious. It will be better this way.
              And this is serious.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 25 October 2013 23: 57
                -2
                Quote: Sour
                Türkic "Horde" means the headquarters of a nomadic ruler.

                Yes, you will not find the word Horde in Turkic historical documents, it is a European word.
                Come on, tell us that the Europeans used their word "horde" in the Turkic sense, what nonsense.
                1. Marek Rozny
                  Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 15: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Yes, you will not find the word Horde in Turkic historical documents, it is a European word.

                  Have you read at least one Turkic historical document? you still say that you speak Turkic languages.
              2. Marek Rozny
                Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 15: 44
                +1
                Quote: Sour
                Türkic "Horde" means the headquarters of a nomadic ruler.

                I'll correct it a little. the word "horde" in the Turkic language has several meanings depending on the context:
                1) Khan rate (it does not matter in the steppe or in the city)
                2) army
                3) state
                The polysemantic nature of such words is not uncommon in the Turkic language. For example, the word "el" (in Kazakh it is written "el"), depending on the context, is translated as:
                1) state, country
                2) the people to which the Turk belongs
                3) homeland
                4) relatives (such a context is very rare).
                The anthem of Kazakhstan is called "Menin elim" ("My el") and this name can be translated as "My country" and as "My Motherland" and as "My people" and as "My land". All translations will be correct.

                In the modern Kazakh language there is a neologism "elorda" - "capital" (literally "people's horde", the word horde here means "capital, headquarters of the khan").

                And the residence of the President of Kazakhstan in Astana is called "Akorda" (literally "White Horde". The word "ak" has the additional meaning of "noble, sacred".)

                As for the mention of the word "horde" ("horde", "urda" - depending on the Turkic dialect) in Turkic documents, I can give an example from an ancient literary work of Muslim Turks - "Kutadgu bilik", which was written in 1069-70 Yusuf Balasaguni for his khan, whom he calls "Ordukent Khani Beg" ("Khan of the Capital City"). The former name of Kashgar is Ordukent (literally "capital city").
  13. Normal
    Normal 25 October 2013 10: 42
    0
    Good article. Gumilev may be right in some ways, but his Russophobia and love for Asians are undeniable. One cannot speak seriously about the theory of passionarity. Ethnogenesis? Maybe ... Maybe ... The relationship of Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe? Everything is very controversial.
    Article plus.
    1. Sour
      Sour 25 October 2013 11: 37
      0
      The so-called "theory of passionarity" is more from the field of psychology. To history, as a science, this is indirectly related.
  14. creak
    creak 25 October 2013 10: 47
    +1
    Kholmogorov is just fine, always read his articles in an interesting way and watch speeches that are clear, reasoned, without abstruse snot.
  15. builder74
    builder74 25 October 2013 10: 48
    +4
    I read several books of Gumilyov LN - a rather harmonious theory, supported by references to several sources, and he himself did not claim to be absolutely infallible. The article, in my opinion, is biased and insufficiently deeply covers this issue.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 25 October 2013 22: 27
      0
      Quote: builder74
      pretty slender theory

      Scientific theory must be supported by evidence, not by reference and speculation.
  16. Zymran
    Zymran 25 October 2013 11: 22
    0
    Well, Gumilyov was never considered a serious historian. However, he did a lot to popularize the history of the Turks and Mongols.
  17. Thirteenth
    Thirteenth 25 October 2013 11: 39
    +1
    By the way, the Mongols themselves have no idea about Genghis Khan and his empire. Chronicles tell us that no less than 300.000 Mongol Tatars went on a campaign to North-Eastern Russia. Let's try to evaluate this figure critically. The population of Russia at the moment is 142.000.000, the armed forces are about 1.370.000 which is about 1% of the population. And this is in the XXI century with developed production and agriculture! Then, in order to have 300.000 warriors, the population of Mongolia in the XII century should be approximately 30.000.000 people. But in the XXI century, 10.000.000 people belong to ethnic Mongols, of which only 2.400.000 live directly in the state of Mongolia. And not all Mongols fought in Russia. At the same time, military operations were going on in India and China, in Altai and Korea. In short, the horde's numbers are clearly incredible. In the modern world, there are about 14 Russians and 130 Chinese for every Mongol. There is no reason to think that the ratio was different in the past. Can you well imagine the "countless" horde of Mongols attacking modern China or Russia? http://www.plamya.info/articles/mongol.html link to include your logic) lol
    1. Sour
      Sour 25 October 2013 11: 50
      +5
      Your arguments are controversial. And it is not clear who they are against.
      1) The population of Russia before the invasion of Batu was, according to various estimates, from 5,5 to 7 million.
      2) The total number of troops of Batu, from 120 to 150 thousand. In all eastern sources, it is estimated at 15 tumens, and tumen - 8-10 thousand.
      3) The invasion involved not only the Mongols, but mainly the Kipchaks and other conquered peoples.
      4) It is impossible to derive the size of the army directly from the population according to one scheme. Since different peoples had different methods of recruitment, your conclusions are incorrect. For nomadic peoples, an army is a total militia. The Slavs went through this stage by the 11th century, and in the 13th century not all the inhabitants were troops in Russia. First of all, these were professional soldiers (combatants) and wealthy citizens who went to war at their own expense (militia). This was also characteristic of the then Europe.
      1. Thirteenth
        Thirteenth 25 October 2013 12: 26
        -2
        http://www.plamya.info/articles/mongol.html
    2. copper49
      copper49 25 October 2013 13: 21
      +6
      It should be borne in mind that the Mongols, unlike the sedentary tillers of the Slavs, were nomads, all men as one were riders, all from childhood mastered the bow and saber perfectly. The same cannot be said about the Russians. At the same time, training in the use of melee weapons takes much more time than, for example, the Mosin rifle. In fact, the Mongol army could absorb almost half of its population. By the way - in the Patriotic War of the 180 million population of the USSR, 34 million were mobilized into the army, almost 20%. As for the rout of the Russian squads, we must not forget that they were beaten separately, and that they were few in number. They were professionals, and the princes did not have the means to feed the large squads. The militia was nothing more than "Saber meat" at that time.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 25 October 2013 23: 17
        -1
        Quote: copper49
        Here it must be taken into account that the Mongols, unlike the settled Slavs on the farmers, were nomads, all men as one were riders, all from childhood had mastered the bow and saber perfectly.

        These are your fantasies, and where did the "Mongolian saber school" go?
        Nomads are fluent in lasso and lozina.
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 15: 52
          +2
          Quote: Setrac
          These are your fantasies, and where did the "Mongolian saber school" go?

          if you don’t know that it was the Turkic nomads who invented the saber, then why just type letters in your messages? not Germans, not Chinese, not Indians, not Persians, and not Caucasians, namely Turks.
          the lasso does not replace the saber, it is an additional "weapon", especially when you need to take the enemy alive.
    3. serge
      serge 25 October 2013 13: 44
      0
      As for the composition of the "Mongol" army, the Mongols in this Asian army were a minority. It was a global invasion of Asia to the West, choking on the territory of Russia. In Russia, the term "Tatars" has always been used to designate participants in the invasion, not the Mongols. And the Tatars in Russia have always been called, as they say, "twelve" Asian (including Siberian, Central Asian and Caucasian) peoples. Read Pushkin about travels to the Caucasus - all the Caucasian peoples there are called Tatars by the Chokh, in fact it was relatively recently.
      1. Zymran
        Zymran 25 October 2013 13: 47
        0
        Quote: serge
        As for the composition of the "Mongol" army, the Mongols in this Asian army were a minority. It was a global invasion of Asia to the West, choking on the territory of Russia.


        Well, actually, the invasion drowned in Europe. Rus "Mongols" went right through.
        1. serge
          serge 25 October 2013 14: 05
          +1
          Well, actually, the invasion drowned in Europe. Rus "Mongols" went right through.
          ----------------
          Actually, the Tatars reached the Adriatic, without losing a single significant battle. But they didn’t go further to Europe. Precisely because Russia remained behind.
          1. Marek Rozny
            Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 16: 08
            0
            Quote: serge
            Actually, the Tatars reached the Adriatic, without losing a single significant battle. But they didn’t go further to Europe. Precisely because Russia remained behind.

            What was the purpose of the "Western campaign" to Europe? Finish off the Kipchak Khan Kotyan, who from the time of Kalka remained at the top of the short-list of Horde enemies. Kotyan eventually hid in Hungary, where the local king was related by kinship with the Western Kipchaks. The Horde people were not interested in the lands of Europe, they were interested in Kotyan. Essno, the Europeans did not like that some gloomy Azites are marching on their land and tried to destroy the aliens. But the steppe dwellers utterly defeated all the European armies that met along the way, without exception. And when they came to the Hungarian kingdom, the Hungarian king and the local establishment put them in their pants and, in order not to aggravate the situevina, the Magyars themselves killed Kotyan. The Horde people were completely satisfied with the result and returned back to their steppes. Moreover, it was necessary to hurry - the kagan died in the Horde and the Chingizid sultans who took part in the Western campaign (Batu, Guyuk, etc.) should have taken part in the election of a new kagan, who eventually became Guyuk.
            The theory that the Horde did not take over European countries because of the mythical resistance of the Russians in the rear is a recent invention that does not even rely on anything except an attempt to rehabilitate in one’s own eyes. Even if at this moment the Russians really raised a series of uprisings, it would be:
            a) reflected in Russian chronicles;
            b) confirmed archaeologically;
            c) reflected in the eastern chronicles;
            d) Batu and Guyuk would go to Russia to suppress the mythical revolt, but would not pass by Russian cities towards the Horde. True, Batu did not reach the kagan’s headquarters, since he correctly guessed that Guyuk would become the supreme khan and then his hands would be untied to liquidate Batu, with whom Guyuk had an unfriendly relationship. Therefore, Batu complained of a malaise and stopped with his horde on the lower Volga, where the city of Saray-Batu soon appeared.
    4. Marek Rozny
      Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 16: 06
      +4
      Quote: Thirteenth
      Chronicles tell us that 300.000 Mongolo-Tatars went on a trip to North-Eastern Russia. Let's try to evaluate this figure critically. The population of Russia at the moment is 142.000.000, the armed forces are about 1.370.000, which is about 1% of the population. And this is in the XXI century with developed production and agriculture! Then, in order to have 300.000 warriors, the population of Mongolia in the 30.000.000th century should be approximately XNUMX people.

      In the Kazakh SSR, during the years of the Great Patriotic War, almost every fourth resident of the country was mobilized into the Soviet army. And here the Kazakhs who were called up in the pre-war period are not yet taken into account. So tie up with your à la Fomenkovo ​​"1% of the population." Steppe people are steppe people. Mobilization could have been universal - in fact, everything except young children, women, old people and infirm people.
      Among the steppe inhabitants, by the way, once a year the khan organized a Khan's round-up hunt. The turnout for the steppe dwellers is strictly necessary, since the purpose of this hunt is not to extract meat from wild animals, but to conduct full-scale military exercises. Failure to participate in this hunt was punishable by death. Absolutely all "hunters" had their roles in accordance with their position / status. Everything is like in war - foremen, centurions, thousanders, commanding "wings" (flanks), intelligence, communications, encirclement and total extermination of the "enemy", etc.
      In the Middle Ages, the Eurasian nomads were a real "machine of militarism."
      Z.Y. A steppe without weapons - did not have a vote at all.
      Z.Z.Y. Honestly, the theme of clowns such as Fomenko and other pseudo-historians screaming: "There weren't any Asians! They couldn't have so many wars! They couldn't have so many horses! How could their horses move without rear troops with fodder ?! Where did the steppe people get iron and weapons ?!" - already specifically zadolbala.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 25 October 2013 23: 20
        -1
        Quote: Marek Rozny
        . Steppes are steppes. Mobilization could also be universal — in fact, everything except young children, women, the elderly and infirm people.

        If all men go to war, then their families will starve to death, the life of a nomad is not as cloudless as you imagine.
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 16: 22
          +3
          Quote: Setrac
          If all men go to war, then their families will starve to death, the life of a nomad is not as cloudless as you imagine.

          Oh, well, have you become an expert on nomadism? Don't tell my slippers. Moreover, nomadic men do not engage in livestock. This is the task of adolescents, who are all engaged in shepherding since childhood. Women are engaged in cooking, weaving, and even assembling and disassembling the yurt. A nomadic man is engaged only in war, hunting (not especially for food, but in order to train in shooting and lasso fishing). And at home, he only does blacksmithing and carpentry, if necessary, making the required household items, and primary butchering of cattle (tying the horse's legs, dumping it on its side, cutting the throat, removing the skin, cutting into "veins" - pieces of meat at the joints) then the women butcher the meat, wash the intestines, salt and so on.
          Moreover, if there are no men, then teenagers will also do the primary cutting. In general, almost all household chores are on the shoulders of women. The cattle is grazing the kid, and the men are doing what is called "male". This is such a "discriminatory gender" picture of nomadic life.
          During wars (and hunting), all the men of the steppe go to war, leaving women, the elderly and children virtually unguarded. That is how the ill-fated Igor attacked the Kipchak nomad when there were no men who were absent in the aul due to hunting. When they learned that Igor, without declaring war, attacked a defenseless village, they became very furious and overtook Igor, defeated his army and wanted to kill. However, Khan Konchak, to whom Igor was a close relative on the female side, bought the life of the prince.
          When there is a danger that they will hit the rear in the villages, then, of course, a small part of the men remain guarded by nomads. But when the likelihood of such a danger is low, then really everyone went camping.
          I understand that such a lifestyle does not fit in the head of a person brought up in a different ethnic environment, but you can at least read something about nomads besides alternative.
  18. Ross
    Ross 25 October 2013 11: 53
    0
    Quote: ele1285
    I don’t remember where, in Google you can search, according to the Chinese chronicles Temujin was a red-haired and green-eyed. Was the exorcised Mongol really?

    Tired of these theorists, the Mughals calling the Mongols. The cards would have been studied by the ancients first.
  19. Alexey M
    Alexey M 25 October 2013 12: 05
    -2
    Mongols with Tatars "We are a Horde!"
    Russian "And us Rat !!!"
    It’s just a question of filling up how much money you need to feed an army of 300000 snouts. And what is the speed of this army. I think that a horse no more than 100 km per day will ride and then along the road. And through our forests with narrow roads where every tree is felled it’s half a day of work to drive through. So all this nonsense. That's what they could attract the Tatars in the internecine wars is most likely.
    1. serge
      serge 25 October 2013 13: 27
      +2
      It's just a matter of filling up how much money is needed to feed an army of 300000 snouts.
      -------------------------
      Napoleon's army also moved on horses. And there were three times more "digging" in it. You will laugh, but the Hitlerite army also had a million (!) Horses. In the Crimean Tatar raids on Russia, up to 80-100 thousand people took part, who did not go on foot. In the well-described battle on Kalka, the Russian-Polovtsian army, according to various estimates, ranged from 40 to 150 thousand people. It was defeated by part of the main Mongol army, which amounted to at least 30 thousand people. With Batu's raid on Russia, the main army had already come, clearly larger in number.
      1. Alexey M
        Alexey M 25 October 2013 16: 20
        -1
        And where is Napoleon? And Hitler? And by the way about horses. How much horse feed is needed per day? I am silent about people who also need to eat such a mole for three days of parking, they will eat everything in the district. Battles did not take place immediately. position, and we are talking about the invasion of the Mongol by thousands of armies describing it to us from city to city with siege weapons, etc. Here it turns out that they only needed to move in order to eat. And I strongly doubt that after the siege of the city there was a lot of food.
        Most likely there were really raids by units of 5-10 thousand. But at the same time in different directions. Naturally, to take cities the units united.
        1. serge
          serge 25 October 2013 17: 57
          +1
          The fact is that the carts followed the Tatar troops in a couple of days. They prepared for the campaigns in advance, and not so that they took and went. This is how the Tatars moved in the time of Batu, and in the same way during the time of the Crimean Khanate, the campaigns of the Tatars during the time of which are well described. Finding "what to eat" in a given city is possible, of course, but not always. As for the movement of troops from city to city, not all Russian cities were captured by the Tatars, which later gave rise to many speculations on why this happened. Among other things, it is logical to assume that this happened because the Tatar troops nevertheless moved not in small detachments, but along a pre-planned route and with the whole horde.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 October 2013 23: 30
            -1
            Quote: serge
            The fact is that after the Tatar troops in a couple of days the wagons followed.

            This is not possible in principle. The horses in the train also want to eat, and they eat much more horses under the saddle. Transport like a cart with a horse carries out a depth of operation of 100 km, that is, it cannot be removed from a food warehouse further than 100 km.
            1. ando_bor
              ando_bor 25 October 2013 23: 45
              +1
              Mongolian horse - the basis of the logistics of the Mongolian army,
              The Mongolian horse - a horse on the pasture, 3-5 horses at the warrior provided him with high speed and food in the campaign.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 26 October 2013 00: 03
                -1
                Quote: ando_bor
                Mongolian horse - the basis of the logistics of the Mongolian army,
                The Mongolian horse - a horse on the pasture, 3-5 horses at the warrior provided him with high speed and food in the campaign.

                Yes, you just did not see this donkey, which is called the Mongolian horse.
                1. ando_bor
                  ando_bor 26 October 2013 00: 07
                  +1
                  Even went.
                  By the way, there are normal horses in Mongolia,
                  but they are kept only in the valleys of large rivers, they need to be fed, or at least good pasture, and the Mongolian lives on pasture.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 25 October 2013 23: 23
        +1
        Quote: serge
        Napoleon's army also moved on horses. And there were three times more "digging" in it. You will laugh, but the Hitlerite army also had a million (!) Horses.

        Well, actually, Napoleon’s army was not able to feed himself, and Hitler had railroads along which everything he needed was delivered, including oats for horses.
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 16: 33
          +3
          Steppe horses do not need oats, unlike European or Arabian horses. They will always find grass for themselves. If you have not seen steppe horses in your eyes, then just read the historical evidence:

          [i] "Getting off the horse, [the Tatars] do not tie [him]: and so he will not run away. The disposition [of these horses] is very good. During the day [they] are not fed with hay. Only at night they are released to the pasture. them in the steppe, depending on where the grass is green or dry, and at dawn they saddle [them] and ride. Never give [them] beans or grains. Whenever [Tatars] go on a hike, each person has several horses. [He] rides them alternately, [changing them] every day. Therefore, horses do not /l.13a/ get exhausted. "[Meng-da bey-lu. Pages 69-70]

          “... we arrived in Kiev, which serves as the capital of Russia; Having arrived there, we had a meeting about our journey with the thousand-strongman and other noble persons who were there. They answered us that if we take the horses that we had to Tataria, they can all die, because there was deep snow, and they did not know how to get grass in the snow with their hooves, like the Tatars horses, but they could not find anything else for food, because the Tatars had neither straw, nor hay, nor feed. ” [Carpini. P.68]

          “They wander more than others, and this is why: if the need arises, the Tatar will often leave for a whole month without any food; feeds on mare's milk and the game that he catches, and the horse grazes on the grass, which is found, and he does not need to take either barley or straw with him. ” [Marco Polo. P.237-238]

          «Their animals [Tatars], on which they ride, (themselves) rake the ground with their hooves and eat the roots of plants, not knowing barley. ” [SMIZO 1. Page 3-4. From the annals of Ibn al-Asir]

          «Having made a halt, they [the Türks] harness horses, camels and oxen from the arb and let them graze at night and day. Nobody releases (special) feed to cattle, neither the Sultan, nor others. ” [SMIZO 1. Page 282. From Ibn Battutah's Travel Description]

          “... But what is surprising: this country does not produce very thoroughbred horses; they are stunted, with a large belly and do not eat oats. ” [Barbaro. § 34. Page 150]
          1. Marek Rozny
            Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 16: 47
            +2
            «They [the Bashkirs], in spite of the cruel and long winter, do not give the cattle any food, and therefore she herself takes out from the snow wilted and frozen grass and moss. Only one extremely weak or very heavy cattle they give a few hay to reinforce their strength. <...>. [Miller. Page 92]

            "...pasture is ... their [Mongolian horses] fodder"[Iakinf. Page 171]

            «For winter, do not harvest hay; and cattle, raking snow with hooves, feed on pasture; why during deep snows it disappears a lot from exhaustion and cold. ” [Iakinf. Page 180]

            Ҥ45.7. The elevated Chui steppe and Altai mountain Kalmyks.
            Even in winter, Kalmyks do not have special care for their herds, because cattle get their own food."and Kalmyks prepare a small amount of hay for sick and young cattle, hanging this hay on trees.” [Ritter. Page 390]

            “The air temperature in winter here [we are talking about the Kazakh steppes] reaches -30 ° R and even -35 ° R frost, in summer it sometimes reaches 46 ° C (37 ° R) heat. [Note: 1 ° R = 1.25 ° C] <...>
            ... In the course of the indicated time, 29 blizzards occurred, the most cruel and most fatal. Huge blocks of snow flew up into the air and, breaking, completely filled the atmosphere with their dust, so that everything was plunged into deep darkness.
            A similar terrible storm was on February 13, and the temperature dropped to -31.7 ° C, and this was the main reason for the disasters of the detachment assigned to the Khiva expedition. Of the 12000 camels that accompanied the XNUMX-strong detachment of the army, most of them found their grave here <...>. Horses, which were up to 2300, withstood the cold and snowstorms with incredible stability, even without great effort tore the snow that covered the steppe from 3 to 4 feet deep, and greedily devoured grass that was completely frozen."[Jagmin. Page 6-8]

            “But it’s quite clear that there is no way to harvest hay for the whole cattle for the winter, because it is often considered by one owner to have thousands of heads, and also because the grass grows so sparsely and sparse in a large part of the steppe that there’s nothing to decisively mow, one remedy remains - this is you. With this word, it is designated among the Kirghiz the custom of letting cattle in winter on pastures. At Tebenevka, such a queue is observed that horses go forward like the most diligent snow rakers, followed by cattle and, finally, on a already dug place, almost sheep roots collect grass. [IGU Kyrgyz. Pg. 140-141]
      3. Alexandr0id
        Alexandr0id 25 October 2013 23: 57
        +1
        The figures of Crimean Tatar raids -80 thousand, 100 thousand, 120 thousand have always made me laugh. it's like a joke about a fisherman and a fish eye.
        despite the fact that at its maximum breeding in the 18th century, the Crimean Tatars from small to large of both sexes were 430-440 thousand, and this is already with an almost complete transition to rural-urban life and the rejection of nomadic life. in the 16-17th centuries there were even fewer of them (at times).
    2. OTTO
      OTTO 25 October 2013 18: 35
      +2
      Quote: Alexey M
      .And what is the speed of this army. I think that a horse no more than 100 km per day will ride and then on the road

      Here you are wrong, the speed of the cavalry on the march is no more than 30 kilometers per day (not much higher than the infantry). On the march, the cavalry moves at a pace, at a gallop it can go 6 kilometers maximum, if more - the horse will be "driven", possibly to death.
      1. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 16: 39
        +3
        Quote: OTTO
        Here you are wrong, the speed of the cavalry on the march is no more than 30 kilometers per day (not much higher than the infantry). On the march, the cavalry moves at a pace, at a gallop it can go 6 kilometers maximum, if more - the horse will be "driven", possibly to death.

        From a book about horse breeding:
        "Mongolian (127 cm) ["Horse breeding". P. 148] ... They are characterized by endurance when riding; they are free for many days to pass 70-80 km per day.
        .Under the saddle and pack Kazakh horse extremely hardy and tireless, able to walk a day, eating only grazing food, 80-90 km. Not having great agility at short distances, she shows outstanding results in long-distance runs. So, in 1948 several Adaevsky (one of the Kazakh breeds) horses under the riders per day passed 298 km. Kazakh horses in a pair and triple harness can take 4,5-5 hours. run 60-70 km. In 1948, a pair of Kazakh geldings in a harness covered 292 km per day, and they were not savvy, which indicates the strength of the hooves of steppe horses....
        ... of working qualities Kyrgyz horse It should be noted its exceptional endurance when riding (the distance of 100-120 km of the horse is 9-12 hours without feeding on the way) ...
        .Yakutskaya (130-134cm) [Horse breeding. Page 164-166] ...With small growth, horses carry packs of 80-100 kg and travel up to 100 km per day, in winter they transport 300-350 kg of cargo in a sleigh, making 50 or more kilometers per day.

        How much can you talk! Steppe horses are not at all what European or Arabian breeds are! You do not think that pit bull, St. Bernard and chihuahua have the same characteristics?
  20. copper49
    copper49 25 October 2013 13: 30
    +5
    Gumilev very diligently turned the Mongol khans into steppe gentlemen, painfully and scrupulously regarding issues of honor. Well, and the Russian princes, accordingly, became an unsympathetic rabble, not recognizing the noble impulses of the nomads. As a result, his works became highly respected among the Kazakh national-patriots, who imagine themselves to be the "descendants of Genghis Khan" and the Russians as sworn colonialists. Therefore, the Kazakh State University now bears the name of Gumilyov, and cigarettes "Chingizkhan" are on sale.
    According to Gumilyov’s logic, the First World War was caused solely by the assassination of Gabriel by the Principality of Archduke Duke Ferdinand, and the Second World War was caused by the seizure by the Polish nationalists of a radio station in Gleivitz.
    1. Zymran
      Zymran 25 October 2013 13: 46
      +1
      Quote: copper49
      As a result, his works became highly respected among the Kazakh national-patriots, who imagine themselves to be the "descendants of Genghis Khan" and the Russians as sworn colonialists. Therefore, the Kazakh State University now bears the name of Gumilyov, and cigarettes "Genghis Khan" are on sale.


      No need to throw it from a sick head to a healthy one. Gumilyov’s works are highly revered by fans of Eurasianism and Eurasian integration, of which there is no honor among Kazakh national patriots.
    2. serge
      serge 25 October 2013 13: 57
      +4
      Gumilyov rather wrote some sort of historical essay or historical fantasy there, rather than scientific research. Something like Guy Gabriel Kay, but more scientific. Read exciting, of course. About twenty years ago I myself bought about a dozen volumes of Gumilyov, read with great interest. But. For example, Vasily Yan is also read with great interest, but for some reason no one refers to him in historical controversy. As for the Kazakhs, it’s just to die not to get up. They are simultaneously trying to substantiate their supposedly ancient descent from two irreconcilable enemies - the Polovtsy and the Mongols. This would be ridiculous if it weren’t so sad, given that the enemies of the Russian people wrote off the entire Southern Urals with all its Russian population and the Caspian Sea, which was mastered by Russians, to this nation invented by the Bolsheviks, where there were no nomads.
      1. Asan Ata
        Asan Ata 25 October 2013 14: 29
        0
        Astrakhan was built of Saraichik bricks at the behest of the Russian monarch, in order to destroy history. Do not make me laugh! It is such patriots who create an opinion about the intellect of the nation.
      2. My address
        My address 25 October 2013 16: 23
        0
        serge!
        I agree with you.
        But besides the fact that Gumilyov read fascinating. On the contrary, I did not like as a writer. Please look below my comm. from 16ch 12min.
        1. serge
          serge 25 October 2013 23: 58
          0
          My address
          I agree with you. But besides the fact that Gumilyov is read excitingly.
          ---------------
          I also agree with you. Now Gumilyov is really not perceived. Twenty years ago, the popularization of the history of ancient eastern peoples was relatively new and was perceived freshly. Now, on the contrary, she’s tired and already annoying. The attempts of some modern, and completely new Asian nations, to declare this story their own, and partly relying on Gumilyov, who did not mean this, are also surprising. As for the theory of passionarity - by mature reflection it should be recognized as nonsense.
      3. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 17: 15
        +2
        Quote: serge
        They are simultaneously trying to substantiate their supposedly ancient descent from two irreconcilable enemies - the Polovtsy and the Mongols.

        If you don't understand the generic plexus of nomads, then why bother? There were no "irreconcilable enemies". Let me explain:
        1) The Polovtsi (self-name "Kypshak" / "Kipchak") is a huge Turkic clan that occupied the territory from present-day Uzbekistan, Siberia and to Crimea. Khans Kotyan or Yuri Konchakovich, for example, were only khans small Kipchak clans in the west of Desht-i-Kipchak (the name of the steppe territory where the Kipchaks lived), and not by the khans all Kipchaks.
        2) By the time of the battle on Kalka, the bulk of the Kipchaks already was on the side of Genghis Khan. Moreover, most genera generally joined him voluntarily, even before a conflict broke out between Genghis Khan and Khorezmshah Muhammad. The ruler of the Khorezm state, Khan Muhammad, was from an Oguz clan. The Kipchaks, who were one of the largest clans in his empire, were dissatisfied with the Shah’s policies, and as a result a large anti-government Kipchak uprising broke out in 1216. But even before that, many Turkic nomadic families had renounced Khorezmshah and left under the rule of Genghis Khan, who at that time was not going to invade the West (in this case, Khorezmshah), well, or at least did not officially show such sentiments). For example, somewhere around 1210, my family left Muhammad to Genghis Khan.
        Genghis Khan until 1218 repeatedly tried to persuade Muhammad to alliance, motivating that their peoples are close relatives, and united in one state, they can become the strongest power in the world.
        When in 1218 the ruler of the city of Otrar, the Kipchak Kaiyrkhan (Cairhan) killed the Chingizid ambassadors and merchants (by order of Muhammad), and after Muhammad refused to smooth out the Otrar incident, only then did war arise between the two states. At the same time, note that Genghis Khan had to withdraw his troops, which at that time conquered China.
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 17: 15
          0
          The giant Khorezm state fell very quickly, despite the fact that Muhammad had significantly more wars than Ryzheborodogo. And there was not much difference between the ethnic composition of the army. Both there and there are the steppes of the Kipchak, Naiman, Kerey, Argyn, Jalayyr, Konyrat, etc., which are absolutely identical to each other.
          But here the moral advantage was in the wars of Genghis. But the wars of Muhammad (mostly Kipchaks) did not at all want to die for the unloved shah, who literally a couple of years before had crushed their rebellion. One by one, the Kipchak (and not only) clans swore allegiance to the new Khan (though, quite often quite finished flatterers and their wars were put to death, because, of course, they did not trust). Those who instilled confidence became the wars of Genghis Khan, turning their weapons against the satrap Muhammad.
          The Polovtsians of Khan Kotyan and the Kipchaks of Khan Yuri Konchakovich, as I have already said, are separate small clans of the Western Kipchaks. Genghis Khan also wanted to include them in his state, though without any ceremony, for Kotyan and Yuri Konchakovich were low-flying birds in the royal hierarchy. How did they have a conflict?
          The troops of Genghis Khan drove the Khorezmshah Mohammed, and then his son Jalal-ad-Din, across a gigantic territory - from "Uzbek" cities to the Caucasus, from Iran to India. While they were finishing off in the northern part of modern Iran (then it was part of the Khorezmshakhstvo) local emirs loyal to Muhammad, the play was slapped on the face of the Caucasian princes, it was then that the famous incident happened when, when going to beat the Alans, the Chingizids faced the fact that they were in an alliance with the Kipchaks from the "horde" of Yuri Konchakovich. The Chingizids persuaded the Kipchaks to abandon fratricidal Wars and Polovtsy naively turned back to their lands, leaving the Alans. And the Genghis wars of Jebe and Subudei (Zhebe (Zhorgatai) and Sypatai), and Polovtsy - were Kipchaks by origin... It was this fact that made Yuri Konchakovich believe the Chingizid Horde. We know well what happened next. The Horde destroyed the Alanian army and then stabbed Konchakovich and Kotyan in the back. Then Kotyan ran for help to Mstislav Udatny (he was Kotyan's son-in-law, otherwise in the article the author killed me with the phrase "beaten, but proven enemies"). And then Calca happened ...
          1. Marek Rozny
            Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 18: 28
            0
            Quote: Marek Rozny
            The troops of Genghis Khan drove the Khorezmshah Mohammed, and then his son Jalal-ad-Din, across a gigantic territory - from "Uzbek" cities to the Caucasus, from Iran to India. While they were finishing off in the northern part of modern Iran (then it was part of the Khorezmshakhstvo) local emirs loyal to Muhammad, the play was slapped on the face of the Caucasian princes

            So I wrote this and remembered that fans of alternative history do not know about this. They also believe that there were no "Mongols", that the Fomenki had already unequivocally proved that they were purely Russian princes and Russian wars. It turns out cool - Russian soldiers in the first half of the 13th century are fighting on the banks of the Indus, trying to kill Jalal ad-Din)))
            All it takes to get back into normal (albeit debatable) traditional historical science is to read at least something about the history of our neighbors. Then there will be no nonsense in the style of "Tartars are Russians! The Vatican is Batu Khan, and Batu Khan is Seryozha Ivanov."
        2. Zymran
          Zymran 25 October 2013 17: 45
          +2
          Marek, in fact, the Kazakhs are genetically closer to the Mongols, with the exception of the Kypchaks, with the haplogroup R1 and the argyns with haplogroup G
          1. Marek Rozny
            Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 17: 52
            +2
            Quote: Zymran
            Marek, in fact, the Kazakhs are genetically closer to the Mongols, with the exception of the Kypchaks, with the haplogroup R1 and the argyns with haplogroup G

            Nyman, Kerey, Jalayyr and other clans of South-East Kazakhstan - yes, I agree. Haplogroups are identical. And on the face - one to one))))
            Kipchaks, Argyns, Uysuns, Adai - from another ancient "dough". But one fig difference - by the 13th century there was already a homogeneous community with one dialect of the Kipchak language and a single culture, in contrast to the neighboring Turks, who became the ancestors of the Kyrgyz, Oguz Turks or Turkmens.
            By the way, already in the 13th century, the Oghuzs who ruled the Khorezm state were already called all the Turks living in the steppe - the Kipchaks, without going into generic details. And this tradition was preserved until the conquest of the "Sart" Central Asia by Russia. At that time, the Sarts called all nomadic Turks "Kipchaks", even if he was Argyn or Naiman.
            It was the same in the Muslim East. All Turkic-speaking nomads were called Kipchaks. For example, Sultan Baybars is considered to be a Kipchak from the Arab-Iranian submission. Although he is from the "bersh" clan.
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 October 2013 14: 42
      +1
      Quote: copper49
      Gumilyov very carefully turned the Mongol khans into steppe gentlemen, painfully and scrupulously related to issues of honor. Well, the Russian princes accordingly became an unattractive scum who did not recognize the noble outbursts of nomads.

      Judging by the text, you did not read Lev Gumilyov, but condemn ...
  21. nikcris
    nikcris 25 October 2013 13: 45
    +4
    Quote: ele1285
    I don’t remember where, in Google you can search, according to the Chinese chronicles Temujin was a red-haired and green-eyed. Was the exorcised Mongol really?

    He dyed with henna and wore green lenses wassat
    1. Marek Rozny
      Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 17: 26
      +2
      There are still many green-eyed Kazakhs. Even my beard is partially red-haired))))
      By the way, even among the natural Khalkha Mongols, who did not have red-haired and light-eyed at birth, in old age their eyes often become blue ("faded").
  22. Nayhas
    Nayhas 25 October 2013 14: 41
    +2
    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.

    There is no justification for killing an ambassador. Even if they lied, is that a reason for killing? Arriving at the enemy’s camp, the ambassador is unarmed and entrusts his life to the host country. If a party receives an ambassador, then it guarantees his life accordingly, as has been the case since ancient times. If the ambassador’s speeches do not like, then send him back, why kill the defenseless?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 25 October 2013 23: 43
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      If a party receives an ambassador, then it guarantees his life accordingly, as has been the case since ancient times.

      And if he doesn’t accept it, if the ambassador came by the enemy’s own initiative?
  23. Jogan-xnumx
    Jogan-xnumx 25 October 2013 14: 45
    +3
    Russian "savages" ... lol
  24. amp
    amp 25 October 2013 15: 32
    +1
    Actually the Mongol really was very few, but there were many Central Asian and Kazakhs.
    1. Zymran
      Zymran 25 October 2013 16: 21
      +3
      More precisely, the ancestors of the Kazakhs.
    2. Marek Rozny
      Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 17: 49
      0
      Quote: amp
      Actually the Mongol really was very few, but there were many Central Asian and Kazakhs.

      We did not call ourselves Kazakhs then, but called them by the name of the state (in this case, tribal division has remained the same as it was in those centuries).
      "Mygol" is a new ethnonym that was introduced by Genghis Khan to name all his steppe inhabitants in one word. Literally translated from Kazakh as "a thousand troops". ""ol" is translated as "hand", and in the military terminology of the Turks, this word means "army". For example, "kolbashy" means "commander of the troops" (literally, "leader of the hands / troops").
      The ancestors of modern Mongols never called themselves Mongols until the 20th century. Several centuries ago, when the Mongol-speaking tribes began to consolidate into one community, they called themselves "Khalkha", which literally translates as "shield".
      Since the time of Genghis Khan, the Chinese have called everyone who lived in the territories controlled by the Chingizid khans Mongols. Even in the 19th century, the Chinese of the Qin Empire even called the Russians "Mongols" and the department of the Qin Foreign Ministry, which was responsible for relations with the Russian empires, was called the "Mongolian Department". In the 20th century, when Soviet Russia intervened in China's affairs and helped a certain part of the Khalkha people to secede from the Qin Empire (present-day Mongolia), the Khalkha, who for several centuries got used to the fact that Chinese (Qin) officials called them Mongols, made a decision to make this ethnonym as a common name for the Khalkha clans, not under the control of China. In short, to show Beijing that they are now "independent". Those Khalkha, who remained to live in China (and they are the majority), were called, as before, "Khalkha", and not "Mongol". But in socialist China (and, as I understand, not without the help of the USSR), these Khalkha were also called in a new way - "Mongol".
      In short, modern Mongols began to be so named only in the 20th century. But the Turks called themselves that way until 1930 in various parts of Central Asia. It was the Turks on the fragments of the disintegrated Horde that restored this name in the form of the names of new states - Mogolistan (Mogulistan), Mogolia (Mogulia, Mamlakat-i Mogoliye).

      ZY "Mykol", taking into account the Kazakh pronunciation of specific sounds "ң", "қ" sounds in the Russian ear as "mngol".
      1. zasxdcfvv
        zasxdcfvv 25 October 2013 21: 55
        0
        so Genghis Khan Nazarbayev? laughing
      2. Alexandr0id
        Alexandr0id 25 October 2013 23: 49
        0
        about "mynkol" is something new (for me), somehow implausible.
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 19: 52
          0
          Quote: Alexandr0id
          about "mynkol" is something new (for me), somehow implausible.

          There is another version that also seems quite likely to me - the Türks called their state and themselves "Mugi El" ("Eternal El", "eternal country", "eternal people"). Moreover, the Kazakhs still call themselves "the eternal people", there are organizations with this name in Kazakhstan, the Triumphal Arch was built in Astana, which is called "Mangilik el" / "Eternal El" ("mugi" and "mugilik" - one and also), and even the series is filmed with the same name.
          Kazakhs consider themselves to be "an unkillable eternal nation". This is one of the foundations of the Kazakh mentality. "I am a Kazakh, I died and was born a thousand times" - a phrase that every Kazakh will subscribe to. I understand that this is bragging, but it is a fact, Kazakhs are convinced of their immortality. And the roots of this credo lie in the ancient Turkic era - "Eternal El", "Eternal Country", "Eternal People".
          And in the 13th century, people who called themselves "mәңgі el" suddenly become known to the whole world under the name "mongol". Here, like it or not, but think about it. Especially considering that "mәңgі el" is not a separate clan, but precisely the totality of Turkic nomadic clans. How Genghis Khan should have called his people, assembled from Turkic clans (not a single representative of the Khalkha-"Mongolian" clan was even close when Temujin was raised on a white mat, declaring him a kagan named Genghis Khan), as not an "eternal people", after all this is the only way the union of the Turkic tribes can be called.
          The theme of "eternity" simply permeates through and through the entire Turkic history, literature, poetry, mentality. "Eternal Blue Sky" over the heads of the steppe people. Genghis Khan himself said that he spoke through his mouth "Eternally Blue Sky" ("Мгі Кәңк Тәңірі"). It should be noted here that among the Türks the word "kok" ("blue", "blue") also means "heavenly", and "Tiri" is the Türkic god "Tengri", so the correct translation of the formula "Mangi Kok Tiri" is "Eternal Heavenly God".
          Labels of Janibek Khan began with the words: “Eternal god by force... ", and on the seal of Kagan Guyuk in a letter to Pope Innocent IV (1246) it was written:"By the power of the Eternal Sky..."
          The ancient Turkic kagan Bilge carved on stone (monument in honor of Kul-tegin) phrases "forever blue sky", "eternal stone", "eternal Turkic union", "The sky of the Turks and the sacred Earth-and-Water of the Turks (ie the Motherland) said:" The Turkic people will not perish. Let this people be "... It was written on a stele in the 8th century near the Orkhon River (modern Mongolia). And after 500 years, practically at the same place, a new union of nomadic tribes appeared, who also call themselves "eternal".
          1. Alexandr0id
            Alexandr0id 27 October 2013 22: 52
            +1
            so, it seems, the name "Mongol" was already before Chingiz, even during the reign of Khabul Khan. the Turks left Mongolia in the 10th century. after the fall of the Uyghur Kaganate, the Kyrgyz did not stay in Mongolia for a long time and returned to Khakassia, so there are Mongol-speaking Khitan.
            Why try to search for the etymology of the word "Mongol"? the origin of the words "Xiongnu" and "Turk" is not known. and then the same thing.
            1. Marek Rozny
              Marek Rozny 28 October 2013 00: 16
              0
              Quote: Alexandr0id
              so, it seems, the name "Mongol" was already before Chingiz, even during the reign of Khabul Khan.

              all right. Kabyl Khan (Khabul Khan, Kabul Khan) united several clans and called them the term "Mongol". Absolutely as was customary among the ancient Turks. The Türks called the union of their tribes by the term "mugi el". By the way, you probably know that the family of Kabyl Khan was aristocratic and was called "Borjigin". This word with a purely Türkic etymology is "wolf" + "prince". The Türks consider themselves the descendants of the she-wolf in accordance with the ancient legend. And it was the wolf's head that was depicted on the Turkic flags.
              Quote: Alexandr0id
              the Turks left Mongolia in the 10th century.
              The Türkic-speaking tribes left their Mongolian ancestral home constantly, starting from the era of the Huns / Huns. Regularly waves of Turkic nomads arranged "great" and not so great migrations to the West, populating the steppes of modern Kazakhstan, the Urals, Siberia and up to the Crimea. In the 13th century, only Naimans, Kereis and Kiyats (they are also Borjigins), Jalayyrs, Konyrats (Ungirates), Merkits, Tatars remained on the territory of modern Mongolia. Genghis Khan in 1206 was raised on a white mat by the heads of the Naiman, Kiyat, Merkit and Kerey clans. Very soon the rest of the aforementioned families joined him. In 1210-1211 the Argyns ("Argun") joined. This mass moved in the years 1218-1219 to the West, leaving their native nomads in Mongolia. And after the conquest of Khorezmshakhism, the nomads moved to the now Kazakh steppes, where, although other Turkic tribes already lived, there was still enough land. In fact, almost all the Turks then left Mongolia, although small fragments of the above clans (except for the Argyns, who no longer lived in Mongolia in the 13th century) remained in their homeland, and later they assimilated among the alien Mongolian-speaking tribes and are now clans in the Mongolian people (Naiman, Kereyit, Jalair, Merkit), but their number is small compared to the number of Kazakh-speaking one-root clans.

              Quote: Alexandr0id
              Why try to search for the etymology of the word "Mongol"?
              Because there is no normal Mongolian explanation for this term. All attempts to find the primary source run into some kind of Turkism. Any non-Mongolian historian who begins to toughly poke around in Mongolian history eventually begins to call the clans that made up the core of the "Mongolian" people of Genghis Khan - Turkic-Mongolian, because the history of these clans is Turkic, but to recognize this completely means a complete collapse of the official traditional Russian historiography, accustomed to considering Genghis Khan as Mongolian.
              Any attempt to deeply understand the Horde "Mongol" clans and the origin of Genghis Khan himself in 100% of cases brings the researcher to the Turkic origin.
    3. serge
      serge 25 October 2013 18: 05
      -2
      The Kazakhs in the troops of Genghis Khan are five plus. Apparently, soon we will hear about the participation of the Kazakhs in the battle on the Catalan fields.
      1. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 18: 17
        +2
        Quote: serge
        The Kazakhs in the troops of Genghis Khan are five plus.

        He (AMP) didn’t put it that way, but is essentially right.
        By the way, the name of my Argyn subgenus "karauyl" translates as "guardsman" / "guard", because my subgenus was the personal guard of the Chingizids. And the name of the tribe in the subgenus "zhaulybai" is translated as "one who conquers foreign countries" from the ancient Kazakh verb "zhaulau" - "to seize foreign countries".
        And I can not do anything request laughing If I were from the genus "botanist", the subgenus "tulipologist" from the knee, "the one who sniffs yellow flowers" may have waved a flower away from the stories of the Chingizid campaigns.

        By the way, the Russian word "guard" means "guard, guard, post" - from the aforementioned word "guard". This is just for information. Literally translated as "the one who watches" / "watching" / "watching"

        from the verb "karau" - "to look, to look".
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 25 October 2013 23: 46
          -2
          Quote: Marek Rozny
          By the way, the Russian word "guard" means "guard, guard, post" - from the aforementioned word "guard".

          Quite the contrary, the Kazakhs adopted the word from the Russians.
          1. Marek Rozny
            Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 15: 24
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            Quite the contrary, the Kazakhs adopted the word from the Russians.

            wahaha)))) Take a look at ANY etymological dictionary of the Russian language and see where this word comes from.
            ps in the Kazakh language, Russian borrowing appeared only in the 19th century, and they were associated with new realities, examples:
            gendarral - general
            newspapers - newspaper
            sirinke - matches (more precisely from the Ukrainian "sernika")
            zharmenke - fair (which in turn fell into Russian from German - Jahrmarkt)
            bald region
            kens - office (more precisely from the word "office")
            etc.
        2. serge
          serge 26 October 2013 00: 16
          0
          Marek Rozny
          - from the mentioned word ...
          - from the verb ...
          --------------------
          Your nonsense resembles the nonsense of one very famous site on which the author seeks formal similarities in letter combinations in the names of various settlements in Europe and Russia with different roots of Hebrew words, and on this basis declares that most of the settlements are founded by Jews, and autochthons, all sorts of Russians there, Europeans and Asians, at that time walked in the shoes. By the way, the same author claims that Jews, Mongols and Khazars are one and the same.
          1. Marek Rozny
            Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 18: 03
            0
            Quote: serge
            Your nonsense resembles the nonsense of one very famous site on which the author seeks formal similarities in letter combinations

            In this case, ALL etymological dictionaries of the Russian language published in the USSR and the Russian Federation are nonsense, since the Turkic etymology of this word is indicated there. And no other etymology of the word "guard" exists in nature.
      2. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 17: 35
        +2
        Quote: serge
        The Kazakhs in the troops of Genghis Khan are five plus. Apparently, soon we will hear about the participation of the Kazakhs in the battle on the Catalan fields.

        Serge, all the families who took part in the western campaigns are known. These are Naiman, Kerei, Jalayir, Kipchaks, Konyrats, Argyns, Dulats, Uysuns, etc. This is the basis of modern Kazakhs.
        Yes, the Khalkha Mongols also have the genus Naiman and Kerey. But to make it completely clear, there are more Kazakh Naimans than all Mongols in Mongolia in general. Moreover, the genus Naiman and Kerey of the Khalkha-Mongols are microscopic in comparison with their main genera - Hoshiut, Torgaut, etc.
        Not a single Khalkha clan took part in the western campaigns. In all the eastern chronicles in the Turkic, Arabic, Persian languages, EXCLUSIVELY Turkic clans appear, and at least one Khalkha (now Mongolian) clan is NEVER mentioned. The word "Mongol" in all Asian chronicles means the Turkic clans! Not Sart, not Khalkha, not Slavic, Caucasian, Persian, but only Turkic.
        And before the accession of the Kazakh Khanate to the Russian Empire, none of the Russian historians would have crossed their minds to consider the Khalkhists as Horde. Until the 19th century, they called the Kazakhs Hordes! Take any Russian ethnographic or historical source until the 19th century. Everywhere, Kazakhs (whom the Russians then called Kyrgyz-Kaisaks or simply Kyrgyz) are simply called Hordes. And even during the 19th century, this tradition was preserved in Russian historical science and ethnography.

        "The number of migrants for wintering on the Syr-Darya also decreased, because some Horde from the Orenburg line, having received information about the local crop failure and lack of fodder, and did not wander at all "(Report of the Office of the Syr Darya Kazakhs for 1860).

        "Sultan-ruler of the eastern part of the Kyrgyz hordesAkhmed-jan-tyurin informed the Russian authorities about Yakub-Bek: “he does not know today whether he will rob his neighbors tomorrow. All this happens on the sudden orders of the Tashkent Kush-bey, on which he depends, or on his own need for money. And in that, and in another case, the Ak-Mosque bey immediately sends an always-prepared gang to rob the Kyrgyz, robbing them to the last extreme, and only those Horde, who unquestioningly fulfill all the heavy demands of the predators, are not subjected to violence. " (A. Maksheev, "Travels across the Kyrgyz steppes", St. Petersburg 1896)

        "The very first public elections in the Turgai Region confirmed these fears as well as possible. Unfriendliness and distrust of the Sultan's clans, at first, were expressed among the majority Horde.
        There are a lot of meritorious sides in the Kyrgyz characterizing their purely instinctive good qualities. Almost all of them are very kind; deep respect for old age is extremely developed in them; they are always hospitable and ready to participate in the help of their neighbor. For example, HordeThose who find themselves, due to some accidents, insolvent to pay [276] taxes or other penalties, always find help from their relatives and one-courtiers who are not even related by ties of kinship. ("Voenny Sbornik", No. 3, March, 1871, "TURGAY REGION AND ITS STRUCTURE").
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 17: 36
          0
          "Advisors from Horde appointed mainly from the Kyrgyz who graduated from the course in the Orenburg Neplyuevsky Cadet Corps "(" Russian State Law ", N. Korkunova, St. Petersburg, 1909)

          Evgraf Savelyev, "The history of the Cossacks from ancient times to the end of the 1915th century", 1774: "In his Siberian History, published by our Academy of Sciences in XNUMX, the word" Cossack "refers to the Tatar language." It means, in his opinion , such a person who does not have a family, or who does not have a permanent home. This name was originally attributed to the proper Cossack horde, i.e. Horde Cossacks, who lived at the beginning of the XVII century. along the lower Volga, now Kyrgyz-kaisakiwho were famous for their raids and arrivals in front of other nations ....
          ... leftovers Horde Cossacks who did not join the Kirghiz, their fellow tribesmen, who formed a new khanate, could be the first nucleus around which Russian fugitives accumulated. "

          From the report of the Orenburg Cossacks, 1821: "On July 17, the Horde blocked the way and set fire to the steppe ... At 2 o'clock in the afternoon, crowds of Kyrgyz up to 2000 rushed to our camp."

          “Firstly, the testimony was given by the volost rulers, elders, sultans, biys and rich Kirghiz, i.e. Horde officials or Hordemeaning to be officials ...
          It seems that the honorable Kyrgyz did not try to keep the people for meetings, out of habit, in absentia, to have the votes and opinions of their relatives, and it would not be so easy for them to keep hungry Kyrgyz. Some sultans and biys who were included in the list of biys of 1854 and participated in the first meetings on our case, a day or two later secretly left for their villages, leaving seals in the wrong hands to apply them to the popular decision, whatever it may be. Then they remained at the orders, as already noted, alone Horde officials and ambitious rich people "(Ch. Valikhanov," Note on judicial reform ", 1864).

          Neither Kalmyks, nor Mongols, nor Volga Tatars, nor Sarts, nor Caucasians were called Horde. The word "Horde" in Russia was synonymous with the word "Kirgiz" ("Kazakh") from the time of Ivan the Terrible to the October Revolution. But only in the Soviet period, the Khalkha Mongols, who had no horde at all, began to be called the Horde.
      3. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 22: 36
        0
        and by the way, another fact - the Mongolian peoples (Khalkha, Kalmyks, Buryats) do not have Genghisides. generally. at all. absolutely.
        only Turkic peoples have them, though a little.
        and only among the Kazakhs of Genghisides - darkness is darkness. I'm not talking about people with his haplogroup, but about the direct blood descendants of Redbeard in the male line. among the Kazakhs of this good in bulk. it’s true that they have not entered politics since the time of the October Revolution. but among them there are many scientists, architects and other representatives of the intelligentsia.
        so laugh or don’t laugh, but almost all the living descendants of Genghis Khan on the male line are recorded according to the passport by the Kazakhs.
        Z.Y. In one of my posts here I mentioned Chokan Valikhanov (officer of the tsarist army) and Ahmed-jan-tyurin (officer of the tsarist army Akhmet Janturin) - they are both direct descendants of Genghis Khan, and both are ethnic Kazakhs.
  25. revnagan
    revnagan 25 October 2013 15: 59
    +1
    It seems that centuries have passed since then, but it’s a shame that the Mongols were able to defeat the Russian squads. And yet, God marks the helm, what remains of their power? Yurts, the bare steppe, koumiss ... And yet, Russian scientists they saved the Mongols from the plague. And Mongolia could help the USSR in the difficult times of World War II. And, well, who remembers the old, that eye is out.
  26. My address
    My address 25 October 2013 16: 12
    0
    In adolescence, read Dickens. Liked it. Although it is considered heavy.
    In adulthood, he bought about half a dozen Gumilev books about the Steppe and about the Huns. Bad presentation. Lack of logic in the description of events. Tension at the level of personal notions. The only original is the theory of drive. Domuchil two books and threw it away. I assure everyone, if not the memory of the beautiful poetess Akhmatova, his peak is an associate professor of history, and in a technical university.
    1. pensioner
      pensioner 25 October 2013 19: 24
      +3
      Sasha! I dragged myself away from Dickens, you will not believe it - until I was almost 40! And now I read it with pleasure. "The Pickwick Papers" and the 1st and 2nd parts I consider one of the greatest achievements of mankind in the field of literature! "Oliver Twist" is the greatest piece of music ever in a cinematic musical! What kind of ACTORS are there !! And generally speaking. If there is anything more interesting to read in adolescence than Dickens, it is Conan Doyle, Fenimore Cooper, Mine Reed, and a whole galaxy of Soviet writers working in this genre. Gaidar, for example ... and that's it ...
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 25 October 2013 19: 32
        +1
        Quote: retired
        "Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club"

        Imagine, I have preserved such, 1954. with a library mark. Mom didn’t return at one time. So I inherited. Need to re-read good .
        1. pensioner
          pensioner 25 October 2013 19: 33
          +2
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Imagine, I have preserved such, 1954. with a library mark. Mom didn’t return at one time. So I inherited. Need to re-read
          hi drinks Be sure to !!
    2. pensioner
      pensioner 25 October 2013 19: 29
      +1
      Quote: My address
      if not for the memory of the beautiful poet Akhmatova,

      And the memory of his dad: Gumilyov Nikolay Semenovich? My favorite poet.
      My readers

      The old tramp in Addis Ababa,
      Conquered by many tribes,
      Sent me a black spearman
      With greetings made up of my poems
      Lieutenant, who led the gunboats
      Under the fire of enemy batteries,
      A whole night over the southern sea
      He recited my verses for me.
      Man among the crowd of people
      Shot the emperor's ambassador,
      He came to shake my hand,
      Thanking you for my poetry.

      A lot of them, strong, evil and funny,
      Killing elephants and people
      Dying of thirst in the desert
      Frozen on the edge of eternal ice
      Faithful to our planet
      Strong, funny and angry
      They carry my books in their saddlebags
      They read them in a palm grove,
      Forget on a sinking ship.

      I do not insult them with neurasthenia,
      I do not humiliate with warmth,
      Do not bother with meaningful hints
      On the contents of a devoured egg,
      But when bullets whistle around
      When the waves break the sides
      I teach them how not to be afraid
      Do not be afraid and do what you need.

      And when a woman with a beautiful face,
      The only expensive in the universe
      Say: I do not like you
      I teach them how to smile
      And leave and not come back anymore.
      And when their last hour comes,
      Smooth, red fog obscures the eyes,
      I will teach them to recall immediately
      All cruel, sweet life
      All my native, strange land
      And, before the face of God
      With simple and wise words,
      Wait calmly for His judgment.
      You’ll lose your mind: HOW could a completely unfamiliar person convey your feelings! Moreover, he was shot in the 21st ...
      1. Zymran
        Zymran 25 October 2013 19: 53
        +4
        Here are


        Turkestan generals

        Under a vague talk, slender din,
        Through the measured sparkling of balls
        So strange to see on the walls
        Tall old generals.

        Hello voice, clear look
        Eyebrow graying bends
        They don't tell us anything
        About what they could say.

        And it seems like in a whirlwind of days,
        Among dignitaries and dandies,
        They forgot about their
        A fragrant legend.

        They forgot the days of longing
        Night cries: “to arms”,
        Sad Salt Flats
        And walk the measured camel;

        Fields of an unknown land
        And the death of an unlucky company,
        And Uch-Kuduk and Kinderli,
        And the Russian flag over white Khiva.

        Forgot? - Not! 'Cause every hour
        Somehow diligent
        The glow of calm eyes fogs
        Reminds them of the former.

        - “What's wrong with you?” - “So, my leg hurts.”
        “Gout?” “No, through wound.” -
        And immediately the heart will pinched
        Longing for the sun of Turkestan.

        And I was told that no one
        Of these old veterans,
        Among the copies of Dream and Watto,
        Amid soft chairs and sofas,

        Won't hide a decrepit bed
        He served on campaigns,
        To forever excite the heart
        Remembering adversity.
    3. pensioner
      pensioner 25 October 2013 19: 31
      +1
      But this, in general, the brain makes me:
      Magic violin
      Valery Bryusov

      Dear boy, you are so cheerful, so bright is your smile,
      Do not ask for this happiness, which poisons the worlds,
      You do not know, you do not know what this violin is,
      What is the dark horror of the game's beginner!

      The one who took her once in imperious hands,
      He has for ever the serene light of the eyes,
      The spirits of hell like to hear these royal sounds,
      Wander wild wolves on the road of violinists.

      We must eternally sing and weep to these strings, sonorous strings,
      Forever there must be a fight, a maddened bow,
      And under the sun, and under the blizzard, under the whitening breaker,
      And when the west is blazing and when the east is burning.

      You will get tired and slow, and for a moment the singing will stop,
      And you won’t be able to shout, move and breathe, -
      Immediately rabid wolves in a bloodthirsty frenzy
      In the throat they will clench their teeth, stand with their paws on the chest.

      You will understand how viciously all that sang,
      In the eyes a belated but authoritative fright appears.
      And the dreary mortal cold will surround, like a cloth, a body,
      And the bride sobs, and the friend will reflect.

      Boy, next! Here you will not find either fun or treasure!
      But I see - you are laughing, these eyes are two rays.
      On, wield a magic violin, look into the eyes of monsters
      And perish with glorious death, pp.
      the death of a violinist!
  27. volvo
    volvo 25 October 2013 17: 41
    0
    Mlyn delirium. What is the article about! about Gumilyov or Tatars?
  28. Marek Rozny
    Marek Rozny 25 October 2013 18: 07
    +2
    All my Russian acquaintances in Kazakhstan who "read" Gumilyov, when trying to talk more deeply on this topic, poured in like children. None of them really mastered, but read more often "diagonally". The reason is the same for everyone - they begin to get confused in the names of genera, names (even taking into account the fact that they are constantly duplicated in different people), as a result, after such a reading, they have a mess in their heads. Some sary-uisuni, kidani, merkits, jalayyrs, kangly. Who fought with whom? Who were friends with whom? How were they different?
    What is Gumilev, if Russian Kazakhstanis cannot digest a series of Turkic Khaganates - who was there - Turgeshs, Karluks, Karakhanids, in what sequence, how they differed, why they fought with someone - this is a thing that is absolutely not absorbed by Russian inhabitants.
    I’m very surprised if, in a table discussion, my Russian interlocutor demonstrates knowledge of the sequence of change of Turkic Khaganates, or at least be able to say exactly where the main Kazakh families live. Not using Google, of course))))
    But the main thing is that after reading Gumilyov the Russians reach his main idea that, despite all sorts of graters and feuds between Russians and steppes (Polovtsy, Horde and others), by and large, both ethnic groups lived virtually symbiotic. And it is difficult to disagree with this if you know the culture and history of both ethnic groups.
    Well, when you don’t know anyone’s history or culture, then nothing but self-praise of your nation happens. This applies to everyone.
    1. Alexandr0id
      Alexandr0id 25 October 2013 23: 46
      +1
      everything is logical, for Russians it’s a strange story, why know it in detail. Do you, like a Kazakh, deeply know the history of the Maghreb, all kinds of Almoravids and Almohads with Fatimids, Berbers and Guanches? I foresee that only in general terms.
      1. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 17: 46
        +1
        Well Duc, I’m not making myself an expert on all kinds of Moroccans. so what the hell do people criticize Gumilyov’s position on the history of nomads, if, in fact, they have little knowledge of this topic?
        the theory of passionarity is a very controversial theory, but Gumilev wrote not only about passionarity, but also about the history of the Türks, and in this topic he proved himself to be a brilliant scientist who considered the whole issue, and was not limited to Russian-Stepanite warriors.
        Well, just because he got it with passion, so does not mean that he is a dreamer in all topics. Lomonosov is a genius in the field of exact sciences, but as a historian he is a true fabulist. Gumilev is an outstanding Turkologist, but otherwise his considerations (on the topic of passionarity) are very, very controversial.
  29. Arkan
    Arkan 25 October 2013 18: 26
    -3
    Gumilev is not a historian. For reference, in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, cocaine was sold in pharmacies as a cure for the common cold. Sick Leva was.
  30. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 25 October 2013 18: 52
    0
    Quote: "Russian chronicles cite facts of reprisals against princes who treated the Mongolian ambassadors affectionately. "
    All these events took place so long ago that only God knows about what was really happening. But the general outline of real events is described in the chronicles. and allows us, the descendants of Russian people to imagine the historical path of our ancestors. Our ancestors considered it unacceptable to be slaves of the Tatars-Mongols. Faith in Christ contributed to this. You all remember the monk Alexander Peresvet, together with Rodion Oslyaby, who marked the beginning of the Great Battle on the Kulikovo Field. All attempts to "humanize" the Tatar-Mongol invasion of Russia are untenable.
  31. ando_bor
    ando_bor 25 October 2013 20: 45
    +3
    There is history, there is ideology, the author of the article is an ideologist, a Gumilyov historian.
    Without the laws that Gumilev reveals, history does not exist - there is an ideology.
    Ideologists of all stripes do not like Gumilyov because history is impartial, he does not say bad good, he reveals the mechanisms and patterns.
    Jewish ideologists especially dislike Gumilyov; they really dislike the essence of the Jewish people revealed by Gumilyov.
    Yes, there are flaws in Gumilyov's theories, but they basically boil down to the "rawness" of these theories, he simply did not have time to work them out in detail.
  32. hrych
    hrych 25 October 2013 21: 17
    +1
    “Give me, prince, your wife’s children, beauty!”


    It is clear that there is a booze, like a banquet, in connection with normal political agreements. There is nothing insulting in the words of Batu; the Ryazan offended chronicler clearly plucked about the bed. A tipsy companion said that Fedor had a beautiful wife, Batu asked without a second thought to see the beauty. Only to see. Drunk Fedya, young and stupid, began to buzz, he insulted the great king, who, furious and upset, ordered the offender to be cut. And then, about a miracle, Batya was attacked by Pope Fedi, Yuri Ingorevich and barely barely defeated Baty, and then Ryazan’s breach, etc. That is, in the annals it is clearly visible that one drunken skatina provoked great bloodshed.
  33. Sour
    Sour 25 October 2013 21: 18
    +1
    He reveals the mechanisms and patterns.
    Gumilev did not reveal any "regularities". He is, in fact, a fiction writer who calls himself a historian. Now there are a lot of them. He pulled from the chronicles and works of other historians quotes and facts that he liked (and discarded what he did not like), after which he began to build his theories and fit the facts to fit them.
    1. ando_bor
      ando_bor 25 October 2013 21: 30
      +2
      The landscape of peoples, historical movers associated with climate change, etc., I don’t take Gumilyov’s word, I saw this as a geologist throughout Russia and its environs from Mongolia to Montenegro.
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. Alexandr0id
    Alexandr0id 25 October 2013 23: 40
    +2
    Gumilev, of course, is still fantastic. his theory of passionarity is all far-fetched, and how all such theories are based on individual protruding events and suppression of uncomfortable facts. and in its essence - to reduce humanity to some lemmings, which, at the behest of nature, suddenly begin their migrations and wars, this is somehow wrong. we are still not animals, we, the countries and peoples, are not led by the sun and the change of seasons.
    however, the same gumilev is still an outstanding compiler historian (with all his mistakes and mistakes). it was he who tried, and he basically succeeded, to popularize the history of the nomads of Eurasia. before him, all these Turks, Mongols, Manchus were the subject of interest of a narrow circle of specialists, and for world history they practically did not exist, as if there were none. despite the fact that for many centuries it was these ethnic groups that were hegemons and arbiters of fate in Eurasia, i.e. by and large in the world, given the secondary nature of America, Australia and Oceania and Black Africa.
    1. Marek Rozny
      Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 17: 52
      0
      Gyyy, only answered your higher question, and then read this post. Absolutely agree. As a theorist of passionarity, Gumilyov is a dreamer. But as a Turkologist, a specialist in the ancient history of nomads, he is one of the prominent scientists.
      It reminds me of Vernadsky, who was a wonderful geologist, but at the same time put forward a theory about the biosphere, which, like many, seems extravagant.
  36. atomic
    atomic 27 October 2013 18: 42
    0
    History is myth-making, a girl in a port. The greatness, or vice versa, the worthlessness of one or another state determines the number of scientists, composers, commanders, inventors, artists, as well as architectural, written and fabulous heritage. Modern DNA geneology will tell more than false, corrupt historiographers .
    1. Marek Rozny
      Marek Rozny 27 October 2013 20: 06
      +1
      There are no great or worthless nations. Each nation has its own peak, its own fall. When the "Kazakh" Al-Farabi was considered the "Second Teacher of the World" in Europe (after Aristotle), the "Karakalpak" Biruni created a globe and proved that the round earth revolves around the Sun, and the "Tajik" Omar Khayyam derived a mathematical formula, which much later in Europe will be called "Newton's binomial", the Europeans were in deep darkness. However, where is Central Asian science now and at what height is European science?
      When in every (!) Central Asian city there was a sewer, London was still a seedy village, and Paris was then called Lutetia and was a camp of Roman legionnaires.
      Or take, for example, the Russian people. By your logic, it turns out that the Russian people throughout their history was "worthless" until Lomonosov, the first Russian scientist, appeared.
      There are no great nations. There are no worthless peoples.
      1. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 27 October 2013 20: 19
        +1
        Quote: Marek Rozny
        There are no great nations. There are no worthless peoples

        Often disagree with you. And here- FOR!