Military Review

Robotic parasitic Crimean Khanate and the fight against it

89
The blessed climate, fertile land, the proximity of the sea and the relative safety of the Crimea from ancient times attracted the most diverse peoples to the peninsula. Whoever lived here for thousands of years: the Cimmerians, Tauri, Scythians, Sarmatians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsy ... They lived on the peninsula and the Rus. The eastern part of the peninsula was part of Tmutarakan land. In addition, the researchers found a more earlier presence of the Slavic element in the Crimea.


Since the creation of the Horde empire, Crimea has long become one of the Tatar uluses (regions). Ethnically, the population of the peninsula remained motley. Greeks, Alans (descendants of Sarmatians), Armenians, Goths, Polovtsy lived there. Appeared Italian colonies. The peninsula was part of the Horde, but some mountain areas retained autonomy, and the Italian (Genoese) trade colonies were independent. The Golden Horde khans were interested in the trading activities of the Italian colonies, which were a link in relations between the East and Western Europe. Therefore, despite a number of conflicts, the khans looked at their independence through their fingers. It should be noted that the descendants of the Khazars and the Genoese played at that time a leading role in the formation of the slave trade on the peninsula. For many centuries, the Crimean ports became the leading suppliers of "live goods" - Slavic, Circassian and others. Girls and children were sent to the slave markets of Europe and the Middle East.

As a result of the collapse of the Golden Horde, the Crimean Khanate was created. Its first ruler was the victorious internecine war of Haji I Giray (Gerai) (1441 — 1466). A great role in his victory was played by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Russian, which led the fight against the Golden Horde khan. The territory of the Khanate during the heyday included not only the Crimean peninsula, but also the Azov and North Black Sea steppes, right up to the Danube, Kuban.

However, the new public education was not independent for long. During this period, the formation of the mighty Ottoman Empire. Therefore, already in 1475, the son of Haji-Giray Mengli-Giray was forced to recognize the power of the Ottoman sultan, becoming his vassal. At the same time, other state entities were liquidated on the peninsula. The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror organized a large military campaign against the possessions of the Genoese in the Crimea. The Turkish fleet landed troops, which, with the support of the Tatars, laid siege to Cafu. Kapha soon fell. Other Genoese fortresses were also captured. At the same time, the Turks took the capital of the Theodoro Christian Principality - Mangup. The entire population of Mangup - 15-20 thousand people - was slaughtered or led into slavery. In the future, the population of the principality - 150-200 thousand people - was Islamized and assimilated. So, the Goths completely disappeared.

The territories of the Genoese colonies, the principality of Theodoro, as well as a number of large cities and fortresses of the Black Sea, Priazovia and Kuban directly became part of the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman garrisons were deployed at all strategic points. The main strongholds of the Ottomans were Perekop, Arabat, Enikale, Gezlev (Evpatoria), Kafa, Mangup, Inkerman, Balaklava and Sudak. In addition, the Ottomans, with the help of Italian specialists, built the fortress of Or-Capu on Perekop. Thus, the Turks became the actual owners of the Crimea. Khans were mainly appointed, displaced and approved by the will of the Ottoman Sultans. Many of the Crimean princes were constantly at the sultans, trying to please them and thus get the Crimean throne.

Leaving agricultural labor to the dependent population, the Crimean Tatars preferred “noble occupation” - robbery attacks on neighbors. Of course, in the steppe regions of the Crimea, animal husbandry was developed, primarily the breeding of sheep and horses, but poor shepherds were engaged in this. The basis of the local “economy” for several centuries has become human trafficking - hijacking residents of neighboring areas and selling them into slavery. From the end of the 15th century, the Crimean Khanate began to make regular raids and large-scale campaigns against the Russian state, the southern Russian (Ukrainian) lands, Poland and the Caucasus. In addition, people were hijacked during constant feudal strife and conflicts with other steppe dwellers.

The envoy of the Polish king, Martin Bronevsky, who had lived in Crimea for several months in 1578, wrote: “This people is predatory and hungry, does not value any oaths, nor unions, nor friendship, but means only its own benefits and lives in looting and constant war of treason” .

Robotic parasitic Crimean Khanate and the fight against it

Tatarskoe weapon.

In the campaign, headed by the Khan, could participate almost all the adult male population of the Crimean horde. In such a campaign could take several tens of thousands of riders. The overwhelming majority of the riders took part in the campaign not for the conduct of hostilities. If the enemy managed to gather significant forces and bring them to the border, the Tatars usually did not accept the battle and left. They rode to rob and capture prisoners, mostly children, girls. Old men, men ruthlessly exterminated. They tried to organize raids at a time when the peasants participated in field work (in the summer) and could not quickly hide in fortresses or forests. The English envoy to Russia, Giles Fletcher, wrote: “The main booty that the Tatars seek in all their wars is a large number of prisoners, especially boys and girls, whom they sell to the Turks and other neighbors.” For transportation of children, the Tatars took large baskets, killed or fell ill on the way ruthlessly killed.


Sale of a child slave. V. Vereshchagin.

The Crimean raids became a serious factor in the exhaustion of both human (several million people were stolen, no less killed), and the financial resources of Russia and the Commonwealth. The Russian state had to create and maintain several fortified lines on the southern frontiers. The threat from the South prevented Russia from waging a more active struggle for the return of the Russian lands in the western and north-western directions. Significant military forces had to be held in the southern forts, and it was necessary to have large reserves in case of a major invasion. In addition, the predatory Crimean Khanate prevented the development of the so-called. The wild fields are the Black Sea and Azov steppes between the middle and lower Dniester in the west, the lower Don and the Seversky Donets in the east. These rich lands were for a long time almost deserted.

The tactics of raids were well developed. If the enemy managed to gather troops at the border, the Tatars were divided into several groups. Some tried to divert the attention of the enemy, others - to break through on an unguarded or poorly guarded section of the border. Moved quickly, with each rider usually went two more free horses. Having broken through to the area populated by the Slavs, the Tatars staged a driven hunt (round-up). The detachments disintegrated in the countryside, bypassing the fortress. If the villages could not be taken on the run, they were surrounded so that no one left, they set fire to them. They cut the resisting, robbed, took people and cattle. Adults were driven like cattle, arranged in rows by several people, tied their hands back with rawhide belts, passed through wooden belts through these belts, and threw ropes on their necks. Then, holding the ends of the ropes, they surrounded all those bound by a chain of horsemen and drove across the steppe, whipping up whips. Weak, weak, sick patients were “sifted out” on the way - they cut their throats. Reaching the relatively safe land, where they could not overtake the chase, sorted and divided the "goods". The remaining elderly people who fell ill were given to young people for “training”, they were filled with a hand, studying the craft of the murderer, or simply stoned and drowned.

Duke Antoine de Gramont, who was in the Polish-Tatar army during the campaign of King Jan Casimir to the Left-Bank Ukraine in 1663 — 1664 (then, according to his data, about 20 thousand people were captured), described this vile process. The Crimean Tatars cut the throat of all old people over 60 years old, who by age were incapable of hard work. Adult men were kept for Turkish galleys, "young boys - for their pleasures, girls and women - for the continuation of their kind and sale later." The section of the prisoners was by lot, the prisoners were divided equally.

In Crimea, yasyr (full) was brought for sale to slave markets. The largest center of the slave trade was Kafa, major markets were also in Karasubazar, Tuzleri, Bakhchisarai and Khozlev. Dealers directly engaged in selling people - Jews, Turks, Arabs, Greeks and others. Part of the slaves were left in the Crimea, they were used for heavy work: digging wells, salt mining, collecting manure in the steppe, etc. Women were taken as servants. Most of the slaves were transported from the Crimea to other areas and states - the Ottoman Empire, its numerous provinces from the Balkans and Anatolia to North Africa. Slavic slaves (children and young beautiful girls were especially valued) came to such remote countries as Persia, India, to African lands. During transportation by sea with most of the captives did not stand on ceremony, they only protected the most valuable "goods". A significant number of slaves paid off all the losses from disease and murder. Some ships took so many people that they could not move from the distress, go to bed. Standing took scant food, slept and defecated. From such conditions the masses ached and died, often still living people were just dumped overboard.

The men were sent to galleys, where hard work, poor food and beatings quickly killed them. Others were sent to Anatolia for agricultural work. Some were castrated and made eunuchs, servants. Girls and women bought rich houses in harem for carnal pleasures. Less beautiful women became servants. A small number of girls had a chance to become a lawful wife. There were so many Slavs that many prominent Turkish statesmen and military leaders were their children and grandchildren.

It is clear that all this completely satisfied the Ottoman Empire. Port solved two important tasks at once. First, the slave trade was an important part of its economy. Secondly, the aggression and predation of the Crimean Khanate made it possible to exert appropriate pressure on the Russian state and Poland. The Crimean Tatars were the foremost outpost of Ottoman expansion in Eastern Europe and the North Caucasus.

In the first half of the 16th century, 48 raids were committed against the Russian state. In the first half of the 17th century alone, the steppe inhabitants were driven into full territory by more than 200 thousand Russians. The death toll from their hands is even higher. But the most terrible damage was borne by the South Russian lands (future Ukraine), which were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which did not have such a developed defense system as the lands of the Russian kingdom. The irony of fate: after all, the great Lithuanian and Russian princes helped create the Crimean Khanate. From 1605 to 1644, there were at least 75 raids on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Only for 1654-1657. more than 50 thousand people were driven into slavery from Ukraine. As a result, Right-Bank Ukraine was practically deserted by the 1680 years.

Terrible fishing continued in the first half of the 18th century. According to the testimony of the Catholic missionary K. Dubay, every year thousands of people were brought in from the peninsula to 20. About 60 thousand slaves were in the Crimean Khanate itself, they were used mainly for agricultural work.

I must say that now, some Crimean officials are trying to rewrite these shameful page stories or even praise the “exploits” of their ancestors. According to them, the indigenous inhabitants of the Crimea - Christians - voluntarily converted to Islam, did not experience oppression from the Crimean Tatars and Ottomans.


Robbery nest

It is clear that in Russia they did not intend to tolerate a predator near its borders. However, while solving the task of uniting most of the Russian lands into a single fist and behind the back of the Crimean khans there was a leading military power in Europe and Asia - Turkey, for a long time it was not possible to destroy the Crimean Tatar threat. They were unable to solve this problem under Ivan the Terrible, when the wasp nests were eliminated in Kazan and Astrakhan. Then for many decades Russia weakened Smoot.

During this period, the Russian state was mainly confined to defense, defending itself against raids by fortified lines created along the banks of rivers and other natural obstacles. The fortified lines were based on supporting large and small fortresses, many of which later became cities. They were permanent garrisons - from a few dozen warriors to several hundred and thousands. Dangerous directions, the roads were covered with strips of fallen trees - hut, earthen ramparts, palisade and ditches. All along the line were sentinel towers and towers, fortifications at crossings. In some places, the depth of the defensive line reached 20-30 km. Forward moved patrols. In addition, the Cossacks played a certain role. They fought off prisoners, conducted reconnaissance, and carried out punitive raids.

The earliest was the 500-kilometer “Big Passage Line”, created by the middle of the 16th century. However, the first defensive lines began to build in the XIII century. In the 14th century, the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow, Ivan Danilovich, to protect the southern borders, erected a continuous line from the Oka River to the Don River and further to the Volga. A guard guard was created. In the border areas, the peasants displayed one man from several yards to protect the line. In addition, the peasants were constantly attracted to repair the defensive line and build new structures.



The “big borderline” ran from Pereyaslavl-Ryazan to Tula. It passed along the Oka River (this river was for a long time the main defense line of Rus), from Belyov to Peremyshl, then through Odoev, Krapivna, Tula, Venev to Pereyaslavl-Ryazan. Another section ran from Skopin through Ryazhsk, Sapozhok to Shatsk. In the most dangerous places of the fortress were built in several lines. In the 1560's, the “intersection line” that had been created for more than one decade closed up, creating a coherent and solid borderline. It contained almost the entire population, from which they took special susan money.



In 1630-e years, work began on the restoration of the zasechnaya line, it was abandoned for the period of the Troubles and in some places severely destroyed. In 1635-1654 Belgorod defensive line was built. The shaft with a paling began in Akhtyrka and went through Volny, Belgorod, Yablonov, Novy Oskol, Olshansk, Voronezh, Orlov, Usman, Sokolsk, Kozlov and Tambov, going to Simbirsk on the Volga. The construction of this line reduced the intensity of the steppe raids.

Crimean campaigns of the Russian army under the authority of Prince V. Golitsyn in 1687 and 1689. did not lead to success. The final fracture occurred in the XVIII century. Light Crimean cavalry could not withstand the modern Russian army, which went through a school of fighting with the Swedish army (it was considered one of the best in Europe). During the Russian-Turkish war 1735-1739. The Russian army entered Crimea three times, burnt the capital of the Khanate of Bakhchisarai. Only the indecisiveness of St. Petersburg, which feared political complications, did not allow to solve the Crimean question even then.

In 1768, the Port began another war against Russia. Fulfilling the order of the Turkish Sultan 27 January 1769 of the year 70-th. Tatar horde marched to Ukraine. However, the Crimean Tatars were able to reach only Elisavetgrad and Bakhmut, where they were stopped and rejected by the Russian troops. This campaign was the last in the history of this parasitic formation. In June, 1771, 40-thous. The 2 Army under the command of Prince V.M. Dolgorukov occupied the fortified line of Perekop, which was defended by 70 thousand Tatars and 7 thousand Turks. Having defeated the Tatar army under Kafa, Russian troops captured the Crimean peninsula and Taman. Khan Selim Giray III fled to Turkey. Those Tatar grandees who remained in the Crimea, hastened to express submissiveness to the Russians. Shirinsky Murza Ishmael handed Dolgorukov a sworn list signed by 110 by noble Tatars about establishing eternal friendship and indissoluble union with Russia. The new Khan Sahib-Giray 1 (12) in November 1772 of the year signed an agreement in Karasubazar under which Crimea passed under the auspices of Russia. Turkey was defeated in the war, and in 1774 recognized the independence of the Crimean Khanate.

However, Istanbul did not lose hope of returning the Crimea and other lost possessions. England and France also pushed him towards a renewed struggle. A series of Turkish-inspired uprisings followed, the instigators of which were representatives of the "Turkish Party" in the ranks of the Tatar nobility. It became obvious that this region can be completely pacified only through the full inclusion of the Crimea into the Russian Empire and the establishment of the Russian administration. In 1783, the last Khan Shagin-Giray abdicated the throne. By the manifesto of Catherine the Great from 8 (19) on April 1783, Crimea became part of the Russian state. So parasitic robber education came to an end.



Crimea before the revolution

Contrary to the myth of Russian colonialism and the “prison of nations”, the Russian empire, unlike the Western colonial empires, did not oppress small nations, did not exploit them. Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Yakuts did not sell into slavery, as the "enlightened" Europeans did to the Blacks. Moreover, often small nations received special rights, privileges, their knowledge (if the people reached the feudal stage of development) was infused into the elite of the Russian Empire. It turned out that the imperial burden was borne only by the Russian people and some Turkic (Kazan Tatars) and Finno-Ugric nationalities, which over the centuries became part of the superethnos of the Rus. And the benefits of the success of the empire — security, the development of industry, agriculture, culture, education, income growth, etc. — were received by everyone.

The Crimean Tatars were no exception. They were not punished for centuries of predatory life and millions of Slavs killed and enslaved. By the decree of Catherine II of February 22, 1784, the Tatar nobility received all the rights and privileges of the Russian nobility. The sanctity of religion was guaranteed. Mullahs and other members of the Muslim clergy were exempted from paying taxes. Crimean Tatars were exempt from military service.

However, "how many wolves do not feed, he still looks into the forest." Crimean Tatars did not become good Russian neighbors and a part of Russian civilization, like Kazan Tatars. The Crimean Tatars did not want to accept the fact that the era of looting and bloody campaigns is gone and the time has come to move on to productive activities. They felt organic hate for creative work. Although the surrounding nature and terrain had a fruitful agricultural and horticultural work, the development of handicraft production.

Not having accepted the end of their predatory being, by the end of the 18th century most of the Crimean Tatars had moved to the Ottoman Empire. As a result, during the next Russian-Turkish war, Ottoman troops supported tens of thousands of Tatar horsemen who dreamed of returning the past. And those who remained in Crimea harbored hatred, waiting for the right moment to take revenge on the “infidels”, who dared to destroy their usual predatory lifestyle.


Russian map of the Crimea peninsula in the middle of the 18th century

The Eastern War

The first opportunity to stick a Russian knife in the back introduced itself during the Eastern (Crimean) War 1853-1856. At first, the Crimean Tatars were cautious, waiting, whose will they take. Representatives of the Muslim clergy delivered beautiful speeches about devotion to the emperor and the Fatherland. They assured that no one has any thoughts in supporting the Ottoman Empire. Residents made donations in favor of the Russian troops, they were welcomed. The Crimean Tatars reassured local Russian authorities with similar actions. In a report to Novorossiysk Governor-General M. S. Vorontsov from November 17 1853, Taurian Governor V. Pestel reported that all rumors of unrest in the Tatar population are groundless. Allegedly, none of the Tatar population wants to return to the power of the Ottomans, and the situation is under control.

However, Pestel was wrong. Taking advantage of the credulity of the Tauride governor, the Crimean Tatars held meetings and secret gatherings in different places of the peninsula. They carefully concealed these meetings from local Christians. At meetings, attendees listened to emissaries sent by the Ottomans, who called for an uprising against the infidels and promised paradise after reunification with the "faithful." It is therefore not surprising that, as soon as the Anglo-French-Turkish troops landed in September 1854, near Yevpatoria, a sharp change in favor of the enemy occurred in the mood of the Tatars.

In their convoy, the invaders carried the new administration of the Crimea — the Pole Wilhelm Tokarsky, who was to become the commandant of Evpatoria, and the descendant of the Girey family, Seit Ibrahim Pasha. Seit-Ibrahim Pasha, who was to become the “Khan” and “living banner” of the insurgent Tatars, lived in Bulgaria as a private person before the war, did not hold any important posts. Tokarsky declared that now Crimea does not belong to Russia and “will be free and independent” under the auspices of France. Seit-Ibrahim and Tokarsky visited the mosque, where solemn worship was held. There was no limit to the delight of the Tatars; they carried the new “khan” on their hands.

Seeing this development of the situation, and understanding what it threatened, the Christians of Evpatoria turned to flight. They were not mistaken in their expectations. Riders overtook many on their way. Christians were beaten, robbed, some were handed over to the interventionists. Many citizens were mutilated, some brutally murdered. The invaders formed in Yevpatoria a local government (sofa) from local Tatars. Osman-Aga-Chardachi-Oglu became vice-governor of the city, Hussein became the captain.

To be continued ...

Sources:
Andreev A.R. The History of Crimea. M., 2002.
Antoine Gramont. From the history of the Moscow campaign of Jan Casimir. Yuriev, 1929. // http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus9/Gramon/frametext.htm.
Dubrovin N.F. The History of the Crimean War and the Defense of Sevastopol. SPb., 1900 // http://www.runivers.ru/lib/book3087/.
Crimea: past and present. M., 1988.
Novoselsky A. A. The struggle of the Muscovite state with the Tatars in the first half of the XVII century. M. - L., 1948 // http://www.runivers.ru/lib/book8298/471860/.
Fletcher J. About the state of Russian. M., 2002 // http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/History/flet/index.php.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Robotic parasitic Crimean Khanate and the fight against it
Betrayal of the Crimean Tatars during the Eastern War 1853-1856.
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Denis
    Denis 15 January 2014 09: 03
    +15
    They rode to rob and capture captives
    Here they were independent (???) and also indefinitely independent, and the evil northerners put an end to it. One word-invaders lol
    1. ramin_serg
      ramin_serg 15 January 2014 13: 36
      -23%
      IN THESE TIMES ALL EXCEPT lazy people did it, for it was like a sport or a hunt
      1. Denis
        Denis 15 January 2014 14: 01
        +18
        Quote: ramin_serg
        DO ALL EXCEPT lazy people
        What are the slave markets on the territory of Russia, or are they recorded in lazy?
        1. carver
          carver 15 January 2014 17: 00
          -3
          Quote: Denis
          Quote: ramin_serg
          DO ALL EXCEPT lazy people
          What are the slave markets on the territory of Russia, or are they recorded in lazy?


          Well, there were no slave markets in Russia, just like the concept of a slave. But in fact, before Ivan III Vasilyevich, it wasn’t shameful for the specific princes to rob, force and steal neighboring peasants.
          1. Uhe
            Uhe 15 January 2014 17: 29
            +5
            You forgot to add "in times of civil strife", that is, after the death of a certain Vladimir, who was the first to set an example of fratricide and perjury;) And what is "surprising" - it was his offspring who were doing the same thing, that is, fratricide, robbery and perjury.
        2. Uncle Vitya
          Uncle Vitya 15 January 2014 17: 31
          +4
          Please call ...
          Novgorod earmen sold their fellow tribesmen to the Horde and Derbent bazaars ...
          In Derbent, in the fortress museum, they will tell you about this.
          1. Denis
            Denis 15 January 2014 18: 57
            -3
            Quote: Uncle Vitya
            Novgorod earflaps
            Constantly and sold a lot?
            Derbent was the territory of Russia?
            1. Uncle Vitya
              Uncle Vitya 15 January 2014 19: 07
              0
              And what do you think, where did people from Russia constantly sell in the Khorezm markets? Who supplied them there ??? Yes, their own merchants and princes in the capture of their own neighbors !!!
              1. carver
                carver 15 January 2014 23: 36
                -1
                Quote: Uncle Vitya
                And what do you think, where did people from Russia constantly sell in the Khorezm markets? Who supplied them there ??? Yes, their own merchants and princes in the capture of their own neighbors !!!


                Well, the markets hit 99% after the Ord raid, mostly Golden.
          2. anatoly57
            anatoly57 15 January 2014 20: 38
            +5
            Uncle Vitya, the fact is that the ushkuyniki are almost a complete analogue of pirates, only on the river, and, as you know, pirates are banal robbers who have neither homeland nor conscience. Therefore, selling compatriots into slavery is just a way for them to earn money for a "happy life."
            1. carver
              carver 15 January 2014 23: 39
              0
              Quote: anatoly57
              Uncle Vitya, the fact is that the ushkuyniki are almost a complete analogue of pirates, only on the river, and, as you know, pirates are banal robbers who have neither homeland nor conscience. Therefore, selling compatriots into slavery is just a way for them to earn money for a "happy life."


              Come on, why did Novgorod pay for their deeds paid if they were presented with serious armies.
      2. xan
        xan 15 January 2014 14: 21
        +5
        Quote: ramin_serg
        IN THESE TIMES ALL EXCEPT lazy people did it, for it was like a sport or a hunt

        my ancestors were different from yours.
        and judging by your writings, and I am different from you
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. RoTTor
        RoTTor 15 January 2014 17: 03
        +7
        The peoples were engaged in robberies and raids, due to their variety, from the poverty of the land and the wretched nature in their homeland (Normans) to national characteristics, to farming: farming and fishing. F. Engels was right in asserting that such peoples remained at the lowest stage of development. Even for biological reasons: the raid failed - there is nothing to eat ... Classics need to be studied! And think with your head.
    2. 225chay
      225chay 15 January 2014 15: 45
      +4
      Quote: Denis
      Denis (1) Today, 09:03 New
      They went to rob and capture captives. Here they were independent (???) and also arbitrarily independent, and the evil northerners put an end to it. One word-invaders


      We must never forget what the Crimeans did and others with our people!
      1. Beck
        Beck 16 January 2014 08: 46
        +6
        Quote: 225chay
        We must never forget what the Crimeans did and others with our people!


        If you think that life will not be in life, sheer resentment and hatred.

        If you think that the Tatars, Poles, Finns, Caucasians and other peoples should not forget, after 1000 years, what the imperial troops of Russia did when they conquered these states.

        The existing, past history must be taken for granted, objectively and not biased. And do not stick to those events the labels of today's everyday nationalism.

        And you, in a compartment with the author, consider historical events as today's insults and obviously throw firewood into the fire of nationalism. Such is the history of mankind that in the middle of the Middle Ages there still existed echoes of the slave system and not only in Crimea.

        Author. "under Ivan the Terrible, when hornets' nests were eliminated in Kazan and Astrakhan"... What are these "hornets' nests"? These are independent states formed after the collapse of the Golden Horde. And the author with the expression "hornets' nests" veils the beginning of the colonial imperial history of the Russian state. It was like that - It was. Imperial Russia has taken place - has taken place. And that's the story. And I am not crying today that the Turkic states, by the will of fate and history, have lost their statehood. IT HAS BEEN HISTORY. And the conquest of Crimea was a continuation of imperial politics.

        Regarding the close alliance of Crimea with Turkey, among other things. The Türkic Hun tribes who came from the territory of Kazakhstan in the 2nd century AD assimilated the Indo-European and Ugro-Finnish tribes of the Urals and the Volga region. And in the 4th century, this Turkic-speaking cross, under the Europeanized name of the Huns, went to derban Europe. It was then that the Turks settled in Crimea and today's geographic South Russian steppes, which were then not even Russian in the bud.

        In today's Turkey, in Anatolia, the Turks (Europeanized pronunciation - Turks) came in 10 centuries from the territory of southeastern Kazakhstan and northern Uzbekistan. In the 10th century, the Seljuk Turks withdrew from the lower reaches of the Syr and Amu-Darya and went through battles and battles through Iran, Transcaucasia, the Middle East, crowded Byzantium and settled in Anatolia. Then they defeated Byzantium and founded the Ottoman Empire.

        From here. Turks and Krymchaks were closely related peoples, they did not need a translator in communication with each other. And the alliance between Crimea and Turkey looks more than natural. Crimea was a vassal of Turkey. But if Crimea were stronger then Turkey would be a vassal of Crimea.
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 16 January 2014 09: 42
          +2
          Did you need a translator? It's funny Do you yourself understand spoken Turkish easily and completely?
          1. Beck
            Beck 16 January 2014 10: 03
            +1
            Quote: Basileus
            Did you need a translator? It's funny Do you yourself understand spoken Turkish easily and completely?


            Not easy, but I understand. When three of the six words in a sentence are familiar, you catch up with the meaning of the sentence. Especially. that the root words change little over time. For example, an account is bir, eki, ush, cake, demon, altas, jets, segiz, togys, it (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) and further, that in Kazakh, that in Turkish, that in the Azerbaijani languages ​​is the same.

            And this is because the Turkish language belongs to the Oguz group of Turkic languages, and the Kazakh language to the Kipchak group. But the Crimean language of the Krymchaks belongs to the Oguz group.
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 16 January 2014 10: 25
              +1
              The Crimean Tatar language is Kipchak. The Oguz elements in it, as far as I recall, were borrowed just mainly under Turkish rule.

              When you understand three of the six words, this is, of course, good, but without a translator it's sad anyway)
              1. Beck
                Beck 16 January 2014 11: 20
                +2
                Quote: Basileus
                The Crimean Tatar language is Kipchak. The Oguz elements in it, as far as I recall, were borrowed just mainly under Turkish rule.


                But this is how to say it.

                There is an opinion. that it was originally an Oguz group, from the 4th century. This is in the 8th century when the Pechenegs came from northern Kazakhstan and in the 10th century when the Kipchaks came from the Baraba steppes of the northern foothills of Altai, the Kipchak group layered on the Oguz group of Crimea. I will not insist, because historians and linguists themselves do not have a unified point of view here.

                Quote: Basileus
                When you understand three of the six words, this is, of course, good, but without a translator it's sad anyway)


                In any case, if you do not understand another language, there should not be any sadness, this is natural. But with sin, I can understand the essence of the sentence.

                Another example. The people - in Kazakh Halyk. Both Turkish Halyk and Gagauz (Christians) Halyk. Spruce - in Kazakh small homeland, place of birth. In Turkish Ile. That is why the administrative division of Turkey is Il. But Il sounds like that in Russian. The peculiarities of the Turkic language do not provide for a b sign, and consonants are pronounced softly or firmly depending on the combination of sounds. Il in Turkish and Kazakh sounds like Il. An example of such a sound combination. The count is the hand. L is always pronounced firmly after the vowel O. Gul - flower. And after the vowel Y, the consonant A is always pronounced softly. We write ghoul but pronounce ghoul.

                And I am not saying that it is I who freely understand the Turkish language, but with sin in vain I understand the basis. But it is much easier for Azerbaijanis, Gagauz, Turkmens.
                1. Basileus
                  Basileus 16 January 2014 11: 38
                  0
                  There is an opinion. that originally it was an Oguz group

                  Here the question is not what happened, but what happened in the end.


                  At the expense of spelling, I can not explain, because I own)
                  On the other hand, some of the spelling rules of the Tatar language are rather strange, especially if you also own Bashkir. So, for example, an hour in Tatar is to burn, in Bashkir is to. With the same pronunciation, the Bashkir version conveys it much closer. So spelling depends more on interpretation and certain rules by someone than on the norms of the language itself.
                  1. FRIGATE2
                    FRIGATE2 17 January 2014 01: 26
                    +3
                    Quote: Basileus
                    So spelling depends more on interpretation and certain rules by someone than on the norms of the language itself.

                    here I agree, but more recently, government policy has been affecting.
                  2. Beck
                    Beck 17 January 2014 06: 52
                    +2
                    Quote: Basileus
                    So, for example, an hour in Tatar is to burn, in Bashkir is to.


                    In Kazakh Sagat. This is a good example that each of us will pronounce the word hour in his own way and the other two will understand that this is exactly the hour, especially if there are adjectives.
              2. FRIGATE2
                FRIGATE2 17 January 2014 01: 22
                +1
                Quote: Basileus
                When you understand three of the six words, this is, of course, good, but without a translator it's sad anyway)

                Türkic languages ​​are easily understood by Türkic-speaking due to the invariability of the Türkic language in time and for this linguists attribute them to Agglutinative languages, unlike, for example, Russian or any i-European language. The Shakespeare in the original is not understood by the British, but what is there, even the language of Britain in the 19th century is much transformed
                1. Basileus
                  Basileus 17 January 2014 09: 03
                  0
                  In general terms, they understand. But I understand the Turk only in very general terms, I definitely can’t do without a translator.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Alibekulu
      Alibekulu 15 January 2014 16: 03
      -11%
      Quote: Author Samsonov Alexander
      The envoy of the Polish king, Martin Bronevsky, who had lived in Crimea for several months in 1578, wrote: “This people is predatory and hungry, does not value any oaths, nor unions, nor friendship, but means only its own benefits and lives in looting and constant war of treason” .
      Bogdan Khmelnitsky could not defeat the Poles only when he was supported by the Crimean Tatars. When they were not inevitably lost. Well, of course, the gentry and denigrated the Crimeans - did not allow them to be separatists laughing
      Quote: Mairos
      slave trade.
      Prisoners of war were slaves, i.e. foreigners.
      And in RI, slaves (serfs) were compatriots ..
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 15 January 2014 19: 30
        +3
        Serfs are slaves? Do you know how feudalism differs from slavery?
        1. Alibekulu
          Alibekulu 15 January 2014 20: 10
          0
          Quote: Basileus
          Serfs are slaves? Do you know how feudalism differs from slavery?
          Well, explain to me the "dark" ?!
          In my opinion, the same eggs, only in profile ..
          1. Basileus
            Basileus 15 January 2014 20: 16
            +1
            A slave is property that you can handle as you please. The only limitation of the serf is land. It does not belong to man, it belongs to the earth, so the number of ways to exploit it decreases sharply. Yes, at a later stage, oppression increased significantly, but, nevertheless, the peasants never belonged directly to the landowner.

            In addition, the so-called there were always more state peasants than landlords, and the oppression on them was much weaker.
            1. Alibekulu
              Alibekulu 15 January 2014 21: 01
              +4
              Thank you for your reply and Aut also hi
              But?! as consistent ..
              Quote: Basileus
              nevertheless, the peasants never belonged directly to the landowner.

              и
              Quote: avt
              under Catherine No. 2, then yes, the serf became a slave completely dependent on the will of the owner
              .
              Quote: avt
              So the enslavement of the Russian people took place in parallel with its introduction to the European "civilization" by "common people" and local admirers of the "European choice".
              Shaw gays with fagos again to blame ?! belay (joke)
              1. Basileus
                Basileus 15 January 2014 21: 05
                +1
                He did not become a direct slave. Indirectly - yes, the landowner could use their labor on the earth in any volumes. But, I repeat, most of the peasants belonged to the state, and this was not felt. Be that as it may, the peasant did not become a completely slave.

                It is interesting, by the way, that in the films dedicated to the 400th anniversary of the Romanovs' reign, recently shown in the First, Catherine appeared to be a progressive and noble mother of Russia and a conqueror of her main opponents - Poland and Crimea. And they spent about ten minutes on Pugachev, saying that the uprising was due to negligent officials. But the trouble, not the conquest of dying Poland and the sultan left to the mercy of the fate of Crimea, were the main events of her reign, but the final enslavement and peasant war.
                1. Semurg
                  Semurg 15 January 2014 21: 36
                  +4
                  the landowner could sell it together with the estate, could sell it separately from the estate, could sell it separately from the whole family, etc., and this is not slavery? Gos. the peasants were also sold and given along with estates and massively resettled without asking about their desire, and this is not slavery? Personal freedom is not this is slavery, when a person can be sold and bought and presented.
                  1. Booby
                    Booby 15 January 2014 22: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Semurg
                    Gos. the peasants were also sold and given along with estates and massively resettled without asking about their desire, and this is not slavery? .

                    Do not talk nonsense. My maternal ancestors were jasper peasants of the Vyatka province. I know them before 1780. Nobody sold them or resettled them.
                    1. Semurg
                      Semurg 15 January 2014 22: 42
                      +1
                      your ancestors are lucky, or is there a difference between yashash and state. peasants? Like Ekaterina2 gave her favorites state peasants with estates. Until 1780, you know the genealogy, almost like a Kazakh until the seventh generation of ancestors they remember, and some even more laughing
                      1. Booby
                        Booby 15 January 2014 22: 50
                        +1
                        State and yasashny peasants are one and the same.
                        Yasashny is an old name that is mentioned in church metric books, but the essence is the same.
                      2. Semurg
                        Semurg 15 January 2014 22: 59
                        +2
                        Ever considered Yashash foreigners who paid yasak to the treasury, but were personally free?
                      3. Booby
                        Booby 15 January 2014 23: 16
                        0
                        Foreign peoples who were taxed with tribute were called yashash peoples, and their peasants (sovereigns) who were taxed with tribute (tax) were called yashash peasants.
                      4. FRIGATE2
                        FRIGATE2 16 January 2014 00: 40
                        +3
                        Quote: Bukh
                        Foreign peoples who were taxed with tribute were called yashash peoples, and their peasants (sovereigns) who were taxed with tribute (tax) were called yashash peasants.

                        I am writing a sleepy one, but should I reread Dead Souls? This topic is present there. How do you etymologize "yasashnye" peasants? From what biblical or church word?
                        Maybe all the same yasashnye were, as it were, in a modern way "private traders"?
                      5. family tree
                        family tree 16 January 2014 00: 53
                        +1
                        Here, damn it, they shouted. The state peasants were called not yashashny, but black-nosed.
                        http://statehistory.ru/books/YA-E--Vodarskiy_Naselenie-Rossii-v-kontse-XVII---na

                        chale-XVIII-veka / 16
                        You interfere with sleeping belay
                      6. Booby
                        Booby 16 January 2014 18: 57
                        0
                        Guys, I tell you once again, the same peasants in the church metric books could be called Yashash for one year (or several years in a row), and for the next year - state. You, who have never sat in the archives and haven’t read anything besides tyrnet, at least believe me.

                        And I reread Dead Souls in the extreme summer of 2013. One of my favorite books. There at the end of Gogol very well walked by cheers-patriots)))
                2. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. xan
            xan 16 January 2014 01: 55
            +1
            Quote: Semurg
            Personal freedom is not this is slavery, when a person can be sold and bought and presented.

            The lyrics need to be removed.
            The serf could have personal belongings and households, they could sell him only with personal belongings and with his family, if he was family, they could not kill him - this is a crime. This offhand that distinguishes him from a slave.
            And Yuryev Day was canceled, because the government could not arrange the collection of taxes from the nobles, and this problem was already under Grozny and Godunov.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Booby
          Booby 15 January 2014 22: 23
          -1
          Quote: Basileus
          But the trouble, not the conquest of dying Poland and the sultan left to the mercy of the fate of Crimea, were the main events of her reign, but the final enslavement and peasant war.

          Wrong.
          The final enslavement took place under Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649, when St. George's Day was canceled according to the Council Code and under Peter the Great, when the labor of even state peasants was in fact slave during the construction of St. Petersburg and other projects of the tsar.

          Peasant uprisings were only the result of a long-overdue social explosion, and Catherine was guilty of the fact that during her liberal liberalization took place, which led to the uprising.

          In addition, Katka took away serfs from the church and transferred them to state ones, so it’s not right to say that it was with her that the final enslavement of the peasants took place.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Booby
      Booby 15 January 2014 22: 06
      0
      Until the mid-18th century there were more serfs.
      After Katka took the serfs from the church and converted them into yashash, it became fifti - fifti.
  2. avt
    avt 15 January 2014 20: 34
    +1
    Quote: Alibekulu
    Well, explain to me the "dark" ?!
    In my opinion, the same eggs, only in profile ..

    Bringing the concept of "serf" to the position of a slave was finally carried out under Catherine No. 2, then yes, the serf became a slave completely dependent on the will of the owner, and the nobility was completely freed from any obligations in relation to the state, for which they were given estates - land with working people for feeding, and in the literal sense of these words. Earlier, serfs serving the nobles, working on the land, not to be confused with servants of the courtyard, - the king's servants, before Boris Godunov, for example, could change the "employer" once a year on Yuryev's Day. Those who went to the fortress for debts could redeem themselves under the terms of the contract, their children and relatives might not have been serfs. So the enslavement of the Russian people took place in parallel with its introduction to the European, civilization "by common people" and local admirers of the "European choice". Here's something like this, in short general phrases.
  • lider_djanko
    lider_djanko 15 January 2014 21: 09
    -3
    This article was written by a Jew, so there is so much truth! A man from a parasitic nation, a nation that has been parasitic on the territory of Russia for hundreds of years destroying the Russian people! Why didn’t he write that in the first Soviet government there were 90% of Jews, that they destroyed the tsar and millions of Russians during the revolution and the entire communist system. Yes, okay, there’s no sense in writing further, because for any reason this letter will be blocked!
  • Basileus
    Basileus 15 January 2014 09: 12
    +24
    Considering that Kazan Tatars are now primarily perceived under the word "Tatars", isn't it better to use the word "Crimeans"?
    1. revnagan
      revnagan 15 January 2014 15: 38
      +5
      Quote: Basileus
      Considering that Kazan Tatars are now primarily perceived under the word "Tatars", isn't it better to use the word "Crimeans"?

      Yes, there was such a word - "Krymchaks".
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 15 January 2014 19: 28
        +2
        Krymchaks are, to generalize, Crimean (Crimean Tatar) Jews. Kyrymlar - the self-name of the Crimean Tatars - is more like "Crimeans".
      2. bulanash
        bulanash 15 January 2014 19: 35
        +2
        Krymchaks are not quite Tatars. it is a separate ethnic group of the Jewish faith - a fragment of the ancient Khazar Khaganate
        1. avt
          avt 15 January 2014 23: 05
          0
          Quote: bulanash
          Krymchaks are not quite Tatars. it is a separate ethnic group of the Jewish faith - a fragment of the ancient Khazar Khaganate

          In fact, these are well-known Karaites.
        2. Beck
          Beck 16 January 2014 08: 51
          +4
          Quote: bulanash
          Krymchaks are not quite Tatars. it is a separate ethnic group of the Jewish faith - a fragment of the ancient Khazar Khaganate


          DO NOT CONFUSE.

          Do not confuse Krymchakov and Karaimov. These are two different but related ethnic groups living at the same time in Crimea. The Karaites were a fragment of Khazaria.
    2. bomg.77
      bomg.77 15 January 2014 16: 12
      +5
      Quote: Basileus
      Considering that Kazan Tatars are now primarily perceived under the word "Tatars", isn't it better to use the word "Crimeans"?
      I support! Our Tatars, others. It is a mistake to call them Tatars.
      1. Uhe
        Uhe 15 January 2014 17: 32
        +6
        Not really a mistake. It is a mistake to call the Bulgars Tatars, as now. That is, the current Volga Tatars are the Bulgars. And the Russians called all the nomad enemies Tatars. Just like enemies from the West were often called Lithuania :). Everything is in epics. Historically, the Tatars are not a people, namely, nomad enemies. Hence the Tatars from the Crimea.
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 15 January 2014 19: 27
          +1
          Well, the Kazan Tatars are also not too right to call the Bulgars. Polovtsy also played a significant role in ethnogenesis, giving their language.
          1. Semurg
            Semurg 15 January 2014 21: 28
            +2
            if, as you think, the language of the Volga and Crimean Tatars spoke alone, is it very similar or is the third water on jelly?
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 16 January 2014 09: 48
              0
              Similar enough. What’s the question?
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Beck
        Beck 16 January 2014 09: 52
        +3
        Quote: bomg.77
        I support! Our Tatars, others. It is a mistake to call them Tatars.


        How can I expand, of course, in my understanding.

        For the first time in science, in my understanding, the term Mongol-Tatar yoke, the invasion, domination, was given by a certain Christopher Cruz in 1817. And this error was entrenched in history, introducing today's Mongols into the history of Eastern Europe. Although they are by no means involved in this story.

        Before H. Cruz, the Mongols in Eastern Europe were not mentioned in any historical sources. In the Russian chronicles of that time there is also no word Mongol. There are Horde, Tatars, Tatars.

        It is this false definition of Kruse that causes great confusion now. There was a "Mongol yoke", but there are no Mongolisms in the Russian language, sheer Türkisms. "Mongol domination" was, and the khans of the Golden Horde spoke and wrote their labels in the Turkic language.

        My point of view about the word is Tatars. In their relocations and invasions to the west, various Turkic tribes participated, but united under one principle. For example, Turkic tribes, the future Golden Horde, from the steppes of Kazakhstan invaded Russia, these are Naiman, Kereits, Argyns, Kipchaks (the part that lived in Northern Kazakhstan, and not in the South Russian steppes), and others under the leadership of Batu Khan. And the common, unifying name for them was TURKS.

        The singular is TURK. Plural - TURKILAR. We are Turks - Biz TURKILAR. And there is a rule that the self-name of an ethnic group by historians and other peoples is perinatized. Kipchaks become Comans (Polovtsy). Romans - Romans. The British - Aglitsky.

        Türkic tribes in Russia called themselves the common name - Türks. In Turkic - TURKILAR. Hence the row - Turkilar, Torkilar, Tatars, Tatars. And under the Golden Horde, all Turkic ethnic groups, in Russia, began to be called Tatars. And from here they began to call Kama Bulgars Tatars, and Krymchaks Tatars, and Azerbaijanis Tatars, and Siberian Turkic peoples Tatars.

        By the way. The former tribes of the Kipchaks, Naimans, Kereits, Argyns and now are an integral part of the Kazakh people.
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 16 January 2014 10: 31
          0
          Why then were the khans called Genghisids? Why do not you take into account the sources of the Middle East and China, where exactly the Mongols invaded? What do you think Batu is in this case? And how, in the end, could the Turks undertake such an active campaign to the West when the Mongols launched such activity in the east and south of their borders?

          As for Turkism. The Mongols were dissolved in all the large fragments that they created - in China they were numbered, in Iran became Persians, and in the Horde - Turks, because were relatively small.
          1. Beck
            Beck 16 January 2014 12: 10
            +1
            Quote: Basileus
            Why then were the khans called Genghisids? Why do not you take into account the sources of the Middle East and China, where exactly the Mongols invaded? What do you think Batu is in this case? And how, in the end, could the Turks undertake such an active campaign to the West when the Mongols launched such activity in the east and south of their borders?

            As for Turkism. The Mongols were dissolved in all the large fragments that they created - in China they were numbered, in Iran became Persians, and in the Horde - Turks, because were relatively small.


            The general rule is to ask a question briefly. It is not always possible to answer briefly. I will try. Of course, many details will have to be omitted.

            The Mongol is not originally an ethnonym for any people. Before Genghis Khan, the Mongol people are not mentioned in any sources at all. The current Mongols are former tribes of the Xianbi of Manchurian origin. In the 13th century, Xianbi lived in the current Autonomous Mongolian region of China, Inner Mongolia, between the Gobi Desert and the Wall of China. They were vassals of China and one of their duties was to protect the borders of China from the invasion of other nomads.

            The ancestral home of the Turks is the current steppes of Mongolia. There lived the first Türks mentioned by history - the Türkic-speaking Hunnu. There in the steppes of Mongolia there are stone steles with Turkic writing of 6-7 centuries, Turkic runes. It was from the steppes of Mongolia that the Türks waved to the West. First to Xinjiang and Southeast Kazakhstan where they assimilated the Indo-European tribes of the Iranian-speaking Aryans - Saks, Massagets, Ephthalites and others, in the 1st century. In the second century, in northern Kazakhstan, they assimilated the same Aryans - Sarmatians, Scythians, Savromats and Ugro-Finnish tribes. In the 6th century, with the creation of the Turkic Kaganate, Central Asia was assimilated in the person of the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian group - Tochars, Sogdians.

            Now my guess. Genghis Khan was a Turk from the Borjigin tribe. When he united four Turkic tribes - Borjigins, Taichuites, Naimans, and Kereits, he gave this association the political name MYSKOL. Mynkol can be translated from Turkic in two ways - a thousand-armed army or a thousand-armed people. Subsequently, it was precisely this Mynkol that was transformed into a Mongol. And this political name was assigned to all the joined ethnic groups.

            Now historical facts. When Genghis Khan with his army crossed the Gobi Desert, marching on China, to meet him, fulfilling his vassal obligations, the xianbi army came out. But the battle between them did not take place. Somehow, for some reason, the leaders got into one yurt for negotiations. The next day, the combined army of Genghis Khan and Xianbi fell on China. And the syanbi walked under the common political name of Mynkol. After the death of Genghis Khan, all tribes returned to their ethnonyms, Naimans, Kereites and others, and the Syanbi left this political name to themselves as an ethnonym. After the departure of the Turkic tribes, Naiman and Kereites and others to Kazakhstan, where they conquered the Turkic tribes of the Kipchaks of Northern Kazakhstan, Argyns, and other Khorezmshah Muhammad entering the state of Khorezm, the lands of Mongolia were empty and the Syanbi tribes gradually migrated there, but under the name Mynkol- Mongol. And now about 2 million Mongols live in Mongolia itself, and about 10 million Mongols live in the Inner Region of China.

            There is no doubt that some part of the syanbi participated in the western campaigns of Genghis Khan, but the Türks absolutely prevailed. Just as for the participation in the Mongol campaign in Vietnam, in Beijing, a gathering place for troops, the military corps from Russia was pulled up. And he also went to Vietnam under the political name of Mynkol-Mongol.
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 16 January 2014 12: 22
              0
              Well, the theory is slim, if you lose sight of the sources.

              By the way, why a thousand-armed army, and not, for example, an army of a thousand slaves?)
              1. Beck
                Beck 16 January 2014 13: 06
                +1
                Quote: Basileus
                Well, the theory is slim, if you lose sight of the sources.


                The fact of the matter is that many sources were formed on the basis of the false message of Christopher Cruz.

                Quote: Basileus
                By the way, why a thousand-armed army, and not, for example, an army of a thousand slaves?)


                Firstly, not one people, in their right mind, will not call themselves slaves.

                In the Kazakh language, the word slave is designated as Kul. Hand like Kol. Of course, interpretations of counts and kul are possible in different Turkic dialects.

                But, in the construction of the Turkic army, like many, there was a triune system. Center - Ortalagy count - Central arm, central military corps. All count - right hand, right case. Sol stake - left hand, left body. So, under different circumstances, Kohl could mean both a hand and a military corps.
                1. Basileus
                  Basileus 16 January 2014 13: 13
                  0
                  The Chinese and the Persians XIV wrote under the influence of Cruz?
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 16 January 2014 16: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Basileus
                    The Chinese and the Persians XIV wrote under the influence of Cruz?


                    The Chinese and Persians mainly wrote about the hordes of nomads, about the troops of Genghis Khan. These later translators and historians began to automatically mean only the current Mongols by Genghis Khan’s troops.

                    Russian chronicles of the same times did not write about the Mongols, they mentioned the Horde and the Tatars. After Kruse, the word Mongol came into Russian and Russian textbooks, meaning only the ancestors of the current Mongols.
            2. Beck
              Beck 16 January 2014 12: 43
              +2
              Quote: Beck
              And he also went to Vietnam under the political name of Mynkol-Mongol.


              Farther. When Genghis Khan died, Batu was 12 years old. After another 12 years, he organizes an all-devastating campaign in Eastern Europe.

              This is how, in just 12 years, the victorious people - the current Mongols, could have come to terms. The Romans who conquered the Celts of Western Europe did not take over. The Greeks of Alexander of Macedon did not falter, the Rusichs who conquered the Kazan Khanate did not take charge, but did the present Mongols take it, out of spite, and become in charge? They would have lived well in cities, because nomadic peoples live their villages.

              This is where the falsity of Christopher Cruze's definition comes out. It was in order to make ends meet that the Mongol jail was invented. And then the ancestors of the current Mongol, conquered Eastern Europe and suddenly forgot their language. And not only the khans and their entourage, but all the people are victorious. These are the Turks of Kazakhstan who were supposed to be ombonged, and certainly not in 12 years. By a proverb - Great-Grandson Great-grandfather is not a relative, this should have taken at least a hundred years. I’m from the Naiman tribe as part of the Kazakh people, try again, for that matter, again to thrash my family for 12 years, creating the best conditions for this, nothing will come of it. And then a whole nation.

              And in the Middle East and Persia campaigns were carried out mainly by the Turks. An example of a commander of an army that reached the city of Homs in Syria was Kitbug hired. Later, with the filing of the same Cruz, these troops in history began to be designated as purely Mongol.

              The peculiarity of Genghis Khan’s troops was that soldiers from the conquered peoples were recruited into the troops, making up for military losses or simply to increase their numbers. In the campaign against Poland and Hungary, the troops of Batu Khan included the squad of A. Nevsky and the Smolensk regiments. And I think that near Mr. Homs, Kitbug suffered the first defeat of Genghis forces precisely because the troops already prevailed in the composition, replacing military loss, Persians, Arabs and others. In addition, he defeated Kitbug with his Mamluks - Turks and Caucasians, the Kipchak Beibars, the Sultan of Egypt. (There was a historical moment when Egypt was ruled by the Mameluke sultans who seized power).

              And it’s not bad, but within the framework of the commentary, compare the names Chinggis, Subudai, Mamai, Borondai and the truly Mongolian names Galdan Tseren, Esen, Gumechi, Outline Tsitsen. I think even without a linguist it is clear that they belong to different language groups.

              Something like that for short.
              1. Basileus
                Basileus 16 January 2014 13: 14
                0
                Do you take into account the population? All your examples are based on the conquest of more numerous people by less numerous. In the case of the Mongols, the situation is the opposite.
                1. Beck
                  Beck 16 January 2014 17: 03
                  +2
                  Quote: Basileus
                  Do you take into account the population? All your examples are based on the conquest of more numerous people by less numerous. In the case of the Mongols, the situation is the opposite.


                  There is nothing to the contrary. For the Türks, it was in the tradition of replenishing the troops of conquered peoples.

                  Examples; When the troops of Genghis Khan and Xianbi invaded China, they mobilized the conquered population of then heterogeneous China, and were the first to send them to storm the same Chinese cities. When Batu Khan went to Hungary and Poland, both A. Nevsky's squad and Smolensk regiments were in his troops. When Kitbuga went to the Middle East, his army was mainly composed of the Turks and in view of the decline in combat, they were replenished with time and advance by the Persians and Arabs. When the general campaign against Vietnam was determined, in Beijing, a Slavic military corps arrived from distant Russia. When, of the "Mongolian" type, the army landed on the shores of Japan, the main part of the ships with the troops was really scattered by the typhoon, then they were not at all Turks and not Mongols, only the command, but the army was the Chinese.

                  I once came across an old Japanese watercolor, reproduced, of those times. It shows the troops of the samurai beating the "Mongol". So these same "Mongols" are armed with one spear, in long shirts up to the knees, and all in Chinese straw hats. These were all Chinese, and not the descendants of the warriors of nomadic peoples.
          2. FRIGATE2
            FRIGATE2 17 January 2014 01: 53
            +2
            Quote: Basileus
            Why then were the khans called Genghisids?

            I advise you here to take note of this article

            http://www.nomad.su/?a=15-201306130010

            Quote: Basileus
            What about Turkisms


            in general, by nature, man is a very lazy creature, due to this basically all achievements were born, including the creation by groups of people of their own gods. Noo is not about that.
            do you think the dominant ethnos Mongol was supposed to become a member, to be united, to become Japanese, to become famous? how so.
            Let's draw similar examples:
            The British in all their colonies, the local population is British, well, or officially there is English. The French in the colonies in Africa, too, well, not all but officially a lot of French. Russians recently in RI almost the entire Caucasus, Little Russia, Siberia, the Far East have Russified. Well, you see, the Raisa team strangely appears in the KVN, where half of the team is Buryat with the names Lyuda, Olga, Nadezhda and so on.
            Or racial Koreans in the CIS with the names Oleg, Zhenya, Victor.
            The Spaniards in Lat America have deceived the majority.

            Okay, let’s wave for 2000 years ago, the Roman Empire oromanian conquered territories and this even before the invasion of the Huns, i.e. conclusion - a politically strong culture conquers peoples and territories and always primarily conducts language expansion.
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 17 January 2014 09: 13
              0
              Is there something less Kazakh-biased?

              Did the Mongols teach children? Maybe they kept official documentation? There were an insignificant number of them compared to any of the examples you cited.
              1. Beck
                Beck 17 January 2014 12: 41
                +3
                Quote: Basileus
                Is there something less Kazakh-biased?


                I foresaw that there would be hints of Ura-Kazakh patriotism. So they did not fully understand my previous comments.

                The Kazakh people took shape only in the middle of the 15th century. It was formed from those Turkic tribes that lived on the territory of Kazakhstan. From Naimans, Kereits, Kipchaks, Argyns and others. And Kazakhs remember and know to which tribe they belong. I'm Naiman. And it is not clear to me how this supposed "Mongolian" tribe suddenly became Turkic in 12 years. we 100 fought with the Dzungars and no one was Turkified or Ojungar. But of course they were greatly obsessed with blood. In raids and campaigns, children were produced in the nomadic camps of the enemy. And from the campaigns they brought the wives of the Dzungars. It was easier that way than paying kalym. In the Golden Horde for 300 years, the Russians did not become Turkic, and the Tatars did not become Russified. And then, due to a false message, Kruse forgot EVERYTHING for 12 years, their roots, their origins, their customs, their Language. The language of the winner. Rave. And I do not categorically state in my comments, but ask questions, seeing the absurdity.

                Quote: Basileus
                Did the Mongols teach children? Maybe they kept official documentation?


                The question is unclear what this was taught to children or not taught.

                And they kept the documentation. But in what language and in what letter, this is also a question. The most Mongolian writing was not until the 13th century. According to all sources, it was borrowed from the Türkic capital alphabet, which arose as a result of the transformation of the Türkic runic script of the 6-7 centuries. The so-called, by some scholars, the Old Uigur letter. And according to all sources, this letter was used by the Naimans and Kereites, then Christians of the Nestorian persuasion. QUESTION. If the Naimans and Kereits were Mongols, then why on earth, and even before the adoption, they used the Turkic alphabet. The most logical answer is that they were Turkic and have been using the Turkic alphabet since the 10th century. When there was no question of converting the Turkic alphabet into Mongolian. Even in Kalashnikov's "Cruel Age", this absurdity crawls out. Like Genghis Khan subdued Naiman and was surprised by the existence of writing itself. They say the Uighurs were the scribes of the Naiman. Even if the Uyghurs, with what fright, pure Türks at all times, the Uyghurs suddenly, even before Genghis Khan, wrote in the Türkic script in Mongolian - Brad.

                Mongolian writing, according to my assumptions, on the basis of Turkic, arose not under Genghis Khan, but later. And not in the steppes of present Mongolia, but in the Inner Autonomous Region of China, in Inner Mongolia. And this is natural, since there is the birthplace of xianbi. And later, events of past times were transferred to this letter and all the nomads of the steppe were assigned to the Mongols-syanbi.

                And if the Turks ruled in Eastern Europe. After the conquest of China, the main Chinggis force that dominates China was the Syanbi, the Turks went west. In China, the occupying Genghis forces consisted of the Mongol-xianbi. And much later, in order to unify the Mongolian script with the Chinese, a hieroglyphic square Mongolian script was created.

                And under Genghis Khan it was impossible, from the floundering bay, to translate the Turkic alphabet into the Mongolian overnight. And who would begin to shift if the Mongols did not have literate people at all.

                This writing is also one of the issues, with careful analysis, which does not fit into the Mongolian canvas.
              2. Beck
                Beck 17 January 2014 12: 45
                +2
                Quote: Basileus
                There were an insignificant number of them compared to any of the examples you cited.


                At all times there were fewer nomads. One hectare of land will feed the farmer with a family of 10 people, there is no pastoralist. But for some reason the steppe spirit was always higher. And when the Turks of Batu Khan conquered Eastern Europe, there were also fewer of them.
                1. Semurg
                  Semurg 17 January 2014 15: 03
                  0
                  Tatar-Mongols. if all Turks are called Tatars, then everything is correct. But with the Mongols it’s not clear either Syanbi, as you write, who lived on the southern edge of the Gobi desert or the tribal union of the Khalkha who lived in eastern Manchuria. Somehow I looked at the names of the tribes which Timujin drove there, 85% -90% of them are the name of the Turkic tribes and the rest are probably Mongolian or some other peoples.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 17 January 2014 17: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Semurg
                    Tatar-Mongols. if all Turks are called Tatars, then everything is correct. that's just with the Mongols it is not clear whether it is syanbi or how you write who lived on the southern edge of the Gobi desert or the tribal union of the Khalkha who lived in eastern Manchuria . Somehow I looked at the names of the tribes which Timujin drove there, 85% -90% of them are the name of the Turkic tribes and the rest are probably Mongolian or some other peoples.


                    Well, I did not and do not affirm that there were only Syanbi, of course there were some other kind of Manchu tribes, but the basis was Syanbi. And this they left to themselves, as an ethnonym, the political name Mynkol, which was later transformed into a Mongol. And the Buryats of Manchu origin, and they were part of the troops of Genghis Khan, but did not replace their ethnonym with a political name.
                2. SkiF_RnD
                  SkiF_RnD 18 January 2014 02: 16
                  0
                  As for the military spirit, you gave a blunder, and very strongly. Honestly, I put a minus on this comment. In exchange, plus for others. Because you offend casually, for the sake of "yours". If you look like that, then the spirit of the Franks at Poitiers for some reason turned out to be higher than that of the Arabs. Although, the disorder turns out. After all, farmers. And brave (suddenly). And then, a strange idea of ​​bravery - instead of daring hand-to-hand fighting, on horses, circle and shower with arrows from a respectful distance. Why were the crusaders in the 12th century so brave? These are farmers. Disorder again. On the principle of Russians, I will not go broke.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck 18 January 2014 12: 11
                    +2
                    Quote: SkiF_RnD
                    As for the military spirit, you gave a blunder, and very much.


                    It seems to me that you exaggerate what I said. I spoke in the general context. Of course there were battles and not one where the nomads suffered defeats, including crushing ones. For example, the defeat of the Pechenegs at Lignitz, after which the Pechenegs left the stage of history.

                    But as widely spread throughout the territory as the Türks, it was undoubtedly necessary to have a high fighting spirit.

                    From their ancestral homeland of the steppes of Mongolia, the Türks reached the Bosphorus and the Danube, and at times to the Catalan fields of France and the northern plains of Italy. Creating along the way and in time the most extensive powers of the past. Huns from Khingan to Altai and from Baikal to the Great Wall of China. Turkic Kaganate from the Pacific Ocean to the Volga. Genghis Khan empire from the Pacific Ocean to the Urals and from Baikal to Tibet. The Golden Horde from Altai to the Danube and from Tyumen to Syr Darya. The Turks of the Seljuks, who had removed the Syr Darya and Amu Darya from the lower reaches of Iran, fought against Iran, Transcaucasia, the Middle East, defeated Byzantium and formed the Ottoman Empire from Iran to the Atlantic Ocean and from Vienna to the Sands of the Sahara.

                    I proceeded from this, and not from individual battles.
                  2. FRIGATE2
                    FRIGATE2 18 January 2014 23: 48
                    +2
                    Quote: SkiF_RnD
                    Crusaders in the 12th century why were they so brave? The same farmers

                    The heyday of the crusaders and the entire Christian world occurs precisely after the sunset of nomadic empires, if you want it or not, the horse ceased to be a tank after the mass use of gunpowder, hence the nomads ceased to be the center of the world, and even these geographical discoveries opened new safe and reliable routes through the seas.
  • lukke
    lukke 15 January 2014 09: 33
    +12
    well, and where is the pseudo-state of Ukraine. Under Catherine, these lands (Tavria, New Russia, etc.) were populated by Russians, because they were simply empty and had to be cultivated. And now, some descendants of these Russians with washed self-consciousness truly believe that they are descendants of ancient ukrov.
    1. Denis
      Denis 15 January 2014 11: 02
      +2
      Quote: lukke
      self-consciously truly believing
      It’s enough to remember what you did ministry of truth in xnumx J. Orwell
    2. Uhe
      Uhe 15 January 2014 17: 37
      +1
      It repeats what happened many times over the course of 1500 years - the fragmentation of the Slavs into various small tribes. A small part of them retained their own self-awareness, and some dissolved in other nations. Here are the same East Germans from the GDR - simply Germanized Slavs. The same thing will happen to the Little Russians, who for several decades suddenly became Ukrainians, that is, living on the Orcain, if they go to Europe, they either disappear among other nations, or simply gradually die out, as once warlike Lyutichs. However, the same thing will happen to the Russians if this state develops in the same direction.
    3. Cristall
      Cristall 15 January 2014 19: 29
      0
      in the article, nothing. It was as if Sagaidachny did not go to Kafa, the Cossacks Z. Sich did not go by sea or the Dnieper ... in short, they were not mentioned here. Ukrainian lands suffered more.
      Mentioned may in 2 parts.
      Threat, who believes in ancient ukrov? I only learn about them here)
      1. Hudo
        Hudo 16 January 2014 11: 42
        0
        Quote: Cristall
        .Ukrainian lands have suffered more.


        About "Ukrainian lands", if possible in more detail, and with links where they are mentioned exactly as Ukrainian.
      2. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 18 January 2014 02: 17
        0
        They believe, they believe. You probably just haven’t met yet laughing
  • Mairos
    Mairos 15 January 2014 10: 35
    +7
    The Crimean Khanate is a typical example of a parasitic state where robberies in raids and the slave trade were one of the main sources of income.
  • Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 15 January 2014 10: 58
    +13
    The author may embellish, but it really was. Or do you think the blue eyes of some Turks appeared by nature as the white pigmentation of the Tanzanians ?? !!
    The fact remains - the Crimeans led a large slave trade in the era of feudalism, which was not there since the times of ancient Rome and Egypt, until they were surpassed by the British. Robberies were the main form of detail of this country. Such countries are usually subjugated or destroyed in order to stop predatory raids.
    They were lucky, for example, China generally killed the Dzungars who were close by, maybe there is among them "the last of the Mohicans."
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 15 January 2014 11: 08
      +2
      Well here the situation played a significant role. Almost everyone needed Crimea, at some point - even Russia. It's funny, that’s why the least viable (Astrakhan does not count - it’s generally difficult for the state to consider) the shard of the AO lived longer than the rest)
      1. Semurg
        Semurg 15 January 2014 14: 00
        -10%
        The Crimeans were unlucky, they owned very good lands (the bottom of the Don. Kuban, southern Ukraine, Crimea) and therefore are to blame. They would have owned the deserts and they would have been happy. Well, the fact that nomads are always declared "predatory civilizations" is far from new, although "agricultural civilizations" were in no way inferior to them in terms of robbing neighbors and seizing land.
        1. Walking
          Walking 15 January 2014 14: 55
          +16
          Crimeans owned good land but they didn’t use it, didn’t work on it and preferred to raid, rob and kill, and paid for it, it’s a pity they were not completely full, they answered for all the evil that they had caused.
          1. Semurg
            Semurg 15 January 2014 15: 27
            -9
            That's exactly the way the colonists of America spoke about the Indians (They are to blame for being on our land before us).
            Quote: Hiking
            Crimeans owned good land but they didn’t use it, didn’t work on it and preferred to raid, rob and kill, and paid for it, it’s a pity they were not completely full, they answered for all the evil that they had caused.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Onizuka teacher
          Onizuka teacher 15 January 2014 14: 57
          +6
          They began to hate the nomads since the time of Atilla, because it was not for nothing that the popes himself stood on his knees in front of him, asking for mercy for his people and paying off with a huge amount of gold. Now this story is turned upside down and rewritten so that it was not the Romans who were afraid of the Huns, but the Huns of the Romans and Atilla brought Christianity to Rome and loved the Romans very much ... He was poisoned through a woman. And these were not warriors in dressing gowns and a saber for an edge. But the Tatars were destroyed during the time of Genghis Khan, and this word as a Tatar-Mongol yoke was invented and written by the Germans to humiliate the Slavs who were in the part of the Golden Horde.
          1. Uhe
            Uhe 15 January 2014 17: 43
            +1
            Not Tatars, but Bulgar. Slavs were called Tatars by nomads who raided Slavic lands.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Basileus
          Basileus 15 January 2014 20: 57
          +2
          However, without the support of the Ottomans, they were nothing. More precisely, they represented, but only an archaic fragment of the Golden Horde, completely incapacitated and living by robbery. If there were no Ottomans, Crimeans would naturally finish much earlier.
        5. xan
          xan 16 January 2014 02: 00
          +1
          Quote: Semurg
          Crimeans were not lucky they owned very good lands (bottom of the Don. Kuban, southern Ukraine, Crimea) and for this they are to blame

          Why do u.raku horseradish glass.
          Quote: Semurg
          That would have owned deserts and it would have been their happiness.

          if they did what the Crimeans did, they would be taken out independently of land or desert.
          1. Nagaibak
            Nagaibak 16 January 2014 08: 03
            +2
            xan "if they were doing what the Crimeans were doing, they would have gotten out regardless of land or desert."
            An example of the Khiva khanate was living in deserts, but was engaged in robbery and still reached out to them .... and was punished.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Uhe
      Uhe 15 January 2014 17: 41
      0
      "Since the days of Rome and Egypt" is not so. Khazaria led the largest slave trade, and when Khazaria was destroyed by Svyatoslav the Brave, the Jews became the largest slave traders in Europe, having received a monopoly on slavery. So the slave trade was never interrupted. And all the raids of slave traders after the destruction of Khazaria went exactly to and through the lands of Little Russia.
  • ko88
    ko88 15 January 2014 11: 57
    +8
    raiding with mobile cavalry at that time did not need much intelligence and courage, especially since Russian military units could not provide proper control in such a vast strip, later the Kalmyks appeared in the south of Russia, who defended the southern borders of Russia, and drove the Crimeans, Crimean- The Tatars did not take part in open clashes, on the contrary, they tried to strike unexpectedly quietly, such was their military doctrine of the time, the fact that this is a cowardly basal Turkish parasitic khanate deservedly flows from all this.
  • Vova Vartanov
    Vova Vartanov 15 January 2014 13: 09
    +14
    The appearance of Kalmyks in the 88th century facilitated the defense of the Krymchaks who had previously been raided by the near-Don and Volga lands. The sharply negative attitude of the Oirats to the Crimean Tatars and friendly relations with the Russian and Kazan-Astrakhan Tatars played an important role in pacifying the Crimean Khanate (of course, it could not do without excursions). But all the weakening of the Turks and their vassals began with Ivan the Terrible (the battle of Molody)!
    1. gadyuka
      gadyuka 15 January 2014 14: 21
      +3
      Only at first I had to slow down the Kalmyks, otherwise they accelerated
      1. Vova Vartanov
        Vova Vartanov 15 January 2014 15: 23
        +5
        You are right, the Oirats who fled from Mongolia everywhere pushed their way with a sword and reached the Ciscaucasia, continued in the same spirit (The whole World is enemies !?). And only wise (without sarcasm) diplomats of the Russian Empire changed their attitude towards others!
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 15 January 2014 13: 19
    +6
    What is characteristic is that the first proposals on the eviction of Tatra to hell were received precisely in Krymskaya, as a result, under Joseph Vissarionovich they did, for they got it already specifically. Only warnings of the occupying German authorities in Crimea that 5 Tatars will be shot for one killed Russian are worth it.
    Interestingly, what is going to be done is an independent one, which doesn’t have an army in fact if this whole company takes on the old again. And if the Black Sea Fleet leaves Sevastopol, then the Tatar rebellion in Crimea is inevitable.
    1. bomg.77
      bomg.77 15 January 2014 16: 08
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      Only warnings of the occupying German authorities in Crimea that 5 Tatars will be shot for one killed Russian are worth it.
      But could you share a reference, if there is, and tell me where you can read about it?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 15 January 2014 16: 35
        +1
        http://topwar.ru/30396-imeyut-li-rossiyane-pravo-upominat-o-deportacii-krymskih-
        tatar-1944-goda.html

        Mentioned here in the comments. I kind of even saw a snapshot of this warning. I. Pykhalov wrote about the deportation itself best of all: "Why did Stalin evict peoples."
        1. bomg.77
          bomg.77 15 January 2014 16: 58
          0
          Thank you I read it on the topwar, and then I read the book hi
    2. Booby
      Booby 15 January 2014 22: 41
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      What is characteristic is that the first proposals on the eviction of Tatra to hell came precisely in Krymskaya.

      So because they already became litter of the English-French. They created their own detachments and cut through the Crimea, attacking the rear of our army in their best traditions - out of the blue.
  • xan
    xan 15 January 2014 14: 29
    +8
    In the late 90s, in a guide to the Crimea published in independent Ukraine, I read about such phrases - Russian invaders destroyed the flourishing Crimean Khanate, a masterpiece of world architecture Bakhchisaray Palace turned Russian barbarians into a stable, etc. I will never forget this scribble I read, and I made conclusions.
  • zol
    zol 15 January 2014 14: 48
    -5
    It seems that everything is correctly stated in the article, but for some reason it smells bad from this article, doesn't it seem so to you?
  • AVV
    AVV 15 January 2014 15: 57
    +2
    Quote: Mairos
    The Crimean Khanate is a typical example of a parasitic state where robberies in raids and the slave trade were one of the main sources of income.

    Janus does not have enough spirit to drive them out of Crimea, but for the West, this is the Achilles' heel of the current Ukrainian government, or they may even demand independence for them, as in Serbia for the Albanians !!!
  • admiral
    admiral 15 January 2014 16: 37
    +10
    It is necessary to produce more, then there will be less enemies.
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 15 January 2014 19: 09
    +4
    Yes, the Crimean Tatars drank Russian blood in their time, how lucky were the "small and oppressed" peoples that they entered the sphere of the Russian Empire, and not "enlightened navigators", then the Chechens or the same Crimean Tatars would try to attack the settlement or a trading post of Great Britain, so after N amount of time, they would be surprised to find the HMF surrounding the Crimea, landing troops of the "suppressors", and after a while they would find themselves tied to the gun carriages, or they would be on a homemade hippodrome, where young British aristocrats would practice in demolition of heads at full speed. Well, we all persuade and persuade. As practice has shown, the "British Way", unfortunately, is more effective and realistic, well, the Crimean Tatars did not succumb to civilization, these people simply do not understand a good attitude and take softness for weakness. By the way, in the book by I. Pykhalov "Why Stalin evicted the peoples", the attitude of the Crimean Tatars to the Russianempire, especially clearly in the Crimean War and the USSR, when almost all of the population of Crimea happily supported the Germans and contributed to them in every possible way.
  • delfinN
    delfinN 15 January 2014 19: 35
    +6
    Interestingly, not a word has been said about the Battle of Molodi, as if it never happened. But there they multiplied by zero about 120 thousand of these Crimean "athletes" plus another 7 thousand selected Turkish Janissaries. This despite the fact that there were only Russians !!! 20 thousand. Well, another 1000 German mercenaries Ivan IV (the Great and the Terrible) hired. And this 21 thousand multiplied by zero almost the entire adult male population of the Crimean Tatars. About 15 thousand managed to escape. And even history textbooks ignore this most important historical event. More details in the "Brother" magazine for the last year, I don’t remember
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 15 January 2014 19: 52
      +3
      I was always interested in how the Turks could have successfully reached Vienna if, as a rule, they lost in the Russian-Turkish wars. Including (and especially) under Young, at the peak of his power.
      1. Alexandr0id
        Alexandr0id 16 January 2014 01: 11
        +1
        the expansion of the Ottoman Empire took place from the 14th to the 16th century (with a break for defeat from the tamerlane). in the 17th century, stagnation is observed, the 18th century - weakening, 19-20 the collapse of the empire. a classic scheme for many empires. accordingly, in Russia all this is shifted by a time of 200 years, i.e. the Russian heyday coincided with the Turkish decline. Until the 18th century, there were no real Russian-Turkish military operations, Russia was confronted exclusively with the Crimean Khanate, including in so-called the great turkish war. participation in these brawls of evil janissaries is nothing more than fiction. The first real clash with the Turkish troops proper is the Crimean campaign.
        Molodinskaya battle is largely a mythical event.
    2. Booby
      Booby 15 January 2014 22: 04
      +1
      This battle has many unanswered questions.
    3. Alexandr0id
      Alexandr0id 16 January 2014 00: 52
      +2
      I once wrote in the comments to the article "Forbidden Victory":
      Molodinskaya battle, for the time being almost unknown to anyone, over time, in the wake of historical patriotism, overgrown with cheerful details, and almost dialogues of characters. and, of course, in numbers.
      120-150-200 thousand Crimean riders are considered as quite objective figures.
      hence the logical conclusion in the fate of the battle and comparison with the sandpiper or Borodino.
      let's figure it out. second half of the 16th century: the Moscow kingdom borders on the remnants of the Golden Horde: Kazan, Astrakhan, Crimean Khanates and Nogai Horde.
      what these states were (estimated numbers):
      - Kazan Khanate - a population of 450 thousand people. (including Tatars -210 thousand)
      - Astrakhan Khanate - population of 25 thousand people. (yes, only 25, such a ridiculous khanate)
      - Crimean Khanate - population 250-300 thousand people. (including Jews, Armenians, Karaites, slaves)
      - Nogai horde - from 300 thousand to 1 million (the spread in numbers is due to geography, what can be considered the Nogai horde as only the steppes of the former large horde or even half of Kazakhstan).
      thus, where the figures of Crimean hordes come from is simply not clear. the maximum that the Crimea could expose in 1572 was 40 thousand people, if they all died under their youth, then in the Crimea there were no adult men of Tatar nationality. some Armenians and Jews.
      further - the thousands of Janissaries who died in this glorious battle. the sultan, who has at his disposal 12 thousand of the Janissary corps, i.e. in fact, guards, sends to help his vassal 7 thousand Janissaries (15-20 thousand according to other descriptions). and all this during a tough confrontation with the Holy League and the struggle for the Mediterranean. fiction or insanity of the monarch, what is it?
      Well, and what is the result of this glorious battle that destroyed the entire male population of Crimea? the fall of the Crimean Khanate - no, the liberation of Moscow from paying the wake of the Khan - no. very strange results.
      one gets the impression that either there was no battle at all, or it was a small skirmish, of which there were many in the 16-17 centuries. This is the reason that this event is "undeservedly forgotten" and does not even come close to being compared with the sandpiper field, standing on an eel or the Crimean campaign of 1571.
  • delfinN
    delfinN 15 January 2014 20: 15
    0
    It’s like the Mongols with two tumens (approx. 20 thousand horsemen) passed the half of the world. Of course, I use numbers, but this is not the point. They always threw 20–40 of every conquered rabble ahead of themselves. They could dodge any counterattack on their horses .
  • family tree
    family tree 15 January 2014 20: 36
    +3
    They tried to arrange raids at a time when peasants participated in field work (in the summer) and could not quickly hide in fortresses or forests

    They went in the summer because the steppe was dry and there was enough food for the horses. Spring, autumn, impassable mud, winter cold and starfree. The summer season was just enough to hit the round trip. Seasonal, damn it.
  • Cristall
    Cristall 15 January 2014 20: 54
    +2
    While the demand was for slaves and the Turkish Sultan was strong (i.e., the Ottoman Empire), the vassal was on horseback. Exporting something else was not as profitable as the demand for white Slavic people.
    They were generally appreciated in the Mediterranean galleys. Women with their beauty, children with their health (often the Janissaries — remember in Sevastopol’s strada, Khrulev said that the Turks had stolen Ivanov and Maryushek a lot - and purred them, and now their children might resist them and therefore will fight like Russians, so it will be hot)
    a general drop in demand for slaves, an increase in RI, a weakening of OI (an increase in the significance of the ways of the World Ocean, and a decline in the importance of the Mediterranean) weakened the support of KH. The house of cards collapsed from the blow of RI. The empress succeeded in what the kings, hetmans, and kings failed.
    1. FRIGATE2
      FRIGATE2 16 January 2014 00: 45
      +2
      Quote: Cristall
      The empress succeeded in what the kings, hetmans, and kings failed.

      Well, German.
      from Her-man or ger-man, which means "Lord".
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Booby
    Booby 15 January 2014 22: 58
    +2
    The whole joke is that Russian male captives (of mature age) who remained in the Crimea, and were not sold to Europe or Turkey for galleys, were the cheapest. Because everyone had it written on their foreheads - run away. In modern terms, in a personal file they would write: "Inclined to escape."
    And in Muscovy, since the time of Grozny, those serfs who managed to escape from the Crimean captivity were given freedom.
  • Alexandr0id
    Alexandr0id 16 January 2014 00: 49
    +3
    Of course, the slave trade is the evil and shame of mankind, however, if the Tatars or British or Spaniards enslaved foreigners - Slavs, Negroes, Indians in the name of enriching their own nation, then Russian serfdom is a complete vileness, because his own people were enslaved. there is no excuse for this at all.
    1. Gromily4
      Gromily4 16 January 2014 10: 31
      0
      The British and their slaves were given, so do not la-la. Where then were the white slaves in America and Australia. Yes, in England there was also business, stealing children and sending them to America and Australia. So that was everywhere.
      1. Clegg
        Clegg 16 January 2014 10: 50
        +1
        Quote: Gromily4
        Where then were the white slaves in America and Australia.

        Australia is like your Siberia, a place for reference
        1. Gromily4
          Gromily4 16 January 2014 10: 55
          0
          Yeah, the place of exile of children stolen from their parents.
          What were the children to blame for?
          1. Gromily4
            Gromily4 16 January 2014 13: 31
            0
            Another plus to this, people were sent for vagrancy as slaves in the colonies of America and Australia. Despite the fact that they themselves arranged vagrancy themselves, doing fencing and driving away their peasants.
            Not all there were criminals, there were those who were just unlucky.
            One example when searching for the phrase "white slaves".
            http://perevodika.ru/articles/22570.html
            Therefore, do not idealize the fact that the British did not enslave, convert, and profited very well from this. And do not compare our serfs with their slaves. Ours at least had something of their own, but the slaves could not have it in principle, since they are a thing. And with all the other things, there was such a time, there was enslavement and slavery everywhere, although not to say that it was so cruel in our country. Strongly enough for serfs only Pr Catherine II (German, so everything is clear here) took up it. In general, the fate of the serf most often depended on who sat on the throne and what considerations he was guided by. And to be honest, this is quite complicated. Since there is so much turbidity and discrepancies that you won’t understand how it really was. A time machine has not yet been invented.
            Only one thing is clear, at that time in all countries ordinary people had problems regardless of place of birth.
            And the fact that we were told that only the Russians are turning them into slaves is not the truth in the last resort.

            And finally: "The best slave is the slave who does not even know that he is a slave." Goethe.

            So in the west, slaves think that they are not slaves, but practically there is already slavery, as the owner just changed, he became a bank.
  • mr.vorodis
    mr.vorodis 16 January 2014 02: 11
    0
    And in "enlightened" Europe there was no feudalism and serfdom?
    About the Inquisition is better not to remember!
  • Aydin
    Aydin 16 January 2014 17: 21
    -1
    Quote: zol
    It seems that everything is correctly stated in the article, but for some reason it smells bad from this article, doesn't it seem so to you?

    it seems
  • Cristall
    Cristall 17 January 2014 01: 45
    -1
    Rafael Sabatini-Odyssey of Captain Blood. The legalized slave trade --- hard labor for 10 years. No one survived.
    But this is West India .. for example Barbados ... for how much it sold-- Peter Blood was sold into slavery to Colonel Bishop for 10 pounds ... this is for the doctor ...
    So its slave trade is widely popular.
    In Russia, people were being trafficked ... with serf carts - they were exchanged for things, they paid card debts and so on ... This still continued after the conquest of Crimea ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Igor Anatolievich
    Igor Anatolievich 7 February 2018 12: 28
    0
    The main thing is not to repeat the mistakes of the past, a rational national policy must be pursued in Crimea. Firstly, in no case should Jews-Hubbadniks be allowed into Crimea, and secondly, to allow honored people from Siberia, central and northern Russia to settle in Crimea (to strengthen ties with Russia ) Thirdly, to stop the Wahhabis and radicals at the root. And in the fourth it is reasonable to place military schools and towns in the immediate vicinity of purely female educational institutions and hostels. They will be created on mixed Russian-Crimean Tatar families and eventually all contradictions will disappear