Kulikov battle. 1380

Kulikov battle. 1380



The Battle of Kulikovo (Battle of Mamaevo), the battle between the united Russian army led by Moscow Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and the Temnik army of the Golden Horde of Mamaia, held on September 8, 1380 [1] on the Kulikovo field (historical the area between the rivers Don, Nepryadva and Beautiful Swords in the southeast of the Tula region.

Strengthening of the Moscow principality in the 60-s of the XIV century. and the unification of the rest of the lands of North-Eastern Russia around him proceeded almost simultaneously with the strengthening of the power of Temnik Mamai in the Golden Horde. Married to the daughter of the Golden Horde Khan Berdibek, he received the title of Emir and became the ruler of the fate of that part of the Horde, which was located west of the Volga to the Dnieper and on the steppe expanses of the Crimea and Ciscaucasia.


The militia of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich in 1380, the town of Lubok, XVII century.

In 1374, the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich, who had a label on the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, refused to pay tribute to the Golden Horde. Then Khan in 1375, gave the label to the great reign of Tver. But virtually all of Northeastern Rus came out against Mikhail Tversky. The Moscow prince organized a military campaign against the principality of Tver, which was joined by Yaroslavl, Rostov, Suzdal and the regiments of other principalities. Dmitry was supported by Novgorod the Great. Tver capitulated. According to the agreement concluded, the Vladimir table was recognized as the “homeland” of Moscow princes, and Mikhail of Tver became a vassal of Dmitry.

However, the ambitious Mamai continued to consider the defeat of the Moscow principality, which had come out of submission, as the main factor in strengthening its own positions in the Horde. In 1376, the Arab Shah Muzaffar (Arapsh of the Russian Chronicles), who had transferred to the service of Mamai Khan of the Blue Horde, ruined the Novosilsk princedom, but returned back, avoiding a battle with the Moscow army that went beyond the Oksky frontier. In 1377, he is on the river. Piana defeated non-Moscow-Suzdal army. Sent against the Horde voivods showed carelessness, for which they paid: “And their princes, and boyars, and grandees, and voivods, consoling and amusing, drinking and catching things, imagining the house being” [2], and then ruining Nizhny Novgorod and Ryazan, executing the house being ”[XNUMX], and then ruining Nizhny Novgorod and Ryazan, the house itself seems to have been ruined, and Nizhniy Novgorod and Nizhny Novgorod and Ryazan were destroyed by Nizhny Novgorod. .

In 1378, Mr. Mamai, trying to make him pay tribute again, sent an army to Russia led by Murza Begich. Speaking to meet the Russian regiments led Dmitry Ivanovich. The battle took place 11 August 1378 g. In Ryazan land on the tributary of the Oka River. Vozhe. Horde were utterly defeated and fled. The battle on Vozha showed the increased power of the Russian state emerging around Moscow.

To participate in the new campaign, Mamai attracted armed detachments from the subjugated peoples of the Volga region and the North Caucasus; his army also had heavily-armed infantry from the Genoese colonies in the Crimea. Allies of the Horde were the great Lithuanian prince Jagailo and the prince of Ryazan Oleg Ivanovich. However, these allies were mental: Yagailo did not want to strengthen either the Horde or the Russian side, and as a result, his troops did not appear on the battlefield; Oleg Ryazansky went to an alliance with Mamai, fearing for the fate of his border principality, but he was the first to inform Dmitry about the advance of the Horde troops and did not participate in the battle.

In the summer of 1380, the town of Mamai began the march. Not far from the place of the confluence of the Voronezh River and the Don Horde, they broke up their camps and, roaming, awaited news from Jagiello and Oleg.

In the terrible hour of danger looming over the Russian land, Prince Dmitry showed exceptional energy in organizing a repulse against the Golden Horde. At his call, military detachments, militias of peasants and townspeople began to assemble. All Russia rose to fight the enemy. The collection of Russian troops was appointed in Kolomna, where the core of the Russian troops marched from Moscow. The courtyard of Dmitry himself, the regiments of his cousin Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhov and the regiments of Belozero, Yaroslavl and Rostov princes went separately along different roads. We moved to the connection with the troops of Dmitry Ivanovich and the regiments of the Olgerdovich brothers (Andrey Polotsky and Dmitry Bryansky, the Yagailo brothers). In the composition of the troops of the brothers were Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians; townspeople of Polotsk, Drutsk, Bryansk and Pskov.

After the arrival of the rats in Kolomna, a review was conducted. The collected army on the Maiden's field was striking in its multiplicity. The collection of ratias in Kolomna had not only military, but also political significance. Ryazan Prince Oleg finally got rid of the hesitation and abandoned the idea to join the troops of Mamaia and Jagiello. A marching battle order was formed in Kolomna: Prince Dmitry led the Bolshoi Regiment; Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov with Yaroslavl - the Regiment of the Right Hand; Gleb Bryansky was appointed commander of the Left Hand Regiment; The advanced regiment consisted of Kolomentsi.


Saint Sergius of Radonezh blesses Saint Prince Dimitri Donskoy.
Artist S.B. Simakov. 1988

On August 20, the Russian army set off from Kolomna on a hike: it was important to block the hordes of Mamai as soon as possible. On the eve of the campaign, Dmitry Ivanovich visited Sergius of Radonezh in the Trinity Monastery. After the conversation, the prince and hegumen came out to the people. After leaving the prince with the sign of the cross, Sergius exclaimed: “Go, lord, to the vile Polovtsy, calling on God, and the Lord God will be the assistant and protector” [3]. Blessing the prince, Sergius predicted victory for him, albeit at a high price, and set off to the march of his two monks, Peresvet and Oslaby.

The whole campaign of the Russian rati against the Oka was carried out in a relatively short time. The distance from Moscow to Kolomna, about 100 km, the troops marched in 4 day. To the mouth of Lopasni, they arrived on August 26. Ahead was the guard guard, which had the task of safeguarding the main forces from a sudden attack by the enemy.

30 August Russian troops began crossing the Oka near the village of Priluki. Okolnichy Timofey Vel'yaminov with the detachment exercised control over the crossing, awaiting the approach of a footbag. September 4 30 km from the river Don in the tract Berezuy joined the Russian army allied regiments Andrei and Dmitry Olgerdovich. Once again, the location of the Horde army was clarified, which, in anticipation of the Allies' approach, wandered around Kuzmina Gati.

The movement of the Russian army from the mouth of Lopasni to the west was intended to prevent the Lithuanian army of Yagailo from connecting with the forces of Mamaia. In turn, Yagaylo, learning about the route and the number of Russian troops, was in no hurry to join the Mongol-Tatars, trampling around Odoev. The Russian command, having received this information, resolutely sent troops to the Don, seeking to preempt the connection of enemy units and strike at the Mongol-Tatar horde. September 5 Russian cavalry came to the mouth of the Nepryadva, as Mamai found out only the next day.

To develop a plan for further action 6 September, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich convened a military council. The votes of the council members were divided. Some offered to go beyond the Don and on the southern bank of the river to fight with the enemy. Others advised to stay on the north bank of the Don and wait for the enemy to attack. The final decision depended on the Grand Duke. Dmitry Ivanovich said the following significant words: “Brothers! An honest death is better than an evil life. It was better not to go out against the enemy than, having come and having done nothing, to return back. Let's go over everything today for Don, and there we shall lay our heads for the Orthodox faith and our brother ”[4]. The Grand Duke Vladimirsky preferred offensive actions, which allowed him to keep the initiative, which was important not only in strategy (to beat the enemy piecemeal), but also in tactics (choosing the location of the battle and unexpectedly striking the enemy army). After the council in the evening, Prince Dmitry and voevoda Dmitry Mikhailovich Bobrok-Volynsky moved behind the Don and examined the area.

The area chosen by Prince Dmitry for battle was called Kulikov Field. On three sides — west, north, and east — it was bounded by the Don and Nepryadva Rivers, carved by ravines and small rivers. The right wing of the Russian rati under construction was covered by small rivers that flow into Nepryadva (Upper, Middle and Lower Dubiki); the left is a rather shallow river Small Smolka, flowing into the Don, and the dried beds of streams (beams with gentle slopes). But this lack of topography was compensated - beyond Smolkoy there was a forest in which it was possible to put a general reserve, guarding the fords across the Don and strengthening the wing's battle formation. On the front, the Russian position had a length of over eight kilometers (some authors significantly reduce it and then question the large number of troops). However, the terrain convenient for the cavalry of the enemy was limited to four kilometers and was in the center of the position - near the converging headwaters of Lower Dubik and Smolka. The army of Mamaia, having an advantage in deploying on the front over 12 kilometers, could have cavalry attacked Russian military formations only in this limited area, which excluded the maneuver by cavalry masses.

On the night of September 7 1380, the crossing of the main forces began. Pedestrian troops and convoys passed across the Don across the bridges, the cavalry ford. The crossing was carried out under the guise of strong guard units.


Morning on the field Kulikovo. Artist A.P. Bubnov. 1943 – 1947.

According to the watchmen Seeds Melik and Peter Gorsky, who had a battle with the enemy’s reconnaissance on 7 in September, it became known that Mamai’s main forces were only one transition away and should be expected by Don the next morning. Therefore, so that Mamai did not anticipate the Russian army, already in the morning of September 8, the Russian army, under the guise of the Sentry Regiment, assumed battle formation. On the right flank, adjacent to the steep shores of Lower Dubik, a regiment of the Right Hand, which included the squad of Andrei Olgerdovich, stood up. In the center are the squad of the Big Regiment. They were commanded by the Moscow okolnichy Timofey Veliyaminov. On the left flank, hiding from the east by the Smolkoy River, a regiment of the Left Hand of Prince Vasily Yaroslavsky was built. In front of the Big Regiment was the Advanced Regiment. Behind the left flank of the Big Regiment a reserve detachment commanded by Dmitry Olgerdovich was secretly located. Behind the Left Hand Regiment in the forest area of ​​Green Green Dubrava, Dmitry Ivanovich set up a select cavalry detachment of 10 – 16 thousand [5] - Ambush regiment headed by Prince Vladimir Andreyevich Serpukhovsky and experienced governor Dmitry Mikhailovich Bobrok-Volynsky.


Kulikov battle. Artist A. Yvon. 1850

Such a construction was chosen taking into account the terrain and the method of struggle, which was used by the Golden Horde. Their favorite method was to reach out to one or both flanks of the enemy with cavalry detachments, and then to reach its rear. The Russian army took up a position that was securely covered from the flanks by natural obstacles. Under the terms of the terrain, the enemy could attack the Russians only from the front, which prevented him from using his numerical superiority and using the usual tactical technique. The number of Russian troops, built in combat order, reached 50 – 60 thousand people [6].

The Mamaia army, which came up in the morning of September 8 and stopped 7 – 8 kilometers from the Russians, numbered about 90-100 thousand people [7]. It consisted of the avant-garde (light cavalry), the main forces (in the center was hired Genoese infantry, and on the flanks - heavy cavalry, deployed in two lines) and reserve. In front of the Horde camp, light reconnaissance and security detachments crumbled. The idea of ​​the enemy was to cover the Russian. army from both flanks, and then surround it and destroy. The main role in solving this problem was assigned to powerful horse groups concentrated on the flanks of the Horde army. However, Mamai was in no hurry to join the battle, still hoping for the approach of Jagiello.

But Dmitry Ivanovich decided to draw the army of Mamai into the battle and ordered his regiments to perform. The Grand Duke took off his armor, gave it to the boyar Mikhail Brenka, and he dressed himself in simple armor, but not inferior in its protective properties to the prince. The Grand Duke's dark red (cheremnoe) banner, a symbol of honor and glory of the combined Russian army, was placed in the Grand Regiment. It was given to Brenka.


Duel Peresvet with Chelubey. Painter. V.M. Vasnetsov. 1914

The battle began around 12 hours. With the rapprochement of the main forces of the parties, there was a duel between the Russian warrior, the monk Alexander Peresvet, and the Mongolian hero Chelubey (Temir-Murza). According to popular tradition, Peresvet left without protective armor, with one spear. Chelubey was fully armed. The warriors broke up the horses and hit the spears. Powerful simultaneous strike - Chelubey collapsed dead head to the Horde army, which was a bad omen. Over-the-light for several moments kept in the saddle and also fell to the ground, but head to the enemy. So the folk legend predetermined the outcome of the battle for a just cause. After the fight, a fierce slashing broke out. As the chronicle writes: “The power is great, the Tatar greyhound with Sholomiani is coming and that packs are not incoming, stash, for there is no place for them to fall apart; and Taco Stasch, the Master, the wall against the wall, every one on the curtains of his ancestors, the forerunners, and the rear ones owe. And the prince is great, too, with his great Russian strength from another Sholomiani poida against them ”[8].

For three hours, the army of Mamaia unsuccessfully tried to break through the center and the right wing of the Russian army. 3 here the onslaught of the Horde troops was repulsed. Actively acted detachment Andrei Olgerdovich. He repeatedly switched to a counterattack, helping the shelves of the center restrain the onslaught of the enemy.

Then Mamai concentrated his main efforts against the Left Arm regiment. In a fierce battle with a superior enemy, the regiment suffered heavy losses and began to retreat. In the battle was introduced reserve detachment Dmitry Olgerdovich. The warriors took the place of the fallen, trying to hold back the onslaught of the enemy, and only their death allowed the Mongolian cavalry to move forward. The soldiers of the ambush regiment, seeing the difficult position of their war brothers, were eager to fight. Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovskaya, who commanded the regiment, decided to join the battle, but his adviser - an experienced voivode Bobrok kept the prince. Mamaev's cavalry, crushing the left wing and breaking through the battle order of the Russian army, began to go to the rear of the Big Regiment. Horde, supported by fresh forces from the reserve Mamaia, bypassing the Green Dubrava, attacked the soldiers of the Great Regiment.

The decisive moment of the battle has come. An ambush regiment rushed into the flank and rear of the Golden Horde cavalry which Mamai did not know existed. The strike of the ambush regiment was a complete surprise to the Tatars. “To the great fear and horror of the wickedness ... and vozkliknusha, utterly:“ Alas for us! ... Christians have pledged themselves over us, lutchia and distant riches and commanders left and left and prepared for us; but our hands are weak, and the shoulders of the Ustash, and the knees are numb, and our horses are worn out of exhaustion, and our weapons are broken; and who can against their stat? ... ”[9]. Using the emerging success, went on the offensive and other regiments. The enemy fled. Russian squads pursued him for 30 – 40 kilometers - to the Krasivaya Mecha River, where the wagon train and rich trophies were captured. Mamai army was completely defeated. It has almost ceased to exist [10].

Returning from the chase, Vladimir Andreevich began to collect troops. The Grand Duke himself was contused and knocked off his horse, but was able to reach the forest, where he was found after the battle under a cut birch in an unconscious state [11]. But the Russian army suffered heavy losses, which amounted to about 20 thousand people [12].

Eight days the Russian army collected and buried the killed soldiers, and then moved to Kolomna. September 28 winners entered Moscow, where they waited for the entire population of the city. The battle on the Kulikovo Field was of great importance in the struggle of the Russian people for liberation from the alien yoke. She seriously undermined the military power of the Golden Horde and accelerated its subsequent disintegration. The news that "Great Russia defeated Mamaia on the Kulikovo field" quickly spread throughout the country and far beyond its borders. For an outstanding victory, the people nicknamed the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich "Donskoy", and his cousin, Serpukhov Prince Vladimir Andreevich - the nickname "Brave".

The Jagiello detachments, before reaching the Kulikov field 30-40 kilometers and learning about the victory of the Russians, returned to Lithuania with a speedy march. An ally of Mamai did not wish to take risks, since there were many Slavic detachments in his army. Prominent representatives of the Lithuanian soldiers who had supporters in the Jagiello army were present in Dmitry Ivanovich's rati, and they could go over to the side of the Russian troops. All this forced Yagaylo to be as careful as possible in making decisions.

Mamai, leaving his broken army, fled to a handful of comrades in Cafa (Theodosius), where he was killed. The power in the Horde seized Khan Tokhtamysh. He demanded that Russia resume the payment of tribute, arguing that in the Kulikovo battle, it was not the Golden Horde who suffered a defeat, but a usurper of power - Temnik Mamai. Dmitry refused. Then, in 1382, the city of Tokhtamysh undertook a punitive campaign against Russia, seized and burned Moscow with cunning. The largest cities of the Moscow land - Dmitrov, Mozhaisk and Pereyaslavl - were also subjected to merciless destruction, and then the Horde marched with fire and sword across the Ryazan lands. As a result of this raid, the Horde rule over Rus was restored.


Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field. Artist V.K. Sazonov. 1824.

In its scale, the Battle of Kulikovo has no equal in the Middle Ages and occupies a prominent place in the history of military art. The strategy and tactics used in the Battle of Kulikovo by Dmitry Donskoy exceeded the strategy and tactics of the enemy, were distinguished by their offensive character, activity and determination of actions. Deep, well-organized intelligence allowed us to make the right decisions and make an exemplary march-maneuver to the Don. Dmitry Donskoy was able to correctly assess and use the terrain. He took into account the tactics of the enemy, revealed his plan.


Burial of fallen soldiers after the Kulikov battle.
1380. Facial chronicle of the XVI century.

Based on the terrain conditions and the tactics employed by Mamai, Dmitri Ivanovich rationally placed the forces at his disposal on the Kulikovo Field, created a general and private reserve, thought out the questions of the interaction of the regiments. The tactics of the Russian army was further developed. The presence of a general reserve (the Ambush Regiment) in the battle formation and its skillful use, expressed in the successful selection of the moment of commissioning, predetermined the outcome of the battle in favor of the Russians.

Assessing the results of the Kulikov battle and the activities of Dmitry Donskoy preceding it, a number of modern scholars who studied this issue most fully did not consider that the Moscow prince had set himself the goal of leading the antiordian struggle in the broad sense of the word, but only opposed Mamai as a usurper of the Golden Horde. So, A.A. Gorsky writes: “Open insubordination to the Horde, which grew into an armed struggle against it, occurred at a time when power there fell into the hands of an illegitimate ruler (Mamaia). With the restoration of the "legitimate" power, an attempt was made to confine itself to a purely nominal, without paying tribute, recognition of the rule of the "king", but the military defeat of 1382 of the year tore it off. Nevertheless, the attitude towards foreign power has changed: it has become clear that under certain conditions it is possible to reject it and to successfully defeat the Horde [13]. Therefore, as noted by other researchers, despite the fact that appearances against the Horde still take place within the framework of previous ideas about the relationship between the Russian princes, the “ulus” and the Horde “kings”, “The Kulikovo battle undoubtedly became a turning point in the formation of the Russian self-consciousness [14], and “the victory on the Kulikovo Field secured for Moscow the value of the organizer and ideological center for the reunification of the Eastern Slavic lands, showing that the way to their state-political unity was the only tom and their liberation from foreign domination »[15].


Monument-column, made according to the project of A. P. Bryullov at the plant of C. Byrd.
Installed on the Kulikovo Field in 1852 at the initiative of the first researcher
Battle of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod S. D. Nechaev.

Times Horde invasions of the past. It became clear that in Russia there are forces capable of resisting the Horde. The victory contributed to the further growth and strengthening of the Russian centralized state and raised the role of Moscow as a center of association.

[1] September 21 (September 8 on the Julian calendar) in accordance with the Federal Law 13 March 1995 No. 32-FZ “On Days of Military Glory and Memorable Days of Russia” is the Day of Military Glory of Russia - Victory Day of the Russian regiments led by Grand Prince Dmitry Donskoy over the Mongol-Tatar troops in the Battle of Kulikovo.
[2] Annals collection, called the Patriarch or Nikon chronicle. PSRL T. XI. SPb., 1897. C. 27.
[3] Cit. by: Borisov N.S. And the candle would not fade away ... Historical portrait of Sergius of Radonezh. M., 1990. C.222.
[4] Nikon chronicle. PSRL T. XI. C. 56.
[5] A. Kirpichnikov Kulikov battle. L., 1980. C. 105.
[6] This number is calculated by the Soviet military historian E.A. On the basis of the total population of the Russian lands, taking into account the principles of manning troops for all-Russian campaigns. See: E.A. Razin History of military art. T. 2. SPb., 1994. C. 272. The same number of Russian troops determines and A.N. Kirpichnikov. See: A.N. Kirpichnikov. Decree. cit. C. 65. In the writings of historians of the XIX century. this number varies from 100 thousand to 200 thousand people. See: N. Karamzin History of Russian Goverment. T. V. M., 1993.S. 40; Ilovaisky D.I. Collectors of Russia. M., 1996. C. 110 .; Solovyov S.M. The history of Russia since ancient times. Book 2. M., 1993. C. 323. Russian chronicles give extremely exaggerated data on the number of Russian troops: Resurrection chronicle - about 200 thousand. See: Resurrection chronicle. PSRL T. VIII. SPb., 1859. C. 35; Nikon Chronicle - 400 thousand. See: Nikon Chronicle. PSRL T. XI. C. 56.
[7] See: R.G. Skrynnikov Battle of Kulikovo // Battle of Kulikovo in the history of the culture of our Motherland. M., 1983. C. 53-54.
[8] Nikon chronicle. PSRL T. XI. C. 60.
[9] Ibid. S. 61.
[10] “Zadonshchina” speaks of the flight of Mamai himself-nine to the Crimea, that is, the death of 8 / 9 of the entire army in the battle. See: Zadonshchina // Military stories of ancient Russia. L., 1986. C. 167.
[11] See: The Tale of the Mamai Massacre // Military Tale of Ancient Russia. L., 1986. C. 232.
[12] A. Kirpichnikov Decree. cit. C. 67, 106. According to EA The Horde lost about 150 thousand, the Russians killed and died from wounds - about 45 thousand people (See: Razin, EA Decree. Op. 2 T. S. 287 – 288). B. Urlanis speaks about 10 thousand killed (See: Urlanis B.Ts. History of military losses. St. Petersburg., 1998. C. 39). The Tale of the Mamai Massacre states that the 653 boyar was killed. See: Military tales of ancient Russia. C. 234. The figure of the total number of dead Russian warriors in 253 thousand, cited there, is clearly overstated.
[13] Gorsky A.A. Moscow and the Horde. M. 2000. C. 188.
[14] I. Danilevsky Russian lands through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (XII-XIV centuries.). M. 2000. C. 312.
[15] FM Shabuldo The lands of South-Western Russia as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Kiev, 1987. C. 131.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 06: 16 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Our history is rich in significant events. In all centuries, the heroism, courage of the soldiers of Russia, the power and glory of Russian weapons were an integral part of the greatness of the Russian state. In addition to military victories, there are events worthy of being immortalized in popular memory.
    Federal Law of March 13, 1995 No. 32-FZ "On the Days of Military Glory and Memorable Dates of Russia" establishes the glory days of Russian weapons - the days of military glory (victory days) of Russia to commemorate the glorious victories of the Russian troops, which played a decisive role in the history of Russia , and memorable dates in the history of the Fatherland, associated with the most important historical events in the life of the state and society.
    Date September 21 - Victory Day of Russian regiments led by Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy over the Mongol-Tatar troops in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, along with many others, took a worthy place in the text of this law.

    It is very pleasant to read articles written in accordance with academic rules, you immediately feel a serious approach and professionalism to historical events.
    A very concise and detailed article in a concise version is what we need - and in the memory of the event we’ll refresh and we can tell the children.
    1. guard 13 September 2015 08: 53 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Transfer to TV Culture "Hour of Truth - from Batu to the Battle of Kulikovo"



      m.youtube.com/watch?v=RcItHfpS1qs
      1. Vend 13 September 2015 11: 29 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        The Kulikovo battle asks many questions for researchers, but one thing is a fact - this battle was. And they ended with the victory of Russian weapons.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. War and Peace 13 September 2015 12: 37 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The Battle of Kulikovo has NEVER BEEN seriously investigated. Therefore, only with the investigation conducted by Fomenko and Nosovsky it became clear that the DISCONTINUITIES between the annals of ZADONSHCHIN and the place of battle are very serious
      -There are no churches or monasteries on the battlefield
      -no burial of fallen soldiers
      no weapons
      -RED HILL from which the hill should not be clearly visible and is too far from the confluence of Nepryadva and Don
      - the landowner Nechaev on whose land it turned out to be Kulikovo Field falsified the name of the river and gave it the name unfairly NON-SPRING, at least the name of this river on old maps is unknown
      This is the “battle", but where was it? Fomenko and Nosovsky reasonably take out the scene of the battle IN THE TERRITORY OF MOSCOW ...

      http://my.mail.ru/mail/5kov-57/video/19/6049.html
      1. War and Peace 13 September 2015 12: 50 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Sergius of Radonezh with a life.icon of the 17th century, where there are the troops of Dmiry Ivanovich, and where Mamai is unknown, there is no way to distinguish ...
        1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 14: 47 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          with the same success, you can show the medieval images of A.Makedonsky :)) and seriously talk about the clash of horse knights and Saracens at Issus and Gavgamely good

          As for the icon: fragments the size of filmstrip frames were written four centuries after the battle and three hundred years after the overthrow of the MIT. During the life of Peter the Great! Did this monk even see the Tatars? Not to mention his artistic abilities (two hundred years before this daub were written “Birth of Venus” by Botticelli, “Sistine Madonna” by Rafael - compare! The monk wrote to the anniversary of the battle as he could. Point.
          But Christians (Muslims, Gentiles, Jews) and the Tatars were. Batu's son is a Christian. A. Nevsky personally brought Orthodoxy to Sarai. So, on the icon of Allah and Yahweh and Buddha and Christ, we could safely draw
          1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 15: 17 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            those. three centuries and two hundred years later, sorry
          2. War and Peace 13 September 2015 16: 34 New
            • -5
            • 0
            -5
            Quote: Tlauicol
            with the same success you can show the medieval images of A.Makedonsky :)) and seriously talk about the clash of horse knights and Saracens at Issus and Gavgamela


            exactly how did you guess?

            Quote: Tlauicol
            As for the icon: fragments the size of filmstrip frames were written four centuries after the battle and three hundred years after the overthrow of MIT

            Well, correctly, if IND writes, then the author feels a little VEOSOS, so is it worth paying attention to this ETZ?


            Quote: Tlauicol
            three hundred years after the overthrow of MIT. During the life of Peter the Great! This monk even saw the Tatars


            Naturally, at the time of writing the icon of the Tatars was gone, they left after the Cimerians ...

            Quote: Tlauicol
            Not to mention his artistic abilities (two hundred years before this daub were written "The Birth of Venus" by Botticelli


            relax dude, Russian icons on their own, and you on your own ...

            Quote: Tlauicol
            A. Nevsky personally brought Orthodoxy to Sarai. So, on the icon of Allah and Yahweh and Buddha and Christ, we could safely draw


            not so, Nevsky personally brought the Talmut to the Horde from the telaviv, greetings from Rabbi Shnipelzon ...
          3. andj61 13 September 2015 21: 51 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Tlauicol
            But Christians (Muslims, Gentiles, Jews) and the Tatars were. Batu's son is a Christian. A. Nevsky personally brought Orthodoxy to Sarai. So, on the icon of Allah and Yahweh and Buddha and Christ, we could safely draw

            Well, even before A. Nevsky Orthodoxy - there were priests in Sarai, and Nestorianism even more so.
            But about the images of the Battle of Kulikovo - the basis of the foot troops of Mamaia was the Genoese mercenaries, but they were not Muslims at all. And it’s not a fact that they were ordinary soldiers either: Khan Uzbek converted to Islam only around 1320, that is, only 60 years before that, and this is too little time for a firm establishment of a single religion for the whole Horde.
            1. tlauicol 14 September 2015 05: 56 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Even before the birth of Genghis, many Mongols professed Christianity (for example, the Kereites), including and simple nukers yes
              as for the icon, it is written after three hundred! years - there is no evidence base and this whole theory that was sucked out of it by pseudoscientific request
              Poor monk, if he knew that in his battle of Kulikovo some charlatans would see a civil war, he would have learned a little in Bologna or even tied up with painting
      2. Dart2027 13 September 2015 13: 19 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Quote: war and peace
        conducted by Fomenko and Nosovsky

        And who are they?
        1. War and Peace 13 September 2015 13: 22 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: Dart2027
          Quote: war and peace
          conducted by Fomenko and Nosovsky

          And who are they?


          it doesn’t matter, never mind, take it on your chest laughing
          1. Dart2027 13 September 2015 14: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            That is, with the fact that they are just ignorant talkers, you do not argue?
        2. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 16: 40 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          One is a historian, the other is a mathematician. The authors of the new periodization in historical science. But, something, historians, to put it mildly, do not like them in the professional environment.
          Although it’s worth reading, for a change. There are interesting points.
          1. War and Peace 13 September 2015 17: 30 New
            • -6
            • 0
            -6
            Quote: SibSlavRus
            One is a historian, the other is a mathematician. The authors of the new periodization in historical science. But, something, historians, to put it mildly, do not like them in the professional environment.
            Although it’s worth reading, for a change. There are interesting points.


            scribe, not so one chemist, another nerd ... laughing
            1. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 18: 20 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              It is interesting, and from what positions (and educational level), interests and knowledge, do you judge so “critically” cheerfully?
              They are far from alone (having scientific ranks and positions) on the topic of periodization of work. Gumilev is also not favored in the scientific and historical environment, but nonetheless, the historians themselves read his works, and otherwise how to criticize.

              In order to criticize someone, one needs to have not less, but even more baggage of knowledge and arguments than that of the critic.
              Do you relate to such people or "tops picked up"?
          2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Irbis 14 September 2015 01: 31 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Dart2027
          And who are they?

          Charlatans from history :-) Although Fomenko is a good mathematician, or a professor is an academician. Good artist. He painted pictures in which he tried to convey the image of mathematical functions. According to him, even the cartoon fantastic shot. But he got into the story and we have what we have.

          I read somewhere that Fomenko and Gumilev took the idea from their teacher (I do not remember their name). Which too nobody took seriously.
        4. Lenivets 14 September 2015 01: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "Who are they?"

          And these are new and widely known (in narrow circles) authors.
          They mainly specialize in the genre - fairy tales for adults. hi
          1. Rubs 14 September 2015 07: 29 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The mathematician has every right to criticize any historian for his inability to count and the absence of logic.
            Transferring the event to 200 km does not undermine patriotism. Although it creates a known brain strain. For many, the above is permissible.
            I am more comfortable in the environment of common sense. Especially since greatness does not suffer.
            And to be filled with pride on the place where nothing is found is already difficult. As well as to believe historians in general.
            But it was all smooth.
            This is the main "evil" of the revisionists.
            Broke comfort.
            1. Irbis 15 September 2015 00: 30 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Rubs
              The mathematician has every right to criticize any historian for his inability to count and the absence of logic.
              Transferring the event to 200 km does not undermine patriotism. Although it creates a known brain strain. For many, the above is permissible.
              I am more comfortable in the environment of common sense. Especially since greatness does not suffer.
              And to be filled with pride on the place where nothing is found is already difficult. As well as to believe historians in general.
              But it was all smooth.
              This is the main "evil" of the revisionists.
              Broke comfort.

              The logic is just missing in the writings of Fomenko concerning history. And it is completely absent. The version that the Kulikovo battle took place in the Moscow region does not belong to him, it was announced much earlier.

              This is one moment. The second point, the terrain version does not deny the fact of the battle. In Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky stands a monument to those who died during the capture of the Kuril Islands. According to your statement, we cannot “fill with pride” where there was no war. So let's take down all the monuments and churches in the places where wars are kept. Do you offer this?

              Worship is not a place, but heroism.
      3. andj61 13 September 2015 21: 43 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        Quote: Wend
        The Kulikovo battle asks many questions for researchers, but one thing is a fact - this battle was. And they ended with the victory of Russian weapons.

        It’s impossible to disagree!

        Quote: war and peace
        -There are no churches or monasteries on the battlefield
        -no burial of fallen soldiers
        no weapons
        -RED HILL from which the hill should not be clearly visible and is too far from the confluence of Nepryadva and Don

        And one cannot disagree with this either: for many years of searching they found only ONE arrowhead, and even that is not a fact that it was a combat one.
        They claim that the Russians were taken to the nearest monasteries - but that’s hundreds of miles and TENS of thousands. But where did the corpses, or at least the bones of dead enemies, go?
        And now a little personal story. In the fall of 1978, I and my classmates walked around Moscow - from the Spasskaya Tower we went to Nogin Square (to the metro) past the Russia Hotel. With us was our classmate-Muscovite. He offered to go to the church, which was down from the street near the hotel. The church was active, and there was a priest. we talked to him. I don’t remember the name of the temple, but something like the Savior in Kulishki. The priest at the same time said that the expression “on the hell of a fist” comes from this place: the church was erected on the site of a major battle, and tens of thousands of Orthodox soldiers who died in battles with the enemy were buried here. And he told - as a legend - that here was precisely the Battle of Kulikovo. Then I - and all of us - were extremely skeptical about the words of the priest, but now. having read a lot of literature on this topic, I will say that Moscow as a place of the Kulikovo battle is better than the one chosen is unknown as the field now called Kulikovsky.
      4. Severomor 14 September 2015 01: 11 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        This is the “battle", but where was it? Fomenko and Nosovsky reasonably take out the scene of the battle IN THE TERRITORY OF MOSCOW ...

        I agree with everything and add:
        Peresvet killed and buried in the Simon Monastery, with Oslyaby together. What is it like? Well, with Oslyaby it is clear that he died from wounds.
        Over 200 km. Peresvet drove what to bury in Moscow? On a cart? Or was there a "funeral bureau" with freezing?
        1. tlauicol 14 September 2015 06: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          the "bureau" regularly dragged corpses over two hundred kilometers - for example, the body of A. Nevsky 130 years before was brought to Vladimir the same 200 km - a common practice of those years.
      5. ism_ek 14 September 2015 12: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: war and peace
        -There are no churches or monasteries on the battlefield
        -no burial of fallen soldiers
        no weapons
        This can be said about all the battles of those years. Where was the battle of the Kalka river? Where would the battle of Molodi be? Where was the standing on the Ugra River?
    4. Rarog 13 September 2015 12: 49 New
      • 15
      • 0
      +15
      Quote: SibSlavRus

      It is very pleasant to read articles written in accordance with academic rules, you immediately feel a serious approach and professionalism to historical events.
      A very concise and detailed article in a concise version is what we need - and in the memory of the event we’ll refresh and we can tell the children.


      Especially now this moment is straight ahead and is full of serious approach ...
      The brothers' troops included Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians; the townspeople of Polotsk, Drutsk, Bryansk and Pskov.


      What are such Ukrainians and Belarusians in the XNUMXth century? Or did the Soviet national policy of dividing the Russian ethnos into three different peoples begin long before the XNUMXth century (I’m not talking about the same attempts by the Poles and Austrians, because they were realized only by “God chosen” from the CPSU (b))? Let those lands were under the control of the Lithuanians, but the state was called the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russian and Zhemoyt. The composition of the population can be easily found on the vast expanses of Tyrnet (the Russian population prevailed), and the mention of the official language, Russian, speaks about something.
      1. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 17: 12 New
        • -4
        • 0
        -4
        Ethnogenesis of Belarusians (according to some scholars, historians and archaeologists) dates back to the 100th century, i.e. 150 years before the events described. They were called differently, of course, but with the goal of perceiving information (at primary school age, for example lol ), the author summarized the modern language and territorial reference. Belarusians have been an exonym and toponym (i.e. not a self-name of community and lands) since the XNUMXth century, approximately.
        The word "Ukraine" (Ukraine, outskirts, border land), also from the middle of the XIV century. (according to written sources) began to meet. From this and the "Ukrainians" went and other derivatives.
        That is, technically, the author is not lying. One can imagine that this name of modern nationalities is mentioned in the text, and generalized names of communities of people from these lands.

        Do not judge the author strictly, for links to the original text are present. And the article does not have a target audience of historians. The author completed the task - reminded the community of a memorable event and made it possible to clarify and argue where to find the truth. It’s interesting.
        1. Rarog 13 September 2015 17: 25 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: SibSlavRus
          Ethnogenesis of Belarusians (according to some scholars, historians and archaeologists) dates back to the 100th century, i.e. 150 years before the events described. They were called differently, of course, but with the goal of perceiving information (at primary school age, for example lol ), the author summarized the modern language and territorial reference. Belarusians have been an exonym and toponym (i.e. not a self-name of community and lands) since the XNUMXth century, approximately.
          The word "Ukraine" (Ukraine, outskirts, border land), also from the middle of the XIV century. (according to written sources) began to meet. From this and the "Ukrainians" went and other derivatives.
          That is, technically, the author is not lying. One can imagine that this name of modern nationalities is mentioned in the text, and generalized names of communities of people from these lands.

          Do not judge the author strictly, for links to the original text are present. And the article does not have a target audience of historians. The author completed the task - reminded the community of a memorable event and made it possible to clarify and argue where to find the truth. It’s interesting.


          Allowing such liberties in interpretations and further by one Maidan in Little Russia, we will not get along, further Siberians, Volzhans, Urals, Cossacks (all troops), Pomors will declare that they are not Russians, but, in fact, representatives of nationalities with the same names, and not just carriers of the geographical (in four cases) and class (Cossacks) naming of Russian (mainly) people living in certain territories or engaged in a certain type of activity. By the way, such conversations are already being conducted in all seriousness.
          1. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 18: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Such conversations were conducted (except, probably, the Soviet period - the socio-political structure and the goals of the state did not allow) and will always be conducted, here you are absolutely right.
            Causes and factors (external and internal), motivation and beliefs will always be.
            Some formats of society and structure (unions, federations, ethno-confessional communities, historically territorial and cultural entities, etc.) may, due to market or national interests and security, may require a change in their status. Someone wants to disperse (as in the former SFRY), someone does not want to fall apart (like the USSR), someone, on the contrary, wants to unite (as it is now territorially to the Russian Federation, economically to the SCO, CSTO, BRICS, etc.). d.).
            And here the State, with its strategic thinking and foresight, is already coming to the forefront. And, of course, by force of coercion and conviction.
            It depends on the conditions. After all, being determines consciousness.
        2. andj61 13 September 2015 21: 59 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: SibSlavRus
          The word "Ukraine" (Ukraine, outskirts, border land), also from the middle of the XIV century. (according to written sources) began to meet. From this and the "Ukrainians" went and other derivatives.

          Everything is so, but in those days there existed such concepts as Ryazan Ukraine, Vladimir Ukraine, Zaleska Ukraine - just like that, with a small letter, as the territory bordering the Field. And with today's Ukraine can only somehow compare only Chernihiv Ukraine.
  2. Mera joota 13 September 2015 06: 48 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    The author stupidly rewrote the text from the history textbook (figuratively), another praise-halve ...
    Even no attempt to analyze the sources and correlate with the facts.
    1. kalibr 13 September 2015 07: 47 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      But it’s good that he didn’t write about the south wind that Bobrok waited to perform (and every second man writes about him!), As he carried dust in the eyes of the Tatar cavalry! Our historical journalism is moving forward!
    2. Aleksandr72 13 September 2015 08: 11 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      One gets the feeling that the article about this, without a doubt, one of the key battles of the emerging Russian ethnic group for the very opportunity to survive and create its own national state, the author torn from a not very literate history textbook, without critical attitude to the content of these sources.
      Okay artist, I mean Bubnov B.N. - he has the right to his creative perception of reality, and he portrayed the Russian army in the form of a peasant militia of the century XVII - XVIII - one of the many then Russian revolts of "senseless and merciless", and not a professional Russian army. Apparently, the word militia was understood literally, and not in the sense that was embedded in the word "feudal militia" in the Middle Ages, when each vassal was obliged to appear in the army of his overlord "horse, arm" and with a servant (also consisting of professional soldiers and armed).
      The number of Russian troops, built in battle formation, reached 50-60 thousand people
      The army of Mamaia, which approached on the morning of September 8 and stopped 7-8 kilometers from the Russians, numbered about 90-100 thousand people. It consisted of the vanguard (light cavalry), the main forces (in the center there was a hired Genoese infantry, and along the flanks - a heavy cavalry deployed in two lines) and a reserve.

      Another pearl from the history books of the USSR. Already by the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo - in 1980, a number of Soviet magazines published a series of articles about this battle, about archaeological excavations on the Kulikovo field, and even then it was proved that a large army could not be placed on such a small field - there is simply nowhere for Studies of all the sources already available then concluded that on this field there were two horse-drawn (cavalry was the basis of any medieval professional army) armies, each with no more than 30-35 thousand men, armored and excellent about the armed. It should be remembered that Mamai was not the Khan of Zolotoryda, but only a Noyon, albeit a very powerful one, who turned these khans at his discretion. But nevertheless, he was not a khan, and therefore he certainly did not have a chance to gather a huge army, especially considering that there is not a single mention of the fact that at least one khan-chingizid from the Golden or any other Horde took part in the Mame campaign. Moreover, this campaign took place at a time when the Golden Horde and other Mongol (?) Khanates experienced far from the best times of feudal fragmentation and feud. Another pearl is the Genoese infantry. I strongly doubt that the Mediterranean merchant republic had such great interests in the near-bottom steppes that it sent large forces to help Mamaia, even for a lot of money. Historians say that this was a mercenary infantry - crossbowmen and spearmen from the Genoese Black Sea colony of Kafa. But something is very doubtful that this colony contained more than 1000 soldiers (by the way it is a huge force at that time!) - merchants know how to count money and prefer to spend it on diplomatic negotiations and bribery than on the constant maintenance of a large army. But even if in Café and Ball this is the same 1000 professional soldiers, it is very doubtful that the colony of them all lost to Mamay.
      Regarding the losses incurred - if the army of Mamai was really the army of the Zolotorda Khanate and was completely defeated in this field, the Horde khan (real!) Tokhtamysh could not have made a devastating punitive expedition to Russia in a couple of years and could not capture and burn Moscow, even by deception. By the way, the winner of Mamaia - Prince of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy then escaped from his capital, supposedly to gather an army, that same feudal militia, and Moscow was protected by the remaining professional soldiers and ordinary citizens.
      I have the honor.
      1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 08: 38 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        open googlemap and look at this field. 100 sq. Km (10 per 10 km). it fits 8 settlements. in 1 sq km exactly a million square meters. count - 1000sq meters per warrior.

        as for the army of Tokhtamysh, since 1377 he had been fighting with Mamai - i.e. each had his own army - what was the problem? Mamaia’s army is defeated, Tokhtamysh is in chocolate and takes wounded Moscow
        1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 09: 08 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          what minus? google map does not open or you cannot multiply 10 by 10? with a total number of troops of 150, for each pair of fighting soldiers there is a rectangle of 000 by 50 meters of the Kulikovo field! enough?
          1. Aleksandr72 13 September 2015 10: 59 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Are you so sure about this? Google maps are modern. Whereas in the XIVth century the area of ​​Kulikovo field was significantly smaller than now - you know forest oak forests denser and larger in size. In addition, you do not take into account the presence of hills, ravines, the same forests, as well as rivers and rivulets, which, with the total significant area of ​​the field, significantly reduce it, let us say so usable area, i.e. suitable for deployment and use of mounted troops. This was well known back in 1980, when on this score, for the 600th anniversary of the battle, there were numerous publications in the Soviet press.
            As for Tokhtamysh, I am well aware that the latter, by the time of the Battle of Kulikovo for several years, with the direct support of Timur Tamerlan, had been fighting for the Golden Horde throne with the henchmen of the Beklari Bey Mamai - the Golden Horde khans Uruk Khan, Toktakia and Timur Malik. In the spring of 1378, after the eastern part of the Golden Horde with its capital in Sygnak fell, Tokhtamysh invaded the western part controlled by Mamai. By April 1380, Tokhtamysh managed to capture the entire Golden Horde all the way to Azov, including the capital, Saray-Berke. Therefore, I assert that on the Kulikovo field the Russian army of Prince Dmitry fought not with the army of the Golden Horde as a khanate, but with the army that the undoubtedly talented Mamai managed to collect, who in Soviet history textbooks was titled the khan of that Horde (which the latter would probably be incredible rejoiced - being a very honest and power-hungry man, Mamai strove for supreme power in the Golden Horde, but not being a Genghiside he did not have the right to claim the khan's throne - you know Yasa Genghis Khan!). Read my comment carefully:
            Regarding the losses incurred - if the army of Mamai was really the army of the Zolotorda Khanate and was completely defeated in this field, the Horde khan (real!) Tokhtamysh could not have made a devastating punitive expedition to Russia in a couple of years and could not capture and burn Moscow, even by deception.

            By the way, as already noted above: Tohtamysh, taking advantage of the defeat of Mamai in the Battle of Kulikovo and the weakening of his position, with the help of Timur himself, seized the throne of the united Golden Horde, killing the Mekay beclari-bek. Further, a victorious campaign against the Principality of Moscow, during which part of the Khan's Horde army was defeated at Volok Lamsky. Then Khan Tokhtamysh decided to "thank" Tamerlane and went on a campaign against the latter, was defeated, then the khan's throne. This is briefly.
            I have the honor.
            1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 14: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              You easily take for granted that the field fit and maneuver for 35 thousand. cavalry (70 thousand horsemen), but do not believe that 150 thousand will fit there. in a frontal collision (without any roundabout maneuvers, head-on-head and 110 thousand. of which it is infantry).
          2. Severomor 14 September 2015 01: 16 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Do you have 150 all mounted or a lot of foot? If there are equestrians, then we multiply the number of equestrians by 000 (3 more clockwork horses) and think how to feed them)))))))
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. guard 13 September 2015 11: 34 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          tlauikol Today, 08:38 ↑
          open googlemap and look at this field. 100 sq. Km (10 per 10 km). it fits 8 settlements. in 1 sq km exactly a million square meters. count - 1000sq meters per warrior.

          as for the army of Tokhtamysh, since 1377 he had been fighting with Mamai - i.e. each had his own army - what was the problem? Mamaia’s army is defeated, Tokhtamysh is in chocolate and takes wounded Moscow




          Mamaia supported the Principality of Lithuania, at that time very strong. Mama was defeated, and Tokhtamysh with the Prince of Moscow were about to go to Lithuania, but in Moscow a riot began, supported by the Lithuanians, the Prince of Moscow fled from Moscow. The riot suppressed Tokhtamysh, and returned the fleeing prince to rule Moscow, however, it did not work to go to Lithuania, time was lost.
      2. BMW
        BMW 13 September 2015 09: 43 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        Prince of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy then escaped from his capital


        If you look at the "History of the Russian State" by Kostomarov, then he does not praise Donskoy there absolutely, but rather scolds him. In general, the Battle of Kulikovo is inherently very ambiguous and raises more questions than specific answers. There is no ambiguity in the role of the Don person.
        This historical period, in my opinion, has undergone strong editing and hype, hence all doubts and various interpretations arise.
        Something like that gentlemen are good.
        1. Angro Magno 13 September 2015 09: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Kostomarov is a big fan of fakes. His creations should be treated with caution.
          1. BMW
            BMW 13 September 2015 10: 46 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Angro Magno
            Kostomarov is a big fan of fakes.


            Kostomarov’s “History of the Russian State” doesn’t differ much from Karamzin in the pre-Romanov era, with the exception of a few contentious issues, to which there are no clear answers even now. It is a pity that the original Lomonosov History was not preserved, it would shed light on these controversial moments.
            1. guard 13 September 2015 12: 46 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              BMW RU Today, 09:43 ↑
              Quote: Aleksandr72
              Prince of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy then escaped from his capital

              If you look at the "History of the Russian State" by Kostomarov, then he does not praise Donskoy there absolutely, but rather scolds him. In general, the Battle of Kulikovo is inherently very ambiguous and raises more questions than specific answers. There is no ambiguity in the role of the Don person.
              This historical period, in my opinion, has undergone strong editing and hype, hence all doubts and various interpretations arise.
              Something like that gentlemen are good.



              The political situation was constantly changing, alignment of forces, priorities. And it is not surprising that the view of certain historical events also changed, after which the history was rewritten, and more than once!
      3. bistrov. 13 September 2015 10: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        even then it was proved that in such a small field the large army cannot be deployed -

        - Since then, more than 600 years have passed, where the forests grew, now they are gone, the rivers have changed their channels, new ravines have appeared, so this argument of yours can be ignored.
        - Your evidence is also doubtful that Mamai could not gather a large army, he actually seized the supreme power in the Horde and could recruit numerous soldiers, but the troops of Yagaylo-Lithuanian and Oleg-Ryazan went to join him.
        - Your version about the presence of heavily armed cavalry is also in doubt, it is known that such a cavalry (according to the Western model) never existed in Russia.
        - Conclusion: your criticism of the article can be called unreasonable and spiteful.
        1. victor 13 September 2015 13: 17 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Justify the absence of churches, burials (thousands were killed), the lack of weapons, armor (yes arrowheads and fragments of swords). By the way, about the heavy cavalry - about the fact that it did not exist - how do you know?
          1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 14: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            look at the map - there are churches and monasteries and burials
            1. victor 14 September 2015 00: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              When churches, monasteries were built. What years belong to the burial ...
          2. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 17: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Burials may not be due to cremation, which was used (in addition to rituals in cults) primarily on the battlefields (Slavs are no exception), so that
            far from restricting and burdening yourself with transporting a large number of corpses over long distances (the reason, of course, is clear). But the more noble warriors could, on the contrary, be taken away.
            Or a territorial and linguistic option, in terms of change or the presence of the same name. This is a snap what could be.
            1. victor 14 September 2015 00: 34 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Oh well! Cremation in Orthodoxy !!!!!!!! You seem to be a new apostle. By the way, you can take corpses for weeks ... Even in the fall ... As I understand it - you had to finish off the wounded (even noble ones), not to take supplies (trophies also - by the way, the main trump card of traditional historians - armor was very expensive - they took everything away) - the main thing is to take away the corpses ... Hundreds. By the way, there were no traces of the burning of thousands of corpses either. Just a merchant was well done - he felt the moment - a penny , sold for millions. (Albeit at the rate). Yes now, I’m silent about the 90th, and they don’t sell it! MMM three ... THREE times !!!
              1. SibSlavRus 14 September 2015 17: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I just expressed a possible probability. Who knows what and how there really could be. And in more modern wars and conflicts, cremation is found (instead of burial). With large-scale events - they buried en masse everywhere where they died (even on enemy territory). The reasons may be different.
                Sometimes interesting things are found in the sources. Cremation was gradually supplanted by burial in the XII century. Here, of course, it could not do without Christian influence. From the XNUMXth century, the ritual of inhumation was already performed everywhere, but the pagan rite of cremation of the dead was preserved for a long time. The Vyatichi and Krivichi burning bodies were found until the XNUMXth century.
                Well, and autumn (September) is more on the calendar, and in fact in those parts the weather is quite summer.
      4. kalibr 13 September 2015 19: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        You are absolutely right relativity of the Genoese. The entire garrison of the fortress in Sudak in the 14 century consisted of 26 or 28 people - they were paid by the magistrate. And this is what a fortress! Yes, all the fortresses of Crimea to bare, and 1000 spearmen will not be typed!
  3. Rock_n_roll 13 September 2015 07: 16 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    To the author of two, read Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov and you will be happy.
    1. bistrov. 13 September 2015 12: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What do you bother with this Gumilyov everywhere? I read it, well? Breshet like a gray gelding!
      1. Irbis 14 September 2015 01: 52 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Gumilev is one of those historians who made a throw-in that the Mongol yoke did not exist, but was the Great Tataria. It can be understood as he specialized in the history of steppe peoples, including the Mughals.

        One of his opponents was the writer publicist Chivilikhin, who, in opposition to Gumilev, wrote a novel essay "Memory", where he devoted almost half of the book to the history of Russia from Rurik to the attack of Batu.

        By the way, Chivilikhin agrees with Gumilyov that there was no yoke as such. But unlike Gumilev, he believed that there was a non-stop 300x summer war and Dmitry Donskoy was not the first prince who defeated the Horde. Just somehow for the passion of the Kulikovo battle, all the other princes and victories faded into the background or even forgotten.
      2. ASK505 16 September 2015 13: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: bistrov.
        What do you bother with this Gumilyov everywhere? I read it, well? Breshet like a gray gelding!


        And what is better than Mazepa or Taras Shevchenko?
  4. Bator 13 September 2015 07: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Mom was something like a general. Yes, the Tatars lost this battle, but Russia still continued to pay tribute.
    1. Andrey77 13 September 2015 11: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      For what you slammed minus is unclear. Indeed, Russia continued to pay tribute until 1471 (the Battle of Kulikovo - 1380). Almost a hundred years after the battle was still paid.
    2. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 17: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The result of that battle is not "paying tribute." Carefully read the last sentence of the article.
      Russia has not yet become a centralized state, so someone paid.
      And who can know how much this tribute has since decreased, and how has it causally changed?
  5. Nagaibak 13 September 2015 07: 42 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    This should be an illustration of the fight between Peresvet and Chelubey. Artist Ryzhenko.
    1. Rarog 13 September 2015 13: 01 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, Pavel Viktorovich Ryzhenko was an artist from God, he has many other worthy paintings, it is a pity he left this mortal land so early.
    2. cumastra1 13 September 2015 13: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Sorry for ignorance - who's in the background? Horde or ours?
      1. Rarog 13 September 2015 13: 48 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Similar to the Horde and Genoese (presumably).

        The author has only such a comment on the picture at his office. website:

        "Peresvet defeated Chelubey. But why did he defeat the best fighter in all of Asia, who, as a saint, is still being prayed in Tibet? There are many answers to this question, but the most correct one, in my opinion, is that. He, Peresvet, schemons Alexander, buried alive by the Monk Sergius still alive in the Lavra, rode dead to Kulikovo for everything but love, he loved this giant baby, he obeyed his avba Sergius, who barely reached the shoulder of his child. He did not notice the difficulties of the monthly campaign - he was waiting, waiting for his moment and waiting. Let this moment of triumph come out! No, not the one depicted in the picture, but the real one. Spiritual.
        Maybe the viewer will see in my picture what I could not convey on the canvas, and then the goal of my work will be achieved. "
  6. tihon4uk 13 September 2015 09: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Russians fought with Russians and Tatar warriors were on both sides. Again they brought a barrel organ about the Golden Horde about the tribute paid, apparently they firmly drove this nonsense into our heads.
    1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 09: 10 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Videmo you tell us about the icon of the 17th century now to prove this nonsense?
    2. Nagaibak 13 September 2015 09: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      tihon4uk "The Russians fought with the Russians and the Tatar warriors were on both sides. Once again they brought the barrel organ about the Golden Horde about the tribute paid, apparently they solidly drove this nonsense into our heads. imho"
      They got the barrel organ)))) Now the Tartararians will catch up.))))
  7. Filxnumx 13 September 2015 09: 03 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    To the author minus. The previous commentators are right: the article is the next repetition of a hackneyed mantra, without the slightest attempt at least some analysis of the texts of the chronicles and the facts available today.
  8. parusnik 13 September 2015 09: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Indeed, a significant battle ... We must remember, the exploits of our ancestors ... But do not subject them to critical analysis ... they say there was nothing, and not so ... You can forget yourself then ... This is me about the comments .. to the article ..
    1. Nagaibak 13 September 2015 09: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      parusnik "really, a momentous battle ... We must remember the deeds of our ancestors ... But do not subject them to critical analysis .. they say there was nothing, and not so .. You can forget yourself then ... It's me about the comments .. article .. "
      Bravo !!!))) I try to convey this simple thought to some deer on our site. While hard))) does not reach.)))
    2. sevtrash 13 September 2015 11: 07 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: parusnik
      Indeed, a significant battle ... We must remember, the exploits of our ancestors ... But do not subject them to critical analysis ... they say there was nothing, and not so ... You can forget yourself then ... This is me about the comments .. to the article ..

      Is it kind of stupid to sit, stupidly read and stupidly put a plus and that's all? And then you don’t need to read anything, and you don’t need to be interested, since there are no thoughts. Since there are no thoughts, then you don’t know anything, it turns out.
      Is it really not interesting to know how everything was? And doubt is the criterion of truth.
      1. Andrey77 13 September 2015 11: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But the comrade has one thought - you need to remember the feat of the ancestors. That's it and ends in his head.
      2. parusnik 13 September 2015 11: 52 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        Do you know what the most miserable story in the world ..? The Russian ... this is her poor, they’ve been dissecting for the last 30 years .. they’re cutting, they are sewing on something extra ... okay foreign .. here it’s clear, a propaganda war .. it’s necessary to sow doubt among the people, because people who don’t know their history, have no future and take it with their bare hands ... But when they start to do it .. And the most characteristic thing is that none of them dissects and cuts Russian history .. Doesn’t doubt the history of the West, USA .. Everything is honest and truthful there ... And Julius Caesar was around, and F. Drake circled the world at the “Golden Lan”, and the 100-year-old war .. We had nothing, the Neva battle, Lake Peipsi, the Kulikovo battle. .Suvorov Alps did not cross, and if crossed, then not the Alps and mountains .. and in the wrong place .. It is already doubted that the Battle of Kursk was .. say mass there are no burials, and Russia, too, was not .. Tartaria was ... I understand that it is ridiculous, with my naive view of history .. but I have something to be proud of ..
        1. sevtrash 13 September 2015 13: 17 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          History is blasted where possible - where a different opinion is not welcomed / forbidden. The Battle of Kulikovo during the Soviet era was a kind of pathos pastoral / epic story about the collapse of the invaders - the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Are you worried about the possibility of doubts about the heroism / heroism of our compatriots? There is no reason for doubt here - the struggle against the invader / oppressor, victory. As for the epic / pastoral - they believe in fairy tales in childhood, then it turns out that there is no black and white, everything is in gradations.
          What is wrong with this - to know not only a fairy tale, but the situation as close as possible to truth in the Battle of Kulikovo, as well as in other historical events?
          Of course, this is harder, because you need to read more, different and conflicting sources, correlate with what you read earlier, correlate with your common sense and experience. It’s easier to read, put a plus for patriotism and move on. It is very interesting?
          1. parusnik 13 September 2015 15: 11 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The Battle of Kulikovo during the Soviet era was a kind of pathos pastoral / epic story about the collapse of the invaders - the Tatar-Mongol yoke...This pastoral, was created much earlier before the USSR- "Zadonshchina or the Word of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, how they defeated the adversary of their king Mamaia", "The Tale of the Mamaev Massacre" - monuments of ancient Russian literature of the end of 14 -the beginning of the 15th century ... Information about the Battle of Kulikovo is also contained in other works of Old Russian writing, these are the "Brief Chronicle Tale" and "The Wide Chronicle Tale" about the Battle of Kulikovo. In addition, the short story of secondary origin contains a story about her life and the repose of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, and the story about the meeting before the battle of Dmitry Donskoy with Sergius of Radonezh and about sending Peresvet and Oslyaby to the battle is contained in The Life of Sergius of Radonezh. Brief mention of the Battle of Kulikovo was also preserved by two Prussian chroniclers, contemporaries of the event: Johann Poschilge and Dietmar Lübeck. Many songs and legends about the massacre on the Don have survived. It is possible that "Zadonshchina" is a written processing of a "song of fame and guselnyh words" of storytellers of the 8th century. According to some historians, the original basis of the “Tale of the Mamaev Massacre” was also made up of the traditions and “guselnye words” of folk storytellers. Respect for folk traditions and later chronicles, however, they should be subjected to critical analysis. So, in the “Tale of the Mamaev Massacre” and in the “Zadonshchina” one can find a number of egregious inconsistencies of historical reality. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly compare these sources with annals and archaeological evidence. I will not give examples of inconsistencies. Read these works and understand ... For me, September 1380, XNUMX is the day of military glory of Russia ...believe in fairy tales in childhood.. A fairy tale, a lie .. there is a hint in it, a lesson for good fellows .. Popular wisdom .. Not for you ..
            1. sevtrash 13 September 2015 16: 30 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: parusnik
              A fairy tale, a lie .. an hint in it, a lesson for good fellows .. Folk wisdom .. Not for you ..

              What is so gloomy - "... not for you ..."? Everything for us that we perceive. Any information is useful, but any information is subject to critical consideration. Here, in the article, it was a question of the Battle of Kulikovo as a historical event, and not of a work of art, fairy tale, were. Although they are subject to reflection and criticism, but already more on a different plane - artistic value.
              I, like many others, are interested in how everything happened in reality, or at least as close to it as possible. And this without views from all sides cannot be achieved.
              One can repeat again - the heroism of the Russians in Kremenets, Pereyaslyaemly, Podillia, Drunk, Vozhe, Kulikovo field is beyond doubt. As well as the fact that often the Russians fought with the Russians together, the Hordes are a civil war. But it is also true that the yoke did not end after the Battle of Kulikovo, it ended more than 100 years later.
        2. Andrey77 13 September 2015 14: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Kindergarten. And yes, you're funny. History is a science.
          1. parusnik 13 September 2015 15: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I’m not afraid to look funny, unlike you .. and with you, I’m not a Brudershaft, I didn’t drink .. that you could talk to me about “you” .. Can you object specifically? And do not express your emotions? History is science.. Excuse me where did you study this science? University? Institute? Participated in archaeological expeditions, which?
        3. Iline 13 September 2015 16: 03 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: parusnik
          Do you know what the most miserable story in the world ..? The Russian ... this is her poor, they’ve been dissecting for the last 30 years .. they’ve cut, sew, something extra ... okay, foreign ones.

          I agree with your opinion. Only talking about the last thirty years is not entirely appropriate.
          Why do we have very vague knowledge of our own history since the inception of the Russian state? No one asked himself this question?
          You just need to look at the ancient Russian annals and everything will fall into place. I don’t know where it came from, but the method of presenting historical events is very interesting. Well, for example, the prince so-and-so put the boyar of such and such in a pit then and there. For what? What did not divide? Silence ... Or the khan so-and-so ran there and then, burned a lot, filled a lot. What did you run, how much sank? Silence ... In the annals you will never find a simple description even of the appearance of the great princes. What were they - pockmarked, oblique, high, low, black, red? The riddle ...
          We have much from the surviving notes of various ambassadors and just travelers from Persia to, as they say now, Western countries. There, written sources give at least some kind of semantic link and present the described person with all its advantages and disadvantages.
          And our original annals have been preserved in their original form very, very little. Basically, these are the so-called "lists" from the annals. They were written at different times, but, as a rule, when there were no eyewitnesses of the described events. And for the sake of a particular person in power from a particular dynasty, the events could be interpreted very freely.
          But you won’t erase words from a song. There were great achievements in our state, and everyone recognizes this. But where they actually happened, exact dates, etc. - This is more a matter of historians, rather than writers.
        4. victor 14 September 2015 00: 48 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes, the question is not whether they are being prepared or restored. The question is when and who wrote this story (take an interest). And why wild Slavs suddenly appeared on these lands (an official story that you are proud of) wild morons and called the Vikings (Vikings) by them to rule - because they themselves were so stupid that they couldn’t rule themselves (official history). Tartaria, too, from there is a great, but not written, state. It looks like it was the Golden Horde. But if the dating and place of the event are incorrect, then history may not right? Just people want r zobratsya and historians are trembling for their knowledge and privilegii.Kstati, about the battle, which was attended by thousands and hundreds of thousands of write - this is normal (even the BBC occasionally blurts out - like the country's population of 500 000, and the troops at the bit 150 000) ...
    3. Andrey77 13 September 2015 11: 32 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      With a bang patriotism you will not go far. A critical analysis is necessary in order to learn the lessons and not step on the same rake.
      1. parusnik 13 September 2015 12: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        For God's sake, smile take an analysis and shout down .. smile Only this was already in the Soviet era, before the war .. until the end of the 30s .. The whole history, before the Soviet period, was a continuous class struggle, Suvorov, Pushkin and others — landowner exploiters, Peter I, Ivan the Terrible and other extremely bloody tyrants .. And another bias was later after the war, Russia is the birthplace of elephants, etc. etc..But the comrade has one thought - you need to remember the feat of the ancestors. ..And I do not make you remember ... you forget .. why do you-With a bang patriotism you will not go far
        1. Andrey77 13 September 2015 14: 43 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Urya patriot? What for us history, we have the feat of ancestors!
          1. parusnik 13 September 2015 15: 17 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            September 8, 1380, even in Soviet times, was remembered as the day of military glory of Russia .. why do you need to .. This day to honor .. you are a historian .. forgive and the exploits of ancestors at different times is not history? Pobasenki according to your ..?
        2. BMW
          BMW 13 September 2015 14: 59 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: parusnik
          Do you know what the most miserable story in the world ..? Russian ... this is her poor, they’ve been dissecting for the last 30 years .. they’re cutting, sewing, something extra ..


          And before that, they did not rewrite it?
          Therefore, questions arise.
          Someone doubts that there was a Battle of Kulikovo - no.
          In its meaning for Russia - no.
          Just a lot of inconsistencies. Real science is based on facts, and there are many white spots. That's why people want to understand how it really was. What is bad about this?
          1. parusnik 13 September 2015 15: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And before that, they did not rewrite it?And who rewrote it before? They rewrote: “Zadonshchina or the Word about the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and about his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, how they defeated the adversary of his king Mamaia,” “The Tale of the Mamaev Massacre,” “A Brief Chronicle Tale,” “A Wide Chronicle Tale,” “The Word of the life and death of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, "The Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, Nikon Chronicle. What are these sources and works copied? When? September 8, 1380 .. the day of military glory of Russia, for me ... as for you and for the rest it is your own business, sort it out .. Maybe during the proceedings you will come to the conclusion that this is not a day of military glory .. and so .. on a picnic on the side of the road .. Yes it’s not worth mentioning about it .. Or as the previous speaker said in my address:Urya patriot? What for us history, we have the feat of ancestors!
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. War and Peace 14 September 2015 11: 19 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: parusnik
              And before that they didn’t rewrite it? And who wrote it before that?


              Well, who, who? have you heard of the Milerabaraschlotser? Until the mid-19th century, there were almost no Russians in the Russian Academy of Sciences, only Germans, what did they do? so they rewrote us history, non-Russians are not needed ...
      2. SibSlavRus 13 September 2015 18: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Just such events for patriotism are laid down in federal laws as memorable events and days of military glory. And historical science at the school level sets slightly different goals and objectives. Just the ideal perception prevails over the critical. For Russia needs patriotic citizens, not critics.
        If you correctly, in perfect form, perceive the Great History of your country, then what kind of rake are you going to attack then?
        And whoever wishes, after that he can become a professional historian. And at that level it is already possible to improve the social memory of mankind.

        And enough is enough, the word to be pronounced with dignity is “patriotism”, to denounce in the slang term “urapatriotism”.

        For your information, due to this word we win in wars.
        1. sevtrash 13 September 2015 19: 29 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: SibSlavRus
          And enough is enough, the word to be pronounced with dignity is “patriotism”, to denounce in the slang term “urapatriotism”.

          Partly right, partly not. Any state needs cheers-patriots, some mass that can / should be encouraged to do some things related to maintaining the state, which will not think or will not think much. To maintain patriotism at the desired level, examples of this same patriotism are necessary, it is clear that they must be indisputable. Is the Kulikovo battle such an example? Yes, in any case, it is - war against the invader, victory, liberation. It is not about revising the patriotic aspect of this battle, only some of its aspects - the number of combatants, the place, the participants and the role of this battle in ending the yoke. But - yes, for people involved in patriotic education, maintaining statehood, this may not be desirable - doubts about the small can lead to doubts about the big.
          And what are you wrong with - I and many still are not at all interested in reading the retouched story, I wonder how it really was. I’m interested in comments that give other information, they don’t have to believe at all, but they are the starting point of a different view, which may turn out to be the real side of the event, previously unknown to me. With which one can argue, I will not agree and this is, at least, interesting.
  9. moskowit 13 September 2015 09: 22 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    "... and then the Horde passed fire and sword through the Ryazan lands."

    At that time, the Ryazan principality was an independent state, hostile to Moscow. At best, it respected "armed neutrality." Ryazan Prince Oleg was an ally of Mamaia.
    Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov very interestingly describes these great events of our history. Those interested and interested can see for themselves the position of the author. I will give only the final summary of the greatest historian and patriot: "The ethnic significance of what happened in 1380 on the Kulikovo field turned out to be colossal. Suzdal, Vladimir, Rostov, Pskov went to fight on the Kulikovo field as representatives of their principalities, but returned from there RUSSIAN, although living in different cities, although living in different cities. "And therefore, in the ethnic history of our country, the Battle of Kulikovo is considered the event after which the new ethnic community, Moscow Russia, became a reality, a fact of world-historical significance."
    1. Ivan_Ivanov 13 September 2015 10: 47 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      With all due respect to Gumilyov, I cannot agree with his interpretation. And Suzdal, Rostov, and Vladimir, and Pskov, and even Ryazan and BC Kolikovo field were a single Russian ethnic community. After the Kulikovo field, they simply realized this fact.
      1. moskowit 13 September 2015 13: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And right, don’t agree. This path is thorny and long. Everyone has the right to have an opinion based on the sources studied.
        Personally, having read and considered the work of Trubetskoy, Vernadsky, Gumilyov, I come to understand the union state of the Golden Horde and the Principality of Moscow until the time of Dmitry. After the natural disintegration of the Horde and the Great Reclamation, centrifugal forces tore the mighty state into a number of independent states; Moscow kingdom, Kazan, Astrakhan, Crimean, Nogai ...
  10. or
    or 13 September 2015 09: 48 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Rulers write and rewrite history, each for themselves. Since then, much has flowed. But Russia-Russia and the people's memory are one: you can’t rewrite it. We bow our heads and glorify the exploits of the Russian people in preserving and enhancing the glory and power of the Russian Land!
  11. atos_kin 13 September 2015 10: 01 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The brothers' troops included Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians;

    In how, the author is wise, there are no words of "admiration."
    1. bistrov. 13 September 2015 12: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, what can I tell you, the author is quite right in principle, based on today's realities: “Ukraine”, as such, did not exist yet, but one of the protagonists of the voivode Dmitry Bobrok, originally from the Volyn principality (then Russia), when it fell under Olgerd’s hand, he didn’t want to stay there and went with his squad under the arm of the Moscow Prince Dmitry. The Bryansk princes were generally the sons of the Lithuanian prince Olgerd. Most likely this was the basis for such a statement, which you sarcasite. About the Belarusian princes (from the territory of modern Belarus), about their participation in the Battle of Kulikovo, I have not seen data anywhere.
      1. atos_kin 13 September 2015 14: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: bistrov.
        based on today's realities

        writing about history only spoils the story.
      2. victor 14 September 2015 00: 59 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Ukraine did not exist yet - but Ukrainians ... NO! U K R s! Already there were ... We won’t remember the Black Sea dug up and the Caucasus, we just don’t have enough slogan. So, let the Lithuanians know that they are UKRAINIANs! They will be delighted ...
  12. Ivan_Ivanov 13 September 2015 10: 22 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Putin about the Battle of Kulikovo. Many, many questions, inconsistencies, silences and frauds in the accepted version of the story about the Battle of Kulikovo.
  13. Rock_n_roll 13 September 2015 10: 25 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Bator
    Mom was something like a general. Yes, the Tatars lost this battle, but Russia still continued to pay tribute.

    But nothing else that Alexander Nevsky made an alliance with the Horde against the Western Crusades against Russia, since being a brilliant diplomat, he correctly assessed the threat of the aggressive West, and the Tatar cavalry helped smash the German knights and other mercenaries. The union should be mutually beneficial, the Tatars fought, Nevsky paid. If you don’t have your own state and army, then you need to beat a stranger, it is important that there is a result. But the result was.
    1. Andrey77 13 September 2015 11: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      That's right. A plus.
    2. SokolfromRussia 13 September 2015 14: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Name at least one battle, where the Tatars fought for Nevsky?
      1. Andrey77 13 September 2015 14: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        See the story of Prince Alexander. In addition to Lake Peipsi, he had many victories.
    3. Alibekulu 13 September 2015 18: 22 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: Bator
      Mamai was something like a general
      Yeah hi A so-called. "Battle of Kulikovo" was something like "Maidan" .. bully repeat
  14. Buffalo 13 September 2015 11: 04 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Kulikovo Field is a holy place. Real men fought and died there!
    Not everyone is able to go into hand-to-hand combat. They did it and won. And it is not for nothing that it was said that envoys of many principalities of Russia came to Kulikovo Field, and there Great Russia was born in battle. And no matter how many ill-wishers try to defile the memory of our heroic ancestors, nothing will come of it. “You won't bother to the clean!”
    During the Great Patriotic War, our army repeated the feat of their ancestors, including on the Kulikovo Field.
    I am proud that this land is my small Motherland.

    Mikhail Muromov, "He is awarded the Order of the Battle," muses. Muromov M., word Monastyrev A., Pisarzhevskaya O .:
    http://www.playcast.ru/playcasts/view.php?card=541096&code=6e4494c6267b7cd89b191
    a76e92454a9d6d211df
  15. Buffalo 13 September 2015 11: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Monument to Prince Dmitry Donskoy, on the Kulikovo Field.
  16. bandabas 13 September 2015 11: 15 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    And I still cut into Heroes 3. And I like it. I do not belittle the past at all, but ...
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Buffalo 13 September 2015 11: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Church of St. Sergius of Radonezh, on Kulikovo Field.
  19. Nikita Gromov 13 September 2015 11: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Glory to our ancestors, who then defeated the hated Horde! And today, the struggle with the world Horde continues. Victory will still be ours.
    1. Ivan_Ivanov 13 September 2015 11: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To hunt? Go to the Donbass. Or are you writing from a trench?

      Undoubtedly the victory will be ours, but “cheers-patriotism” only hinders this.
    2. Andrey77 13 September 2015 14: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Hooray patriotism. Minus.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. Buffalo 13 September 2015 11: 35 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Church of the Nativity of the Virgin in the Monastery, at the burial place of Russian soldiers who died on Kulikovo Field. According to legend, the iconostasis was presented by the Monk Sergius of Radonezh himself to an old, wooden church, built on this site after the battle, from the oaks of Green Oakwood.
    King Peter I visited this temple.
    1. cumastra1 13 September 2015 13: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      But there really were excavations and is it a legend?
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Buffalo 13 September 2015 11: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Nepryadva River
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. Buffalo 13 September 2015 11: 48 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Monument to Prince Dmitry Donskoy in the Monastery.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Buffalo 13 September 2015 11: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Cross on the mass grave of fallen soldiers.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. Buffalo 13 September 2015 12: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The Don River near the Tatinki, the crossing point of the Russian army.
    1. tlauicol 13 September 2015 14: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      and then here some pseudo-historians neither see the graves nor the churches
      1. andj61 13 September 2015 22: 08 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Tlauicol
        and then here some pseudo-historians neither see the graves nor the churches

        These churches were not in the 19th century!
  30. iury.vorgul 13 September 2015 14: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Photo of the temple on 9 during the celebration of the anniversary of the battle.
    1. Buffalo 13 September 2015 19: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The anniversary of the battle is September 21 (according to the new style) or the old - on the 8th.
  31. iury.vorgul 13 September 2015 14: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Photo of the temple from 09. The anniversary of the battle.
  32. Ze Kot 13 September 2015 15: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There is a version that there was no Tatar-Mongol invasion. Just redistribution of land between honey princes.
    1. Buffalo 13 September 2015 19: 13 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      They say that chickens are milked!
      And they say that seven miles to heaven, and all the forest ...
      If someone from the country's leadership showed up in the Tatars' relatives, this is not the basis for editing a history textbook!
      1. Severomor 14 September 2015 01: 02 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        And there are arguments what was (yoke)?
      2. Ze Kot 15 September 2015 20: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Bison
        If someone from the country's leadership showed up in the Tatars' relatives, this is not the basis for editing a history textbook!


        And if there are Germans, they will write that Hitler was good? Following your logic.


        The point is that it is not very clear how a huge army appeared on horseback, with advanced siege weapons, without carts, cities or stakes, out of nowhere, conquered a vast territory and disappeared into nowhere.
        And all the annals in Russia speak and portray the "Mongol-Tatars" as people with a completely Slavic appearance.
        And how else to explain the fact that "MT" was very supportive of the Russians and the princes who fought with them together.
        And pay attention to the fact that there were several "groups" of Russian princes, and after the "end of the invasion" there was one strong one. Why not "redistribute" the spheres of influence?
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. Mangel olys 13 September 2015 20: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    This tale is not new. There is some truth, but mostly False.
    “In the Tula region, where the monument stands, it certainly didn’t exist. One of the most convincing versions says that the battle site was located on the outskirts of Moscow. Having found the battlefield, one could investigate the military personnel from Dmitry Donskoy, as serious scientists say that the grand duke led the Horde army, in which Russian princes also took part, and I have a third question: if Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Tatars, why did he mint coins on behalf of Tokhtamysh and pay him tribute? fought on the side of Tokhtamysh.
    I agree that the Russians did not want to pay the Tatar tribute, that is, taxes, even if they make up only 10% from the soul, and for Russians from “smoke”. Even today, few people want to pay taxes, including the very rich. But the state cannot live without taxes. The Russian princes before the Horde were, of course, free, and this was a value, but only the Tatars could stop their fratricidal enmity, which was also a value. Klyuchevsky, who did not sympathize with the Tatars at all, wrote: “The power of the khan was a rude Tatar knife, cutting the knots into which the descendants of Vsevolod III could confuse the affairs of their land. "The Russian chroniclers did not in vain call the filthy Hagarians the god of God, admonishing sinners to lead them on the path of repentance." Incidentally, before the Tatars, the Russian princes tore three skins from their Russian subjects. For Russian movers 10% was an unprecedented relief. At the same time, for 10%, the Tatars contained roads, pits (post stations) and provided protection for the Russians from the Teutons. Not such a big fee for such work. Today we would have the same tribute. "...
    Rafael Khakimov, Vice President of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan
    Source: http: //www.business-gazeta.ru/article/140813/
    There is such a thing - “Lucifer Effect”, and so this is happening today in our country.
  35. Leshy1975 13 September 2015 23: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is no secret that the place of the Battle of Kulikovo, which, according to historical science, is located on a field adjacent to the mouth of the Nepryadva River when it flows into the Don, has been disputed by historians to this day.

    The main reason is the lack of burial of several thousand dead and only a few found objects belonging to the XIV century.
    In the summer of 2013, the expedition of Moscow State University, headed by the candidate of physical and mathematical sciences, associate professor of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Mikhail Cherepnev investigated the alleged location of the battle Mamaev. One of such places, according to historians, may be located in the Bogucharsky district of the Voronezh region.
    Mikhail Cherepnev claims: “Kulikovo field in the Tula region is quite large, has the shape of a circle with a diameter of about 16 kilometers. To cover such a field with a line of soldiers (one meter for each soldier), 16 thousand soldiers are required. At the same time, for successful combat, it is necessary to assume at least 20 lines on each side. This is too much even for the Battle of Kulikovo. If we assume that the battle took place between the ravines that abound in this field, then it becomes unclear why the roundabout maneuver failed. The depth of the ravines is small, the total difference in elevation throughout the field does not exceed 60 meters, and the slopes of the ravines are usually 20 meters per kilometer. Such obstacles are easily overcome by cavalry and even make it possible to make its maneuvers hidden for the enemy. According to the second edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (article “The Moscow Grand Duchy”), the Kulikovo field was located on the territory of the Ryazan Grand Duchy, although it was indicated in [12] that it was in Mamaev’s land. In the Zadonshchina it is said several times that the Kulikovo field was located between the Don and the Dnieper; in The Legend of the Mamaev Battle it is written that eagles and jackdaws flew from the mouth of the Don to the Kulikovo field before the battle. In the "Zadonshchina" it is written: "And at that time on the Ryazan land near the Don, neither plowmen nor shepherds in the field cry, only crows, without ceasing, croak over human corpses ...". That is, we are talking about the fact that the battle took place on the banks of the Don, on the border between the Ryazan land and the Mamaev land. ”
    As you know, the rivers Boguchar and Tolucheeva were located watch posts of the Ryazan principality.
  36. Leshy1975 13 September 2015 23: 16 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A possible burial place of Russian soldiers was discovered on a high mound, not yet explored, near the village of Zaliman, or maybe it is the High Grave known in the Bogucharsky Territory.
    Voronezh local historian G.G. Back in 1865, Tkachev wrote in the “Voronezh Provincial Gazette”: “All almost residents of the Bogucharskogo district say that once, a very long time ago, mothers lived on the site of this county; some of the residents even indicate a place on the left bank of the Don, opposite the village of the Monastery, called the Selishch, where the mothers lived. In the village of Monastyrshchina they say that the mothers lived before the flood and came from afar. ” The camp site is very convenient. From the north - the Bogucharsky saga with a large number of lakes where you can water horses, and vast pastures stretch. In the west - the Don River, in the south - the Kazan climb with the Kalmius Sakma, and in the east - vast forests.
    As Mikhail Cherepnev writes in his research: “By the way, two gravestones in the cemetery of the village of Monastyrshchina and half-ruined slabs in the cemetery of the village of Dyachenkovo ​​were installed on the graves of ancient Russian soldiers.
    We read in the Tale of the Mamayev Massacre: “Both great forces met menacingly, fighting firmly, brutally destroying each other, emitted spirit not only from weapons, but also from terrible crowding --- under horse hooves, because it was impossible to accommodate everyone on that field Kulikovo: there was that close field between the Don and Mecheu. ”
    The field under consideration is limited in addition to p. The left Bogucharka is still the cliff Metriguz and the gully of Zabudkov yar in which Nizhny Dubyak and Smolka are recognized from the ancient map of the Kulikovsky battle. The Non-Strand profile with the Lower Du-bak tributary and another tributary on the right side exactly coincides with the profile of the Left Bogucharka with the Metriguz cliff and the Krutoy Yar beam (in direction and length). As for Smolka, this is probably one of the spurs of the Zabudkikh Yar beam, which in size could well be a river in a wetter period.
  37. Leshy1975 13 September 2015 23: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The location of the troops in the floodplain lowland explains the famous fog on the Kulikovo field. “The shelves still do not see each other, because the morning was so mannered”
    According to my assumption, the oak grove “And the prince sent his great brother ... up the Don to the grove”, located between the Tereshkovo and Galievka farms up the Don from Tereshkovo - the crossing point, is defined as the location of the ambush regiment. And the very word Tereshka is translated from the Turkic as a shallow place on the river.
    After the second expedition, Mikhail Cherepnev made adjustments in his research: “The equally famous Red Hill, from which Mamai watched the Battle of Kulikovo, is defined as the“ High Mountain ”burial ground, from where everything is really visible“ in full view ”. The Sword River to which 50 kilometers drove a running army is defined as r. Quiet (between Dyachenkovo ​​and Meshkovskaya in a straight line 51 kilometers). It is interesting to note that German chroniclers (they are also Horde chroniclers) indicated that the battle took place in the place “flavasser”, that is, “slow water” (Tikhaya river). On the French map located in the Appendix, this is presumably the Rotten Donets River.
    It is important to note that the church in Boguchar (now it has a local history museum) is the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin (recall that the Battle of Kulikovo took place on Christmas Day of the Holy Virgin, near the village of Rozhdestveno (Monastyrshchina). That is, the village of Rozhdestveno on the map - this is probably a 14th-century settlement on the site of the modern city of Boguchar. ”
    The notes of Ignatius Smolyanin, who accompanied Metropolitan Pimen from Moscow to Constantinople in 1389, give a detailed description of the south of our region.
    In particular: “... Then the transport and there for the first time saw the Tatars, a lot, like sheets and like sand. On Wednesday, they passed by Velikaya Luka and Tsarev Sarykhozin ulus ... Tatar herds were seen there are so many that the mind can not accommodate: sheep, goats, oxen, camels, horses. "
    There is another legend that exists in the villages of Teresh-kovo and Krasnogorovka. Clairvoyant Katra Derkache-va (Ekaterina Sinyukova) said that, fleeing the battlefield, Mamai lost his hat, and he would come back for it. What kind of battle did the clairvoyant from the village of Tereshkovo talk about, is it not about the Battle of Kulikovo?
    It turns out that the cavalry of Dmitry Donskoy “persecuted” after the “Mamaev Massacre” from the village of Tereshkovo “to their camp” to the area of ​​the village of Monastyrshchina (in the 50th century the horse-riding Cossack town of Donetsky was located here). This distance, according to the annals, is about 1696 kilometers. It was on this road that Peter the Great went in 1380, returning with his army from Azov. It can be assumed that the troops of Khan Mamaia in August XNUMX moved the same way to Kulikovo Field, which was reported by the village service, observing the passage of enemies.
    But could Dmitry Donskoy travel from Moscow to these places in 18 days? Recent research associate professor of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Mikhail Cherepnev is proved that, moving at a speed of 35 kilometers a day, he could freely reach the mouth of the Bogucharka River and cross the Don River. In the Chronicles of the Battle of Kulikovo it is said: “And he came out of Kolomna in great numbers against the godless Tatars of the month of August of the twentieth day. ... The great prince approached the Don River two days before the Nativity of the Holy Virgin. "
  38. Leshy1975 13 September 2015 23: 18 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Taking into account that Christmas came on September 8 (the day of the Battle of Kulikovo), we get that the army went on for 18 days. At an average speed of foot troops of 35 kilometers per day, which is a common measure of the daily transition at that time, we get 630 kilometers. The distance from Kolomna to x. Birch trees (presumably historical Birch) along the Nogai route 590 kilometers, here the army was on September 5 (met with Lithuanian troops) on the 17th day of movement. Then another “23 fields to the Don” were passed (R.E. - 37 kilometers). It may be the Kazan transportation, but most likely such a measure of distances along with the use of a kilometer indicates off-road movement and we get the mouth of the Bogucharka river.
    At the same place is a small flood meadow. From a high mountain in the area of ​​the village of Zaliman, from the mound, which locals call the "Tomb", the whole meadow is clearly visible. To his left was the entrance to the underground monastery of the Galiyev cave, the second exit of which is on the banks of the Don River. Right - the river Left Bogucharka conveniently protects the flank of the troops.
    In his research, Mikhail Cherepnev writes: “... indeed, on the map of de Lil in 1706 in the near-bottom part of the Bogucharsky district, the shading marks an oblong shape signed by“ Pole ou Campagne ”, which means“ countryside ”or“ place of battle ”in French . The whole phrase can be translated as "field" or "place for battle." In the following - Wild Field. ”
    And so, this July, the expedition led by Mikhail Cherepnev, which has been working on the search for the Kulikov field in the Rostov and Voronezh regions for three years, visited Boguchar.
    Scientists are interested described by the Bogucharsky priest A.N. Bunin in the “Memorial Book for the Residents of the Voronezh Province for 1893” contains one burial, namely: “I was born in the month of October 1833. I remember our old house in Boguchar, Voronezh province, on the island - that’s the name of the area on which now two or three houses remained ... A few steps from the house was the Nativity of the Virgin Church, built by the first settlers of Boguchar. This church was not far from a rather steep bank of the river, constantly collapsing from the spill and threatening the collapse of the church ... We found here, especially after the flood, human skulls sticking out of the cliff and whole skeletons ”. The church was called the Nativity of the Virgin, and the Battle of Kulikovo just took place on the day of the Nativity of the Holy Virgin. Arriving at the place where the memorial sign of the founding of the city of Boguchar is now installed, Cherepnev and Sergey Konoplenko and I discovered that human bones protrude from the steep bank of the river, as almost 200 years ago. We also visited Boryakivskaya Hill (Red Hill), on which, possibly, the tent of Mamaia could be located. You really can’t see from it what is located in Green Dubrava. And there was a place where the Ambush Regiment stood. They examined both the Turtle Mound and the Zalimansky grave.
    In the local history museum of the village of Dubrava, they saw numerous weapons dating back to the XNUMXth century, among them - arrowheads, spears, the remains of chain mail, a bramna, battle axes.
  39. Leshy1975 13 September 2015 23: 21 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Here is more recent information published on 14,07,2015 (the author is also not me,) I myself am waiting for development:

    Well, the first stage of the study has ended. It is known that the place of the Battle of Kulikovo is not yet established. None of the existing versions resemble a chronicle description of the place of events. Including in the Tula region. And here is another version .. Floodplain of the Bogucharka River. And here ...
    1. The description of the place of events in the annals completely coincides with the area of ​​the mouth of Bogucharka. This is the presence of two parallel flowing rivers. Bogucharka and Left Bogucharka. The hills to the left of the river are now a mountain. "Grave" above s. Zaliman.
    Dubrava, where an ambush regiment was hiding. Well, etc. When a plan for the location of troops is superimposed on a map of the area, everything completely coincides.

    2. During the construction of the fish pond, and in other places, campfires were found. Traces of the use of fire for domestic purposes by a large number of people. Bonfires found at a depth of about a meter. As you know, the Russian army stood waiting for the Tatars for 8 days ..

    3. It is also interesting that the church in the suburbs of Boguchar on the river bank is named in honor of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. On the same Orthodox holiday, the Battle of Kulikovo took place.

    Now burial is found ..
    As shown by geological instruments, the size of the pit is approximately 1600 sq.m. According to the instructions of knowledgeable people, about 10 bodies can be buried there. In addition, burial places have been found. Those. separate holes. Somehow there ... but researchers with a great deal of confidence say that the remains of many people lie in the pit. Although the devices do not exactly show this. A barrow is poured over the pit. A little off, a part of the processed granite slab found vertically was found. The stone is not local. Anything to read on it is not possible. For 000 and a half centuries, everything has been weathered. Probably it was a monument to the dead.
    Weapons are few, although they are. Found weapons samples date back to the same end of the 14th century. Pieces of chain mail are also found. Pundits explain this by saying that weapons are expensive in themselves, and protective ammunition is even more expensive. Therefore, weapons were collected, and chain mail, since they cannot be removed from a dead stiffened body, was cut into pieces and pulled from the dead. Here are the pieces more often and come across.
    For the reliability of the assumption of the place of battle, it is also said that the same weapons and ammunition are found along the route of Russian soldiers and from the place of battle. Through Poltavka, Dyadin, Radchenskoye to Rossoshansky district and further ..
    Everything, the aboveground part of the study is over. We must dig a mound. Presumably, the archaeological expedition of the Voronezh State University will do this in August. If the overburden shows the bones of Russian people with chopped wounds - consider the secret of the place of the Kulikovo battle uncovered .....
    I’ll add from myself that chopped skulls and bones are not so rare in our places. Where Don and Bogucharka wash the shore, such surprises are washed out from time to time.
    1. Severomor 14 September 2015 01: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I’ll add from myself that chopped skulls and bones are not so rare in our places

      Chopped skulls and bones are not uncommon in the burial of the Simonovsky Monastery. And what these burials belong to. Do not even be surprised - the Battle of Kulikovo or the Battle of Kulishi
      1. tlauicol 14 September 2015 06: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        or maybe to any other of the dozens of Tatars raids on Moscow? or to the Polish intervention?
  40. The comment was deleted.
  41. victorrat 14 November 2018 20: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Everything is fine, but the moronic "Mongol-Tatar" is killing. Yes, and against the Golden Horde ")))) And who was the first to congratulate Donskoy on the victory? What did Sergius of Radonezh say? Sergius exclaimed:" Go, lord, to the filthy Polovtsy, calling on God, and the Lord God will be your helper and intercessor. "Battle Of course she was, but with whom? Where are the corpses? Yes, have they collected weapons? But no one brought the Genoese mercenaries, beaten by Donskoy soldiers home, so where are the corpses?