Military Review

"The myth of the" Mongols from Mongolia in Russia "is the most ambitious and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia"

697
"The myth of the" Mongols from Mongolia in Russia "is the most ambitious and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia" Obviously, the invasion of Eastern Europe and Russia in 1236-1240. from the East was. This is indicated by stormed and destroyed cities and fortresses, traces of battles and ravaged settlements. However, the question is who are the Mongol Tatars? Mongolian Mongoloids from Mongolia or someone else? Is it not a fake "Mongols from Mongolia", launched into life by a spy of Pope Plano Carpini and other agents of the Vatican (the worst enemy of Russia)? Obviously, the West has been playing its own game to destroy Russian civilization not from the 20th century, not even from the 18th-19th centuries, but since its inception, and the Vatican was the first “command center” of the western project.


One of the main methods of the enemy is information warfare, the distortion and rewriting of genuine stories, the creation of so-called. black myths: about the original "savagery of the Slavs"; that the Russian statehood was created by Viking-Swedes; that written, culture, and the “light of the true faith” to the Russians were brought by the advanced Romani Greeks; about the "traitor" Alexander Nevsky; about the "bloody tyrants" Ivan the Terrible and Stalin; about the “Russian invaders” who captured one-sixth of the land and turned it into a “prison of nations”; that the Russians took over all the achievements of civilization from the West and the East; about drunkenness and laziness of Russians, etc. In particular, the myth of "Ukraine-Russia" is now launched in Ukraine-Little Russia, that is, Russians have cut off the story for several more centuries. It is clear that in the West with great pleasure will support this black myth.

One of these myths is the myth of the “Mongol-Tatar” invasion and yoke. According to the historian Yu. D. Petukhov: “The myth about the“ Mongols from Mongolia in Russia ”is the most grandiose and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia”. A careful examination of the issue brings up too many inconsistencies and facts that contradict the “classical” version:

- How could the semi-wild shepherds (albeit belligerent) crush such developed powers as China, Khorezm, the Tangut kingdom, march through the mountains of the Caucasus, where warlike tribes lived, crush and subdue dozens of tribes, crush the rich Volga Bulgaria and Russian principalities and almost capture Europe, easily dispersed troops of the Hungarians, Poles and German knights. And this is after heavy battles with the Rus, Alans, Polovtsy and Bulgars!

Indeed, from history it is known that any conqueror relies on a developed economy. Rome was the foremost power of Europe. Alexander of Macedon relied on the economy created by his father Philip. With all his talents, he could not have done even half of his accomplishments if his father had not created a powerful mining and metallurgical industry, strengthened finances, and carried out a number of military reforms. Napoleon and Hitler had under him the most powerful and developed states of Europe (France and Germany) and practically the resources of the whole of Europe, the most developed, in terms of technology, parts of the world. Before the creation of the British Empire, over which the sun did not set, there was an industrial revolution that turned England into the “workshop of the world”. The current "world gendarme" - the United States has the most powerful economy of the planet, and the ability to buy "brains" and resources for paper.

And the real Mongols at that time were poor nomads, primitive cattlemen and hunters who were at a low level of primitive communal development, who did not even create a pre-state education, not to mention a Eurasian empire. They simply could not crush, and even relatively easily, the advanced powers of the time. This required a production, military base, cultural traditions, which are created by many generations of people.

The Mongols did not have the necessary demographic potential in order to create a large and strong army. Even now, Mongolia is a deserted, sparsely populated country with minimal military potential. It is obvious that almost a thousand years ago she was even poorer, with small kinds of shepherds and hunters. There were tens of thousands of well-armed and organized fighters who went to conquer almost the whole continent, there was simply no place to go.

Thus, the wild nomads, hunters had no opportunity in the blink of an eye to become the invincible people-army, which in the shortest (by historical standards) terms crushed the advanced powers of Asia and Europe. There was no cultural, economic, military or demographic potential. There was no military revolution (like the invention of the phalanx, the legion, the domestication of the horse, the creation of iron weapons etc.), which could give an advantage to any nationality.

- The myth of the “invincible” Mongol warriors was created. They were described by the wonderful historical novels of V. Yana. However, from the point of view of historical reality, this is a myth. There were no "invincible" Mongol warriors. Armament "Mongols" did not differ from the Russian soldiers. Numerous archers and archery tradition is an ancient Scythian and Russian tradition. A clear and uniform organization: the cavalry forces were divided into dozens, hundreds, thousands, and tumens of darkness (10-thousand corps), headed by foremen, centurions, thousandths and temniki. This is not the invention of the "Mongols". For thousands of years Russian troops shared in a similar way, according to the decimal system. Iron discipline was not only the "Mongols", but also in the Russian squads. The "Mongols" preferred to conduct offensive actions - the Russian squads also acted. The siege technique was known to the Russes long before the "Mongol" invasion. The same Russian prince Svyatoslav stormed the enemy strongholds with the help of rams, stencils and throwing machines, assault ladders, etc. "The Mongols" could make long hikes without carts, without replenishing food supplies. However, the soldiers of Svyatoslav, and later later Cossacks, also acted. It is reported that the "Mongols" even "women are warlike, as they are: they shoot arrows, ride horses astride, like men." We recall the Amazons of the Scythian times, Russian Polarians, that is, this is one tradition.

Wild Mongol nomads did not have such a military tradition. Such a tradition is created by more than one generation, for example, the legions of Rome, the phalanx of Sparta and Alexander the Great, the invincible ratios of Svyatoslav, the Wehrmacht’s iron tread. Only the descendants of Great Scythia, the Russes of the Scythian-Siberian world, had such a tradition. And so all the countless works of art, novels and films about the "Mongol warriors" who destroy everything in their path is a myth.

“We are told about the Tatar-Mongols, but it is known from the course of biology that the genes of the Negroids and Mongoloids are dominant. And if hundreds of thousands of Mongol warriors, destroying the troops of the opponents, passed through Russia and the floor of Europe, then the current population of Russia and Eastern, Central Europe would be very much like modern Mongols. Let me remind you that during all the wars, women were prey and subjected to mass violence. Mongoloid features include short stature, dark eyes, hard black hair, dark, yellowish skin, cheekiness, epicanthus, flat face, poorly developed tertiary hair (beard and mustache practically do not grow, or very thin), etc. Described is suitable on modern Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Germans?

Archaeologists, for example, see S. Alekseev's data, digging up the places of fierce battles, find mainly the backbones of Caucasians, representatives of the white race. There were no Mongols in Russia. Archaeologists find traces of battles, pogroms, burned and destroyed settlements, but there was no “anthropological Mongoloid material” in Russia. The war really was, but it was not a war between the Rus and the Mongols. In the burial grounds of the time of the Golden Horde, only Europoids found the bones. This is confirmed by written sources, as well as drawings: they describe the warriors- "Mongols" of the European appearance - blond hair, bright eyes (gray, blue), tall growth. Sources draw Genghis Khan high, with a luxurious long beard, with “lynx”, green-yellow eyes. The Persian historian of the time of the Golden Horde Rashid hell Dean writes that in the genus of Genghis Khan, children "were born mostly with gray eyes and fair-haired." In the miniatures of the Russian chronicles there are no racial differences, and there are no serious differences in clothes and armaments, between the “Mongols” and the Russians. In Western Europe, on engravings "Mongols" are depicted in the image of Russian boyars, archers and Cossacks.

In reality, the Mongoloid element in Russia in small quantities will appear only in the XVI-XVII centuries, together with the service Tatars, who, being Caucasians themselves, will begin to acquire Mongoloid signs on the eastern borders of Russia.

There was no invasion and "Tatars". It is known that before the beginning of the XII century, the Mughal mighty and Tatars-Turks were hostile. “A Secret Story” reports that the warriors of Temujin (Genghis Khan) hated the Tatars. For a while Temuchin subjugated the Tatars, but then they were completely destroyed. Already much later, the Tatars began to call the Bulgars - residents of the state of Volga Bulgaria on the Middle Volga, which became part of the Golden Horde. In addition, there is a version that the Tatar, translated from Old Russian (Sanskrit), is only a distorted "Tataroh" - "the royal horseman."

In this way, The "Mongols" who came to Russia were typical representatives of the Caucasian race, the white race. There were no anthropological differences between the Polovtsy, the "Mongols" and the Russians of Kiev and Ryazan.

- The notorious "Mongols" have not left a single (!) Mongolian word in Russia. The familiar words from the historical novels “Horde” are the Russian word Rod, Rada (the Golden Horde is the Golden Clan, i.e., royal, of divine origin); “Tumen” - the Russian word “darkness” (10000); “Khan-Kagan”, the Russian word “Kohang, Kohany” - beloved, respected, this word has been known since the times of Old Russia, as it was sometimes called the first Rurikovich (for example, Kagan Vladimir). The word “Byty” is “father”, the respectful name of the leader, as they still call the president in Belarus.

- During the Golden Horde, the population of this empire - mainly the Polovtsy and the descendants of the "Mongols", was no less than the population of the Russian principalities. Where did the Horde population go? After all, the former lands of the Horde became part of the Russian state, that is, at least half of the population of Russia should have Turkic, Mongolian roots. However, there are no traces of the Turkic and Mongoloid population of the Horde! The Kazan Tatars are considered descendants of the Volgar Bulgars, that is, the Caucasians. Crimean Tatars are not related to the core population of the Horde, it is a mixture of the indigenous population of the Crimea and many external migration waves. It is obvious that the Polovtsy and the Horde simply disappeared into the relative Russian people, leaving no anthropological or linguistic traces. As before, the Pechenegs dissolved, etc. All became Russians. If it were the "Mongols", then the traces would remain. Can not such a huge array of people simply dissolve.

- The term "Tatar-Mongols" is not in the Russian chronicles. The Mongolian ethnic groups themselves called themselves “Khalkha”, “Oirats”. This is a completely artificial term that P.Naumov introduced in 1823 in the article “On the attitude of the Russian princes to the Mongolian and Tatar khans from 1224 to 1480.” The word "Mongols", in the original version of "Mogul" comes from the Korneslova "could, we can" - "a husband, a powerful, powerful, powerful." From this root comes the word "Mughal" - "the great, powerful." It was a nickname, not the self-name of the people.

From school history we can recall the phrase "Great Moguls". This is a tautology. Mogul and so in translation - great, he became Mongol later, as knowledge was lost and distorted. It is obvious that the Mongols could not be called "great, powerful" then, and at the present time. Anthropological Mongoloids "Khalkhu" never reached Russia and Europe. Mongols in Mongolia only from Europeans in the 20th century found out that they captured half of the world and they had a “shaker of the Universe” - “Genghis Khan” and from that time they started a business on this name.

- Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky very much acted in coordination with the “Horde-Rod” Baty. Batu struck in Central and Southern Europe, almost repeated the campaign "scourge of God" Atilla. Alexander also smashed Western troops on the northern flank - defeated the Swedish and German knights. The West received a strong blow, and temporarily refused to attack the East. Russia got the time to restore unity.

Not surprisingly, many, including Russian (!), Historians accused Alexander of “treason”, that he betrayed Russia under the yoke of “yoke” and made an alliance with the “trashy”, instead of taking the crown from Pope and make an alliance with the West in the fight against the Horde.

However, taking into account the new data about the Horde, the actions of Alexander become completely logical. Alexander Nevsky went to the alliance with the Golden Horde is not out of desperation - of the two evils, choosing the lesser. Becoming the adopted son of Khan Batu and the spiritual brother of Sartak, Nevsky strengthened the Russian state, which included the Horde and the unity of the Rus superethnos. The Russians and the Horde were two active cores of a single ethno-linguistic community, the heirs of the ancient Scythia and the Aryan country, the descendants of the Hyperboreans. Alexander closed the “window to Europe” for several centuries, stopping the cultural (informational) and military-political expansion of the West. Having given Russia the opportunity to grow stronger and preserve the originality.

- There are many other inconsistencies that destroy the overall picture of the "Mongol-Tatar" invasion. Thus, in the Legend and the Mamayev Massacre, a Moscow literary monument of the 15th century, the gods are mentioned that were worshiped by the so-called "Tatars": Perun, Salavat, Recly, Horse, Mohammed. That is, even at the end of the XIV century, Islam was not the dominant religion in the Horde. Ordinary "Tatar-Mongols" continued to honor Perun and Khors (Russian deities).

The “Mongolian” names Bayan (conqueror of Southern China), Temujin-Chemuchin, Batu, Berke, Sebedi, Ugedei-Guess, Mamai, Chagatai-Chagadai, Borodai-Borondai, etc. are not “Mongolian” names. They clearly belong to the Scythian tradition. For a long time, Russia on the European maps was designated as the Great Tartary, the Russian people were called the White Tatars. In the eyes of Western Europe, the concepts of "Russia" and "Tartary" ("Tataria") have long been united. At the same time, the territory of Tartary coincides with the territory of the Russian Empire and the USSR - from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to the Pacific Ocean and to the borders of China and India.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Russia Eternal

Russia Eternal
"Where did the Rus come from?"
The purpose of the project "Ukraine". “Russians will tear themselves with their own claws, and we will grow and strengthen”
West vs Russia: Creating the “Ukrainian Ethnic Chimera”
The myth of the "Mongol-Tatar" invasion
697 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ovod84
    ovod84 17 March 2016 06: 03
    -29%
    The reverse is nonsense. The Mongols had no traditions, etc. let's take the Huns who also traveled the same path and came to Europe. I’ll explain about the Caucasus mountains in the 1230s by cunning Derbent, sending water with the help of traitors and then moving across the plain Dagestan further into the steppe. In 1242 the Mongols tried to go into the mountains but were defeated, they could not control the mountainous areas, although the rulers were formally recognized the power of the Mongols. Recently, Ron TV said that the atilla was blond and the Huns were also bright. Better do something useful than write nonsense
    1. Nicholas C.
      Nicholas C. 17 March 2016 07: 30
      +39
      History is an object such that the more you know, the more questions. Here, for example, Polovtsian:

      Why, if the Polovtsy-Türks, the Mongol-Türks wanted to destroy them so much that, it turns out, they did destroy them - now there are no Turks in the southern Russian steppe. The Polovtsian capital Sharukan was already near Kharkov. And why didn’t they take their place?

      The Russian annals cover the Polovtsy how much in vain, words and then expensive paper without sparing. Filthy - not a curse - it's just unchristian. But in the annals even “hellish sotons” are present. (I think I rule one! Letter). However, Nestor likewise winged and Russian tribes, except the glades who converted to Christianity, while they remained pagans. All these filthy (Russian and Polovtsian) in the annals - their filthy.

      That's what. When the Russian prince took his wife from other lands, she was necessarily forced to accept Orthodoxy. And when they took Polovanka as their wives, they did not force Orthodoxy to accept. Why? At least chronicles about the adoption of Orthodoxy are not written by the Polovtsians. People build versions, they say, Polovtsy, were Christians, only Nestorians, and the church anathematized them, so the Polovtsy are filthy. But the Catholic and others at marriage to the Orthodox were forced to be baptized in the Orthodox rite. Why is Polovanka not?
      1. Nicholas C.
        Nicholas C. 17 March 2016 08: 24
        +22
        Quote: Author Samsonov Alexander
        How could the semi-wild shepherds (albeit warlike) crush such developed powers

        On the example of Central Asia. The indigenous population there is Iranian. Persia is just an ancient developed power with a great culture, incl. literature. But the SA says, except for Tajikistan, in the language of the winners - the Türks. Turkic language from the same Altai language family as Mongolian, Manchu. And according to the genotype, the Central Asians now are a cross between Mongoloids and Iranians (where more, where less). It turns out, crushed. And there is evidence of conquest.

        PS. I can explain why such a conquest was possible. Many more letters are needed.
        1. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 17 March 2016 08: 34
          +15
          Quote: Nikolay S.
          Quote: Author Samsonov Alexander
          How could the semi-wild shepherds (albeit warlike) crush such developed powers

          On the example of Central Asia. The indigenous population there is Iranian. Persia is just an ancient developed power with a great culture, incl. literature. But the SA says, except for Tajikistan, in the language of the winners - the Türks. Turkic language from the same Altai language family as Mongolian, Manchu. And according to the genotype, the Central Asians now are a cross between Mongoloids and Iranians (where more, where less). It turns out, crushed. And there is evidence of conquest.

          PS. I can explain why such a conquest was possible. Many more letters are needed.

          I read somewhere that in the 18-19 centuries in the Ottoman Empire a variant of the Old Persian language was adopted. So who was the winner? This does not mean anything.
          In Russia, for a century all the nobility spoke in French. For example.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 17 March 2016 08: 42
            +12
            Quote: Cap.Morgan
            In Russia, for a century all the nobility spoke in French. For example.


            no, it's not right, in the 18th century they mostly spoke German at the Russian court, because in fact all the nobles were Germans, and only at the end of the 18th century for some reason they switched to French and spoke before World War II, then they refused from French too, switched to Russian , that was such a "Russian" know ...
            1. saigon
              saigon 17 March 2016 16: 56
              +5
              I really wanted to learn about the German capital in the 18th century. A powerful discovery about the origin of the nobility of the Russian Empire. Probably the Sheremetyevs, Bestuzhevs, Kutuzovs and other surnames come from non-Germans? What (German) language was spoken in Russia in the 18th century? Saxon, Gessen, Barsky? And this is so offhand the largest dialects whose carriers simply did not understand each other. Do you know that only under Napoleon, in principle, the French language became common for France? Do you know that the area around the city of Paris was called Ile de France (possibly spelling confused) translation of the French island. And in the same France, with kings, there were many local dialects of Provence, Breton, Gascon, limousine and distance according to the list. And again, speakers of dialects or languages ​​(as you wish) did not understand each other. Such are the comments about the German language of the Russian nobility.
              1. AVATA-ta-R-in
                AVATA-ta-R-in 17 March 2016 17: 11
                +2
                As for the Ile-de-France, il- from the Tatar-Turkic-country- i.e. * country of francs * and how such an option - franks are turks?
                1. Mahmut
                  Mahmut 17 March 2016 19: 10
                  +9
                  By the way about the Polovtsians. Why they were called that, but because their hair was the color of the chaff. That is, the color of rye straw. They could be Germans or Irish, but not Turks. When the busurmane was taken to the "full". Full - so the Poles call Poland. Well, the Khazar coat of arms on the flag of Ukraine clearly indicates not its eastern origin. And Mamai came to Russia not from the east but from the Crimea. It is a pity that Lomonosov's archive was destroyed. Modern historians, although they find many non-junctions in the official history, are not able to create their own, fully alternative history themselves. And this is facilitated not only by meager historical facts, but also by purely departmental self-interest - if we recall the persecution of "freelance historians" Fomenko and Nosovsky.
            2. Nagaibak
              Nagaibak 17 March 2016 18: 10
              +1
              Sveles "no, that's not correct, in the 18th century they mostly spoke German at the Russian court, because in fact all the nobles were Germans."
              As always, you are talking nonsense, but nothing is the norm for you. There are all kinds of Velvet books; it is clearly indicated which of the nobles are from. These are well-known things. Although if we take into account that the Romanovs replaced all the documents)))))).
              But seriously, the Germans certainly were. But, even more nobles from the Polish and Lithuanian gentry, the Horde, etc. And with the accession of Georgia there is generally no way to spit on the prince.
              “Before being included in the nobility lists, the gentlemen of Russia belonged to the class of boyars. It is believed that at least a third of boyar families came from immigrants from Poland and Lithuania. However, indications of the European origin of one or another noble family sometimes border on falsification. here are the legends about the departure of the ancestor from the countries of the East more often correspond to reality. ”As N.A.Baskakov noted,“ often the Western origin is artificially attributed to the founder of the clan with a clearly pronounced eastern, Turkic origin surname, but, as a rule, information in genealogies about the eastern origin of the surname are more or less accurate and are confirmed by the corresponding oriental names and nicknames of their ancestors. ”Baskakov NA Russian surnames of Turkic origin. M., 1979, p. 10.
              *** We have all the pillar noble families from the Varangians and other aliens. M. Pogodin.
              “Our nobility, not of feudal origin, but gathered in later times from different sides, as if to replenish an insufficient number of the first Varangian aliens, from the Horde, from the Crimea, from Prussia, from Italy, from Lithuania ...” Historical and critical passages M. Pogodina. Moscow, 1846, p. 9.
              In the essay “On Damage to Morals in Russia, Prince M.M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790), a descendant of an ancient boyar clan, complained about the “opodlenie” of the nobility, that is, the penetration of persons from other classes into it. He believed that the new noble ranks are usually given to “breeders and merchants,” that is, those from whom, according to Shcherbatov, “grandfather stole, his son robbed, and his grandson robs” (article “Thoughts on the Nobility”, p. 78).
              Some Russian noblemen have their origin from the Grand Duke Rurik and then descend from the Grand Duke Vladimir, other noble people who have left have their origin in the crowned heads; many surnames, although they do not take a kind from the sovereign, were descended from very noble people who went to the service of the Grand Dukes of Russia, consider several centuries of their antiquity and adorned themselves with famous merits to our country. - From the speech of Prince M.M. Shcherbatova at a meeting of the Penal Commission. Sat Russian Imperial Historical Society, vol. 4, p. 192.
              Such as Buturlins, Chelyadnins, Kutuzovs declared their Germanic origin, Morozovs and Velyaminovs had Varangian roots. Some of the boyars were Polonized Western Russians. Others announced a "Prussian" origin ... "Prussian" in this case, apparently, meant Germanic. This group included the Khvostovs, the Romanovs (originally known as the Koshkins, and then the Zakharyins) and the Sheremetyevs. The Golovins and Khovrins had Greek roots. Some of the best Moscow boyar families were “Tatar” (Mongolian or Turkic). Prominent among them were the Bulgakovs, the Velyaminov-Zernovs (not to be confused with the original Velyaminovs), the Saburovs and the Godunovs were branches of this genus. The Arsenievs and Bakhmetyevs settled in Russia at the end of the XIV and in the middle of the XV centuries, respectively. Vernadsky G. Mongols and Russia, p.375. "
              1. Sweles
                Sweles 17 March 2016 20: 00
                +3
                Quote: Nagaibak
                As always, you are talking nonsense, but nothing is the norm for you.


                Well, why this excursion? It just seemed to you that they answered my words. It is enough to pay attention to such a fact as the fact that already under Peter the Great, and everything becomes clear how the "sovereign" tyrannical usurper was in charge of his best people when Peter "opened the window" then all the European shit climbed into this window. But in order to give themselves legitimacy in Russian society, they began to assign themselves Russian surnames. This is the same as now, like Ivanov according to his passport, but in fact he is bursting, and pey_saty (a joke on topvo and side_sy cannot be said), and cut off ...
                1. but still
                  but still 17 March 2016 20: 14
                  -3
                  Word BOYARINBy the way, of Bulgarian origin, in Old Russian they wrote, as in Old Bulgarian, BOLARIN (in modern Bulgarian it was left - Bolyarin), which speaks of the Bulgarian origin of the Old Russian aristocracy.
                  1. but still
                    but still 18 March 2016 00: 40
                    -4
                    Who secretly put a minus - prove that the word BOYARIN not of Bulgarian origin! smile
                    1. Seal
                      Seal 18 March 2016 01: 15
                      +1
                      I did not minus. However, I want to draw your attention to words such as:
                      - "Bauer" (German);
                      - "Boer" (Dutch);
                      - Baron. The term "gypsy baron" is also widely known. It has nothing to do with the title of nobility. Baro in gypsy means "big, chief".
                      1. but still
                        but still 18 March 2016 02: 12
                        0
                        belay How did the Germanic languages ​​influence the Old Bulgarian? What kind of historical contacts were there for this? Well, let's say your fantastic assumption that the Bulgarian word BOLYARIN comes from "Bauer" (German) belay , then the German word came from:
                        Origin:
                        Dem Wort liegen das althochdeutsche Neutrum (möglicherweise auch Maskulinum) būr (Wohnung, Keller) und das mittelhochdeutsche maskuline Substantiv būr (Vogelkäfig) zu Grunde.
                        wassat

                        You also the word Bolyarin / boyar from the word boiler print wassat
                      2. but still
                        but still 18 March 2016 02: 48
                        -3
                        And why did the Varangians-Rurikovichs not enter the German word BAUER into the Old Russian language, but used the Bulgarian BOLYARIN / BOYARIN, what did the Varangians use foreign words in the presence of their Varangian? request The Vikings would magnify their close associates in Russia with the Edelsmen ... belay or then they still have not formed edelshaft? request
                      3. Seal
                        Seal 18 March 2016 02: 56
                        +1
                        So maybe there's just Old Bulgarian nothing to do with it? What year do you have an authentic document in Old Bulgarian with the mention of this word? Can I see it?
                      4. but still
                        but still 18 March 2016 21: 00
                        -4
                        Seal (1) RU Today, 02:56 ↑

                        So maybe there's just Old Bulgarian nothing to do with it? What year do you have an authentic document in Old Bulgarian with the mention of this word? Can I see it?


                        Judge for yourself - the Bulgarian (Danube) state was formed before the state of Russia. Christianity was also officially adopted earlier. Bulgarian literature also appeared earlier. Moreover, the Old Russian state adopted Christianity thanks to Bulgarian confessors and Bulgarian liturgical books. So the first old Russian books corresponded with the Bulgarian. Yes, and Princess Olga herself was a Danube Bulgarian. So Old Bulgarian, it is the so-called Church Slavonic, very much more so.
                      5. but still
                        but still 18 March 2016 21: 47
                        -2
                        laughing Someone is minus, but WORD can not refute my words ... bully
                      6. Seal
                        Seal 19 March 2016 00: 24
                        0
                        Again. What year do you have an authentic document in Old Bulgarian with the mention of this word? Can I see it?
                        Yes, and Princess Olga herself was a Danube Bulgarian.

                        For starters, it would be nice for you to prove that it was documented at all. Moreover, at the time that the official version of the story allots to her.
                        And only then also prove that she was a Bulgarian. Or a chisel hi

                        Old Russian state converted to Christianity thanks to Bulgarian confessors
                        That is, you insist that in the beginning brought bogomilism to Russia?
                      7. but still
                        but still 19 March 2016 04: 16
                        +1
                        So you acknowledge meansthat the Bulgarians "brought Bogomilism to Russia" smile Yes, in the same way as in Russia the official Orthodox faith was "brought" smile

                        About Princess Olga. Do you question its existence? But what about Old Russian literature? Do you have any old Russian literature, in your opinion, where is it written about? But what about your ROC, where is it considered a saint?

                        As for the Bulgarian word BOYARIN / BOLARIN. In the text of the Bulgarian priest (you prompted me about bogomilstvo smile ) "Conversation against the Bogomils" of Cosmas Presbyter, 10 century you will find the word BOLYARIN (in the Wikipedia section "literature" in the text of Popruzhenko there is an alphabetical index of the words of the analyzed text, so there you will find the word BOLYARIN with the letter "B")
                        And now you find the word BOYARIN in the old Russian text,
                        written before the 10th century smile or at least 10 centuries hi

                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D1%80%


                        D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80

                      8. Seal
                        Seal 19 March 2016 12: 26
                        +1
                        So you admit, it means that the Bulgarians "brought Bogomilism to Russia"

                        What do you mean, I admit?
                        I just asked you a question
                        That is, you insist that in the beginning brought bogomilism to Russia?

                        Based on the widespread version that the Bulgarians were passionate about bogomilskoy.

                        In the text of the Bulgarian priest (you told me about bogomiliya smile) “Conversation against the Bogomil” by Kozma Presbyter, 10th century

                        The text itself, clearly dated to the 10th century, and not stories about the text - to the studio !!
                      9. but still
                        but still 19 March 2016 13: 02
                        +2
                        It’s not good to get out - have valor!

                        The text itself, clearly dated to the 10th century, and not stories about the text - to the studio!


                        I clearly indicated where on the Internet, without looking up from the sofa smile , you can read the analyzes of the text of Kozma Presbyter. Repeat again? In Google write the words "Kozma Presbyter", there is an article about him in Wikipedia, there is also one of the pages of the list of the ancient text in scanned form. Below, in the section "Literature", there are links - click the scanned book of the scientist Popruzhenko, where he analyzes the text. Next, find the alphabetical index of the words of the ancient text, on the letter "B" you will find the word "BOLYARIN". This is a sofa reading option.
                        The second option is to find in Google where the ORIGINAL lists of the text of Kozma Presbyter are stored (there are several of them in Russia), find out IN WHICH MUSEUMS or ARCHIVES they are stored, and, - go personally to study the originals of ancient texts smile
                      10. Seal
                        Seal 19 March 2016 20: 55
                        -1
                        Lord, what a nerve. You have made a completely cheating conclusion from my words and now require me to show valor in what? To get involved in your cheating discussion?

                        Why does everyone as confident as you NEVER confirm their words? Damn, well, everything is just like a carbon copy! You, that everyone was kept in one madhouse? Why does everyone always write the same thing: "
                        find in google where the original documents are stored (the name of the document varies depending on the topic of discussion) find out in WHICH MUSEUMS or ARCHIVES they are stored, and, - go personally to study the originals of ancient texts

                        Remember once and for all.
                        1. Decent people give always give a direct link, and do not give advice to search in Google.
                        2. If instead of a direct link they give advice to search in Google - this means only one thing that the one who gives such advice didn’t even see the document he is talking about.
                        3. And if the one who sends to Google to look for something that he himself did not see, then forgive me, but what should I call such a character? (you in this case).
                        4. Well, if you understand what you should be called, then I'm sorry, do not be offended if you are sent to a known address.
                        So either you begin to behave correctly and confirm your words by direct links to genuine documents clearly dated by the time of writing (in the case of Kozma Presbyter, the document should be dated no later than the end of the 10th century) - or they will just silently minus you, thereby showing your Attitude to your arrogant fraudulent voice without entering into a discussion of your voice.
                      11. but still
                        but still 19 March 2016 21: 09
                        -2
                        You have a tantrum. Take it easy. And demand the originals of the documents referred to by the author of the article where we write in room 6.
                      12. Seal
                        Seal 22 March 2016 14: 16
                        0
                        That is, you acknowledge that you, just like the author, are in Chamber No. 6, since neither he nor you have any supporting documents? With this statement of the question, I absolutely agree. hi
                      13. but still
                        but still 22 March 2016 19: 30
                        0
                        It is commendable that you out of obstinacy even began to read smile Have you read Ward 6 yet? hi Although you can read and read (I look in the book and see @ yoke)
          2. but still
            but still 19 March 2016 05: 33
            -1
            WHERE WAS THE GRAND THE GREAT PRINCESS RUSSIAN OLGA?

            Here is a detailed article in a public language:

            http://www.kray32.ru/interes010.html
          3. Seal
            Seal 19 March 2016 12: 33
            +1
            Here is a detailed article in a public language:
            I also explain in the public Russian language. Any historical book or historical article is only worth reading if photocopies of original documents clearly dated by the time of their writing, relating to the time described in the book or article of events are attached to it in the form of attachments or somehow.
            If nothing is attached to a historical book or a historical article, this means that the book or article reflects only the personal point of view of the author (group of authors) on the possible reconstruction of "ancient historical events".
            There is no need to pass off someone’s personal points of view, albeit beautifully written, as historical truths. This is stupid and ugly.
          4. but still
            but still 19 March 2016 13: 32
            -2
            An article in clear Russian gives you citations with links to specific texts. There are also quotes from Byzantine texts. You write in Google the name of the text and read about it.

            When you read a scientific text, do you read all the texts to which the author refers? In this case, 10 pages of scientific text will require at least 10000 pages of sources, on the basis of which a readable text is compiled. Therefore, so that it is not, as you say, "stupid and ugly", the authors only refer to the sources and used literature hi

            I’m already afraid that you will send me the Tale of Bygone Years, or the Word about Igor’s regiment in the ORIGINAL should be presented to you here smile
          5. but still
            but still 19 March 2016 13: 40
            0
            Well, at least you don’t send to the Hermitage for any ORIGINAL belay
          6. KaPToC
            KaPToC 19 March 2016 14: 24
            +1
            The originals of these works do not exist in nature.
          7. but still
            but still 19 March 2016 14: 32
            -1
            There are originals of LISTS
          8. KaPToC
            KaPToC 19 March 2016 17: 14
            +1
            Originals of the 17-18th century laughing
          9. but still
            but still 19 March 2016 20: 47
            +1
            LISTS 12-13 centuries original work 10 century The following have been preserved:

            The earliest texts that have reached us are considered to be three excerpts from the Conversation:

            1) “The Word of Cosmos of the Holy Apostle about those who want to be weathered in black robes” in a parchment collection of Russian origin of the XIII-XIV centuries; [1] 2) “Tell me how to order books of honor” - a passage in a Greek collection of the XIII century; [2] 3) “The Word of the Church Rank” - excerpt on a parchment sheet XII-XIII centuries. [3] and the revision of “On the doctrine of faith” - in the Serbian collection of the late XIII — beginning of the XIV century., Owned by P. Srechkovich


            You laugh, but be consistent and principled - if you do not recognize the work of the Bulgarian monk Presbyter Kuzma "Conversations against the Bogomils" 10 century и LISTS his works 12-14 centuriesthen do not recognize and dating The Tale of Bygone Years (12th century), as the original is not preserved, but there are only lists in the Lavrentievsky and Ipatievsky arches of the 14-15th century. But how do we relate to the masterpiece of ancient Russian literature, A word about Igor's regimentwhose not only the original has not been preserved, but there are no lists either? request
          10. but still
            but still 20 March 2016 13: 32
            0
            Seal, what are you silent? You got into an argument, wrote a lot of bukof, I proved to you that the word BOLYARIN / BOYARIN is of Bulgarian origin. Now you are pleased to find the word Boyarin, mentioned earlier than in Bulgarian, in the ancient Russian books hi
          11. Seal
            Seal 22 March 2016 14: 28
            0
            I proved to you that the word BOLYARIN / BOYARIN is of Bulgarian origin.

            What-oooh ??? You "proved" ??? fool
          12. but still
            but still 22 March 2016 19: 39
            0
            Take off your silly stubborn glasses and see hi
      2. Seal
        Seal 22 March 2016 14: 27
        0
        But what about the masterpiece of ancient Russian literature, the Word about Igor's regiment, whose not only the original has not been preserved, but there are no lists?

        Treat him exactly as Catherine II reacted to him when Musin-Pushkin tried to hand her this "masterpiece" of yours, counting on a reward. She showed no interest in your "masterpiece". Which made Musin-Pushkin very sad. It turned out that it was enough for Catherine II to have a quick look at this "masterpiece" in order to understand what it really is.
      3. but still
        but still 22 March 2016 19: 37
        0
        But what about the RAS (Russian Academy of Sciences)? belay You out of obstinacy act unpatriotic negative It is even mildly said. To be more precise, it is harmful hi
      4. Seal
        Seal 27 March 2016 22: 23
        0
        In 1937, did your grandfather or your grandmother prove that they were right in everyday matters in the same way — knocking on neighbors in the NKVD that neighbors are wreckers and enemies of the people?
        If there is evidence - I do not need any Academy, that with anything that has been proved is to agree.
        And if there is NO evidence, then at least refer to three Academies. But there was no evidence, and never will be. Accordingly - my consent will not agree with the unproven.
  2. Seal
    Seal 22 March 2016 14: 22
    +1
    I’m already afraid that you will send me the Tale of Bygone Years, or the Word about Igor’s regiment in the ORIGINAL should be presented to you here

    Do not be afraid. After you admitted that you, along with the author of the article, are in ward No. 6 - I will not demand anything from you.
    Especially since you, as an honorary patient of Chamber No. 6, cannot reach, that I am always talking about DOCUMENTS.
    And for some reason you suddenly decided to be afraid that I would start demanding the originals of fiction from you: PVL and SPI.
    Take the medicine or little bump and calm down.
    Firstly, neither PVL nor SPI are documents;
    Secondly, their originals do not exist in nature;
    In the third, even Catherine II did not recognize SPI. And then she understood a lot about history, since she herself had contributed a lot to the ancient history of Russia.
  3. but still
    but still 22 March 2016 20: 00
    0
    You have personally sunk into a puddle of your own ignorance. So not only have you slapped yourself, you are also stubbornly trying to get out, writhing like a worm in your own puddle, sinking head over heels in your own mud. And we could have come out of the situation with honor and dignity (having joked, or with the words “didn’t hear”, “didn’t know”) ... But apparently you have this type of behavior in the norm - over there in a different topic and with other commentators behave in a similar way ... They slapped themselves, so they are also ready to dirty your Russian scientists for the sake of stupid stubbornness. negative
  4. Seal
    Seal 22 March 2016 20: 35
    0
    I am not entering into a discussion with the inhabitants of House No. 6.
    stop
    This is the prerogative of orderlies. hi
  5. Penzuck
    Penzuck 18 March 2016 08: 29
    0
    Quote: Seal
    - "Bauer" (German);

    Bauer is a peasant.
  6. Seal
    Seal 18 March 2016 09: 19
    -1
    Bauer is a peasant.
    Landowner.
  7. Penzuck
    Penzuck 18 March 2016 13: 08
    +1
    Quote: Seal
    Landowner.

    Farmer and the landowner are two different things.
    laughing
    Eat Vitamin - calm down.
    build - sow in one of the values.
    Open the dictionary and read.
  8. Seal
    Seal 18 March 2016 15: 31
    -1
    The word "Bauer" has extensive semantics and can be translated as a peasant, a farmer, and a fist. Bauer is a farmer (Landwirt) and a landowner (Landherr) or a serf (Leibeigener) or a fist (Großbauer).
    However, experts note that our term "peasants" can be translated into German as "Bauern", but not vice versa.
  9. but still
    but still 18 March 2016 21: 05
    -3
    Well, of course, a common Indo-European root can be deduced from any word, and all words of all languages ​​of the Indo-European language family are related. As for the word BOYARIN / BOLARIN, it appeared in Russian from the Danube Bulgarians.
  10. Seal
    Seal 19 March 2016 00: 25
    0
    Halva, halva, halvaaaaaa
  11. but still
    but still 19 March 2016 04: 32
    0
    request Nothing to answer?
  12. Seal
    Seal 19 March 2016 12: 34
    0
    And what else can answer idle talk?
  13. but still
    but still 19 March 2016 13: 56
    -4
    You have epaulets and stars, but the honor of valor and dignity is not.
  14. Penzuck
    Penzuck 21 March 2016 10: 37
    0
    Bauer is a person who, on his or her own land, processes it himself or hires others.

    http://enc-dic.com/fasmer/Bojarin-1907/
    Boyarin, on the other hand, is an aristocrat; he does not wave a hoe and does not twist cows.
    For the first time, boyars (bolyars) appear in the First Bulgarian Kingdom. Boyars called the representatives of the military aristocracy. They made council under the king and enjoyed privileges.
    Bulgarians (became famous) and Bulgars (Turkic-speaking) brought this word to the Slavs
    bai "noble, rich" + -är, that is, "noble person", whence the boliarin was obtained as a result of the influence of the bolia.
    Boliy` - Explanatory Dictionary of Dahl`. church. cf. degree from great, great; more.
  15. Seal
    Seal 22 March 2016 14: 34
    -1
    They made council under the king and enjoyed privileges.

    The decree of the Bulgarian Tsar on the creation of the Bolshevik Council - to the studio !!!
    The decree of the Bulgarian king "On the establishment of privileges for the Bulgarian bolars" - in the studio !!!

    But blah-ball-blah is not necessary here.
    And dear V. Dal is a collector of expressions of the Russian language, and not a researcher of their "antiquity."
  16. but still
    but still 22 March 2016 20: 19
    0
    Wipe your eyes stubborn smile given to you Fasmer etymology And Dahl's explanatory dictionary

    So you are again trying to discredit recognized scientists? fool Who are you? fool
  17. Seal
    Seal 24 March 2016 02: 03
    -1
    Once again especially for idiots.
    And dear V. Dal is a collector of expressions of the Russian language, and not a researcher of their "antiquity."

    Farmer too.
    They collected and described what they managed to find. Without going into the study of the "antiquity" of the origin of the expressions found.
    How much are all the characters stop Those who brazenly push their fantasies, not being able to bring at least one proof argument, invariably go over to this "yes, who are you?" bully
  • yastr
    yastr 18 March 2016 17: 09
    -1
    ))) this does not mean anything. Why not the other way around?
    In modern Russian, many words have been lost or some letters have been added, and the same meaning in this term is very easily explained by the commonality of all Slavic languages.
    1. but still
      but still 18 March 2016 21: 25
      -2
      yastr RU Today, 17:09 ↑

      ))) this does not mean anything. Why not the other way around?


      belay Well, of course, on the contrary, the Old Russian state appeared before the Bulgarian (Danube), the Scythians Rusich adopted Christianity earlier and the Old Russian literature appeared before the Bulgarian.

      And the Volga Bulgars Rusich-Scythians taught helmets and weapons (with Arabic script) to make. And the Volga Bulgars saw the Kremlin in Moscow and then copied it in Kazan. And the Mongol Rusich-Scythians on horses taught to ride! wassat

      In how tricky - if anything is Russian, it’s Russian, but if it’s NOT Russian, it’s SLAVIC! bully By the way, this trick to the word BOYARIN / BOLARIN does not work - the Western Slavic-speaking peoples do not have this word. This word was used only in those lands where there was a Bulgarian kingdom (Vlahia, Moldova) and Bulgarian influence (Kievan Rus) smile
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 20 March 2016 14: 52
        +1
        Forgive me, of course, generously!
        but it’s not appropriate to talk about antiquity, unless of course you think that two civilizations, one ancient and the other, live on planet earth!
        the fact is that the emergence of states on the territory of Eurasia began to occur at the turn of the 15-16 centuries, even before the appearance of the Romanovs in Russia, but it seems to me that with their active participation, which contributed to their coming to power in Third Rome (or, so as not to embarrass anyone, as Moscow is now called) ... and the rest went on already when they were on the throne of the Russian Empire!
        so to talk about the birthright (in terms of states), and even more so to dispute the dependence of the structure of influence on the emergence of the Russian Empire, this honest word is empty, especially since Bulgaria arose after the Ottomans first began to crush their peoples with Islam, and then, the basis of this emerging theory of Pan-Slavism among the Romanovs, and the liberation of "enslaved peoples", not only from the USSR and the Communist Party, but from the Ottoman Empire, the subject of which Bulgaria was ....
        the campaign the most honest in history is the Armenians, since they believe that the very first document in their archives dates from 1607 .... just the time of the formation of the first states that were originally subjects of one large federation ....
      2. but still
        but still 20 March 2016 19: 08
        -1
        Listen. We are all writing comments to an article on a historical topic. We talk about historical events and the relationship of peoples. In your comments, you showed the generally accepted views of Russians and Russian-speaking representatives of the countries of the former USSR about the Bulgarians only as a people liberated by the Russian Empire from the Ottomans. In Bulgaria, everyone knows the fact of Liberation, no one denies it, this part of the Bulgarian history connected with Russia is described in textbooks. Why then do you and some commentators deny the facts of the Bulgarian contribution to the formation (religious, spiritual, cultural) of the ancient Russian state? And there are 2 such influences in the history of Russia - in the scientific community they are called "The first and second South Slavic influence. It turns out that Russia is a part of the Bulgarian history (Liberation from the Ottomans). But Bulgaria does not appear as a part of Russian history. Why do you deny the Bulgarian contribution to the development of ancient Russia? By the way, you, like the majority, obviously draws information mainly from the media - a formatter of public opinion. But you read what they write in your academic circles in Russia:
        A significant part of books, and in particular liturgical ones, was brought in the X-XI centuries. from Bulgaria. Old Slavic (Old Bulgarian) and Old Russian languages ​​are so close that Russia was able to use the already prepared Old Slavic Cyrillic alphabet created by the great Bulgarian enlighteners Cyril and Methodius [1] in the XNUMXth century, and the Bulgarian books, being formally “foreign-language”, essentially did not require translation; individual features of the Bulgarian morphological system, as well as part of the vocabulary of the Bulgarian language (the so-called Old Slavicism) were included in the system of the Old Russian literary language.

        History of Russian literature of the XNUMXth - XNUMXth centuries
        Ed. D. S. Likhachev
        Textbook manual for students of ped. in-to
        http://www.libs-web.ru/philol/lihachev/1_2.html

        And to say that Bulgaria "emerged after the Ottomans first began to crush their peoples with Islam" is the height of ignorance. But I am sympathetic to this - you say what you hear in the media. So read a little before writing a comment. hi
      3. Spnsr
        Spnsr 20 March 2016 20: 26
        -1
        Quote: but still
        And to say that Bulgaria "emerged after the Ottomans first began to crush their peoples with Islam" is the height of ignorance. But I am sympathetic to this - you say what you hear in the media. So read a little before writing a comment hi

        in general, you are right, but only that information about the past is drawn from the real present and more or less objective past, that past, which could not be greatly obscured, as interested parties began to appear in the flow of information, and they already did everything to Do not shut up the fact of an event! and texts earlier than the 18th century, excuse me, no matter what institution, even a very respected one does, it will nevertheless voice either the information necessary for politicians or, what’s more terrible, the information will fit the prevailing interpretation of history ... this is the minimum of acceptable interpretations!
        now there’s a bit of politics and psychology, or political psychology, well, or how anyone looks at it !: in sight is a large empire, the bloodthirstiness of which is obvious to some allies among themselves, while some have their own vision of the dismemberment of this state (for them, an empire), and others are different, despite the fact that before all this was the Russian World (if you remember there is a mention of Western Russia - the White Horde, Eastern Russia - the Golden Horde, and Southern Russia - the Blue Horde), they just had the mind to change the dynasty! and it remained to finish off entire areas that were dangerous ... but the collapse of some entailed the emergence of others, both the Russian Empire and Europe, the Kingdom of the so-called Karl, they write that the Swede, but he climbed into the buffer territory, where he clashed with Peter , then Napoleon, but how many times Europe regained its size, and constantly climbed east, constantly, as soon as they, because of their size, begin to feel significance, wait for them in Russia ...
        the destruction of the old, entails the creation of new ones, and this is an axiom, if you look at the world soberly ....
        and this, and an attempt to document, if not their claims to the territory, then at least give a message, so that those to whom the message is addressed do it yourself! perhaps the Pan-Slavic theory was voiced specifically for Bulgaria, but had an effect on another vast territory ....
        Well, all right, with Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire it turned out the same way as with Ukraine now, despite the fact that Bulgaria now at least the government has a hand in this, even just playing along!
        no one reduces Bulgaria, there are simply objective facts that contradict your statements !!!
      4. Penzuck
        Penzuck 21 March 2016 10: 56
        -1
        Quote: SpnSr
        there are simply objective facts that contradict your statements !!!

        WASSA! YOU KRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT!
        Quote: SpnSr
        Western Russia is the White Horde, Eastern Russia is the Golden Horde, and Southern Russia is the Blue Horde),

        There are objective facts?
        The existence of Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi, Mari, Khanty and Mansi, Hungarians, Bulgars, Burtases (extinct), Murom, Meshchera (Turkized) who do not want to fit into your "pan-Slavic" nonsense.
        If you think that the "Romanovs" invented them - a flag in your hands and a drum around your neck.
      5. Spnsr
        Spnsr 21 March 2016 13: 03
        -1
        why so much aggression?
        although it
        Quote: Penzuck
        WASSA! YOU KRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT!

        can tell you about the breakdown of the template that you are still trying to cling to with a statement like this
        Quote: Penzuck
        There are objective facts?
        The existence of Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi, Mari, Khanty and Mansi, Hungarians, Bulgars, Burtases (extinct), Murom, Meshchera (Turkized) who do not want to fit into your "pan-Slavic" nonsense.
        although there was a self-name, but the first description falls on the end of the 18th century, and this, on the contrary, confirms what I write in comments.
        the fact is that in the description, you can define self-name or belonging to the family as nationality, and moreover, give any background, depending on what kind of relationship with the government ....
        Quote: Penzuck
        If you think that the "Romanovs" invented them - a flag in your hands and a drum around your neck.
        - and this, in general, I don’t want to touch it stinks! as if not for an adult!
      6. but still
        but still 21 March 2016 17: 21
        0
        Quote: SpnSr
        although there was a self-name, but the first description falls on the end of the 18th century, and this, on the contrary, confirms what I write in comments.


        READ:
        https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%91%D1%8A%
        D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F


        ............
      7. Spnsr
        Spnsr 21 March 2016 22: 33
        0
        I don’t want to offend you, and first of all, because I can’t give you examples from the material, this is not a small work, and I don’t have enough time just to share impressions that are based literally on the same story, which you and the others are reading, only my perception has an impact both objective reality and the nearest relatively objective past. relative because the story is also hushed up, to be more specific, what comes to us even from the history of the Romanov era or from the era of the USSR is a voiced story that we wanted to voice, or from the whole stream of information wars we managed to hear ...
        in my opinion, one cannot study the history of the distant past without evaluating the present and
        and more or less objective past, that past which couldn’t be greatly missed, as interested parties began to appear in the flow of information, and they did everything possible so as not to silence the fact of this or that event!

        Regarding the "traditional" history, it is easier to believe in Greek and Roman mythology, especially in view of the fact that even before the 17-18 centuries the peoples inhabiting the territory of Russia, and not only, belonged to tribal beliefs! And this often could be based on belief into ancestors and their veneration ... and this is permissible deification of an ancestor (go to church, this is perhaps a distant example, but there are faces of saints, and they are our ancestors, and if I understand correctly, you have the same, it is difficult to say how much Orthodoxy changed after Peter's reforms, but that is)

        By the way, there are western, eastern Slavs on the map, but no southern !!!
        I will not dispute!
        but, if you spread this map over the entire territory of Eurasia, then this map may have a slightly different look, and change the arrow to the north to the opposite, i.e. due to the tribal city of Bolgar (there were no nationalities before the 18-19 centuries, the population was named in a big city, the name of the genus was also the basis of the name, and if the tribal union is likely to be linked to the locality) this map will take a different look (someone put on the site the map of genetic resettlement on the ground is a little removed, but !!! (by the way, it seems there was even a link to the text) the photo somehow inserted into the comment and remained)

        I will try to find time and show texts and what causes doubts about them
        and put on them tracing paper of the modern and near objective past. enough time and mood !!!
      8. but still
        but still 21 March 2016 23: 00
        0
        By the way, there are western, eastern Slavs on the map, but no southern !!!
        I will not dispute!


        Look more closely - on the map, where the legend is, under the numbers there is an orange rectangle and it says south slavs. Although I adhere only to the term Slavic-speaking according to the generally accepted classification of languages ​​(although some languages ​​were simply stuck in some groups there because of not knowing where to stick them). After all, the British, the Dutch and the Swedes do not call themselves "Germans", just as the French with the Portuguese and Romanians do not call themselves "romances". Can you imagine this - brothers Hungarians, Finns and Udmurts, eh? So it should be with "Slavism" - a group of Slavic-speaking peoples. But only.

        And where does the spread of haplogroups? Let's not stray so far from the topic. So we get to Ethiopia.
      9. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Penzuck
    Penzuck 22 March 2016 08: 44
    0
    Quote: SpnSr
    can tell you about the breakdown of the template that you are still trying to cling to with a statement like this

    Exactly! drinks Mordvin-Erzya Evseviev traveled to the Mordovian villages in the 19 century and personally recorded Mordovian songs, epics, legends, which reflect both social, everyday, and historical moments. bully Be it relations with the Russians, Nogais, Tatars or with Pugachev, who is called the "Mordovian prince" because he raised the Mordovians to revolt against the Romanovs. And the Romanovs, in your opinion, invented the Mordvins? And songs were invented and fairy tales? And folk cuisine, traditions, gods?
    What aggression is there, you need to communicate affectionately ...
  • Spnsr
    Spnsr 22 March 2016 10: 27
    0
    yes you are a pervert, my friend!
    Quote: Penzuck
    And do you think the Romanovs came up with Mordvinians? And the songs came up with fairy tales? And folk cuisine, traditions, gods?
    why the Romanovs, Evseviev, then the description went on, and the more beautiful you describe the brighter your ancestors will be !!! I won’t argue, you yourself said the 19th century, and you yourself said that Pugachev
    with Pugachev, who is called the "Mordovian prince"

    so you’re kind of trying to prove what you have learned, but you don’t know how to read!
    Regarding the "traditional" history, it is easier to believe in Greek and Roman mythology, especially in view of the fact that even before the 17-18 centuries the peoples inhabiting the territory of Russia, and not only, belonged to tribal beliefs! And this often could be based on belief into ancestors and their veneration ..., and this is permissible deification of the ancestor (go to the church, this is perhaps a distant example, but there are faces of saints, and they are our ancestors)

    the population of the entire state is called TATARAVYA, as it is now RUSSIANS
    Until the 18th and 19th centuries there were no nationalities, the population was called in a big city, the name of the genus was also the basis of the name, and if the tribal union is, then it’s likely to be linked to the area, for example, the center of the Volga region of the Bulgarians!
    hi
  • but still
    but still 22 March 2016 13: 48
    -2
    In the globalist Russian-Siberian! smile

    I clearly showed you the presence of Bulgarian STATES and on the Danube and in the northern Black Sea coast in 7 century. And the Bulgarians were not called the city of Bulgarians on the Volga, because Bulgars on the Volga and Kama came there from Ancient Great Bulgaria from the Black Sea.

    And then they started working and just listen to yourself:

    Until the 18th and 19th centuries there were no nationalities, the population was called in a big city, the name of the genus was also the basis of the name, and if the tribal union is, then it’s likely to be linked to the area, for example, the center of the Volga region of the Bulgarians!


    As for the Finno-Ugric peoples - in vain you read that - they are not mentioned as peoples since the 18-19th centuries, as you are imposing on everyone, but from the Tale of Bygone Years, maybe earlier - I have not read about it, but I will certainly read it.

    Country Biarmia http://www.tomovl.ru/komi/Biarmia.html
  • but still
    but still 22 March 2016 13: 51
    0
    And what's that? Traces rusich Scythians? request

    Археология

    Cherkaskul culture - the culture of the Bronze Age in the south of the Urals and Western Siberia

    Mezhovskaya culture - Bronze Age culture in the Trans-Urals and Western Siberia

    Ananyinskaya culture - the culture of the Iron Age in the Middle Volga

    Pianobor culture - the culture of the Iron Age in the Volga and Ural regions

    Bakhmutin culture - the Iron Age culture in the Southern Urals and Prikamye

    Dyakovskaya culture - the culture of the Iron Age in Central Russia

    Gorodets culture - the culture of the Iron Age in southern Russia and the Volga region

    Karayakupov culture - the culture of the Iron Age in the South Urals

    Kushnarenkovskaya culture - the culture of the Iron Age in the South Urals

    Mazunin culture - the Iron Age culture in the Kama region and in the lower reaches of the Belaya River

    Sargat culture - Iron Age culture in Western Siberia
  • Spnsr
    Spnsr 22 March 2016 14: 55
    0
    Quote: but still
    Globalist

    not that word! no one says that some kind of tribe did not have their own view of the world, especially in view of occupation or habitat ....
    Quote: but still
    And then they started working and just listen to yourself
    maybe it worked out, but I share more my impressions of what my acquaintance with history makes me and listen not only to myself, but exactly what makes me impress!
    Quote: but still
    read - they are not mentioned as peoples from the 18-19 centuries

    I will not dispute, and simply because there will not be much time at all, and there will be a huge number of documents and crafts to confirm the "traditional" version of the story, but a quote from the text link to the site that you gave
    (13.7.1890 - 30.11.1949/XNUMX/XNUMX)
    , but it’s one look, and the other, it’s probably some kind of self-name, but not necessarily the state that was used to designate the place, but not the fact that
    Scandinavian name for the White Sea coast. Dvinsk land, others associate this name with Perm of Russian chronicles and, accordingly, with the basins of Vychegda and Kama. In the light of modern ideas, the probability of episodic visits by Scandinavians in the 8-10th centuries is not ruled out. some areas of the European North of Russia, in particular, the Northern Dvina basin. The hypothesis of Professor Dmitry Vladimirovich Bubrich (13.7.1890 - 30.11.1949/XNUMX/XNUMX), according to which the ancient Russian ethnonym Perm (Perem) and the Old Norse "Beormas" formed on the basis of the Finnish-Karelian Rera-maa (distant, northern land, Zavolochye), is considered the most acceptable. . So the Baltic-Finnish peoples called the land lying east of the Dvina land, and later the Russians transferred this term to the land where the ancestors of the Komi peoples lived.
    this is not a hypothesis, and especially since the authors are already under the influence of "traditional" history ...
  • Penzuck
    Penzuck 30 March 2016 11: 29
    +1
    Quote: SpnSr
    yes you are a pervert, my friend!

    Wrong word ... Keyword: "collected", i.e. I traveled around Mother Russia in the villages and in the villages, listened to the old people, and recorded what the girls were singing ...
    And you "invented" to de: "the ancestors seem to be ancient." It turns out that the Mordovians lived in the caves, and the Slavs galloped past her to and fro. And then the "communists" came and came up with everything ... and Mordovians and languages ​​and songs. Good people.... wassat
    The last paragraph is a masterpiece. Like the Mordva-Erzi (in the Chuvash furrier EMNIP), there was an ARZAMAS center, so it remained ... As the word HOMELAND was. MASTOR-AVA - so it remains.
    As there were fools in Mother Russia, it never ends ... fool And not any toponyms, be it Penza, Uza, Exiles, Kolyshily, Pachelma, Moksha, Mokshan, etc. they won’t convince you ... The Romanovs, the Communists and the railway masons probably also invented them, and the most terrible Vatican ... Maybe UFOs founded Penza?
  • andj61
    andj61 17 March 2016 10: 14
    +10
    Quote: Nikolai S.
    It turns out, crushed. And there is evidence of conquest

    The situation is exactly the same in Europe. "Wild" Germans and Slavs destroyed the great Roman Empire!
    True, there was a question about savagery. The Romans actually had a Bronze Age, they even made weapons from bronze, and only at the end of the imperial period did they begin to massively use iron products, and even then this technology was adopted from the "wild" Germans, Gauls, and Slavs. At the same time, they formed their legions from these peoples, but with weapons produced according to the technologies of these peoples.
    So regarding the construction of the state, all kinds of different laws, trade, luxury goods and consumption, the organization of the army, tactics and strategy of warfare - the Romans were ahead. But as regards the military economy, this is a big question ...
    And what do we really know about that long, almost 2000 years ago, history of these peoples, their culture, technologies, states, to consider them wild?
    Historical evidence in stone, parchment, on metal - preserved. They built stone from the south, where there was little wood. But wood, birch bark is short-lived material, but in a temperate climate it is much more accessible than stone. And if old historical monuments have not been preserved, this does not mean that they did not exist at all and that the people were wild.
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 17 March 2016 10: 25
      +5
      Let's go further into the depths of the centuries. Let's remember the Trojan War. The Achaeans won. And then the Dorians came to visit them. And then the legendary Sparta appeared. But everyone called themselves Greeks.
      1. andj61
        andj61 17 March 2016 10: 56
        +7
        Quote: bandabas
        Let's go further into the depths of the centuries. Let's remember the Trojan War. The Achaeans won. And then the Dorians came to visit them. And then the legendary Sparta appeared. But everyone called themselves Greeks.

        None of them called themselves Greeks ... request
        Self-name - Hellenes (plural Greek Έλληνες (cf. Greek Elins, Greek (att. And ion) hellenes, Dor. And Aeolian ellanes)), are named after the Greek ancestor in Greek mythology - Ellina. Initially, the Greeks called one of the Thessalian tribes. The Greeks call their country "Hellas." At the same time, Hellas was originally called one of the regions of Thessaly and one of the cities of this region. The Greeks call their language “Hellenic” (ελληνικά Elinik), and their religion “Hellenism”. In ancient times, Έλληνες was also the official name of the Corinthian Union; at the same time, the ethnonym Panellins was used.
        In ancient times, the Greeks also called themselves Achaeans, by the name of one of the branches of the Hellenes, named because of the ancestor of the Achaeans in Greek mythology - Achaeus, Danians, which coincides with the name of one of the peoples of the sea, the Argivians (more correctly, the Argeys, Argivians, from their Latin name - Argivi), from the name of the city of Argos, by which Argolis was called in antiquity, all Peloponnese and even all Greece.

        Only Europeans call them Greeks ...
        In the east, the Greeks are called Ionians, by the name of one of the branches of the ancient Greeks, named because of their ancestor - Jonah. Thus, the Armenians, for example, call Greece "Hunastan", the Jews - "Yavan", the Arabs - "al-Yunan", the Turks - "Yunanistan" (literally "the land of the Ionians"). Georgians call the Greeks "Berdzneby", in the singular - "Berdzeni", Greece "Saberdzeneti". According to one version, this name is related to the word "brdzne" - wisdom. Adygs call the Greeks "Urym", which comes from the Turkish-Turkish term Rum - Rome.
        1. bandabas
          bandabas 17 March 2016 14: 05
          -1
          Good. You’re right, I wrote without thinking until the end. We’ll call them Hellenes. You can call it anything you like. From the change of terms the essence does not change. The bottom line is that fresh blood has come.
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 17 March 2016 15: 40
            +4
            The author mixed everything, turned it over under "his theory". For example, I'm not going to argue that among us Kazakhs, every 5-6 has a common ancestor with the Slavs (18%, haplogroup R1a1; "in general, among Kazakhs there are carriers of all haplogroups, which was a sensation among geneticists"). This says that the "penetration" into the Great Steppe came from all directions (2% have a common ancestor with the Arabs, 12% with the Caucasians, 5% with the Finno-Ugric peoples, all the rest are less than 2%, over 40% have their roots).
            Nomads were united by Genghis Khan into one people, into one army. And the divided Slavic principalities simply could not resist such a UNION. Subsequently, the Slavs, Germans, etc., followed this example.
            The origin of the words "Mongol", "Cossack" (it would be correct not a Kazakh, but a Cossack), "ataman" has Turkic roots. And this has already been discussed a thousand times on the site.
            I do not want to say that Genghis Khan was a Kazakh (there were no such people then). But he introduced this word into everyday life, this is one of the three strategies of Genghis Khan. And the word MONGOL (numerous), he also introduced. The fact that he was a Turk does not cause any doubts among ours. Rod Borzhiginov, but since he became great, then he was given the opportunity to organize his clan (now it is a clan TORE). hi
            Let the author show at least one descendant of Genghis Khan, and we can (3-5 thousand families)!
            1. bandabas
              bandabas 17 March 2016 15: 52
              +2
              And if you take in Eurasia, maybe 1000000 families? bully
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 17 March 2016 16: 42
                0
                The direct descendants of Genghis Khan are considered children by his "elder" wife Borte, from the Konrat clan (Middle Zhuz of Kazakhs) and one adopted son. My wife is also of this kind. hi
                Neither the Kyrgyz, nor the Mongols, nor the Tatars, etc. cannot point a finger at any family and say that they are descendants of Genghis Khan. My neighbor Maksut from the Tore clan is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan by his son Chagaday.
                1. Oldwiser
                  Oldwiser 17 March 2016 18: 05
                  +1
                  and how many steps are in the family tree from your neighbor Maksut to Chagaday (the son of Genghis Khan), dear "Kasym"?
                2. Oldwiser
                  Oldwiser 17 March 2016 18: 05
                  +1
                  and how many steps are in the family tree from your neighbor Maksut to Chagaday (the son of Genghis Khan), dear "Kasym"?
                3. Kasym
                  Kasym 17 March 2016 18: 13
                  +1
                  Direct descendants are only along the male line. hi
                  And how many steps, who knows.
                4. Oldwiser
                  Oldwiser 17 March 2016 18: 20
                  +4
                  If the chain of the family tree is not fixed (it is not known how many steps), then how is it known that the "root node of the tree" is exactly <CHAGADAY>?
                5. Oldwiser
                  Oldwiser 17 March 2016 18: 20
                  0
                  If the chain of the family tree is not fixed (it is not known how many steps), then how is it known that the "root node of the tree" is exactly <CHAGADAY>?
                6. Kasym
                  Kasym 17 March 2016 18: 55
                  0
                  It’s enough for us that he is from the Torah family. For example, I am from the Zhalairov clan, among the Jalirs I am from the Myrza tribes, among the Myrz I from the Baibishe tribes, among the Baibishe I am from the Ak-Bota tribe. For example, Genghis Khan Mukhali was from Jalairov. Among the Torah there is the same gradation, which indicates from whom his line leads. hi
                7. Talgat
                  Talgat 17 March 2016 20: 35
                  +3
                  All right Kasym says

                  I myself am a Kipchak (Kipchaks - they are Polovtsy, they are Kumans, etc.) - but most of the Kipchaks settled in the Russian people (but also in other peoples) But among the Kazakhs, some Kipchaks retained the name of the genus. Moreover, the descendants of the Kipchaks are not only the Kipchak clan, but other Kazakh clans

                  I have relatives of the Torah - they are in a "special position" - they really lead the genealogy from the children of Chinggis Khan - this is a genus of Chingizids and this has been conducted since antiquity
                  Any Kazakh knows this.
                8. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 17 March 2016 22: 16
                  +4
                  Claims for kinship with the great? Everyone who believes that he is a descendant of Genghis Khan (Napoleon, Hitler, Jesus Christ) can visit their great ancestors, since they are in the same chamber.
                9. Chisayna
                  Chisayna 17 March 2016 22: 57
                  +3
                  I’ll support you, in Tuva there is Lake Chagytay-Chagatai. And in Kazakhstan there is no such lake. I have never heard from Tuvinians that they are descending from Subudai or Genghis Khan, even though Tuva borders on Mongolia.
                10. Kasym
                  Kasym 18 March 2016 00: 43
                  +1
                  The Bordzhigin clan originates from Altai, the Jalairov clan also from there, the Skin clan from the Arabs, the Usyun clan from China, etc.
                  Genghis Khan (Temujin) was born on the banks of the Onon River (northeastern Mongolia and the Trans-Baikal Territory). By the way, the western part of Mongolia (Altai Mountains) is mainly inhabited by Kazakhs and Altai peoples, there were no modern Mongols until the middle of the last century.
                  Kartos, where does greatness, etc.? Simply, the nomads were able to unite into a single people (union) and showed that such a UNION could. Or do you want to say that the Slavic tribes conquered China, India, Persia, Central Asia, the Middle East, etc. at that time? Organized the Horde and the Yuan Dynasty in China? It was the UNION of all the peoples of the USSR that helped us in the Second World War, and I do not think that the Russian principalities (territories) themselves could have resisted all the Nazis of Europe in such a war of annihilation.
                  Those descendants of the warriors of Attila are the modern Hungarians-Magyars. And among the Argyn clan (my mother's clan, the Middle Zhuz of the Kazakhs) there is a Magyar tribe. Geneticists have proven their direct relationship. Where is some greatness here? It's just that Atilla was a robber for the nomads of the Great Steppe, who was driven out and declared "outlawed". Return to his homeland was "ordered" for him - they would have killed all the cases, so he settled on the territory of modern Hungary. hi
                11. Seal
                  Seal 18 March 2016 15: 35
                  +2
                  About the Batu and Genghis Khan. Let’s take the Turks, for example, the Kazakhs, since they seem to be there and if, what, they’ll correct them, the orientation toward sunrise and sunset is taken as the basis for orientation in space. In the Kazakh language, sunrise is shygys, sunset is batys. Hence the East-Shygys, and the West-Batys. The main holy direction of the Turks (Kazakhs) was and remains the "East".
                  If you face east, then on the right (in the Kazakh language “right side” - “he”) will be Ontustik-South, and on the left (in the Kazakh language - “sol”), respectively, Soltustik-North. In this regard, everything located to the west of the steppe for the Kazakhs had the prefix "batu", and to the east - "shygys." Hence, the ruler of any western from the habitat of the Turks (Kazakhs) was called Batu-Khan (Batu). And the one who ruled east - well, for example, China - was Shygys Khan (in our pronunciation, Genghis Khan). That is, all of these Batu, Batu, Batys, and Shagysy (Genghis) could be (and were, after all, the West is full of all sorts of “Karls”) the names of both specific people and common names for all khans-rulers of these areas and territories. By the way, Genghis Khan is simply any “Solar Khan” or “Eastern Khan” and in the language of a number of Volga non-Turkic peoples. But apparently, the Volga peoples still nevertheless adopted this term, well, for example, among the Tatars.

                  Genghis Khan is a position. More precisely, the position is Khan. And Shagys or Chingis is the Eastern one. Just "Eastern Khan", of which there were thousands over the centuries. This is just another puncture from professional historians. If they (well, not they, but travelers, who then brought all this information to the European courts and court historians) walked (traveled) through the Turkic lands, then to the question "Who caused this or that destruction" from their Turkic-speaking counterparts could receive the following answers:
                  1) This was done by Shagys Khan (Genghis Khan). In the understanding of the narrator is some famous Khan, whose lands were located in the East. Well, a little east of those who were interviewed.
                  2) This was done by Batys-Khan (Batu, Batu). This is any Khan of lands located west of those who were interviewed. Batys - Western.

                  Well, from the south and from the north (from Siberia) the Turks were apparently attacked much less, and all the main claims of the Turkic-speaking storytellers put forward to the addresses of "Chinggis Khan" and "Batu Khan".
                  Historians, having collected such a mass of claims to "Genghis Khan" and "Batu Khan" and stupidly not understanding that they (well, or those travelers who then brought all this information to the European courts and court historians) were told simply about their local showdowns with some eastern or western neighbors for 300-400 years, and considering that "Chinggis Khan" and "Batu Khan" are the names of specific people, they decided that such large-scale acts could have been committed by exceptionally great people. And honestly mistaken, historians began to mold the myth of the "Great Genghis Khan" and his grandson "Batu Khan" (whom historians sent to the very west).
                12. Seal
                  Seal 18 March 2016 16: 23
                  +2
                  It's just that Atilla was a robber for the nomads of the Great Steppe, who was driven out and declared "outlawed".

                  Like it was announced on the radio - and at once in all auls and kishlaks and nomadic camps of the Great Steppe, everyone knew that a certain "Attila" was outlawed?
                  Yes, even in the 18th century, in Siberia and the Far East, we learned about a change of power in St. Petersburg when this next power was already irrelevant.
                  Return to his homeland was "ordered" for him
                  Was the border guards of the Great Steppe vigilantly watching this? Or customs officers? Apparently at all checkpoints from Europe to the Great Steppe hung portraits of Attila?
                  And for some reason, all these precautions did not prevent Atilla, according to the traditional version of history, from becoming the master of almost all of Europe, including present-day Ukraine, the Kuban and Rostov Region, and a number of other southern Russian regions.
                13. Kasym
                  Kasym 18 March 2016 23: 05
                  +1
                  Dear Sergey Petrovich! I don't even want to argue. See grew up. site "AnAgA", section "peoples", find "Kazakhs". Or see the Chinese chronicles, where there are even portraits of Chigizkhan. Or explain to the Chinese that they did not have the Yuan dynasty, which was founded by the grandson of Genghis Khan Kubilaykhan (they write differently) - the son of the middle sons (Ogedei or Chagadai) of Chingiz, therefore they also consider their own. Kalmyks, Altai, etc. also speak the TRUTH, because he took as wives from all tribes-peoples and there are certainly descendants. I say that we also have them and we can even point our fingers, because the "older" wife is from the Konrat clan (Middle Zhuz of Kazakhs, my wife is from this clan, or do you want to prove to her that she is not from this clan ?!). I am sure that they are among the RUSSIANS! There are also MONGOL and CHINESE! Tell the Azerbaijanis that they did not have the Jalairid dynasty, who ruled in the 13-14 centuries.
                  You can believe it, but you can not. This is your RIGHT and TRUTH! What should I argue? These are the Hungarians, not us, who took the initiative to hire an independent, international team of geneticists and prove that our Magyars are their direct relatives. Not me, but the Hungarians with the Turks come here at the highest level and say that they have come home, to their homeland. I'm just trying to be somehow scientific. And about the robber - these are our legends. Let it be your way. By the way, this is the only authentic grave of the great conquerors. Tamerlane from the Barlas clan. Was not Khan. Emir. And for some reason he was a Rogue too. Why? Sergei Petrovich, you should have a discussion with our "Marek" on these topics, but he has not been seen for a long time. He "defended his thesis" about Attila wink. If anything, on the site you can search for his comments. All the worst. hi
                14. Seal
                  Seal 19 March 2016 00: 29
                  +1
                  Dear Sergey Petrovich! I don’t even want to argue.

                  Thank. So Shygys, Batys, Ontustik, Soltustik were not mistaken with the Turkic terms. And then brought from memory. hi
          2. Starshina wmf
            Starshina wmf 18 March 2016 08: 42
            0
            We in Kalmykia say that we are the descendants of Genghis Khan, we mean that we were in the army of Genghis Khan, but we are not his direct descendants. There is a very large clan of Torgouts, which, by name, is considered to have come from the guard of Genghis Khan. Inside this clan they are subdivided into smaller genera. Although among the rest they call themselves bargains. All.
      2. Starshina wmf
        Starshina wmf 18 March 2016 08: 36
        0
        For example, we have no one in a "special position." All clans are equally proud of their ancestors.
    2. Starshina wmf
      Starshina wmf 18 March 2016 08: 35
      0
      Well, for example, I'm kind of merkit. But this does not mean that I am a descendant of the Merkit khan Tokhto beki. I noticed that in Kazakhstan, all descendants of Genghis Khan or relatives of his grandchildren do not spit.
    3. Kasym
      Kasym 18 March 2016 23: 40
      +1
      Sergeant Major-Mingiyan, Dear! Well, where do I write that Genghis Khan was a Kazakh! You have beguiled something. There was no such people then. It was he who rather mixed him up, and he was born 500 years ago. I write that there are his descendants on the "older" wife. And that's all. I write that we have a separate genus. And how do I know why the ancestors decided so. Well, do you have any questions? belay How do I know why they decided to divide into ZhUZs and lead 2 genera? belay You can build a sea of ​​versions, I just write what my father, mother, grandfather, dyatki gave me. And I will emphasize again. And geneticists have proved that there are his descendants all over the world. So among the Kalmyks there are also among the Mongols, etc. I'm talking about the Kazakh branch, along Borte (since it is from Konrat). We assert this without any genetics. And that's all. I am writing that the Kazakhs are a union of nomadic peoples, there may be some sedentary. And we have different roots. Turkmens, Kyrgyz, Altai peoples, etc. did not join. Well, what's the big deal, it's their right. I just described the structure of our people and that's it. And each clan has the same gradation as the respected torgout, and some a little different. So we are already related. Kazakhs say: "A Kazakh will find a relative everywhere!" drinks
      I just want to say that the descendants of the direct 3-5 thousand .. Torah in the early 90s gathered in Kyzyl-Orda (the old capital of Kazakhstan). There were about 1-1,5 of them; as my father-in-law said. Agree that among approximately 9-10 million Kazakhs (in Kazakhstan and about 14-15 in total) this is not such a big family. Those argyns and naiman, each, half a million. And other clan tribes have no less weight, there is and cannot be any humiliation. The genus of ANAS, for example, is also small. And no one will ever say that he is a descendant of Genghis Khan; except torah. This is unequivocal, because everyone is proud of their family, but together we are Kazakhs. All. You apparently misunderstood what I wrote. hi
      Recently they wrote that the largest Kazakh family is Argyns for 650 thousand .. As they thought, I can’t imagine. request
  • Sweles
    Sweles 17 March 2016 20: 08
    0
    Quote: Kasym
    (Middle Zhuz Kazakhs) and od

    back in the 19th century there was the Elder Horde, the Middle Horde, but when did the Zhuzes (a hundred) appear instead of the Horde?
  • Kasym
    Kasym 18 March 2016 00: 58
    +1
    For Kazakhs, which consist of three Zhuzes + 2 genera separately (Leather and Torah). The genus Skin originates from the prophet and it is not for us, the modern Kazakh, to violate this gradation and deny what the ancestors bequeathed. I already wrote about the Torah (Genghisides). Since the ancestors decided so, then this makes sense.
    And Zhuzy. There are several versions of the origin. For us, the Kazakhs, this primarily speaks of the place of origin of each of us (we did not have cities), it says from which places this person. And the second one. Genghis Khan divided the Great Steppe between the Elders, Middle and Younger sons (from Borte). And the tribes that inhabited these places in one Zhuz: Senior Zhuz (south), Middle Zhuz, Junior Zhuz (such a gradation was introduced after Genghis Khan, his descendants, Khans). And this does not mean that the Younger obeys the Elder, etc. .. Such is the structure of the Kazakhs and it is not for us to violate it. hi
  • KaPToC
    KaPToC 17 March 2016 20: 36
    0
    The Trojan War is not an invention of even historians, but of a fiction writer.
  • Seal
    Seal 18 March 2016 01: 25
    +1
    The Achaeans defeated.
    Is not a fact. The "winners" were received at home very badly.
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 09: 06
    +1
    Self-name - Hellenes
  • Mobius
    Mobius 17 March 2016 10: 55
    +10
    Quote: andj61
    The situation is exactly the same in Europe. "Wild" Germans and Slavs destroyed the great Roman Empire!
    True, there was a question regarding wildness.


    What do we want from a slave parasite empire?

    One has only to take a closer look, and it is clearly visible that all the splendor of Rome was spent on pumping resources from the conquered peoples and states (including human, cultural and intellectual).

    By the way, now there is a similar parasite state ...
  • ver_
    ver_ 17 March 2016 12: 57
    +7
    ... the Roman Empire is a myth .. according to legend, it was founded by 2 brothers ... who were fed by a she-wolf .. Speaking of birds: according to the analysis of the she-wolf’s material, 15th century smelting ..
  • nadezhiva
    nadezhiva 17 March 2016 13: 24
    +8
    Quote: Nikolay S.
    Turkic language from the same Altai language family as Mongolian, Manchu. And according to the genotype, the Central Asians now are a cross between Mongoloids and Iranians (where more, where less). It turns out, crushed. And there is evidence of conquest.

    Speaking A, say B. Let us then about the genetics of the Slavs. Short:
    In human DNA, 46 chromosomes, half he inherits from his father, half from his mother. Of the 23 chromosomes received from the father, the only one - the male Y chromosome - contains a set of nucleotides that is transmitted from generation to generation without any changes for millennia. Genetics call this set a haplogroup. Every man who lives now has exactly the same haplogroup in his DNA as his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, etc., in many generations.
    Currently, owners of the Russian haplogroup R1a1 make up 70% of the total male population of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and up to 80% in ancient Russian cities and villages. R1a1 is a biological marker of the Russian ethnic group. This set of nucleotides is the “Russianness” in terms of genetics.
    If there was a real Tatar-Mongol yoke - where are its traces? Genetics are silent. Indeed, Tatarstan was included in a rough calculation of these 70%, where R1a1 clearly should not dominate.
    1. Mr. Pippers
      Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 14: 56
      -1
      Quote: nadezhiva
      If there was a real Tatar-Mongol yoke - where are its traces?

      And where are the traces of Napoleon’s campaign against us, for example ?!
      What a mania to think, if we had an IGO, then we must have had a "bardel" ?! belay
      1. nadezhiva
        nadezhiva 17 March 2016 21: 21
        +7
        I even hesitate to ask: how can you compare the duration of the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" and the round trip (one-time) of the French army?
      2. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 18 March 2016 10: 24
        +3
        many burials of French (not only of course Napoleonic soldiers in general) on the territory of Russia along the entire route. Well, plus the official literature. And so on. And from the "Mongol-Tatars" there is nothing at all ...
      3. aviator65
        aviator65 18 March 2016 12: 18
        0
        Quote: Misters Pippers
        And where are the traces of Napoleon’s campaign against us, for example ?!

        And such lines as "Tell me, uncle, it's not for nothing ..." don't come to mind? They didn't hear about the Borodino field either7
    2. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 18 March 2016 10: 22
      +3
      That's what this is about ... genetics is a very accurate thing, the Mongoloids, in theory, could not help but leave a genetic trace among the Slavs, but this is not, archaeological finds have not confirmed at least indirect signs (household items, burials, and other presence of another race). Antique images (usually foreign) - none of them have images of classical Mongols ... and much more
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 09: 00
    +1
    I do not agree, the ethnic group living in Central Asia developed in parallel with the tribes from Mongolia (current name) and Northern China. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Afghans, Pakistanis - all Iranian-speaking group. The mixing of ethnic groups has always occurred (the same Tajiks are fair-skinned and have normal eyes, there are dark-skinned with more pronounced mogholoid features) .... and this does not prove that it was the Mongols (mogoloids) who left their mark on the Iranian-speaking ethnic group - this could happen in a completely natural way
  • Sensatus
    Sensatus 17 March 2016 08: 28
    +23
    The author refutes the myth that only the Mongols lived in the Golden Horde. I’m wondering where he got this myth from. It seems that both official science and other historians (for example, Gumilyov) do not claim this.
    The same Gumilyov clearly says that there were few Mongols, so they built an empire on the principle of establishing somewhere their own managers over territories inhabited by the local population, and somewhere (like in Russia) loyal rulers from the local nobility.
    And power control over the territories was carried out due to the lightning-fast transfer of horse troops from one part of the empire to another, if necessary.
    If not all, then most empires were built similarly. Take Roman, British, etc.

    Therefore, the text reminds me of the fight against windmills.
    1. Snow
      Snow 17 March 2016 09: 08
      -16%
      Respect to the author. And the disadvantages are set for you from your own ignorance and from the herd feeling.
      Article MINUS!
      1. Gunxnumx
        Gunxnumx 17 March 2016 13: 23
        +2
        In my opinion, the author is likened to Murat Aji. A lot of emotions. Unfortunately, the great steppe empires left few material traces. But this does not mean that they were not.
        1. Gunxnumx
          Gunxnumx 18 March 2016 08: 21
          +1
          In addition, in my opinion, that the steppe inhabitants on the expanses of Eurasia in the pre-Turkic period were typical Caucasoids have long been known. In general, ethnogenesis is a very complex and interesting thing.
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco 17 March 2016 09: 34
      +16
      Quote: Sensatus
      And power control over the territories was carried out due to the lightning-fast transfer of horse troops from one part of the empire to another, if necessary.

      Are you serious? Lightning fast, how many weeks? I remember my great-grandmother told me how they went as pilgrims to Kiev from the Yekaterinoslav province, I can confuse something, but it seems this way took about 30 days.
      A lightning strike is Syria today, with our VKS, from whose actions the terrorists whined, and the Western partners asked for a break to recover.
      1. Sensatus
        Sensatus 17 March 2016 10: 50
        -10%
        I remember the great-grandmother told
        Instead of listening to the great-grandmother and judging by it the logistics of the Tatar-Mongols, you better study history. The same army of the Tatar-Mongols moved almost non-stop. For each warrior there were several horses, which alternated as fatigue.
        And you’re talking about pilgrimage here. That is why the Mongols conquered half the world, and not your great-grandmother.
        1. ver_
          ver_ 17 March 2016 13: 02
          +5
          .. even visit Vika at the expense of the Mongols - they are a product of the beginning of the 19th century - in those days they didn’t smell ..
        2. Sirocco
          Sirocco 17 March 2016 13: 35
          +14
          Quote: Sensatus
          Instead of listening to the great-grandmother and judging by it the logistics of the Tatar-Mongols, you better study history.

          You look savvy in history, too much))))))
          At least ten horses, who will shoe them for you, where will you take so much metal? Arrow spears, harness, food, or will they meet you with bread and salt, or will they be met ????
          Can you even imagine what kind of herd of horses it is, if even 5 thousand people ???? belay
          Quote: Sensatus
          That is why the Mongols conquered half the world, and not your great-grandmother.

          In how my grandmother was telling you)))) Your grandmother didn’t match her, mine went to the Lavra herself, was God-fearing and raised all of them like that, so you’re not a couple, not to my grandmother laughing
          Go, conquer the world yourself.)))))
          1. Mr. Pippers
            Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 14: 58
            +1
            Quote: Sirocco
            At least ten horses who will shoe them for you,

            And what are they, on the stone pavement galloped all the way ?!
            Why shoe it on arable land ?! request
            1. aviator65
              aviator65 18 March 2016 12: 25
              +2
              Quote: Misters Pippers
              Why shoe it on arable land ?!

              You can ask professional riders or cavalrymen about this, about "on-field-arable land". And also look at the map, estimate the approximate route of movement of that army - continuous fields and arable land! fellow
          2. Spnsr
            Spnsr 17 March 2016 15: 12
            -3
            laughing
            Quote: Sirocco
            What my grandmother was telling you about)))) Your grandmother didn’t match her, mine went to the Lavra herself, she was God-fearing and raised everyone like that, so you’re not a couple not to me not my grandmother laughing

            ! Really! laughing there are a lot of scorched hystorics who shake with some sort of scribbles, present some crafts, presenting them for artifacts ...
            and when you begin to compare their stories with what the ancestors told, they do not allow eyewitness accounts with frenzy and with foam at the mouth ...
            laughing
            1. aviator65
              aviator65 18 March 2016 12: 31
              +1
              As I understand it, your historical knowledge was obtained from personal conversations with witnesses and eyewitnesses of the described events, and not from different "scribbles", as if they were written or recorded behind them?
              1. Spnsr
                Spnsr 18 March 2016 12: 47
                +1
                Quote: aviator65
                As I understand it, your historical knowledge was obtained from personal conversations with witnesses and eyewitnesses of the described events, and not from different "scribbles", as if they were written or recorded behind them?

                I understand you to me?
                no need to clumsy!
                from my comments perfectly understandable and what I mean! moreover, what I’m talking about is confirmed by other commentators, for example, about Cossacks
                RUSS (3) RU Yesterday, 10:31 ↑
                Quote: SpnSr
                that the descendants of the army of the horde, this is the Cossacks ...

                The most common mistake is to consider that the Cossacks were completely Orthodox. In reality, everything was much more interesting. The bulk of the Cossacks, both Ukrainian and Russian, was certainly Orthodox, but ...
                The part of the registry Cossacks consisted of the very real ERZ, which caused a bathhert among the anti-Semites who were not in the register. (more details, w: Jews in the Ukrainian Cossacks);
                a considerable number of Cossacks in the Urals were Old Believers who professed pre-reform Orthodoxy, which, in fact, was not encouraged by the authorities, to put it mildly, but they still turned a blind eye to this Cossack fad;
                part of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks professed Arianism, a special unorthodox kind of Christianity, condemned as heresy. Where they got this faith from is not really known - either from the last Crimean Goths, or from the Bulgarians - legends are dark on this score. However, by the eighteenth century there were no Arians among the Cossacks, but there is unconfirmed information that secret Aryan communities remained in the Don and the Caucasus right up to the beginning of the XNUMXth century;
                the Tatars-Meshcheryaks and Bashkirs entering the Orenburg army were, of course, Muslims;
                the Kalmyks (sic!) entering this very Orenburg army professed, of course, Buddhism. True, then SUDDENLY somewhere everyone disappeared, but this is another matter;
                Buddhism, of the same kind (Lamaism) as the Kalmyks professed the Buryats, who were part of the Transbaikal army;
                but the Nagaybaks, members of the Orenburg army — the Turkic people, akin to the Tatars and Bashkirs — on the contrary, in the name of fulfilling mutually exclusive paragraphs, were Orthodox.
                , but for some reason some with some kind of perverse interpretation! how Mongolian horses jump from Mongolia with love 250 km a day, or even lightning fast!
                when you read a story, throw away the extra background, and compare it with other eras, especially closer ones and described more closely and with minimal distortion!
                I won’t stress that you read my comments on ..., but I would like to have a reasonable discussion about how the Mongols jumped at lightning speed, led by Genghisides, from whose family the whole of Kazakhstan is, riding Mongolian horses on the steppes of Siberia and the deserts of Central Asia ...
        3. alicante11
          alicante11 17 March 2016 14: 16
          +14
          Instead of listening to the great-grandmother and judging by it the logistics of the Tatar-Mongols, you better study history.


          But the story says how you can feed several tens of thousands of horses? For some reason, even in the 19-th century there were problems with this. And if it's ... winter? I understand that Mongol horses eat both moss and reindeer moss from under the snow. But you don’t even get enough reindeer moss on such a herd, which, by the way, is absent in the middle part of Russia.
          And also it was necessary to feed also not one ten thousand horsemen themselves. I understand that a Mongol can eat one piece of horse meat, beaten by his own ass about the croup of a horse. But you won’t last so long. Sometimes you need to eat normally.
          And still it is necessary to carry battering guns, which were probably heavier than siege mortars, although lighter than the "Big Bertha". It is possible that these machines were assembled on site using wooden parts cut "on the ground", but even in this case the weight of metal parts, any blocks, ropes, will be very significant. And the metal for forging new sabers, arrowheads?
          And all this must be taken, and also on horseback, because cars are not expected. So how many horses were supposed to be there and what did they feed them all the same?
          That is why, in general, all sorts of general staff there invented, the calculation of supply standards, the construction of supply chains. How many copies were broken for intercepting and protecting communications. Why all this? And Napoleon was stupid that he scattered his army to protect communications so that he no longer had a numerical advantage over Borodin. And it was only necessary to remember the secret of the Mongols, and happiness would be to the conquerors.
          1. saigon
            saigon 17 March 2016 19: 15
            +9
            In addition to your questions. And what did the siege weapons build on the steppe? Sabers sog? They didn’t use axes, they strained with forests and boards in the steppe. Just like with carpentry. Trifles, and trifles they are important.
          2. Pissarro
            Pissarro 17 March 2016 20: 41
            +4
            So the horde turned out to be smarter than Napoleon, it was not going to occupy anything in Russia, its forces would not be physically enough for it. By threatening to use force and using force against violators, it forced the Russian fragmented principalities to pay tribute. That's all. And stupidly sit in a burnt city and think of what other cat or rat to eat, these are European realities that have nothing for the Asian war

            By the way, several tens of thousands of horses with cannons, from Moscow to Paris, traveled through unfriendly territory from 1812 to 1815, and somehow did not rest. Why do you think that the khan did not have a service that was responsible for the logistics and feeding of people and horses? The ancient Egyptians already had such services
            1. Avantageur
              Avantageur 17 March 2016 23: 03
              +6
              Quote: Pissarro
              Why do you think that the khan did not have a service that was responsible for the logistics and feeding of people and horses?

              Yeah, it was ... There was also a delivery service for Tajik merchants, which the Doshiraks laid out in yurts ...


            2. Seal
              Seal 18 March 2016 03: 01
              +2
              The ancient Egyptians already had such services
              The charter of the logistics service of the ancient Egyptians, approved by the pharaoh .. by the way, what kind of pharaoh? - to the studio !!!
            3. Seal
              Seal 18 March 2016 15: 51
              +1
              How wide do you think the forest road on the route from Ryazan to Vladimir in the 13th century?
              What is your height of the snowdrifts in the forest in winter on this route?
              What is the snow height on the forest road itself?
              How often did residential settlements meet on the route from Ryazan to Vladimir in the 13th century?
              How large were these settlements?
              Did the locals have horses and in what quantity? (from here you can calculate the volume of hay harvested for the winter).
              How many millions (or hundreds of thousands?) Of people lived in the Northeast Region (or in the current Central Federal District) in the 13th century?
              1. Pissarro
                Pissarro 18 March 2016 16: 19
                +1
                all of the above is not very different from the road between Smolensk and Moscow, which only became crushed in the 18th century, and before that it was just a direction. But at the same time, Russian armies traveled to the West along it, tens of thousands of Poles and Lithuanians, and somehow on the way they managed not to rest and did not eat their horses. Because, like the Mongols, they understood what supplies were and what you didn’t understand. In your view, the army is some kind of crowd of freaks, greedy for robberies, who cannot plan a week ahead that they will eat and their horses. And any trip is planned in advance, and the questions that you are voicing here were decided long before the trip, even in the planning stage, and those responsible for the supply were appointed
                1. Seal
                  Seal 18 March 2016 16: 43
                  0
                  Excuse me, are you able to give specific answers to specific questions? Repeat again?
                  1. Pissarro
                    Pissarro 18 March 2016 17: 18
                    +1
                    Before the construction of railroads, even in the 19th century, logistics did not differ much from 13th century. The same pack animals and carts. And there was no difficulty in transporting thousands of cavalry across Russia, both in their own and in hostile terrain. The Crimean Khan is almost not every year horse-drawn masses traveled to Russia or Lithuania along woodlands, where they had already made cuts and put in prison, it didn’t hinder him much, it slowed down a little, it required a lot of effort for reconnaissance.

                    There is no difficulty in transferring the cavalry unit to any distance with your marching course, if there were a competent commander and headquarters under him. The Mongols had both of them. The rest is a matter of technology, sit down plan.

                    To think that when planning a trip, the supply manager is going to feed people and horses for months with feed is cretinism. There are documents from Timur, who, however, 200 years later, clearly planned how much would it cost to cross the steppe thousands of distances with his army.
                    There are even documents of the ancient Metridates, which had been storing grain for several years, for the company.

                    I repeat, why do you consider ancient commanders cretins?
                  2. Seal
                    Seal 19 March 2016 00: 33
                    0
                    The third time I urge you to specifically answer specific questions.

                    How wide do you think the forest road on the route from Ryazan to Vladimir in the 13th century?
                    What is your height of the snowdrifts in the forest in winter on this route?
                    What is the snow height on the forest road itself?
                    How often do you think there were residential settlements on the route from Ryazan to Vladimir in the 13th century?
                    What do you think were the size of these settlements?
                    In your opinion, did the locals have horses and in what quantity? (from here you can calculate the volume of hay harvested for the winter).
                    In your opinion, how many millions (or hundreds of thousands?) Of people lived in the Northeast Region (or in the current Central Federal District) in the 13th century?

                    Why, when you are respectfully asked to give a specific answer, your opinion disappears somewhere?
              2. Pomeranian
                Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 07
                0
                Quote: Pissarro
                .An any trip is planned in advance, and the questions that you are voicing here were decided long before the trip, even in the planning stage, and those responsible for the supply were appointed

                It’s hard for citizens who have grown up on computer strategies to prove anything. I believe that Subedey was not an outspoken fool, and the crop collected in the summer of 1236 in the north-eastern Russia was taken into account in the formation of the shock army in full.
            4. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 04
              0
              Nothing that I interfere in a scientific dispute?
              1. Judging by the "list" that I saw, "Kolomna winter road" - Minsk highway of the times of the USSR.
              2. I don’t know, but walking in the snow of any depth is possible if there is a human resource with snowshoes or skiing. (The second is worse, cling to a worm).
              3. The population density was no less than in the 19th century. Did you hear anything about Vladimirskoe Opolye?
              4. On 12 km TWO fortified fortifications. Akkurat on the likely advance of the Mongol-Tatar troops. Probably very tight.
              5. The main feed for the horse is grain. Any. Sheep and goats are fed with hay. Record for memory, useful.
              6. I don’t know, but the fact that the loss of 9-16 of thousands of fighters in the Battle of Lipitska did not play absolutely any impact on the fighting ability of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality.
              7. Question to the opponent: can a horse take away 150 kg of oats in packs or not?
              1. Seal
                Seal 19 March 2016 00: 39
                +2
                If you decide to intervene, then intervene correctly. First give your specific answers to specific questions, and then ask your own.
                I will repeat the questions specifically for you.
                How wide do you think the forest road on the route from Ryazan to Vladimir in the 13th century?
                What is your height of the snowdrifts in the forest in winter on this route?
                What is the snow height on the forest road itself?
                How often do you think there were residential settlements on the route from Ryazan to Vladimir in the 13th century?
                What do you think were the size of these settlements?
                In your opinion, did the locals have horses and in what quantity? (from here you can calculate the volume of hay harvested for the winter).
                In your opinion, how many millions (or hundreds of thousands?) Of people lived in the Northeast Region (or in the current Central Federal District) in the 13th century?
                And further. If you do not have enough knowledge or arguments, then the most stupid thing to do is try to go over to the personality of your opponent. And even more so determine his age. Or, as others still love - nationality. Fucking you Wang. Actually bad. Take a word.
                But since you have crossed. then let me inquire. Do you have any military education? And in what troops did you serve military service?
      2. Vicbr
        Vicbr 17 March 2016 15: 45
        +4
        Moreover, several thousand soldiers walked in the winter along the winter steppe with three horses. I wonder what they fed them. Even in the summer after the passage of the first thousand, only dust remains, and the horse does not eat dust.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 17 March 2016 21: 19
          -3
          if you don’t believe, Mongolia and northeast of China is the birthplace of oats. From there he went around the world from the second millennium BC. And imagine, the Mongols fed them horses, like hundreds of armies before them, and hundreds of armies after them laughing
        2. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 10
          -1
          Quote: Vicbr
          Moreover, several thousand soldiers walked in the winter along the winter steppe with three horses. I wonder what they fed them.

          Nothing, do I have a fight?
          Rams !! The horse was fed with GRAIN! GRAIN !! A sack of oats for a day or other grain with a supply of a month to take away on a pack horse is not difficult.! Rams !!!
          Fu ... let go. Thank you.
          Threat. Now calmly, about farming. In conquered Iran, Central Asia, there lived entirely savages engaged in hunting and gathering? And the Volga does not flow from the Middle Russian plain to the Caspian.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 18 March 2016 17: 54
            +1
            Well, the nomads harvested grain undoubtedly by Dutch harvesters.
            1. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 18 March 2016 20: 57
              -1
              Quote: KaPToC
              Well, the nomads harvested grain undoubtedly by Dutch harvesters.

              Undoubtedly, they either traded or bought from settled residents. Or taken away. Fdyenko reform, in action ...
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 18 March 2016 23: 18
                +3
                The conquest of the Mongols began with China? There is one problem, horses do not eat rice. Oops, the great conquest of the world by the Mongols failed at the very beginning.
                Your passage about Fursenko - are you talking to yourself?
        3. The comment was deleted.
      3. saigon
        saigon 17 March 2016 19: 10
        +4
        Small question . And what do you apologize for eating a lot of horses? Grass? so it’s not enough for everyone. This is not a dispute about the Tatar Mongols, but a sarcastic remark. Gentlemen, professional historians lie or are mistaken when speaking of hundreds of thousands of troops. Oh, the zeroes were added to the units, which would be more beautiful, and even fences. Eat horses, eat warriors, Aa everyone needs to eat. But canned goods have not been invented yet, since the Middle Ages. And how to manage the fast march of 100 thousandth troops? Radio is not in nature. Most likely there were many smaller armies.
        1. Gunxnumx
          Gunxnumx 18 March 2016 08: 38
          +2
          I read that the army was moving on a wide front, precisely with the aim of feeding horses. And people were rather unpretentious and fed on a roundabout hunt. By the way, Temirlan in 1389-1391 made several campaigns, through deserted, low-water steppes, against the Golden Horde. It seems to be documented. Karsakpay inscription of Timur is kept in the Hermitage.
          1. Seal
            Seal 18 March 2016 16: 00
            +3
            I read that the army was moving on a wide front

            What does it mean to "move on a wide front" while moving in a forest region, which in the 13th century was the whole of North-Eastern Russia?
            Well, for comparison, the degree of forest cover in this region was ... well, like now in the Arkhangelsk region. Just find some vast forest and try to ride in it "wide front" in winter.
            1. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 31
              0
              Quote: Seal
              in the Arkhangelsk region. Just find some vast forest and try horseback riding in it "

              What are you! It is necessary to drive archaeologists-forgers who unearthed villages in the Suzdal region with a street length of one and a half kilometers! To drive! Damn, forests and swamps, thiulen said.
              1. Seal
                Seal 19 March 2016 00: 44
                +2
                Are you able to distinguish the term "forest" from the term "village"? Or did your Fursenko obscure your eyes so that you confuse the village with the forest? And excuse me, you don't confuse yours with a finger yet?
        2. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 41
          -1
          Quote: saigon
          And what do you apologize for eating a lot of horses?

          Look, urban infantile theorists! CORN!! CORN!! GRAIN !! (may Raymond Richard Martin forgive me) HORSEED Horses! Oats, for example, what, in the ass hay ?? 5 kg of oats per day per horse. Norm.
        3. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 18 March 2016 20: 59
          -2
          Quote: saigon
          Small question . And what do you apologize for eating a lot of horses? Grass?

          CORN!! They ate the grain. Norm 5 kg per head per day. 150 kg per pack horse - for 10 days stock. And there you can rob the city. What is not clear ??
      4. ruAlex
        ruAlex 17 March 2016 21: 23
        +4
        The truth is somewhere nearby as always winked but this, for example, "There were several horses for each warrior" And they were clockwork horses, according to your reasoning, too, apparently with lightning speed on the go, so to speak, I will not go into details, but here is one of the last large-scale horse battles, namely Napoleonic ones. The peasants leaving the partisans left behind scorched ashes, so to speak, scorched earth tactics, no fodder for you, and the French at the beginning ate horses, and then ... And they forgot about any lightning speed. And you say.
        1. ydjin
          ydjin 19 March 2016 04: 58
          0
          Quote: ruAlex
          The truth is somewhere nearby as always winked but this, for example, "There were several horses for each warrior" And they were clockwork horses, according to your reasoning, too, apparently with lightning speed on the go, so to speak, I will not go into details, but here is one of the last large-scale horse battles, namely Napoleonic ones. The peasants leaving the partisans left behind scorched ashes, so to speak, scorched earth tactics, no fodder for you, and the French at the beginning ate horses, and then ... And they forgot about any lightning speed. And you say.

          That's right, and turned into a trash from fr. Cheval (horse). And also in the skiers, when entering the Russian village with the words, -sher ami (dear friend) fr. Asked for a meal! laughing
          1. Seal
            Seal 26 March 2016 07: 32
            +1
            That's right, and turned into a trash from fr. Cheval (horse). And also in the skiers, when entering the Russian village with the words, -sher ami (dear friend) fr. Asked for a meal!

            trash is either waste from the sewing process (flaps, scraps, or things that have become unusable or bored, and prepared for alteration.

            Lovo shaomyga was also considered dialectal at the end of the 1845th century, as evidenced, for example, by its placement with a number of derivatives in "Materials for an explanatory regional dictionary of the Vyatka dialect" by N.M. Vasnetsov (1889-XNUMX):
            "Sharomyga, Sharomyga. Real. Cheatful; loving to use on someone else's account; deceiver." Sharomyga on, deceive you. - This ball will give nothing. "
            Sharomyzhka. Free, not acquired by labor. "He loves to live on a ball."
            Sharomyzhka. Nar. Darom; cheating; deception. "It's all right, can't it be like a ball."
            Sharomyzhnik. Sharomyga. Operating with gypsy qualities.
            To play a ball, vb average To cheat, to deceive for well-known selfish purposes "[Vasnetsov 1907: 348-349].
            Judging by the "Inverse Index to the Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects", not all of these words will be included in this dictionary [Inverse. 2000].
            Academician V.V. Vinogradov was interested in the origin of the word sharomyga: only his summary of the polemics in the Voronezh "Philological Notes" of 1889-1890 was preserved in his archive. about the origins of this word without conclusions. This draft material was published in a collection of works by the scientist under the misleading title of the article and edited by N.Yu. Shvedova [Vinogradov 1994: 741].
            The first experience of its etymologization, which had nothing to do with the events of 1812, refers to the time of the first lexicographic fixation of the word sharomig, as is still considered not only among amateurs.
            The famous Russian orientalist V.V. Grigoriev (1816-1881), who analyzed eastern words from the "Experience of the Regional Great Russian Dictionary", drew attention to the word sharomyga and suggested its non-Russian origin, although not eastern: "Sharamyga. The origin of this word is not at all eastern, but I think it is not superfluous to explain it: this is a spoiled French cher ami. How cher ami acquired the meaning of "cheaters", "a deceiver who loves to receive everything for free" - it will be explained from the customs of the well-known class of women "[Grigoriev 1852: 70].
            Etymology V.V. Grigoryeva, it seems, did not receive support, but IN AND. Dahl later in his "Explanatory Dictionary" called the rapprochement of the Russian sheromyg with the French cher ami comic. Unexpectedly recorded by V.I. Dahlem, in a very laconic form, the joke received amplification and became a science-like humorous one signed by I.-k in the comic magazine "Dragonfly" on July 13, 1880, where attention is drawn (in deviation from the common spelling) to the spelling of w instead of z.
            http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/dobrodomov-09b.htm
      5. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 18 March 2016 10: 36
        +2
        you are wrong, the level of the conquered states was much higher .... the speed of their (Mongols) movement is not military tactics and strategy. The fact that the Mongols were simple warlike nomads is a fact. But tell me how they managed to conquer China so quickly. Go half the world and conquer all. Movement speed alone is not enough here ....
        1. Seal
          Seal 18 March 2016 15: 40
          0
          the speed of their (Mongols) movement is not military tactics and strategy.

          And actually what is the speed of "their (Mongols) movement"?
          And can the speed of movement of a Mongol be more than the speed of movement of his Mongolian horse?
    3. Sensatus
      Sensatus 17 March 2016 11: 39
      -7
      Lightning strike is Syria today, with our videoconferencing
      Our VKS in Syria appeared 4 years after the start of the war. The same Mongols, having information from the field, reacted much more quickly. Therefore, lightning speed is not the speed of a single military unit, but the time that elapses from the beginning of the riots to the moment when the army is ready to suppress this mess. And here are the same few weeks - quite a lightning reaction.
      1. Dewa1s
        Dewa1s 17 March 2016 12: 28
        +6
        by telegraph or satellite they had information from the field?
        1. Sensatus
          Sensatus 17 March 2016 13: 11
          +2
          by telegraph or satellite they had information from the field?

          Back in 1206, Genghis Khan legalized the service of messengers (Yam). It is sometimes called the postal service. The Yamskoe department was created. It was ordered to inform Genghis Khan and later his successors of each important event as soon as possible.
          The whole empire was covered with a network of horse stations, which were located at a distance of 30-60 km. apart along the main caravan routes.
          At these stations, couriers succeeded each other. The reports were on the way even at night. For this courier was accompanied by soldiers with torches. Thus, the emperor received reports from places at a distance of ten days' journey per day. Marco Polo, in his book on a trip to Mongolia and China, wrote that about 10 thousand postal horse stations and up to 200 thousand horses at a time were involved in the entire service. Half of the horses grazed, and half were ready.
          At that time, there were no analogues of the Mongolian postal service with information transfer speed anywhere in the world.

          But in general, before discussing topics and putting cons I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the subject in more detail.
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 17 March 2016 13: 37
            +2
            Quote: Sensatus
            But in general, before discussing topics and putting cons I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the subject in more detail.

            Exactly. Meet me. And do not pull by the ears.
          2. alicante11
            alicante11 17 March 2016 14: 24
            +5
            The whole empire was covered with a network of horse stations, which were located at a distance of 30-60 km. apart along the main caravan routes.


            The question is, and where did it all go?

            Marco Polo wrote that about 10 thousand postal horse stations were involved in the entire service and up to 200 thousand horses at a time. Half of the horses grazed, and half were ready.


            Lord, how many horses did they have? After all, this is only pit, and also the army. And how much did it all cost?

            At that time, there were no analogues of the Mongolian postal service with information transfer speed anywhere in the world.


            Yeah, that’s the trick here too, too implausible if you start to think.
            1. Oldwiser
              Oldwiser 17 March 2016 18: 14
              +6
              It is very likely that the first-class liar was this "Marco Polo". He sat himself with Tsar-Grad, never went away from the nearest cannabis incense, and composed "science fiction novels."
          3. saigon
            saigon 17 March 2016 19: 18
            +3
            Marco polo is not serious with him, and the lions and tigers in China are rummaging together.
          4. KaPToC
            KaPToC 17 March 2016 20: 59
            +5
            You realize that your Mongolian postal service didn’t leave a single document based on the results of its activity, it wasn’t in nature, it’s another invention.
          5. Seal
            Seal 18 March 2016 01: 45
            0
            But in general, before discussing topics and putting cons I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the subject in more detail.

            And what does he get to know? You did not give a link to the resource where the "Charter of the Mongolian-Yamskaya post" is posted from where you apparently draw your inexhaustible knowledge of the subject. By the way, was the charter approved by Genghis Khan himself or by his deputy?
            And the breed of "pit horses", which is not indicated in the Charter?
          6. Rivares
            Rivares 18 March 2016 02: 50
            +3
            Quote: Sensatus
            Marco Polo, in his book on a trip to Mongolia and China, wrote that about 10 thousand postal horse stations and up to 200 thousand horses at a time were involved in the entire service.

            He also described Genghis Khan as a fair-haired European.
          7. aviator65
            aviator65 18 March 2016 12: 40
            +2
            And with the Mongols, how were things? What language were written?
            As for the testimonies of Marco Polo, then he has miracles there and are better described! Only for some reason neither about tea (Chinese) nor about hieroglyphs (Chinese) is mentioned anywhere.
            1. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 18 March 2016 12: 43
              0
              Quote: aviator65
              And with the Mongols, how were things? What language were written?

              On whatever. Languages ​​may be different, but one written language.
              1. aviator65
                aviator65 18 March 2016 14: 44
                +2
                Quote: Pomoryanin
                On whatever. Languages ​​may be different, but one written language.

                Wow! English, German, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese - we write everything the same way! And Genghis Khan, apparently, was a polyglot or had an army of translators with diplomas from Patrice Lumuba. good
                1. Pomeranian
                  Pomeranian 18 March 2016 14: 49
                  0
                  Quote: aviator65
                  Wow! English, German, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese - we write everything the same way! And Genghis Khan, apparently, was a polyglot or had an army of translators with diplomas from Patrice Lumuba.

                  Strange you get some irony. I wonder if the British, Koreans or residents of Bombay without a graduate diploma from Lumbumbat will understand the image below?
                2. aviator65
                  aviator65 18 March 2016 19: 26
                  +2
                  I get it. The Mongols used pentagrams ... and emoticons; wink good wassat drinks fool Then, of course, everyone has one written language!
                3. Pomeranian
                  Pomeranian 18 March 2016 20: 42
                  0
                  Quote: aviator65
                  I get it. The Mongols used pentagrams ... and emoticons;

                  Sorry if I was rude. Tired of idiots discussing this topic. Spring exacerbation in a certain category of citizens is evident. Do not tell me the character, if not a stylized pictogram, then what?
      2. Pomeranian
        Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 36
        0
        Quote: Sensatus
        But in general, before discussing topics and putting cons I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the subject in more detail.

        I gave you a plus, but I get the impression that a shkolota is participating in the discussion: "Fursenkov's nest chicks" or "calibers" of all stripes and shades that have become bronzed to nowhere.
      3. Seal
        Seal 22 March 2016 15: 47
        +2
        Back in 1206, Genghis Khan legalized the service of messengers (Yam). It is sometimes called the postal service. The Yamskoe department was created. It was ordered to inform Genghis Khan and later his successors of each important event as soon as possible.

        Genghis Khan's decree "On the formation of the Messenger Service" - into the studio!
        Genghis Khan's decree "On the creation of the Yamsky Department" - into the studio!
        Genghis Khan's decree "On information support for me and my successors" - to the studio!
      4. Seal
        Seal 22 March 2016 15: 59
        +1
        From the work "Was there a boy"
        It is said that the Yamsk service (i.e., the system of postal stations with replaceable horses) was brought to Russia by the Mongols. However, the so-called "Yaman chase" has existed in our penises since time immemorial. We are no longer talking about the fact that the famous highway connecting the Saray-on-Volga and the legendary Karakorum suddenly falls into oblivion. After the death of Batu, the great empire, spread half the world, wonderfully melts away like loose snow under the rays of the spring sun. At the same time, it was found in no less surprising way that the mailing system was functioning properly in Russia long before the advent of the notorious Mongols. For example, the chronicle reports how Princess Olga started a trip to Novgorod in 947, during which she not only cleaned the roads and arranged the bridges across the Dnieper and Desna, but also became very concerned about the state of the so-called carts.
        What is the cart and what is it for? This thing was widespread in the Middle Ages and was a kind of conscription, the burdens of which placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the local population. Every messenger, vested with special powers, had every right to receive fresh horses, food and fodder in the city or village of any principality and continue his journey. River crossings also did not cost him a penny - the treasury paid for everything. The duty to maintain the wagon in good condition (to repair roads, bridges, crossings, etc.) rested with the local authorities, which, of course, were not enthusiastic about this. Chronicles recorded outbreaks of discontent among townspeople and villagers about how far the “wagon duty” had fallen from.
        Whatever it was, but by the end of the X century. Yamsk service in Russia has become ubiquitous. In 1021, the equestrian squad of Yaroslav the Wise, pursuing the Polotsk prince Bryachislav, overcame about 800 km in a week, which automatically assumes not only the presence of roads, but roads that are properly equipped. In 1097, the blinded prince Vasilk Rostislavich was delivered from Kiev to Vladimir-Volynsky. The chronicler specifically emphasizes that the November roads were far from a fountain: they traveled "along an uneven path." But even the “uneven path” did not prevent to overcome the 500 km train convoy in six days. Incidentally, riding oduvukon was not an invention of the Tatars either. In Vladimir Monomakh's “Teaching to Children” we read: “Vseslav Smolensk burned, and I rushed off with Chernigov riding with underwater horses.” Submarine horses are nothing more than spare horses that allow the rider to travel long distances: on the march he changes from a tired horse to a fresh one and thereby runs twice as long a path.
        But starting from the XI century. inns are already operating at full speed on Russian routes, and local residents, cursing “wagon duty” as usual, make an exception for ferry crossings, since this service was paid, and part of the money fell into the pocket of the “wagoners”. In short: the Yamsk service in Russia existed a long time ago, coped well with its duties and arose long before the notorious Mongol invasion.
    4. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 33
      +1
      Quote: Dewa1s
      by telegraph or satellite they had information from the field?

      Near Plevna in 1878, satellite phones refused. Apparently, that's why they fussed for so long.
  • varov14
    varov14 17 March 2016 13: 03
    +7
    Mongoloid chtoli, resentment gnaws that modern science on genetics is beginning to debunk myths.
    1. Starshina wmf
      Starshina wmf 18 March 2016 09: 15
      -2
      and you seem to gnaw at resentment. that some wild barbarians from Asia defeated half of Europe and it wasn’t your ancestors. The Batu army that came to Russia consisted of the peoples of Central Asia and the same subjugated principalities. The Mongols were only commanders and guards. Approximately 4 thousand people. And they have discipline was iron. Yes and why if there were 3 centuries of the Horde, everyone should be half-blood. The Horde simply forced to pay tribute and went to the steppes. First the princes were elders and that's all. As it is written in one komment. What was the brothel there or what? Let's then remember about 2 millions of Germans, because it wasn’t that, but in geyropov Believe what happened.
  • Xsanchez
    Xsanchez 17 March 2016 14: 14
    +8
    Historians have already proved that history was "written" (i.e. distorted) by one of the founders of "modern history" Scalliger Joseph. He wrote it by order of the Pope, and Jesuit monks helped him in this dark matter. Historical records and works scholars contradicting this newly conceived work called "Chronology" were very quickly and thoroughly destroyed (burned and anathematized). This period in history is known as the "reformation"
    The 17th century, in which the whole history until the 17th century was shamelessly distorted. Scientists historically confront the falsification of history. Example: no Troy fraudster and thief Schliemann dug up, a settlement 500 meters in diameter could not have a population of more than 50 thousand inhabitants (no water supply or sewage , neither fortification, nor the remains of high walls, nor even roads). The same crap was invented about the Mongols. Even they could lie more plausibly, as you can believe that the 50 thousandth army under its own power, with herds of horses and sheep, could go almost 6000 km in the taiga, where even now with no roads, food net.Sovremennaya army throw 50 people over a distance of 000 km is not able! And so, by the way, always deceiving.
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 17 March 2016 14: 47
      0
      The version of the infamous Fomenko has nothing to do with logic.
    2. saigon
      saigon 17 March 2016 19: 23
      0
      Well, they didn’t seem to go through the taiga. I'm talking about the Mongols, but the army of Kolchak then Omsk to Irkutsk was not going by rail. And they went in the winter and the frosts were fierce. Such are the things, such an ice trip in Siberian.
      1. Seal
        Seal 18 March 2016 03: 07
        +4
        the Kolchak’s army then Omsk went to Irkutsk and not by rail
        Yes, actually Kolchak’s army was retreating just by rail. And even on trains. And Kolchak himself and all the gold - it rode in the cars. Yes, there were rearguard units that walked part of the way, since they walked in conditions when the whole army had already left and therefore the red partisans felt at ease — either they would take the paths apart, then the locomotives would break, then they would simply arrange an ambush ..
    3. Pissarro
      Pissarro 17 March 2016 20: 55
      +1
      They could even lie more believable, as one can believe that the 50 thousandth army, under its own power, with herds of horses and sheep, could go almost 6000 km through the taiga, where even now there are no roads, there is no food


      The south of Siberia and the north of Kazakhstan is not the taiga, but the steppe. Even for ancient commanders to calculate how much resources it takes to move an army of a certain number to a certain distance was not a big task, this is the arithmetic of a class so third. How much a horse eats, how many people, how many people and horses, how much they walk in a day with a walking step, what is the terrain, are there and what is the enemy in this area. Ancient Chinese Sun Tzu already left us this arithmetic

      . The modern army is not able to transfer 50 people to a distance of 000 km


      The armies of the world are doing just that in exercises, and they are putting it into practice. During what period did the fortieth army enter Afghanistan, during what period was Czechoslovakia occupied? talk about the days
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 17 March 2016 22: 24
        +4
        I want to disappoint you, modern armies move long distances by rail or by ship. No modern army is capable of marching on its wheels without external supplies of six thousand kilometers.
        1. Pissarro
          Pissarro 18 March 2016 01: 17
          +2
          where did you get that the horde had no supply? Any army has had convoys since ancient times

          At the expense of railways and ships. The 40th army, one hundred thousand people entered Afghanistan. There are no railways and seas in Afghanistan, the supply was mainly carried out on wheels.
          1. Seal
            Seal 18 March 2016 09: 24
            +1
            The 40th army, one hundred thousand people, entered Afghanistan
            But on our side of the border (to the gathering place), the army personnel were delivered by rail or by air. And subsequently, airfields in Afghanistan operated with a triple load.
          2. Pomeranian
            Pomeranian 18 March 2016 12: 47
            +2
            Quote: Pissarro
            Any army has had convoys since ancient times

            Well, now they will start to kick you, because in many people's heads the picture is worth: a cross-eyed ragged man with a saber, with three horses, eating raw horse meat. Meanwhile, horses were digging grass out from under a three-meter snowdrift ...) Of course they were. Batu even had a special engineering tumen, engaged in various sapper and not very jobs. The boss was Temuther Temnik.
            1. Seal
              Seal 18 March 2016 16: 48
              +1
              Batu even had a special engineering tumen, engaged in various sapper and not very jobs. The boss was Temuther Temnik.

              Excuse me, well, share from what such a bottomless well do you all draw everything and draw your historical fantasies? Moreover such super specific?
            2. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 18 March 2016 17: 15
              0
              Quote: Seal
              Excuse me, well, share from what such a bottomless well do you all draw everything and draw your historical fantasies?

              I am smart and live a long time. But Google is omnipotent to help you if you can’t get to the library or archives.
            3. Seal
              Seal 19 March 2016 00: 49
              0
              I am smart and live a long time.

              Oh, excuse me, Mr. Everlasting w ... d, did not recognize. Well, how was Genghis Khan doing there when you last saw him? And by the way, where did your rendezvous take place with him?
  • aviator65
    aviator65 18 March 2016 13: 04
    +1
    Quote: Pissarro
    The south of Siberia and the north of Kazakhstan is not the taiga, but the steppe.

    But what about the fact that a thousand years ago the taiga was also denser and located south, because it was not cut down as intensively as over the past 200 years, and the steppe also had not yet advanced so far north. And the rivers were much more full.
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 10: 51
    +2
    plus .... falsification is putting it mildly, unfortunately we lost a huge amount of documents during the dominance of the Germans in the Academy of Sciences. Why Lomonosov was very much outraged by everything that they presented as "the history of Russia" ...
  • aviator65
    aviator65 18 March 2016 12: 55
    +3
    Quote: Xsanchez
    Historical records, and the works of scholars contradicting this newly conceived work called "Chronology", were very quickly and thoroughly destroyed (burned and anathematized). This period in history is known as the "Reformation"
    17th century, in which the whole history until the 17th century was shamelessly distorted

    By the way, this falsification also played into the hands of our churchmen. Rather than admitting that Orthodox Christians - princes in their civil strife with great pleasure exterminated their own fellow believers, and not sparing either Orthodox shrines or Orthodox clergy, it is better to blame everything on "infidel conquerors", yes "filthy yoke."
  • Mr. Pippers
    Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 14: 59
    +3
    Quote: Sensatus
    Our VKS in Syria appeared 4 years after the start of the war. The same Mongols, having information from the field, reacted much more quickly.

    I will upset you, these "4 years" were not reacted by the military - the military would have had a couple of minutes to react fellow
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 10: 44
    +2
    how do you worry about the Mongols .... laughing
  • Rorabek
    Rorabek 17 March 2016 15: 47
    0
    Also, the excellent cavalry of the Mongols, the presence of several swing horses and the absolute unpretentiousness in the campaign made it possible for the Mongol to make transitions dizzying in speed. 1000 kilometers per week was the usual pace (the European army usually traveled 150-200 kilometers per week), and with some dexterity, advanced units could cover up to 200-250 kilometers per day. Thus, a lot of enemy cities were taken by surprise, and their foot troops disastrously did not have time.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 17 March 2016 21: 04
      +5
      Go camping for a week, for a thousand kilometers, you will immediately understand how you are mistaken. Take an interest in driving regulations for equestrian units and leisure standards for horses.
      1. Starshina wmf
        Starshina wmf 18 March 2016 09: 19
        -1
        The steppes wandered their whole life to gather a kibitka for them in 15 minutes like 2 fingers. Moreover, women gathered. They moved forward in detachments. In the detachments, basically all of their own, from someone else’s kind, were not allowed.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 18 March 2016 17: 50
          +1
          A classic delusion, nomads roamed within the very limited limits of their territory.
    2. aviator65
      aviator65 18 March 2016 13: 21
      +3
      Quote: Rorabek
      Also, the excellent cavalry of the Mongols, the presence of several swing horses and the absolute unpretentiousness in the campaign made it possible for the Mongol to make transitions dizzying in speed.

      As the saying goes "it was smooth on paper ..." Do you know the continuation?
      One gets the impression that these are not nomadic warriors, but some kind of terminators, just "universal soldiers", solid Schwarzeneggers with vandams! They require neither sleep, nor rest, nor food, and at the same time they are absolutely not killed! As 50 - 100 - 150 thousand set out on the campaign, they did not lose a single one for the entire journey from China to Europe. Cavalry is, of course, good for the steppes and wide fields. But what about in the forests of the Russian central zone, somewhere near Vladimir, but near the walls of the same Moscow of the XIII century? The forests were denser then than they are now, and the roads are already.
    3. Seal
      Seal 18 March 2016 16: 27
      0
      Are you at least approximately aware of the tactical and technical data of the Mongolian horses? Would you like to look into the Great Soviet. Encyclopedia? Or read a smart book about the horses of S.M. Budenny?
      1. aviator65
        aviator65 18 March 2016 19: 15
        +1
        Horses are good! But I am more interested in the TTD of their riders. Or did the horses themselves take the cities themselves?
  • Vadim42
    Vadim42 17 March 2016 15: 49
    0
    I support, to Syria almost twice as fast as from the Far East to Moscow. The road was at the beginning of winter, before a lot of snow.
  • Mr. Pipper
    Mr. Pipper 17 March 2016 10: 52
    -3
    Quote: Sensatus
    The author refutes the myth that only the Mongols lived in the Golden Horde. I’m wondering where he got this myth from.

    I explain - this is an old method of "writing alternatives" - they come up with some arguments and assertions, attribute these assertions to official science (although it has never stated anything like that!) And then they refute these arguments and slip their game under the "refutation" weak brain of "reading alternatives"!
    1. novel66
      novel66 17 March 2016 14: 46
      +9
      I am a reading alternativeist, I don’t think my brain is weak, I’m used to trust logic and expediency.
      1. Mr. Pippers
        Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 16: 30
        -6
        Quote: novel xnumx
        used to trust logic and expediency.

        It's cool, but I will disappoint you - this world is not cognizable by logic at all, it is limited and the vast majority of logical conclusions always turn out to be erroneous.
        This is all because (without going into complex terms) logic is a sign of the consciousness of a living creature, not its intelligence! fellow
        Therefore, trust the scientific method and facts - that is, official science and its conclusions - this is more correct.
        1. saigon
          saigon 17 March 2016 19: 28
          +3
          Official History has a distant relation to science so blah, and for the sake of the moment or ruler, the facts of history change just like the color of a chameleon.
  • varov14
    varov14 17 March 2016 12: 58
    +6
    Lightning fast through Siberia on the road, this is something, again, it turns out to be genetically inconsistent with genetics.
  • ver_
    ver_ 17 March 2016 13: 50
    +5
    ..this myth came from Soviet historians who were translating ancient Chinese scrolls written in hieroglyphs, which had not been used in China for a long time (dead) and which described news coming with caravans from Europe in the 12-13th century .. For which they received state awards and ranks .., but they modestly kept silent about the fact that Genghis Khan had a large fleet ...
    1. Oldwiser
      Oldwiser 17 March 2016 14: 15
      +5
      Quote: ver_
      Genghis Khan had a large fleet ...

      Let me be curious - on what sea (s) did this "Genghis Khan's large fleet" sail? To Genoa and Venice? Or (why not waste time on trifles) - from China to the Filipinas?
      1. Turkir
        Turkir 17 March 2016 15: 02
        +2
        Oh, how many wonderful revelations .. Genghis Khan’s large fleet was based in Sevastopol .. one can also assume Sakhalin or Japan.
        OldWiser, our "opponents" can read, I can't understand the meaning of what is written.
        I already put the minuses of those commentators to whom I, for interest in history, put the pluses. Two fleets, you can write and three fleets. What's the difference? Yes, and the authorities are appropriate, such as Akunin.
        Mythical thinking does not know about the existence of scientific thinking. At school they are not told this. The Russian philosopher Losev helped me understand this phenomenon with his wonderful book "Dialectics of Myth."
        Logic, dialectics is not included in the conceptual apparatus of mythical thinking, it has its own laws.
        1. Oldwiser
          Oldwiser 17 March 2016 15: 32
          +1
          Quote: Turkir
          conceptual apparatus of mythical thinking, it has its own laws

          I agree with you, dear <TurKir> (Turkish king?) - for
          I believe because it is absurd
        2. Oldwiser
          Oldwiser 17 March 2016 15: 32
          0
          Quote: Turkir
          conceptual apparatus of mythical thinking, it has its own laws

          I agree with you, dear <TurKir> (Turkish king?) - for
          I believe because it is absurd
      2. saigon
        saigon 17 March 2016 19: 34
        +2
        Well, it seems they say about the landing in the land of samurai. And the samurai still won with the help of the divine wind. But it is interesting if 10 thousand Mongols or Huns or other Asian nomads landed in Japan. How long would glorious samurai last with their battle tactics against a cohesive and most importantly disciplined nomad army?
        1. Seal
          Seal 18 March 2016 01: 50
          +5
          How long would glorious samurai last with their battle tactics against a cohesive and most importantly disciplined nomad army?

          And where did these close-knit and most disciplined nomadic armies go in a historically more reliable, that is, in the period closest to us? Nomads, for example, in the 18th century was even higher than the roof .. well, where in the 18th century are the close-knit and most disciplined armies of these nomads?
      3. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 18 March 2016 10: 59
        +2
        according to the official history of Russia (which, by the way, is taught in the 6th grade), the Mongols had ships captured from the Chinese with their help, they wanted to land in Japan, but a raging storm sank the ships and Japan was saved ... according to the 6th grade history, the Japanese later nicknamed this saving wind saved them from the invasion of -kamikaze ... like that ... It seems that the Mongols were pulled by their ears to conquest throughout Eurasia ... only the Mongols themselves for some reason do not know anything about this ..... ( rather, they didn’t know until they were told about Timujin), but this is about om says, if the ethnic group is not even the oral traditions, what is wrong here ...
    2. Balagan
      Balagan 17 March 2016 18: 42
      +1
      The hieroglyphs that are dead in China today were used thousands of years before Genghis Khan. And those that were written recently - in the last fifteen hundred years - so they are still used, with the exception of individual reforms. Reformed characters are well known to specialists, but simply translators just look through the dictionaries.
      And the fleet of Temuchin (the uncle who worked as Genghis Khan in 1206-1227) was so-so. Kublai really had a fleet.
  • Fox
    Fox 17 March 2016 18: 45
    +3
    Quote: Sensatus
    And power control over the territories was carried out due to the lightning-fast transfer of horse troops

    in my family the Cossacks were ... he himself rode a horse ... try, you are our lightning fast laughing
    a reference to Gumilyov ... was he there? did he see everything and participated?
  • Seal
    Seal 18 March 2016 01: 28
    +3
    And power control over the territories was carried out due to the lightning-fast transfer of horse troops from one part of the empire to another, if necessary.

    Name the breed of "lightning" horses.
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 10: 29
    +2
    according to Gumelev, the Mongols are the backbone of the army of Temujin, Batu and others .... but the conquered territories require constant monitoring and no matter how fast the Mongols at that time they had resources (especially human - in the pure form of the Mongols) to hold a huge empire in obedience ... a lot of incomprehensible, that it was, but in a different way .....
    1. Penzuck
      Penzuck 18 March 2016 13: 14
      +1
      Quote: Alexey-74
      according to Gumelev, the Mongols are the backbone of the army of Temujin, Batu and others .... but the conquered territories require constant monitoring and no matter how fast the Mongols at that time they had resources (especially human - in the pure form of the Mongols) to hold a huge empire in obedience ... a lot of incomprehensible, that it was, but in a different way .....

      Carrot and stick.
  • RUSS
    RUSS 17 March 2016 09: 29
    +10
    Quote: Nikolai S.
    Why, if the Polovtsy-Turks,

    Strange, but the myth of the “truly Aryan” appearance of the steppes who inhabited the Wild Field in the XNUMXth – XNUMXth centuries stubbornly roams the pages of popular literature. “There is evidence,” writes S. A. Pletneva in the book “Disappeared Peoples,” “testifying that the Polovtsy were mostly fair-haired and blue-eyed. From here, as if, the Russian name came to be - "sex", that is, light, like sex - straw. "

    It’s easy to write to a desk researcher! First, let's start with the fact that “sex” and “straw” are far from the same thing. It is enough to go to the peasants in the village - they distinguish them well. Straw is the dried stalks of rye or wheat - long, bright, beautiful. It is suitable both for laying cattle and for the roof for huts. But sex is not without reason a synonym for the word "rubbish." Polov, as Vladimir Dahl writes, “is a wallpaper from threshing, a broken husk.” It is rather grayish and dirty in color. In size - a little longer than the nail. And it doesn’t look like straw at all!

    So if the Polovtsy were named after the sexes, then by no means for the ceremonial appearance. The Franciscan monk Guillaume de Rubruck, who traveled around the Black Sea steppes in 1253, unlike modern experts on ancient nomads, saw them personally. He clearly did not like the Polovtsy: “Even when we were sitting under our wagons for the sake of the shade, since there was intense heat there at the time, they pestered us so annoyingly that they crushed us, wanting to examine our things.”

    Rubruk did not notice anything unusual in the appearance of these annoying people. Rather, they were struck by their hygiene habits, which were completely shameless: “If they had a desire to empty their stomachs, they did not move away from us as much as you can throw a bean grain; not only that, they made their sewage next to us in a mutual conversation "... Well, cattle, and nothing more! And not a word about "fair-haired" and "blue-eyed ™."

    Meanwhile, Rubruk was not just the ambassador of the French king Louis Saint, but also a wonderful, speaking in modern, “journalist”. He recorded all the unusual, amazing facts that he managed to meet on the way. Having visited the Goths who lived on the southern coast of Crimea, he immediately noted that there were “a lot of them” and that their language was German. When he got to the Tatars, he carefully described their appearance in the chapter “On the Shaving of Men and the Dress of Women”: “All women are surprisingly obese; and one in which
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 17 March 2016 12: 51
      +1
      An interesting note about sex. About Pletneva, I can add that she is aggressive towards her opponents, categorical in her judgments, an ardent "Norman".
      -----
      About the "Polovtsy", they are also Kypchaks. This is a very contradictory information that still requires deep research. Then they, according to the definition of the "Mongols," "our grooms", for whom the Russian princes stood up and thanks to the same Polovtsy lost the battle despite the superiority of forces. Then they suddenly become allies of Batu Khan and the basis of his army, i.e. our rulers. The "Polovtsian" question is very important for this period of history, but so far there is no reason to believe that it has been finally settled.
    2. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 17 March 2016 13: 46
      +1
      Quote: RUSS
      Strange, but the myth of the “truly Aryan” appearance of the steppes who inhabited the Wild Field in the 11th – 13th centuries stubbornly roams the pages of popular literature.

      In my opinion - the best comment on this topic.
  • Gorinich
    Gorinich 17 March 2016 09: 30
    +3
    There is an assumption that the Polovtsians are tribes engaged in "fishing" (raids and robberies). I cannot judge how true it is, but joint marriages are not uncommon between Polovtsy and Rusichs (sources indicate this). By the way, I still remember that announcement on TV when they said that "The Tale of Igor's Regiment" may have been written by a captured Polovtsian ...
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 17 March 2016 13: 03
      +1
      By the way, I still remember that announcement on TV when they said that "The Tale of Igor's Regiment" may have been written by a captured Polovtsian ...

      Oh, "Russian" historians will tell you a lot, for example, that Russians are not Russians, and so on. Television is certainly a source of knowledge for a person interested in their history. Foreign TV is best suited for this.
      ------
      And reading books is long and boring, there are a lot of "bukaff". For those who still want to know what and for whom the "Word about ..." was written, I advise you to read the book "The Golden Word of Russia". A good start for lovers of the Russian language and their history.
      "..they have tension, they open up, .."
      More than 800 years have passed, but everything is clear. What was the name of this language?
      1. Gorinich
        Gorinich 17 March 2016 15: 14
        0
        Actually, this message flashed back under the USSR, but it was only once and more than that was not remembered. You can assume that I was not sober that day. wink True, the question about the author will still remain.
    2. Xsanchez
      Xsanchez 17 March 2016 14: 44
      +2
      Moreover, Russian princes often married and married their daughters to Polovtsian khans. By the way, when, much later, New Russia was formed on the territory of the Wild Field, it was little populated, but not depopulated!
  • andj61
    andj61 17 March 2016 10: 02
    +1
    Quote: Nikolai S.
    Filthy - not a curse - it's just unchristian.

    Actually, many linguists consider the words "plow", "arable land", "plowman" and "" to be related.
    That, supposedly, initially plowing-panging meant working — and only! Grazing cattle is also work. If the farmers had already distinguished their military class, and they fought, mainly (with the exception of absolutely critical cases), they were the ones, then almost everything was fought with the nomads, that is, workers or filthy. So it’s hardly unchristian - rather, just nomads. Moreover, nomads were called filthy even before the universal adoption and rooting of Christianity in Russia. And after that, the mass of nomads was also Christians, though mostly of the Nestorian sense.
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 17 March 2016 14: 01
      +1
      Moreover, nomads were called filthy even before the universal adoption and rooting of Christianity in Russia.

      This is a true and subtle remark, which refutes all the evidence made by linguists. They love to fence the garden from scratch.
      This observation also refutes those linguists who derive this word from the Latin "paganus". I stopped at your comment when I wanted to make the same argument about which you wrote before me. It is very strange that you yourself did not notice this contradiction and the weakness and far-fetchedness of linguistic "arguments".
      "To work" in the old sounding remained in the Ukrainian dialect: "turbovati", from the word "tour".
  • Mr. Pipper
    Mr. Pipper 17 March 2016 10: 41
    -15%
    Quote: Nikolai S.
    History is a subject such that the more you know, the more questions

    Indeed - the less you know, the better you sleep - everyone urgently needs to pray, fast and read Fomenko and Samsonov about millennia of the glorious history of Raseyushki!
    1. aviator65
      aviator65 18 March 2016 13: 32
      0
      Quote: Mister Pipper
      Everyone urgently pray, fast and read Fomenko and Samsonov about the millennia of the glorious history of Raseyushka!

      Do not want to - do not read. You are more comfortable with a miserable, truncated story - stay with your own. hi
    2. Spnsr
      Spnsr 18 March 2016 13: 36
      +3
      Quote: Mister Pipper
      millennia of the glorious history of the Raseyushka!

      and what is so offensive about the Motherland then?
  • g1v2
    g1v2 17 March 2016 14: 06
    +4
    The distribution of haplogroups in Eurasia shows quite clearly about everything. We see the spread of the r1a group, which is characterized by the Slavs and see its borders. The western border of the Slavic haplogroup runs approximately along the border of the old GDR and the FRG, i.e., along the border of the lands of the Western Slavs and Celtic tribes with the haplogroup r1b (Berlin is a Slavic city if that wink) The northern border is approximately the Leningrad region, where there is a mixture with the Finno-Finnish haplogroup N1C. The south is the border of Kazakhstan, and then comes the powerful center of the Slavic haplogroup in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan with branches in Pakistan and northern India. In the northern regions of India, the haplogroup R1A is represented only among the higher caste, it could not have originated in India - most likely the conquerors brought it. Between the two main parts of the Slavic haplogroup in Eastern Europe and Central Asia there is Kazakhstan, populated mainly by the Mongolian haplogroup c3.
    The result is simple - for several thousand years, pre-Slavic tribes with haplogroup R1A came from Central Asia and assimilated the natives with haplogroup i2 and they walked until they clashed with the Balts and other Finno-Ugric tribes with haplogroup n1c. Part of this remained in Central Asia, part went to the forests, and part wandered in the steppes - the Pechenegs and Polovtsy. That is why the Russian princes with them so closely contacted and mixed the clans - they still remembered that they were kindred peoples. Then the Mongols came and tearing this territory in half, moving their tribes to the territory of Kazakhstan, and then they drove the conquered and ousted tribes of the Polovtsy and other steppe-related peoples to the Slavs, while the Mongols themselves only commanded, and the Batumen Tatyns already consisted of Uzbeks, Polovtsy and etc., which already went to the Russian principalities and to Europe and which were called Tatars by the name of the tribe destroyed by Genghis, whose name he extended to the conquered nomadic peoples. So we get that the Mongol tribes left their haplogroup only in the territory of Kazakhstan and part of Siberia.
    The fact that the Kirghiz are much more similar to the neighbors of the Kazakhs, despair and have different blood is explained by the habitat - hereditary signs due to the habitat. For example, one of the Cameroonian tribes has a Celtic haplogroup, while ordinary Negroes seem to be. Habitat. request
    At the same time, among the Serbs, the Slavic haplogroup is much weaker than that of the Kirghiz, for example, but they are Slavs by culture, and not by blood. Turkic peoples are also characterized by a common culture and religion, and not by blood, and may include peoples with different roots. hi
    If specifically in Russian, then we arose as a result of a tribal union of three Ugrofin peoples (Chud, Meria and all) and two more numerous Slavic (Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes). Later, as the spread went south, the Slavic haplogroup became more common.
  • figwam
    figwam 17 March 2016 15: 56
    +3
    And such an opinion.
    1. g1v2
      g1v2 17 March 2016 19: 29
      +5
      The Battle of Kulikovo is already a much later moment. At that time, both the Russian principalities and the Golden Horde were parts of a single feudal state. The feudal society has its own laws and nationality does not play any role - all solve only dynastic issues. Mamai was not a Chingizid, which means Dmitry Donskoy of the Rurikovich clan, who was a prince (an analogue of the West European duke) and whose clan was more senior (had a golden paizu) than Mamaia, could completely not recognize his authority and give a hat. When Chingizid Tokhtamysh came to Russia after that, he exponentially burned Moscow, accusing that Dmitry Donskoy had been rat rat taxes for 10 years without paying him or Mamaia. At the same time, all the princes who were in alliance with Donskoy on Kulikovsky Field ran away, since Tokhtamysh, being a royal family, had the right under the then laws to deal with a vassal, albeit as senior as Dmitry Donskoy. Moreover, Donskoy after that went to negotiate with Tokhtamysh, recognizing him as the ruler of a state-type - like, he beat the usurper for the sake of the real Tsar. In general, the parties decided that the burning of Moscow was compensation for the non-payment of dough for 10 years.
      Feudal society and national have different laws. And the battle on the Kulikovo field, according to the then laws, was an element of the civil war. It was not a battle of the Russians for liberation, but the dismantling of the vassal prince from a high-ranking Rurikovich clan with the impudent upstart Mamai from a lower clan who wanted to take tribute from him. Then Tokhtamysh came from the royal family of Genghisides, whom Mom had beaten before and established his ass on the throne of the Golden Horde.
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 17 March 2016 19: 39
        +1
        laughing
        Quote: g1v2
        Tokhtamysh being a royal family, according to the then laws, had the right to deal with a vassal, albeit as senior as Dmitry Donskoy
        for which then, twice as much I received a tinsel from Emir Timur !!! laughing laughing laughing and so ingloriously ended his days !!! laughing laughing laughing who also plundered part of his land laughing laughing laughing
        1. g1v2
          g1v2 17 March 2016 21: 29
          +2
          Well, Timur helped Tokhtamysh in the struggle for the throne of the Golden Horde, and then he became the ruler of the Golden Horde forgot and forgot who helped him. Timur became related to the Genghisides by marrying Saray-mulk khanim from the genus of Genghisides and formally got the right to claim power. In addition, he was the ruler of the Chagatai ulus, and Tokhtamysh with his help became the ruler of the Juchi ulus (Golden Horde). That is, they were already at war as rulers of neighboring states. Moreover, Timur did not try to conquer the ulus - he clearly punished the treacherous Tokhtamysh, and, at the same time, redirected trade flows. request
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 17 March 2016 21: 48
            0
            Quote: g1v2
            Moreover, Timur did not try to conquer the ulus - he clearly punished the treacherous Tokhtamysh

            quite logical!
            but who is this?
            Quote: g1v2
            Genghiside
            ?
            and this, Jochi ulus, is it a golden horde? and what other hordes were there? and what is a horde?
            1. g1v2
              g1v2 17 March 2016 23: 58
              +1
              Well, it’s better then to read the literature after all, if the topic is of interest, but if in a nutshell. Already in the 13th century, the Mongol state fell into uluses led by the descendants of Genghis Khan. Feudal fragmentation in Mongolian. China seceded, led by the grandson of Genghis Khan Khubilai, and then there was a split into several independent uluses. The largest are the Juchi ulus - it is the Golden Horde (all that is west of the Aral Sea), the Chagatai ulus (approximately Kyrgyzstan, western China and part of Tajikistan) and the state of the Hulaguids (Iran, part of Asia Minor, the Caucasus and neighboring lands). In general, the Russian lands were vassals of the Jochi ulus - he is also a golden horde.
              1. Spnsr
                Spnsr 18 March 2016 00: 46
                +1
                Quote: g1v2
                Well, it’s better then to read literature

                as I understand it, Genghisides is in Russian, a descendant of the royal family? if so, then why not speak from the khanate, namely chindgizid?
                1. Seal
                  Seal 18 March 2016 03: 13
                  +1
                  as I understand it, Genghisides is in Russian, a descendant of the royal family? if so, then why not speak from the khanate, namely chindgizid?

                  Apparently they want to be known as smart. In general, there were thousands of Genghis Khan. Any khan that is east of another khan is for a more western khan - Shagys-Khan (Genghis Khan).
                  And the western khan himself for his eastern neighbor is Batys-Khan (Batu-Khan, Batu).
                  1. Spnsr
                    Spnsr 18 March 2016 09: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Seal
                    as I understand it, Genghisides is in Russian, a descendant of the royal family? if so, then why not speak from the khanate, namely chindgizid?

                    Apparently they want to be known as smart. In general, there were thousands of Genghis Khan. Any khan that is east of another khan is for a more western khan - Shagys-Khan (Genghis Khan).
                    And the western khan himself for his eastern neighbor is Batys-Khan (Batu-Khan, Batu).

                    here is another interpretation of the story outlined repeat Batys Khan (Batu Khan, Batu) and it turns out VATICAN or, well, shorter west VATICAN
                    and they urinated west and east for centuries, then again bull is planned laughing
                  2. Seal
                    Seal 18 March 2016 15: 44
                    -1
                    If you personally did not know something, then why shout about it so loudly?
                    ". Let’s take the Turks, for example, the Kazakhs, since they seem to be there and if, what, they’ll correct them, the orientation toward sunrise and sunset is taken as the basis for orientation in space. In the Kazakh language, sunrise is shygys, sunset is batys. Hence the East-Shygys, and the West-Batys. The main holy direction of the Turks (Kazakhs) was and remains the "East".
                    If you face east, then on the right (in the Kazakh language “right side” - “he”) will be Ontustik-South, and on the left (in the Kazakh language - “sol”), respectively, Soltustik-North. In this regard, everything located to the west of the steppe for the Kazakhs had the prefix "batu", and to the east - "shygys." Hence, the ruler of any western from the habitat of the Turks (Kazakhs) was called Batu-Khan (Batu). And the one who ruled east - well, for example, China - was Shygys Khan (in our pronunciation, Genghis Khan). That is, all of these Batu, Batu, Batys, and Shagysy (Genghis) could be (and were, after all, the West is full of all sorts of “Karls”) the names of both specific people and common names for all khans-rulers of these areas and territories. By the way, Genghis Khan is simply any “Solar Khan” or “Eastern Khan” and in the language of a number of Volga non-Turkic peoples. But apparently, the Volga peoples still nevertheless adopted this term, well, for example, among the Tatars.
                  3. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 18 March 2016 18: 23
                    +1
                    This zhezh is so convenient for the West to issue a crusade against the Russians for the Mongol-Tatar invasion from the east.
                2. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 18 March 2016 18: 20
                  -1
                  Batys is not Baty, but Shagys is not Genghis
                  And Nevsky is not a Prussian, but a real Rusak.
              2. g1v2
                g1v2 18 March 2016 12: 04
                +1
                Genghisides means that he is from the descendants of Genghis Khan. That is, it was the derivation of the genealogy from Genghis Khan that allowed him to claim power. That is, it is precisely the royal dynasty, whose representatives ruled in the state into which the state of the Mongols fell apart. As in the Russian principalities ruled Rurikovich - the descendants of Rurik or the Habsburg dynasty in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And when one of the branches of the Rurikovich was stopped, then as a rule the princedom was occupied by a prince from another branch of the Rurikovich. The princely dynasty however. After declaring himself Ivan the Terrible king in 1547, she became a royal dynasty. Considering that in those days they bred actively, even now it is quite possible to find a descendant of Rurik. When American researchers tried to determine the haplogroup of Rurik’s descendants, for example, about a dozen representatives of the genera who derived their genealogy from Rurik were examined. Tsch, I think that the descendants of Genghis Khan runs even more around the world.
                1. Seal
                  Seal 19 March 2016 12: 47
                  +1
                  Genghis Khan
                  Which Genghis Khan? There were thousands of them !!! Again. Shagys Khan, or in our pronunciation, Genghis Khan, is any Khan living east of the place where the observer stands.
                  But Batys Khan (Batu, Batu Khan) is any khan living west of the place where the observer stands.
                  If the observer moves west, then the khan who was Batys Khan yesterday for the observer (since he was west of the observation point) today has become Shagys-Khanom, since he has become east of the observation point.
                  And for Europe, they are all exclusively Shagys-khans (Genghis-khans). Therefore, it was necessary to mold from the western khans (batys-khans) a certain "grandson of Genghis Khan" - Baty.

                  Shagys and Batys is a designation of East and West in Turkic. That's all.
    2. Rivares
      Rivares 18 March 2016 03: 00
      0
      Quote: g1v2
      a high-ranking clan of the Rurikovich with an impudent upstart Mamai

      By the way, but as the name and surname of Mamaia, the story is silent)))
      1. Oldwiser
        Oldwiser 18 March 2016 18: 02
        0
        Well, there is a version that the name was comrade Mama Ivan, by the name of Velyaminov, and by position he was dark (10).
      2. Oldwiser
        Oldwiser 18 March 2016 18: 02
        0
        Well, there is a version that the name was comrade Mama Ivan, by the name of Velyaminov, and by position he was dark (10).
    3. Rivares
      Rivares 18 March 2016 03: 01
      +1
      Quote: g1v2
      a high-ranking clan of the Rurikovich with an impudent upstart Mamai

      By the way, but as the name and surname of Mamaia, the story is silent)))
  • skrabplus.ru
    skrabplus.ru 17 March 2016 20: 32
    -1
    Read Fomenko and Nosovsky-facts more!
  • Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 17 March 2016 20: 51
    +1
    Here we are attacked by a disaster - snowy. Now. Everyone who has the strength, intelligence and conscience came out to deal with her. Someone went sideways, someone did not care.
    None of us living (even a hard worker, even a slob) did not even think of sharing on a national basis. There is a problem - we will solve it, and it will not be. And no one will ever ask anyone where he was? But treating each other is a must, because you have to be no worse.
    This is the Orenburg region, these are Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Mordovians, Chuvashs, Germans, Mari, Udmurts, Belarusians, Jews, Kalmyks, French. Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens and Kyrgyz are just relatives (when native, when - first cousin).
    Our region and my city is Russia?
  • the most important
    the most important 17 March 2016 23: 15
    +2
    Quote: Nikolai S.
    History is an object such that the more you know, the more questions.

    You're right!!! But don't worry, we Russians have won !!! And about the Mongols, the absolute truth - they themselves are shocked that the "three shepherds" captured half the world.
  • RomanS
    RomanS 17 March 2016 07: 41
    +1
    Right! And the Ancient Ukrainians dug up the Black Sea!
  • Sweles
    Sweles 17 March 2016 08: 17
    +3
    Nnda is cool Samsonov writes in his last article, the day before yesterday wrote that there were Tatars and Mongols, today he writes that he didn’t, that he wants to and writes.
    Firstly, if there was no TMI, then it is necessary, somehow, to adhere to the logic in historical constructions, if there was no Mongol empire, then there was a Russian empire, and the Russian empire has its roots in the Roman one, therefore there is already a version that

    Indeed, it is known from history that any conqueror relies on a developed economy. Rome was the foremost power of Europe. Alexander the Great relied on a farm created by his father Philip. With all his talents, he would not have been able to make half the accomplishments if his father had not created a powerful mining, metallurgical industry, strengthened finances, and carried out a number of military reforms


    already, too, does not stand up to criticism, especially about the "powerful mining and metallurgical industry" of the ancient Greeks - this is Samson's lies, there are no facts. This, too, would have to be cleared somehow.
    Secondly, moving away from understanding the "Mongolian Empire" in its traditional form and moving on to the RUSSIAN-HORDAN EMPIRE, it becomes necessary to understand what the WEST is with its Catholic-Protestant, commercial culture and its claims to "Roman" origin. Here is an uncultivated field for research.
    In Latin, EUROPE is EAST i.e. the advance of Catholicism on the Russian world went from the west - to the east, conquering the Slavic lands and creating new peoples from the Slavs. These are the Etruscans, Luga’s lands on modern German lands. Here is this HISTORY, as the Slavs conquered, we do not know at all.
    And even Samsonov, if you rely on the ideas of Fomenko-Nosovsky, then you should not bashfully replace them with the opinions of any plagiarists Petukhov and others.
    1. Xsanchez
      Xsanchez 17 March 2016 15: 04
      +5
      If we follow the theory of Fomenko-Nosovsky, then the ancient Roman empire did not exist, at least not 3-1 century BC, but 12-14 centuries AD, and all the ruins, supposedly having 2 years of history, led the Renaissance. Karl is completely invented (because he didn’t leave a single material evidence of his existence). Correct, believe more to Western historians: we, it turns out, are invaders of the Baltic states and dill! Westerners are not even imagining this, they are already faking it before our eyes Good luck and patience in the study of history.
  • Penzuck
    Penzuck 17 March 2016 08: 47
    +9
    Quote: ovod84
    bullshit sounds

    I will support.
    1. It is foolish to talk only about the Khalkha tribe and about the territory of modern Mongolia. Do the Mongols have border posts along nomads? Not. Those. where the Mongols wander - there is Mongolia.
    2. Note - there was no single people of the Mongols. The distances between the nomads are huge. individual tribes and clans could unite, act together and absorb other non-Mongol nomadic and non-nomadic tribes. Known examples of the Scythian dynasty of the kings of Medes? The same dynasty of the Parthian kingdom taxied and hung Lyuli Krasus in Scythian style. Kipchak dynasties are known ... why not be Mongolian?
    3. Why don’t you admit that the Mongols simply disappeared into Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, etc.? And the people of the Khalkha are driven into the desert? Someone asked the Chukchi whether they want to freeze in the far North?
    4. And repeat the mantra: "There is no Mongoloid in Russians" ...
    Was Mongolia formed in the 20th century? The state of the Kazakhs is also in the twentieth.
    You will say that the Chinese and Kazakh are, to varying degrees, Mongoloids. But this only proves that the Turkic allies (tributaries, vassals) of the Mongols multiplied faster, and I will say the same about the peoples of the Volga region.
    5. Compare B. Obama and A.S. Pushkin. The first semi-European. He had a second Negro in his family in the n-th generation, and he became like a gypsy when he was tanned by the sun.
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 17 March 2016 09: 25
      +16
      Quote: Penzuck
      1. It is foolish to talk only about the Khalkha tribe and about the territory of modern Mongolia. Do the Mongols have border posts along nomads? Not. Those. where the Mongols wander - there is Mongolia.

      I don’t know how it goes about the pillars, I don’t know about the distances of the former tribes of Mongolia.
      I am sure of one that in the territory of modern Mongolia, Buryatia, Kyrgyzstan, there are no remains of a great empire (similar to the remains of the Roman Empire) of Byzantium, Egyptian pyramids (I am sure that the Egyptians have no relation to these pyramids) and other remains in South America.
      Please explain to me where are these remnants of a highly developed civilization? (palaces of the chamber, etc.) Where is the mining and processing of metal, (trowing, arrowheads, horseshoes and other utensils) how was this all done, delivered to the soldiers across thousands of kilometers? Where are the traces of blacksmithing in Mongolia? NO. Moreover, as we are told, they walked across the whole territory of Russia, who fed them, shod, dressed, treated, provided that they walked along enemy territory, and they were not met with bread and salt. According to history, such a Mongol Blitz krieg is obtained, for a month. Doesn't it seem strange?
      How was the logistics organized then?
      All this can be compared with the operation of our air forces in Syria, if there had not been the Syrian Express, the use of high-tech intelligence, assistance from the local population and the Syrian authorities, there would have been no such successful defeat of Daesh.
      Well, the cherry on the cake,
      As you explain, the fact that the power of the Golden Horde did not destroy the church in those years, but rather built, there was no destruction of religion, as in any actions of aggressors in such wars. ????
      So these doubts have personally crept in for me for a very long time.
      It was not in vain that the Alexandria Library was burned, the search for the library of Ivan the Terrible, and the persecution of Lomonosov, were also in vain organized by Western historians who served in Russia in those years.
      That which did not burn out, then rotted, and it is difficult to find out the history of Russia, the whole trouble is how to distinguish truth from lies?
      Grains and tares, as in the bible.
      1. Penzuck
        Penzuck 17 March 2016 10: 45
        -1
        Quote: Sirocco
        I don’t know how it goes about the pillars, I don’t know about the distances of the former tribes of Mongolia.

        1.Very bad.
        Quote: Sirocco
        Please explain to me where are these remnants of a highly developed civilization?

        2. Moreover, civilization (cities) and a nomadic way of life? Hungarians settled? Donkey. Will Pest and Build? And where are the traces of the Hungarian empire in the Kama region (Volga region)? Well, where the nomads settled there and left cultural marks. Nomadic Manchus invaded northern China and proclaimed Qing. Nomadic tribes invaded India - Mughal Empire. And the places of their temporary camps along the nomadic routes were temporary and were not cities. As for the Karakorum and other cities, they grew and developed only along stable trade routes and fell apart with their desolation. Besides, take the Crimean Tatars and Turks - where are the traces of their "highly cultured" civilizations?
        Quote: Sirocco
        Where is the mining and processing of metal

        Southern Urals. Altai ... etc. Didn't Russian explorers find the "traces" of the "Chud mines" in the 17th century? Didn't the Tungus have metal weapons? And you can take tribute not only with swords, but also with stripes ...
        Do you think the Mongols did not have copies, since the trees do not grow in the steppe?
        Quote: Sirocco
        How was the logistics organized then?

        Ask Tuvan and Mongolo-Buryat shepherds about this.
        Quote: Sirocco
        As you explain, the fact that the power of the Golden Horde did not destroy the church in those years, but rather built, there was no destruction of religion, as in any actions of aggressors in such wars. ????

        In China, they did not destroy either. AND?
        1. Sirocco
          Sirocco 17 March 2016 13: 19
          +10
          Quote: Penzuck
          In China, they did not destroy either. AND?

          You mixed everything that is possible and that is impossible, flies, cutlets, sleepers, wings.
          India - Ural, distances do not bother you? You inattentively read my post, and I'm not a kindergarten teacher to chew on you.
          For you I’ll try to explain on the fingers.
          Sit on a horse in Buryatia, take food and everything you need to take away (for how long you will have enough) and follow the horse to Zlatoglava how you will be able to get there without a blacksmith who will reforges the horse, repair the harness, eat what you will feed the horse, (if winter). It's like a service station, for a car.
          There are none of them on the track, and you go five.
          Quote: Penzuck

          Ask Tuvan and Mongolo-Buryat shepherds about this.

          I live here, that is, in Buryatia, therefore I ask you not those I know personallylaughing
          Quote: Penzuck
          In China, they did not destroy either. AND?

          China, China.
          So what's up with China? I don’t remember Tataro of the Chinese invasion, what about China? More.
          1. Penzuck
            Penzuck 18 March 2016 09: 00
            +1
            Quote: Sirocco
            You mixed everything that is possible and that is impossible, flies, cutlets, sleepers, wings.

            but. And you break my arguments consistently.
            Quote: Sirocco
            India - Ural, distances do not bother you?

            b. Is this an argument? Invasion in the 1717 of the Crimean Khan Girey? 10 000 horsemen. The result of the campaign - 30 000 prisoners. And now the distance from the nomads of the Kuban Horde to Penza? 950 km in a straight line. 30 km per day: a month to go.
            Quote: Sirocco
            get without a blacksmith

            in. What do you need to shoe a horse? 1. Horse.
            2. Horseshoe (4 pcs + spare)
            3. Nails
            4. Hammer.
            5. Knife (to clean the hoof)
            6. A person is able to raise the leg of a horse (horse), clean the hoof, attach a horseshoe, nail the horseshoe to the hoof with nails. To do this, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BE A KUZNET, THERE IS A MORE PROFESSIONAL WARRIOR.
            Quote: Sirocco
            I live here, that is, in Buryatia, that's why I ask you, and not those I know personally

            d. Read point b and c and compare, or do you chew from the kindergarten? And Google will tell you more.
        2. Seal
          Seal 18 March 2016 09: 34
          -1
          Nomadic Manchus invaded northern China and proclaimed Qing.
          Why nomadic? Indeed, according to your traditional version of history, the Manchus are Jurzhen, who had a powerful state in China, but were allegedly defeated by the "Mongols" in the late 12th-early 13th centuries of our era.
          Nomadic tribes invaded India - Mughal Empire.

          And why are these nomadic? You do not confuse pastoralism with nomadism. The most typical example of nomadic peoples is the gypsies. And if people who are engaged in pasture cattle breeding are registered as nomads, then almost all Cossacks in the 19th century will turn out to be "nomads".
          1. Penzuck
            Penzuck 21 March 2016 09: 53
            0
            Quote: Seal
            The most typical example of nomadic peoples is gypsies.

            Hungarians, Bulgaro-Bulgarians ... Khazars, Pechenegs. The fact that they possessed / have a different degree of sedentary, I do not deny ...
            Quote: Seal
            these are the jurzhenis who had a powerful state in China,

            The Jews, for example, "had a powerful state" in Egypt, and then "migrated" their own, took away the lands of the settled Canaans, otgenocidili a little, assimilated a part and settled.
      2. Mr. Pipper
        Mr. Pipper 17 March 2016 11: 01
        -4
        Quote: Sirocco
        Please explain to me where are these remnants of a highly developed civilization? (palaces of the chamber, etc.)

        What else nafig highly developed civilization?!
        Nobody talks about a highly developed civilization - there was a horde of nomads, which in "hand-to-hand" was stronger than the more developed peoples around them and only fellow
        Quote: Sirocco
        According to history, such a Mongol Blitz krieg is obtained, for a month.

        For decades they went west! fool
        1. ver_
          ver_ 17 March 2016 13: 12
          +5
          .. why everyone confuses Mogul with Mongolia - these are two different things .. Mogul = great, and Mongolia State of 2 year of birth ..
          1. Mr. Pippers
            Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 16: 39
            -1
            Quote: ver_
            why everyone confuses Mogolia with Mongolia - these are 2 different things .. Mogolia = great, and Mongolia State of 1920 year of birth ..

            Mughal Empire in India
            Mongol Empire from the territory of modern Mongolia.
            Regarding the state - in general, "statehood" and the history of the Mongols is very ancient, but it just so happened - that the nomads of the state in our usual form are not able to create for objective reasons, in no way dependent on their personal qualities - states are created by farmers hi
            1. Balagan
              Balagan 17 March 2016 18: 56
              0
              Farmers ... And where does the concept of "nomadic empires" come from? Nomads also created many states. But their system turned out to be less tenacious.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 17 March 2016 21: 11
                +3
                Can you give an example of nomadic states?
              2. Seal
                Seal 19 March 2016 21: 43
                +2
                And where does the concept of "nomadic empires" come from?
                Yes, from the pseudohistorical jokes abundantly distributed by professional historians.
          2. Alexey-74
            Alexey-74 18 March 2016 11: 31
            -1
            Well then, tell me what territory the great Mughals occupied (geographically) and what ethnic group there taxied
        2. Sirocco
          Sirocco 17 March 2016 13: 23
          +4
          Quote: Mister Pipper
          For decades they went west!

          Here you have the flag in your hands along with Penzuck, or rather a horse between your legs, and try to make the way, but not along the track. and cross country.
          PS
          Do not forget to just act on the way as invaders of the Russian land, "rob" in the villages, and see where you will be, and how far you go. laughing
          1. Pissarro
            Pissarro 17 March 2016 20: 28
            +1
            trying to prove the impossibility of riding a horse on the steppe? laughing
        3. alicante11
          alicante11 17 March 2016 14: 29
          +2
          Nobody talks about a highly developed civilization - there was a horde of nomads, which in "hand-to-hand" was stronger than the more developed peoples around them and only


          Yeah, this is from the same area that we threw corpses and iron in the Second World War? The army can win only due to advanced technology.
          1. Mr. Pippers
            Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 16: 41
            -1
            Quote: alicante11
            The army can win only due to advanced technology.

            What else advanced technology in those years that Russia has that of the Mongols ?! belay
            Although, the Mongols had a more powerful "technique" - a lot of horses and bows laughing
            1. Balagan
              Balagan 17 March 2016 18: 58
              0
              After 1000, they will also be surprised - but where do the Russians and Americans have advanced technology from? What could they come up with sensible in the twentieth century? wink
            2. KaPToC
              KaPToC 17 March 2016 21: 13
              +2
              You are so stupid that you do not distinguish a hunting bow from a combat bow.
            3. alicante11
              alicante11 18 March 2016 11: 17
              0
              What other advanced technology in those years that Russia has that of the Mongols?


              That's exactly what. And since there could not be victories, then they did not exist.
          2. Pissarro
            Pissarro 17 March 2016 20: 30
            0
            the army wins the war only at the expense of organization and morale. There are many examples when a more technologically advanced adversary was defeated
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 17 March 2016 22: 26
              +2
              It would be nice to give an example, so as not to be unfounded?
              1. Pissarro
                Pissarro 18 March 2016 01: 00
                -1
                The battle of Dienbienfu, the paddlers plucked from the Vietnamese. Who is the world colonial power with an atomic bomb, and who savages from the jungle with trophy weapons will figure it out? The Vietnamese won.
                Afghanistan can be remembered and the complete destruction there of the English army in the 19th century
                yes the whole story in such examples
                1. Seal
                  Seal 18 March 2016 03: 19
                  +2
                  The Vietnamese won.
                  Under Diebienfou, who had our T-34s and Katyusha-type multiple launch rocket systems (although more likely of the Luka Mudischev type, which in fact were our multiple launch rocket systems during the period of the end of the Great Patriotic War, but which in literature continued to be called, like multiple launch rocket systems of the first years of the war - "Katyusha").
                  1. Seal
                    Seal 18 March 2016 09: 40
                    0
                    Oh, some specialist drew a minus. Showing http://army.lv/en/den-ben-fu.-srazhenie/2308/4035

                    Under Dien-Bien-Fu, Ziap had twenty to twenty-four 105 mm howitzers, fifteen to twenty 75 mm howitzers, twenty 120 mm mortars, at least forty 82 mm mortars, eighty 37 mm anti-aircraft guns (probably with calculations from the Chinese), 100 anti-aircraft machine guns and from twelve to sixteen Katyusha rocket launchers (each with six guides).
                    Everything else, the communists favored the area. They occupied positions at dominant heights, rising above the runway by 3000-4000 meters and above the enemy fortifications by 1500-2000 meters. This gave the gunners the opportunity to conduct survey fire on the positions of the French, that is, to use a primitive, but effective way to “aim through the barrel.” Dense vegetation that covered the mountains allowed the Vietnamese to disguise artillery and air defense systems, as well as secretly relocate infantry units from one point to another.
                    During the 55-day battle, the Vietnamese fired at least 93 artillery shells at the enemy.
        4. novel66
          novel66 17 March 2016 14: 55
          +6
          why did they go west, for which, excuse me, figs ??
          1. Mr. Pippers
            Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 17: 42
            0
            Quote: novel xnumx
            why did they go west, for what, sorry, figs

            And they have Akiyans from the east, and chill out from the north, and in the south the jungles and horses do not run there - where else could they ride, or in a circle if the neighbors are strong or where they will jump when the neighbors are weak fellow
          2. Alexey-74
            Alexey-74 18 March 2016 11: 33
            0
            this is a big question .... it is assumed that the "Mongols" did not know geography at all and did not even know what lay ahead .... with a developed strategy, this does not happen any military leader should study the enemy and generally know its location, but then they just went to West - for what ????
          3. aviator65
            aviator65 18 March 2016 13: 47
            +1
            Quote: novel xnumx
            why did they go west, for which, excuse me, figs ??

            By the way, the most interesting question. Probably in the west, grass for sheep was sweeter ...
          4. Seal
            Seal 19 March 2016 21: 50
            +2
            How for what? Each hulk-Mongol for hundreds of years was born with the only fix idea - someday go far to the West, find the city of Ryazan and burn it. If the task cannot be completed by itself, the fix idea is passed on to the son. If the son fails to go to the West and burn Ryazan there, then the task is transferred to the grandson. Etc.
        5. Turkir
          Turkir 17 March 2016 15: 19
          -4
          Not quite that simple. The weapons of the army of Genghis were better. If the English (famous) archers fired 200-300 meters, then the range of the Genghisides was at least 500 meters. Some archers fired at 700 meters. Rate of fire, range and continuous (!) Replenishment of arrows transported on carts.
          Discipline, removable horses and the best weaponry and tactics are the ingredients that not only Russians have to deal with. Underestimating these things has led to dire results. Why would they "hand-to-hand" in which the Russians were strong?
          Underestimating the enemy, ignorance of his technical and tactical capabilities always leads to defeat.
          1. Mr. Pippers
            Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 17: 43
            -2
            Quote: Turkir
            Why would they "hand-to-hand" in which the Russians were strong?

            This is figurative for those who think in terms of the 20th century - victory - powerful weapons - powerful industry - big cities with institutions hi
            1. Turkir
              Turkir 18 March 2016 00: 14
              +2
              I am surprised that you do not know the obvious things. Why write comments on a topic that is not interesting to you?
              What does your sentence mean: "This is figurative (!) For those who think in terms of the 20th century"? You probably think that if you put smart words together in one sentence, you get a "smart" meaning? You are wrong.
          2. Seal
            Seal 18 March 2016 01: 54
            +4
            Some archers fired at 700 meters. Rate of fire, range and continuous (!) Replenishment of arrows transported on carts.

            And then Yermak appeared in Siberia. So what ? Probably for over 300 years, the "descendants of Chingizids" developed their skills so much that their bows probably fired a kilometer, and the logistics of continuous replenishment of arrows by using high-speed carts reached heavenly levels?
          3. Rivares
            Rivares 18 March 2016 03: 04
            0
            Quote: Turkir
            Underestimating these things has led to dire results. Why would they "hand-to-hand" in which the Russians were strong?

            And in historical documents there is a description of the foot "Mongols" of their weapons and tactics.
          4. kumaxa
            kumaxa 18 March 2016 07: 05
            +3
            200 meters with a bow you are laughing! the slaughter range of such weapons is very doubtful. no more than 70 meters and subject to a static target position. and provided that it is difficult to compound bow. I read a book on the culture and life of the ancient Siberian peoples, there is a description of such a bow no more than 70 meters and with a certain type of arrow. Also, such a bow is very complex and expensive in production and operation of weapons. in general, such bows are the lot of warlords.
            1. Riv
              Riv 18 March 2016 11: 33
              +1
              But the British didn’t know about it, loshars! The reconstruction of one of the English bows found on board the Mary Rose allowed us to establish that an arrow weighing 53,6 g flies off to a distance of 328 m. In general, the record for the range for it is more than 500 m. At the same time, the English long bow has wood simple construction.

              Perhaps this is a very strong witchcraft? At least stronger than the Siberian shaman.
              1. Turkir
                Turkir 18 March 2016 18: 26
                0
                You're right. The range of firing from an English bow depended, of course, on the physical abilities of the archer himself, and not only on the bow itself.
                And the bows, we will call from the usual, Tatar-Mongol, at the end had horn or bone plates, a kind of spring. Compound bows.
                The force had to be applied less, the arrow flew further, and the bow was smaller than the English!
                There is an interesting book by Y. Shokarev "Bows and Crossbows".
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 18 March 2016 20: 39
                  +2
                  Why do you give us an example of English bows? The Russians had complex bows, and in this component, the Russians were not inferior to the mythical Mongols in anything but superior.
                2. Riv
                  Riv 18 March 2016 22: 43
                  0
                  Less power? Here you are mistaken. The law of conservation of momentum has not been canceled. The greater the acceleration of the arrow, the higher its speed and the further it will fly away. If the Tatars had a bow suitable for shooting from a horse (and it was), then it should be tighter than a long yew bow.

                  Actually, the Tatar bow was so strong that there were special techniques for stringing the bowstring. At the Battle of Panipat, Babur's archers began firing from a distance of 200 steps, completely disorganizing the front ranks of the enemy. For comparison - gunners with only a hundred.
                  1. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 18 March 2016 23: 13
                    0
                    Exactly, the law of conservation of momentum. With what force the archer will pull the bowstring, the arrow will fly with such force and fly, the bow does not give any additional energy to the arrow. The bows of Russian warriors were likewise adapted for firing from a horse.
                    1. Riv
                      Riv 19 March 2016 13: 49
                      +1
                      Still, Russian bows were on average weaker. As in Europe, our bow was more of a common weapon. The princely squads were not distinguished by a high number and the combatants could not create a high density of fire. Accordingly, not that quality, not that power. Google the photos yourself, make sure.

                      There is one more nuance. Horse speed at a gallop is an additional and very serious increase in arrow speed. That is, the Tatar horse archer, in principle, could fire at the enemy’s formation without even approaching the distance of the return shot. And of course, in any case, his shot was the first.

                      Something had to be opposed to this tactic. And as soon as Russia got a little freaked out, experiments began with crossbows / self-arrows, and then with firearms. Again, above all, they were the weapons of the townspeople.
                    2. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 19 March 2016 15: 45
                      +2
                      This is all your fiction, excavations have shown that the Mongolian and Russian bows are completely identical. There were few Russian warriors, but the Mongols TOTAL four thousand horsemen - countless hordes.
                      Walking archers over horseback have several advantages, firstly a denser formation, which means a denser volley of arrows, secondly standing on the ground, you can aim much more accurately than when shooting from a horse galloping, have you ever mounted a horse?
                      About how an arrow launched from a gallop flies on - this is generally the darkness of ignorance. She can fly a little further, only a galloping horse will cover this difference faster than a rider firing one single arrow.
                    3. Riv
                      Riv 19 March 2016 21: 51
                      +1
                      I didn’t just sit on a horse. I went to her, but more about that another time.

                      And the Tatar bows (forget your "Mongolian" ones) differed from the Russians very seriously (after a certain unification took place), and the archers did not become a dense formation. From the word "never". On the contrary: the formation of foot archers was always loose, in several lines, and even stakes were stuck into the ground between each other.
                      And the arrow from the horse flies further and hits harder. Well, physics. The speed of the horse at a gallop is 60 km / h, the speed of the arrow is 300 km / h. 20% in the black.

                      In turn, I will also ask: what class are you in?
                    4. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 19 March 2016 22: 36
                      0
                      You are mistaken, archers could act both in tight formation and in alluvial formations, but in any case it was a formation, if you shoot with a canopy the formation could be in several rows. In this case, horse archers simply have nothing to oppose except hasty flight.
                      How much increase in speed an arrow will receive depends on its weight. A light arrow has a high initial speed and will receive a small increase, a heavy arrow has a much lower initial speed and, accordingly, the increase in speed will seem higher (in percent). In general, a lot depends on the type of arrow, and if a long-range arrow does not hurt a Russian combatant, it will kill a nomad.
                      If I went to first grade thirty years ago, now I'm in thirtieth grade? What an idiotic question? If you are older this does not mean that you are smarter.
                    5. Riv
                      Riv 20 March 2016 09: 49
                      0
                      Well, this is how to look. Say: a fifth grade student knows that speed is a vector quantity, and kinetic energy depends (surprise!) On SQUARE of speed. Therefore, with an increase in the speed of the arrow by 20%, its energy, and with it the breakdown force, increases by 44%. At the same time, with an increase in the mass of the boom by 20%, the kinetic energy will increase by the same 20%.

                      That is why, to a certain limit, it is more profitable to reduce the mass of the boom rather than increase it. A lighter arrow gives the bow greater acceleration and therefore greater speed. In sports shooting at a range, short arrows with sipper were used and are used. Here with this:



                      Such things, young man ...
                    6. Spnsr
                      Spnsr 20 March 2016 10: 40
                      -1
                      Riv (4) RU Today, 09:49 ↑
                      you will forgive me, but there is one thing, but an archer riding a horse gets minus 20%, you wrote such numbers, resistance to your shot, not acceleration, but a horse riding a horse gets + 20% to the breakdown power flying on meeting the arrow ... can read physics more carefully ...
                      there’s a very fine line, if the applied effort when launching the arrow can overcome the resistance barrier, then a similar effect may be possible, but this requires more effort and this does not need to disperse the arrow on the horse, but to improve armament or train the force, and the arrow will fly to the usual distance, if not less, due to resistance + the distance traveled (skipped laughing) the rider.
                      the effect of the jump in front of the formation during shooting is carried out by the fact that the rider, to the extent of his mobility, becomes a difficult target for the enemy archer, and can shoot to the full depth of the formation, which, to the extent of his cohesion, is a big target, but if he meets the arrow when he meets on the move, then she will be met by him with the mass of the arrow mass of her speed and the speed of the rider himself, this is rude at the same time very rude, but what you write contradicts the laws of physics !!!
                    7. Riv
                      Riv 20 March 2016 11: 36
                      0
                      an archer riding a horse gets minus 20%, you wrote such numbers, resistance to your shot, not acceleration

                      I do not quite understand the meaning of this phrase. What other resistance?

                      but the horse riding on a horse gets + 20%

                      Not + 20%, but those same 44% due to the addition of speeds. But! The footman stands still, he is not running anywhere. And the rider can shoot one or two times from a safe distance, take advantage of his speed and landing height on a horse (well, the higher you climb, the farther the arrow flies away, right?) And turn the horse before it enters the infantry shelling zone.

                      But actually it's cool: "a horseman riding a horse". Are you playing cap, dear heart?
                      with the mass of the arrow of its speed and the speed of the rider himself

                      Although no, it is unlikely ... Most likely the fourth-fifth class, right? Well, a normal adult will not write such a thing ...
                    8. Spnsr
                      Spnsr 20 March 2016 12: 33
                      0
                      Quote: Riv
                      an archer riding a horse gets minus 20%, you wrote such numbers, resistance to your shot, not acceleration

                      I do not quite understand the meaning of this phrase. What other resistance?

                      the impending flow of air, or you do not take air into account at all and it is not resistance?
                      Quote: Riv
                      and (well, the higher you climb, the further the arrow flies away, right?) and

                      and this is not the acceleration applied by a galloping horse! but rather a favorable position!
                      Quote: Riv
                      Although no, it is unlikely ... Most likely the fourth-fifth class, right? Well, a normal adult will not write such a thing ...

                      so that it was accessible, and then the formulas for the student of grade 4, it will be difficult ... laughing
                      but in general, you delight me with what agility and agility you maneuver between the heaping flow of information and do not forget to insist on your own when you feel that this is not the direction of human activity, and it will not go deeper into the meaning of the discussion .... plus to you wink
                    9. Riv
                      Riv 20 March 2016 14: 43
                      0
                      acceleration applied by a prancing horse!

                      Have you heard a dull hit? This Petrosyan crashed into a swoon of envy.
                    10. Spnsr
                      Spnsr 20 March 2016 16: 35
                      0
                      Quote: Riv
                      acceleration applied by a prancing horse!

                      Have you heard a dull hit? This Petrosyan crashed into a swoon of envy.

                      belay didn’t you know that in order to give some object additional acceleration in order to go beyond a certain coordinate system in which the weight of the objects move relative to some zero point with the same acceleration, you must at least, if you take a rider, put him on a horse and to whip a horse, well, probably with a whip, so that this horseman with a bow would change his position relative to other standing warriors ... in a coordinate system in which the wagon with Genghisides is a conditional zero! but in the coordinate system, in which the sun is the reference point, then, as if instantly the Mongolian horse, even under the guise of a Turkmen horse, did not move from Ulanbator to Ryazan, it will accelerate with the same acceleration with which the earth rotates around the sun ....
            2. KaPToC
              KaPToC 20 March 2016 15: 26
              +1
              Light arrows are hunting or sporting arrows, such an arrow will not penetrate even light armor, during the war, battle arrows were used, which are much heavier.
              In addition, I deny the very fact of increasing the speed of the arrow if the rider jumps, the question is that the rider covers the difference in seconds and falls under the shelling of the infantry.
              And yet, the Russians are physically stronger than the Mongols and, accordingly, can pull the bow harder.
              So grandpa ...
        6. Seal
          Seal 19 March 2016 22: 36
          +2
          Horse speed at a gallop 60 km / h

          Excuse me, what kind of horse are you talking about now? Are you talking about the "Mongols"?
        7. Riv
          Riv 20 March 2016 11: 37
          0
          Another Mongolian fan ... Love since childhood? I understand...
          However, the Horde rode horses of the Turkmen breed.
  • Seal
    Seal 19 March 2016 21: 56
    +1
    Princely squads did not differ in high numbers and combatants could not create high density of fire. Accordingly, not that quality, not that power. Themselves google photosmake sure.

    I mean, do you suggest looking in Google for photos of 13th century prince warriors? And, although I’m embarrassed, I’ll ask, did professional photographers take photographs of prince warriors or did vigilantes take selfies?
  • Riv
    Riv 20 March 2016 09: 58
    +1
    Well, who's stopping? Look for it. But in general, historians estimate the strength of Alexander Nevsky’s squad at about 400 people. And without Google it’s clear that for a massive shelling this is not enough.
  • KaPToC
    KaPToC 18 March 2016 18: 31
    +1
    The firing range primarily depends on the physical strength of the archer, the small clumsy Mongols could not physically shoot further than the Russians.
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 11: 39
    +2
    They also taught them how to storm cities and fortresses from childhood ...? here you don’t just need to be able to shoot well with a bow. Russian combatants were also very good soldiers ....
    1. Riv
      Riv 18 March 2016 14: 17
      +1
      There were, yes ... But who told you that the combatants were defending themselves, and not storming the same cities along with the Tatars? How many times did the same Nevsky Tatars attract for their showdowns? How many Russian princes, along with the Tatars, went to Europe?
      In the courtyard there is feudal fragmentation, no one has heard of patriotism, and there is still no "United Russia" (pun!). What prevents the prince of Smolensk from fleeing with the Tatars to Moscow? Nothing. On the contrary: he will say thank you if they call.
      1. xtur
        xtur 18 March 2016 14: 36
        0
        > In the courtyard there is feudal fragmentation, no one has heard of patriotism, and there is no "United Russia" (pun intended!)

        Nevertheless, although many important questions remain with the "Mongol" conquest, there are also a lot of undoubted facts.

        The Mongols conquered Iran and Armenia - countries that had their own tradition of historiography, which arose almost a thousand years before the appearance of the "Mongols", and, accordingly, the "Mongol" conquest was described by Armenian historians.
        The Cilician king of the times of the Mongol conquests, he himself was a historian, and described in detail the conclusion of an alliance between the Mongols and Cilicia (we are of course talking about an unequal alliance).

        The Mongols spent 100-200 years in the region, the Armenian princes regularly visited them in the capital to get a label on power, many times they fought with the Mongols against the Asia Minor Seljuks.

        Armenians have practically no Mongolian genes in their blood, but Lezghins have about 30% of Mongolian genes in their blood, if my memory serves me right.
        So there is no reason to doubt the conquest and anthropology of the bulk of the troops. But at the same time, it may well turn out that the ruling dynasty / tribe, and many of the participants were Indo-Europeans, because among them there were many Christians, albeit Nestorians.

        But how the "Mongols" managed to conquer what they conquered is really a question-question.
        1. Seal
          Seal 18 March 2016 16: 40
          0
          The Mongols conquered Iran and Armenia - countries that had their own tradition of historiography, which arose almost a thousand years before the appearance of the "Mongols", and, accordingly, the "Mongol" conquest was described by Armenian historians.

          I would advise you to be careful with Armenian historians. According to the information posted on the site of Armenian archivists, the oldest DOCUMENT for archival storage in the Republic of Armenia dates back to 1607 AD. Everything that is considered more ancient is, alas, everything that does not carry any historical information - religious texts, all sorts of gospels, Bibles, a textbook and textbooks.
          And further. Specifically in Armenia there is another big problem.
          Archivists know her. Millions of written scrolls are stored in world museums (and scrolls, this is precisely the first DOCUMENTS). But all over the world there is not a single scroll in Armenian!
          And this problem is recognized by the Armenian archivists themselves. It is very easy to see this. You just type in the GUGL "there are no Armenian manuscripts of the scrolls" and you get bitter complaints from your archivists that: "The Armenians did not find the manuscripts wrapped in the form of scrolls."
          However, in the entire writing world, all documents up to the 17th and 18th centuries, that is, up to the invention of postal envelopes, were written on separate sheets of paper, which implies their subsequent wrapping in the form of a scroll and its sealing. Just look at the painting by John Trumbull "The Signing of the US Declaration of Independence", written in 1819 - even in this painting we see documents in the form of scrolls.
          Well, Armenia is probably just a "unique" country, which in its "many thousand-year history" managed to do without written DOCUMENTS at all! But with a mass of supposedly ancient "handwritten books". But all of them, as I indicated, do not carry any historical information, since all of them, like a sin, are books of religious content, medical books, textbooks, and so on.
          Alas, in real life this does not happen!
          And this is typical for the history of Middle-earth, including Rohon, Gondor, Mordor, etc.
          1. xtur
            xtur 19 March 2016 03: 42
            0
            > With Armenian historians, I would advise you to be careful

            If I need advice on Armenian history or culture, I will find someone to ask him for.
            PS. By the way, we wrote not only on parchment, but also on stones, in the sense on the rocks.


            But to the whistleblowers of antiquity of Gondor, there is not enough time to know anything about the subject of exposure

            PSPS And we also found the oldest shoes, wine, wheat and religious temples. But that also means nothing, of course

            > Well, Armenia is probably just a "unique" country

            Yes, it is, without any quotation marks. A country in which, even according to the traditions of the Sumerians, they knew the secret of immortality, and then it went into the Bible, like the world tree of Eden (from which they ate apples).

            I’m not talking about immortality now, but about the uniqueness that was recognized even in such an antiquity, in which there were neither Greeks, in all their varieties, nor Romans, and in general there was nothing Western

            PS. I also spoke about genetic research, but it was not enough for the whistleblower of Armenian antiquity to pay attention to this.
            1. Seal
              Seal 19 March 2016 12: 53
              0
              PS. By the way, we wrote not only on parchment, but also on stones, in the sense on the rocks.

              And what prevented you from asking smart people before? You would be answered that science has not yet learned to date damage to stones, including those made artificially in the form of cutting or peeling.
              And further. It was about DOCUMENTS. However, if you think that you placed documents on the rocks, then the flag is in your hands and sent to a mental hospital.
              However, even the question of which people made inscriptions on the rocks for science remains open.
            2. xtur
              xtur 19 March 2016 19: 48
              -1
              > What prevented you from asking smart people before? You would be told that science has not yet learned how to date damage on stones

              I asked who I needed - I’m sure that of the two of us, it’s you who do not speak Armenian written and Armenian verbal to read the works of Armenian historians in their native language.
              and about the methods of dating I have an idea

              > It was about DOCUMENTS

              I started the speech, so I know what she was talking about, not for you to teach me. And it was also about genetics, which the Mongols inherited next to Armenia.

              > However, even the question of which people made the inscriptions on the rocks for science remains open

              again, depending on what kind of science. Normal science has long proved that the entire written language of the Armenian Highlands starting from 3 BC and until the creation of the Armenian alphabet is a single script, and genetics also proved that the Armenian genes were formed already in 000 BC, and religion already was Armenian, and language - because these are all factors of isolation of genetic material, without which only divine influence will have to explain the complete indistinguishability of the Armenian genes of antiquity and modern
            3. Seal
              Seal 19 March 2016 22: 33
              0
              You and your pseudo-history are only getting underfoot. And you play into the hands of an idiotic version of the Mongol conquest of the world. Here, enjoy your "origins".
              Strabo "Geography":
              "12. The ancient history of this nation is approximately the following. As I said, Armen from the Thessalian city of Armenia, located between Fera and Larissa on Lake Beba, went on a campaign to Armenia with Jason. Kirsil from Farsal and Media from Larissa, participants in Alexander's campaign, claim that Armenia received its name from him. Part of Armen's companions settled in Akilisen (which in former times was subject to the Sofenes), while others - in Sispiritis up to Kalachena and Adiabena behind the Armenian mountains (in Asia Minor - R.G.) It is further said that the clothes of the Armenians are Thessalian; for example, long tunics, called Thessalian in the tragedies, tied with a belt around the chest, and outer clothing with fasteners ... "
              "Armen came from Armenia - one of the cities near Lake Bebeida, between Feram and Larisa. Armen’s satellites occupied the regions of Akilisenu and Sispiritida up to Kalahana and Adiabena, and he even left Armenia of the same name with him." (Strabo. "Geography", XI part, p. 503)
              Strabo brought all this, referring to the natives of Thessaly - Kirsil from Farsal and Midia from Larisa - the participants of the campaign of Alexander the Great.
              And the Roman historian of the III century, Mark Junian Justin, also noted that Armen was from the city of Armenia in Thessaly (near Lake Bebeida) and was the founder of Armenia. And on the north-eastern coast of the Aegean was the region of Thrace, which became the next parking lot of Armenians, who, having got here, further settled in Phrygia in Asia Minor. Then the Armenians settled inland Asia Minor - south of Lake Van and at the source of the Euphrates - that is, at the junction of the borders of modern Turkey, Syria and Iraq. It is this route Thessaly-Thrace-Phrygia and further to the Euphrates River and the south of Lake Van that the ancient authors have shown as a way of nomadizing Armenians.
              And according to the "father of history" Herodotus, Phrygia was located next to another historical area - Cappadocia. At the time of Herodotus (XNUMXth century BC), the ancestors of the Armenians lived "higher than the Assyrians", up the Euphrates - the river that separated, according to the historian, Armenia from Cilicia. He specifically noted that the Armenians came to their country from the West. Herodotus also indicated that the Armenians are descendants of the Phrygians.
              And Strabo (I B.C. - I C.E.) writes about a new Armenia in Asia Minor, where the Armenians moved from the Balkans: "Araks (Araz - R.G.) flows through Armenia, and Cyrus (Kura - R .G.) - through Iberia and Albania ... "" The largest of them is Cyrus. It originates in Armenia ... ".
              The fact that the ancestral home of the Armenians is located outside the South Caucasus and even Asia Minor is written by the outstanding Russian scientist I.M.Dyakonov. Based on a linguistic analysis of the ancient Armenian language, "it is revealed, first of all, that it is Indo-European ...". Further, Dyakonov states: "since the ancient Armenian language is not related to the languages ​​of the autochthons of the Armenian Highlands - Hurrit, Urartu, it is clear that it is brought here from the outside." Similar conclusions were reached in a special study on the "pre-Caucasian homeland" of Armenians, the famous Armenist G. Kapantsyan, who believed that Armenians should be confined mainly to the space between the upper reaches of the Euphrates (Kara-su), Chorokh and Araks, where they relocated Balkan (Thessaly).

              Based on the above, it can be stated that the Armenians are not the autochthons of Asia Minor, especially the South Caucasus.
            4. KaPToC
              KaPToC 19 March 2016 22: 44
              +2
              I want to add about "autohonts". There is Jewish autonomy in Russia, and before the war there was German autonomy, two more indigenous peoples of Russia. Other "indigenous" peoples of Russia are as indigenous as the Germans, the only difference is that their arrival on the Russian land was erased from history. On the territory of Russia there is only one autokhont - Russians, during the excavation of the sites of ancient people on the territory of Russia, no other genetics are found, and the Finns, and the Hungarians, and the Mongoloids came later, practically in our time.
            5. xtur
              xtur 20 March 2016 18: 34
              -2
              > You are just getting underfoot with your pseudo-history.

              I don’t like being rude, but even less like it when others do it. (H)kick, I wrote clearly in Russian - there are genetic studies of the Armenian genome, carried out by Western scientists:

              http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/science/study-backs-5th-century-historians-dat
              e-for-founding-of-armenia.html? smid = fb-share & _r = 0


              it says about factors that contribute to genetic isolation - language, religion, writing


              on the study of various myths about the origin of Armenians, and not only Greek:
              http://vizantarm.am/page.php?369
  • Riv
    Riv 18 March 2016 18: 04
    0
    Well, make a simple conclusion: there were no Mongols. There were the most ordinary Turks, or rather, peoples of Turkic origin. The entire "Mongol conquest" is the first attempt in history to create a multinational state by uniting these peoples. And a successful attempt! In the future, the Horde broke up, but this is the most common occurrence. What was once collected was again united under the hand of the Moscow tsars, and the last this time were the Central Asian peoples. Those with whom the Horde began.
  • revnagan
    revnagan 17 March 2016 11: 15
    +3
    Quote: Sirocco
    Please explain to me where are these remnants of a highly developed civilization?

    The Germanic tribes that invaded Rome and destroyed the Roman Empire also did not have the signs of a highly developed civilization. However, they took, surged, and smashed everything to smithereens.
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 17 March 2016 13: 26
      +7
      Quote: revnagan
      The Germanic tribes that invaded Rome and destroyed the Roman Empire also did not have the signs of a highly developed civilization. However, they took, surged, and smashed everything to smithereens.

      It was not on the territory of Mongolia, not a single developed mine of those years was found, as well as the remains of traces of forges and metal smelting furnaces in large quantities. Well, there is no such thing. Or, as in a Jewish joke, they were sold to enslaved themselves, they say buy a couple of arrows from us, we will sell you.
    2. saigon
      saigon 17 March 2016 19: 49
      +2
      As a matter of fact, the civilization of Gaul and Germany was slightly inferior to Roman. What the hell is Julius Caesar roaming around Gaul for several years? Robbed. So it was something to rob. On the territory of Germany, Poland, Austria, h
      The Czech Republic has found a lot of cities from the time of Roman civilization, which were not built by Rome, but existed before the Roman invasion.
    3. Riv
      Riv 19 March 2016 15: 37
      +1
      You are not in the subject. Rome was indeed taken by the Germans, but ... these were the Germans who wore armor and weapons of the Roman model and obeyed quite normal officers (also Germans). No "tribes", quite a normal army.

      At the end of the Roman Empire (around the time of Magna Maximus), the recruitment of legionnaires from barbarian tribes in the limitrophic provinces became widespread practice. It was a specific people, and it was not for nothing that Maxim opened a long list of "soldier" emperors. The legionnaires put on the throne whoever they wanted and they were no longer attracted to fight.

      And when the Goths invaded Italy, it turned out that many of them still have old friends in the legions. Looting is nicer together. Roman troops massively sided with Alaric, and besides, he still freed slaves (among whom were also full of Germans) and took part of them into his army. The result is predictable: Rome fell. There is evidence that the gates of Rome were opened to the Goths by slaves.
  • varov14
    varov14 17 March 2016 13: 26
    0
    It remains to rely on genetics, if, for example, during the excavation of some "Arkaim" bones are found and they belong to some gypsies, the whole question is closed, there is nothing to attribute other people's merits to others
    1. Mr. Pippers
      Mr. Pippers 17 March 2016 16: 43
      +1
      Quote: varov14
      if, for example, during the excavation of some "Arkaim" bones are found and they belong to some gypsies, the whole question is closed

      Genetics and haplogroup are slightly different things - there are even blacks in Africa with the "Aryan group" but purely genetically they are blacks fellow
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 11: 23
    +2
    If you collect all the information about the Mongol Tatar Mig, then the conclusion suggests itself, there was no such Yoke for almost 300 years ... I think the primary attack on Russia was (the question of whom) ... then the principalities were constantly at war with each other ... and the concept of yoke arose by itself (the same civil war) and the "Tatars" participated in supporting the troops on one and the other side .... therefore, on the Kulikovo field, the Tatar cavalry participated in both sides, the Genoese infantry on the side of Temnik Mamai ...
  • Seal
    Seal 19 March 2016 22: 43
    +2
    As you explain, the fact that the power of the Golden Horde did not destroy the church in those years, but rather built, there was no destruction of religion, as in any actions of aggressors in such wars. ????

    Or maybe so?
    The most suitable candidate for "Batu" is (the version of Albert Maksimov, available on the Internet) the son or grandson of Yuri (George), who is the son of Andrei Bogolyubsky. About him, traditional history says that he, having left Russia after the murder of his father - the first monarch of Russia, Andrei Bogolyubsky - settled first with the Polovtsy, since he had a partially Polovtsian origin, like 2/3 of the princes of Ancient Russia. Then Yuri Andreevich became the husband of the Georgian "Queen Tamar". But then I sort of discovered homosexual inclinations, for which she was expelled. Nevertheless, he twice invaded Georgia with an army, and both times had the support of the Georgian princes, but allegedly both times unsuccessfully and after the second time disappeared somewhere.
    Nevertheless, traditional history says that some "Tatar-Mongols" nevertheless conquered Georgia. And then the Tatar-Mongols went to Russia. Well, given that the term "Tatar" is a horseman or a horseman, and a Mogul is a great one, it turns out that "Tatar-Mongols" are just a great cavalry army. Or the mounted army of the great.
    From here it becomes absolutely logical and understandable those actions that traditional Tatar-Mongols conducted in Russia.
    Firstly, their number should be considered 500-600 times less than the traditional 500-600 thousand (and even each with three horses). And the movement of one thousand horsemen in winter Russia, and even then not always in one crowd, but in 200-300 people, raises no questions. Secondly, it becomes clear why the "Tatar-Mongols" were well oriented in the vastness of Russia. It becomes clear why the "Tatar-Mongols", approaching the next city, first demanded that the residents surrender the next city to them, saying that your prince is not real or not the one, promising that if the gates are opened, there will be no punishment or only one prince will be punished ... Therefore, it becomes clear why many cities themselves opened the gates to the "Tatar-Mongols", which, in fact, were very few. But by the way, all the battles of the early Middle Ages were fought by VERY SMALL "armies", in which if there were 500 people, it was already "a lot". Residents, making sure who exactly returned, simply recognized the right of the senior branch (descendants of Andrei Bogolyubsky) to rule and opened the gates.
    Where is Yuri Georgievich himself? Well, maybe he was bred under the name of a certain commander and mentor of Batu, a certain Subudai, who, according to traditional history, was very old (Yuri Bogolyubsky should be 1236 years old by 70), but Batu listened carefully to him.
    Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, unlike his brother Yuri, recognized the rights of his relatives through his uncle (the elder brother of his father) - and remained safe and sound. And even in high esteem and in power.
    But having taken power in Russia, the descendants of Yuri Andreyevich, in order to make it more convenient to observe the Caucasus and the Caspian region, founded their stake on the Volga. In the middle of their new state. This was the so-called Horde, where the princes traveled so often.
    However, after some time, life outside of Russia, and therefore marrying local beauties, made the more distant descendants of Yuri Andreyevich their warriors (despite constant recruiting for the squad with Russia) no longer completely Russian, and then completely non-Russian. After that, troubles began between the Horde and Russia.
    What is characteristic is that a large number of the so-called “Tatars” in the traditional history left the Horde and moved to Russia. But everything falls into place, if we assume that those who were still Russian 5-6 generations ago were returning. And remembered that. Therefore, we don’t need to scrub us while trying to find a Tatar.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 19 March 2016 22: 57
      +3
      At some point in history, when rewriting it, many professions suddenly became nationalities, on paper, but we learn history from paperwork. So such nations as Varangians, Vikings, Tatars, Cossacks and many others appeared, glades suddenly became Poles, priests became Greeks, Ukrainians, Ukrainians.
      1. venaya
        venaya 20 March 2016 12: 30
        +1
        Quote: KaPToC
        At some point in history when rewriting it many professions suddenly became nationalities ... So nations like Varangians, Vikings, Tatars, Cossacks and many others appeared, glade suddenly became Poles, priests - Greeks, Ukrainians, Ukrainians.

        It becomes pleasant that many are already beginning to realize this, but even here, on VO, sometimes such zombie articles like "Etruscans are not Russians" appear. The only thing I want to clarify is that NLP zombification often bears fruit, as many still believe that the term "Poles" comes from the word "field", which clearly does not correspond to the research conducted. After all, the Latin term "Polonia", both the alphabet and the concept itself, is alien for these places, that is, simply an occupation, or a consequence of conquests. The origin of this word is based on the ancient Russian word "full", that is, "production", "goods". Previously, this territory, part of Porusia, had the name "Volleva Rus", which is quite consistent with the current concept of "Porto-free", that is, a place for free trade, and even by slaves. I hope that in the future we will jointly be able to debunk commonly accepted misconceptions everywhere.
    2. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 19 March 2016 23: 39
      +1
      Such a thing took place under False Dmitry I. In the closer past.
      Godunov’s associates at some point refused to fight him and the Pretender (or maybe not) triumphantly entered Moscow. Or the return of Napoleon with about. St. Helena.
  • black
    black 17 March 2016 11: 56
    +3
    Reflections on the topic ... This is good. But genetics is a science. Articles on the topic of whether there was a TMI appeared back in 1995 in the Military + Historical Journal. Too much factual material has been accumulated to simply dismiss it.
  • Turkir
    Turkir 17 March 2016 13: 37
    +1
    Horses mixed in a bunch, people ...
  • Seal
    Seal 18 March 2016 16: 16
    0
    1. I.e. where the Mongols wander - there is Mongolia.
    And what, do you think the Mongols or other nomads roam haphazardly? Only gypsies roam haphazardly. And even that is not all.
    2.
    Known examples of the Scythian dynasty of the kings of Medes? The same dynasty of the Parthian kingdom taxied and hung Lyuli Krasus in Scythian style. Kipchak dynasties are known ...
    How are they "known"? What, there were some retinues left, such as a letter from the ruler of the Scythians to someone from those whom he respected with the words "My friend, come to visit. I have a holiday - a son was born. He will continue my dynasty." And on what basis is your confidence that there was no one "Krasus" a "Parthian dynasty" in Scythian way hung with lyulya? Or maybe the dynasty is Parthian, but porphyry?
    3.
    Someone asked the Chukchi whether they want to freeze in the far North?
    But did anyone ask Arabs or Yemenis if they want to roast on their peninsula?
    4.
    And repeat the mantra: "There is no Mongoloid in Russians" ...
    If geneticists have proved that they don’t, but individuals who don’t know about it all sing and mantras about the Mongoloid Russians, then why can't they answer in the same way?
    5.
    Compare B. Obama and A.S. Pushkin. The first semi-European. He had a second Negro in his kin in the n-th generation, and he became like a gypsy when he sunbathed in the sun.
    Are you sure that A.S. Did Pushkin even have a Negro in his family? What, just because his ancestor Hannibal held the position of "arap" for some part of his life? So the Araps were called both Indians and Persians and Arabs !! And why would Hannibal suddenly develop mathematical abilities if he were a real Negro? And why did A.S. Pushkin himself in one of his poems about himself say that he can show, how can a faithful Jew be distinguished from the Orthodox?
  • Spnsr
    Spnsr 17 March 2016 08: 59
    -2
    you can still make a description of the Cossacks, or rather, those who were later called Cossacks, this is a people who did their own business, but at any moment could mount a horse and go on a military campaign ... then the women - women warriors, I will not emphasize the Amazons, but this is a retelling of my grandmother, the Ural Cossack, father, brothers, and her husband who served in Turkistan ....
    yet, this is not from the words of the grandmother, she would tell me such a thing, but my mother, it was such that when the male husband went to war, the responsibility for the continuation of the family lay with the father of the warrior, it was not like the son left to fight, and the father immediately rushed to spud his wife, but if the son did not return, then the woman had to leave her son, and this was at the end of the year before last at the beginning of the last century ... the so-called polygamy, which in Islam was interpreted in its own way. .., you will not find it in the literature, it’s difficult to explain the reasons, maybe religion I held the qualification, fighting for the purity of religion, but I have no reason not to trust the retelling of my ancestors ....
    and if you discard the Romanov interpretation of history, where the Cossacks are runaway peasants, and reasoned sensibly about the nature of the Cossacks, and bring in the interpretation of the author of the article, then the idea that the descendants of the horde army is the Cossacks is very obvious ...
    and it could be Polovtsy and Pichenegs who suddenly disappeared somewhere
    1. RUSS
      RUSS 17 March 2016 10: 31
      +6
      Quote: SpnSr
      that the descendants of the army of the horde, this is the Cossacks ...

      The most common mistake is to consider that the Cossacks were completely Orthodox. In reality, everything was much more interesting. The bulk of the Cossacks, both Ukrainian and Russian, was certainly Orthodox, but ...
      The part of the registry Cossacks consisted of the very real ERZ, which caused a bathhert among the anti-Semites who were not in the register. (more details, w: Jews in the Ukrainian Cossacks);
      a considerable number of Cossacks in the Urals were Old Believers who professed pre-reform Orthodoxy, which, in fact, was not encouraged by the authorities, to put it mildly, but they still turned a blind eye to this Cossack fad;
      part of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks professed Arianism, a special unorthodox kind of Christianity, condemned as heresy. Where they got this faith from is not really known - either from the last Crimean Goths, or from the Bulgarians - legends are dark on this score. However, by the eighteenth century there were no Arians among the Cossacks, but there is unconfirmed information that secret Aryan communities remained in the Don and the Caucasus right up to the beginning of the XNUMXth century;
      the Tatars-Meshcheryaks and Bashkirs entering the Orenburg army were, of course, Muslims;
      the Kalmyks (sic!) entering this very Orenburg army professed, of course, Buddhism. True, then SUDDENLY somewhere everyone disappeared, but this is another matter;
      Buddhism, of the same kind (Lamaism) as the Kalmyks professed the Buryats, who were part of the Transbaikal army;
      but the Nagaybaks, members of the Orenburg army — the Turkic people, akin to the Tatars and Bashkirs — on the contrary, in the name of fulfilling mutually exclusive paragraphs, were Orthodox.
      a little Cossack exotic: there were among the Cossacks and natural pagans (Tungus, Yakuts), which were part of the Siberian, Irkutsk, Yenisei, Trans-Baikal and Yakut regiments. It is clear, of course, that they took only the baptized, but even with the cross on their chest and with Orthodox names, these people continued to honor their gods. Part of the Terek and Don Cossacks professed the so-called “Saturday faith” - that is, while being formally Orthodox, they also observed part of the Jewish rites, for obvious reasons not advertising this. Another small part of the Don, Terek Cossacks professed real Judaism - and in its most archaic form, probably inherited from distant Khazar ancestors. This, too, was in every possible way hidden from strangers, but the anti-Semitic laws of tsarist Russia in relation to Jewish Cossacks were practically not respected - and the truth is, well, what kind of Cossacks are Semites? And how to take double Jewish tax from them when they have tax benefits? Finally, the most little-known and little-studied part of the Cossacks, the Astrakhan, professed another kind of Judaism - the so-called Karaism, recognizing only the Torah and not recognizing the Talmud, - something like the Jewish Old Believers.
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 17 March 2016 16: 01
        0
        Quote: RUSS
        In fact, everything was much more interesting.

        the description of nationalities in Russia began at the end of the 18th century, literally like the nationalities of the population of the entire planet, especially its Asian part and part of Europe, with the exception of the minority, which formed earlier and was most likely the cause of the collapse of large empires, for fear of being absorbed by these empires.
        I will not say that those nationalities that lived on the territory of present-day Russia did not have names, but these names were more often tied to the locality, or to the city, like the Kazan Tatarav, Astrakhan Tatarav, and in general they were all just Tatara, because they lived in Tataria. .., as it can be said now, Moscow Russians, Crimean, etc.
        as a justification I can give an example of modernity, this is Ukraine, a little earlier, Turkey, when there were both Yugoslavs and Czechoslovakians, who now, for whatever reason, have become those nationalities that are now present in those territories, including new ones ... because large united people are not needed ...
        the separation of Pakistan from India in the last century led to the emergence of Pakistanis, and as in India and Pakistan, in Iraq and Iran there are still prerequisites for crushing, and in every state formation, there are these prerequisites ...
        somewhere these prerequisites are indicated by religious views, somewhere inherent in the names of nationalities, nationalities of states in the neighborhood!
        but the most important thing is that these prerequisites were laid in the middle of the late 17th-19th centuries, but rather as far back as the 20th century !, and not earlier, as everyone here is trying to assert ...
        The prerequisites for such a statement lie in the emergence of Turkey and Ukraine in the 20th century, despite the fact that Ukraine as a subject of relations is being formed only now ....
    2. Rivares
      Rivares 18 March 2016 03: 07
      0
      Quote: SpnSr
      and if you discard the Romanov interpretation of history, where the Cossacks are runaway peasants, and reasoned sensibly about the nature of the Cossacks, and bring in the interpretation of the author of the article, then the idea that the descendants of the horde army is the Cossacks is very obvious ...

      And the annalistic mention of the Ryazan Cossacks? In the stove)))
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 18 March 2016 09: 22
        0
        Quote: Rivares
        And the annalistic mention of the Ryazan Cossacks? In the stove)))

        and not only them! and so, each subject of the federation (read the Tatars) has its own power structures, here you have the Ryazan Tatara (read the Ryazan Cossacks, Kazan, Astrakhan) ....
        I can still add about the firebox ....
        if we interpret the horde as an order, then a modern example, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have their own legislation, it is consistent with the federal one, but each constituent entity of the federation can be a horde — the Kazan Horde, the Astrakhan Horde, the Ryazan Horde, and so on, 87 and each has a prince who interprets the law and its position at its discretion ....
      2. Spnsr
        Spnsr 18 March 2016 12: 04
        0
        Quote: Rivares
        A annalistic mention

        a little clarification
        now the yoke would be interpreted as a dictatorship
        Tataria - the state, Tataria, it’s like now the Russians ...
    3. Riv
      Riv 18 March 2016 14: 27
      +1
      Oh, lie! .. :)

      There are no Ural Cossacks, and there cannot be any "Ural Cossacks" in the Urals now. This is a sad story, in fact. In 1917, the Ural army was the only Cossack army that remained loyal to the monarchy. It also fought the Reds to the very end. Many died in the battles of the Civil, and when it became clear that the Reds were winning, all the people withdrew from their habitable places. A transition to Persia was undertaken, away from the Bolsheviks. They were not pursued, but only every tenth, about five thousand people reached the shores of the Caspian.

      Therefore, the Ural Cossacks no longer exist. None of those Cossacks returned to Russia; there is no one to revive him. And all modern attempts should be considered in the category of show-offs and clowning. So there is less imagination, a native heart.
      1. Spnsr
        Spnsr 18 March 2016 17: 05
        +2
        Quote: Riv
        Therefore, the Ural Cossacks no longer exist. None of those Cossacks returned to Russia; there is no one to revive him. And all modern attempts should be considered in the category of show-offs and clowning. So there is less imagination, a native heart.

        Excuse me, are you conducting a dialogue with me?
        if with me, then about the Ural Cossacks, I look, you are very knowledgeable! but it’s more like what you were doing stuffing now, otherwise I didn’t have a dialogue with you, as I was now an Iranian ....
        and yet, there was talk about
        Quote: Riv
        revive
        ?
        judging by how much you are aware of the Ural Cossacks, and judging by the reaction to the dialogue, a resident of the territory that is now called Kazakhstan! and which the Romanovs in the 18th century did not know what to call Nagayts, Kaisaks or Kalmyks, but in view of the Pugachev uprising, they decided, although they themselves were still confused for some time, and the Communists, because
        Quote: Riv
        In 1917, the Ural army was the only Cossack army that remained loyal to the monarchy. It fought against the Reds to the very end.
        brought specifics to this question ...
        but it’s not so simple when the Communists gave names to the republics of Turkestan, including the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Turkmen, Tajiks who were already there, and in general created the territory that you just named
        Quote: Riv
        A transition was made to Persia, away from the Bolsheviks
        ...
        you look carefully, maybe those Russians who are among you are the very Cossacks, and they have more reason to say that they belong to the Genghisides ...
        1. Riv
          Riv 18 March 2016 17: 52
          -1
          Looked around. Clowns posing as Ural Cossacks were not found. No other suggestions? Then the question is closed.
          Less lie.
          1. Spnsr
            Spnsr 18 March 2016 19: 37
            +1
            Quote: Riv
            Looked around. Clowns posing as Ural Cossacks were not found. No other suggestions? Then the question is closed.
            Less lie.

            you are not polite type!
            and most importantly, the psychological moment of your koment tells me that you are trying to upset me with your insult, which can contribute to a change in the course of my thoughts, and the statement
            Quote: Riv
            Less lie.
            this is an attempt to cover up your lies, you know, there is such a saying, the cap is lit on a thief, and that’s what this is about!
            I didn’t say anything that would be contrary to reality, but you piled up three boxes of muti, that if you ask what you are talking about, you will get confused, at least one of your comments will already lead you out of the Mongol and make you Turk!
            but if you go back two or three decades ago, there were still no Türks, but there were Türkic-speaking tribes! and these are not only people of Mongoloid appearance, but also quite Europioid, at least take modern Tatars!
            if you carry something, then really accompany it with proportionate and objective facts of life! and do not jump from the direction of the interpretation of the material under discussion, to another interpretation ...
  • Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 17 March 2016 09: 04
    +15
    Obviously, the invasion of Eastern Europe and Russia in 1236-1240 years. from the East was

    Thank you, Samsonov Alexander, that at least you do not consider it the Vatican’s misinformation and the search for the West.
    In general, your argumentation is "convincing": look at the current Mongols, could they have conquered half of the world. I think then ancient Greece was a myth, look at the poor Greeks, how could they give birth to so many philosophers. And there was no Roman conquest - look at these Macoronians. And the Egyptian pyramids are probably a provocation, built by order from the Vatican.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 17 March 2016 16: 58
      0
      "at least you don't think this is Vatican disinformation and a search for the West" ////

      It remains to prove that the Vatican itself is the Mongoloid nomads (this is not difficult -
      Samsonov’s methods) laughing
      and the picture will turn out smooth: the European-style East versus the Mongoloid West belay .
  • Snow
    Snow 17 March 2016 09: 37
    -4
    Samsonov's article MINUS!
    You can look at this topic
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXpB6se9QbM
  • Penzuck
    Penzuck 17 March 2016 09: 43
    +2
    Take a look at the modern map of the Finno-Ugric peoples. Some of them are explicit Mongoloids and they have an Ugric branch (Khanty + Mansi). the more Caucasian (Udmurts) and even more Caucasian (Erzi-Moksha) have different languages, while Finns of Estonians and Hungarians obviously have different languages ​​too.
    We draw a finger on the map from Khantymantiysk_do_Permi_do Penza to Moscow, to Vologda, to Estonia. And in splendid isolation in the south - Hungary.
    And why? Because the Hungarians are a nomadic people who passed through a wild field and grabbed the mountains. It is very difficult to gain a foothold in the steppe. Over time (X-XI centuries) the newcomers-Hungarians assimilated with the local population (Wallachians) and, having adopted many of their customs, culture, words of their languages, moved to a settled residence. And then, back in the 13th century, the yas were assimilated. And why are Hungarians not MONGOLOIDS? Although the closest relatives of the Khanty and Mansei? Where are Turkisms in Hungarian? Where are the Mongolian words? Where are the Slavic ones? where are the Scythians? Keep in mind that 7 Hungarian and (3 Khazar clans) 1 Kavarar tribe participated in the war of Byzantium and Bulgaria. Obviously, with such a number of "Turks" "Mansei" cannot be converted into "Finns". Considering that the Magyars served the Khazars, it means they could also get "white girls" from the Mordovians, Bulgars, Burtas, Slavs ... For 300 years they could turn white.
    1. Captain45
      Captain45 17 March 2016 12: 55
      +1
      Quote: Penzuck
      more Caucasoid (Erzi-Moksha) other languages, the Finns of Estonians and Hungarians obviously also different.

      Judging by the nickname, you are a resident of Penza or the Penza region, then you know Mordva-Erzya, and so you will be surprised, but Erzy, Finns and Hungarians have a very similar language, many words have the same sound and meaning and refer, as you noticed to Finno - Ugric group. So the Finns, Hungarians and Mordva-Erzya turn out to be one people, and some live in Scandinavia, others in Central Europe, and still others are closer to Asia.
      1. Penzuck
        Penzuck 17 March 2016 13: 30
        +1
        Quote: Captain45
        Judging by the nickname, you are a resident of Penza or the Penza region.,

        Anto yes.
        Quote: Captain45
        you will be surprised

        Anto no.
        Quote: Captain45
        as you noticed to the Finno-Ugric group.

        Khanty (Mongoloids) + Mansi (Mongoloids) + Hungarians (Caucasians) - the "Ugric" part.
        OTHER (ALL EUROPEOIDS) actually "Finnish" part.
        Komi-Permyaks “Komi-Permyaks are below average height, have a weaker constitution than the native Russians; hair is predominantly blond, light brown or reddish, eyes are gray, nose is often upturned, face is wide, beard is small, although there are individuals and with dark brown hair, brown eyes, dark skin, a longer face and thin nose ”[6].
        1. Rivares
          Rivares 18 March 2016 03: 15
          0
          Quote: Penzuck
          Khanty (Mongoloids) + Mansi (Mongoloids) + Hungarians (Caucasians) - the "Ugric" part.
          OTHER (ALL EUROPEOIDS) actually "Finnish" part.

          Guys, according to the haplotype, you can’t divide these ethnic groups. Look at the map for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). This is DNA that is transmitted only through the mother. Then the situation will clear up))
          1. Penzuck
            Penzuck 18 March 2016 09: 38
            +1
            Quote: Rivares
            Guys, according to the haplotype, you can’t divide these ethnic groups. Look at the map for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). This is DNA that is transmitted only through the mother. Then the situation will clear up))

            It does not make sense. For the people perish when they lose their tongue.
            1. Rivares
              Rivares 18 March 2016 18: 56
              0
              Quote: Penzuck
              This makes no sense. For the people perish when they lose their tongue

              Very controversial statement. The original Russian language was reduced 3 times, the annals of 1100 are few who can read, but the people are alive ...
              1. Penzuck
                Penzuck 21 March 2016 10: 11
                0
                Quote: Rivares
                Aboriginal Russian language 3 times reduced

                1. "A very controversial statement" - laughing

                Quote: Rivares
                few people can read the chronicle vault of 1100 of the year

                2. The road will be overcome by a walker

                Quote: Rivares
                but the people are alive ...

                3. Do you deny language development? Do you deny the development of the people? Is not Russian Slavic?
            2. Seal
              Seal 22 March 2016 16: 05
              0
              It does not make sense. For the people perish when they lose their tongue.
              The first thing the children hear is the words of the mother. In the language of mothers.
              1. Penzuck
                Penzuck 30 March 2016 12: 07
                0
                Quote: Seal
                The first thing the children hear is the words of the mother. In the language of mothers.

                De Slavs-Aryans-Scythians came to precisely mean, they took for themselves the wives of the Khantymans, and voila: the Hungarians. wassat
    2. Turkir
      Turkir 18 March 2016 07: 24
      +4
      Here are a few examples of Slavic words - tools and household items included in the Hungarian language: kasza - braid; gereblye - rake; lapat - shovel; veder - bucket; Bogopa - harrow; szan - sled; patko - horseshoe; jarom - yoke;
      palca - stick; szita - sieve; ladik - boat (boat); abrencs -
      hoop; rosta - sieve; szekercse - an ax; jaszol - yasla;
      szena - hay; szalma - straw, etc.
      Here are the names of some plants: ugorka - cucumber; 1ep - flax; t a k - poppy; kalasz - spike; kaposzta - cabbage; cseresznye - sweet cherry; dinye — melon; bab - bean; retek - radish; szilva - plum; javor - sycamore. Of particular interest is the word “yk” - a beech, which some Normans consider to be absent from the Slavs - the Hungarian word clearly shows that at the beginning of the XNUMXth century it was an ordinary folk “Russian” word on the southern slopes of the Carpathians.
      We also give the names of some animals: pava - pava; bolha - flea; raj - swarm (of bees); vidra - otter; vereb - sparrow; szuka—; medva - a bear (not the Ukrainian "witch"), vaiju - a crow; szarka — magpie; galamb - dove; bivaly - buffalo; rbc - spider, etc.
      Interesting words related to Christianity: rar - pop; piispok - bishop (Polish "biskup"); kereszt - cross: angyal - angel; oltar - the altar; abrazat - image; kereszteny - baptized, i.e. Christian; szent kereszt - holy cross; pogany - (pagan); pokel - hell (Ukrainian.) \ konyv - book.
      Similar words clearly show that Christianity penetrated the Hungarians through the Slavs. udvar - yard (it is clear that the concept of “yard” was completely alien to the nomad, and he borrowed it from his settled neighbors); ulcza - street;
      korcsma — tavern; halom — a hill; beszed - conversation; vacsora - supper (Ukrainian.) \ gat - gat; gatolni - to drive; ganaj - pus; szalona - corned beef; kasa - porridge5; ebed - lunch; pecsenye - cookies; zsir - fat; malaszt - mercy; borotwa - razor;
      szomszed - neighbor; lab - paw; nyavalya - bondage; rab - slave; baba - woman (childbirth perpetrator); szolga - servant; iga - yoke; goromba - rude; gomba - lip (it is interesting that Ukrainians still have a mocking expression: "shchi gambi inflating" - obviously, in ancient times, "lip" was pronounced "gemba"); zalog - pledge (in Ukrainian "squad");
      szikra - spark; kalacs - kalach (Ukrainian "kolach", however, is more correct, as it comes from the word "kolo", "circle"); kavasz - kvass (a word known since Attila!); csorda - a series (Ukrainian "herd"); cseber - a bucket (in Ukrainian, “tseberko”); olaj - olea (vegetable oil); salata - salad
      (the word is not Slavic, but, obviously, borrowed by the Hungarians through the Slavs).
      Interesting names of professions: takacs - weaver; kalapacs - riveter; kovacs - koval (blacksmith)
      Etc.
      1. Penzuck
        Penzuck 18 March 2016 09: 49
        0
        Quote: Turkir
        Here are a few examples of Slavic words - tools and household items included in the Hungarian language:

        Thanks for the comment.
  • Pig
    Pig 17 March 2016 09: 48
    -1
    "" Recently it was said on Ryong TV that Atilla was blond and the Huns were also fair. "
    and on ren-tv they say that the Egyptian pyramids were built by aliens!
    as for the Huns ...
    those Huns that reached the western border of Rome were very different from those who, 300 years before, had begun a campaign to the west ...
    in principle, they only have the same name "Huns", but otherwise it was a completely different people
  • Vend
    Vend 17 March 2016 10: 02
    +1
    However, the question is who are the "Mongol-Tatars"?
    The answer is simple, the horde of the Mongols consisted not only of the Mongols, but of the conquered peoples.
    How could the semi-wild shepherds (albeit warlike) crush such developed powers as China, Khorezm, the Tangut kingdom
    And how could the vandals, Goths, Huns, etc., crush the Roman Empire? It is common for any young people to learn from a more developed neighbor. The Romans generally borrowed from their neighbors, even those that were lower in development.
    1. ver_
      ver_ 17 March 2016 13: 33
      +2
      ... easy and simple - the Roman Empire did not exist .. The newly-born state formations come up with ancient stories of origin and development .. writing off from the history of other states ..
    2. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 17 March 2016 15: 02
      +4
      Quote: Wend
      And how could the vandals, Goths, Huns, etc., crush the Roman Empire?

      I want to add that at the final stage, the Roman Empire was also finished off by the Slavs.
      But....
      The last nail in the coffin of civilized Romans was driven by the Avars (which are mentioned in the Russian chronicles as mods).
      It was the invasion of the nomadic Avars that contributed to the departure of the Slavs from their original places.
      And those Avars came from the vast expanses of Asia. It is not known where it is from, because there were no other mentions in the history besides those that were, they fought with the Roman Empire, and at times very successfully, entering into a military alliance with the Slavs, or conducting military operations against them.
      The invasion of nomadic tribes under a common beginning from Asia (which at that time began beyond the Tanais-Don River) within Europe long before the arrival of the Tatar-Mongol along the same route.
      Hence the question - is the invasion of Obrov-Avars also a myth?
      Are there too many divorced self-declared Internet acadicians who are ready to spit on the classic story from a high bell tower, i.e. in the Internet?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • RUSS
    RUSS 17 March 2016 17: 36
    0
    Quote: ovod84
    It sounds like nonsense. Mongols had no good traditions.

    Most confusing and alarming is the comparison that, even now, Mongolia is a poor and sparsely populated country, and about 900 years ago, in general, savages, BUT as an example Ancient Egypt, this empire waged aggressive wars in northern Africa and the Middle East at that time had a highly developed culture and a religion, the religion of which has been worshiped for several millennia, longer than Christianity as a whole. So what was Egypt like and what is it now? The same thing about Macedonia under Alexander who seized the floor of the World, and where is Macedonia now, and in general even mediocre silent Greece? Or Rome? Where is that great Rome? The Italians remained, who do not know how to fight, unlike their ancestors.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 17 March 2016 21: 23
      +1
      No need to refer to the ancient world as an argument, it is completely invented. The younger the state - the more ancient history it writes to itself, until recently, the most ancient were Jews, then most recently the most ancient were Ukrainians.
  • Simon
    Simon 17 March 2016 19: 46
    0
    Story, friend, not bullshit! They work on it and study it. We must know our roots! request fool
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 08: 26
    +1
    You are following the official version. You know what I want to say having two higher educations (one historical), and also after many personal research - I still very much doubt the "Mongol-Tatar" Yoke, as it is customary to classically consider it ... believe me, there are a lot of controversial points, including the ethnic group of the so-called Mongols hi
  • Seal
    Seal 22 March 2016 14: 12
    +1
    let's take the Huns who also traveled the same path and came to Europe
    And how are you going to take them, if the official academic science does not at all equate those near-Chinese "Huns" and European "Huns".
  • Pig
    Pig 17 March 2016 06: 11
    +5
    a set of unscientific nonsense with Ren-tv ... on a site claiming to be serious, you can’t post such nonsense!
    "" "In the burial grounds of the Golden Horde, only the bones of Caucasians are found. This is confirmed by written sources, as well as drawings: they describe the warriors-" Mongols "of European appearance - blond hair, light eyes (gray, blue), tall." "
    I would like a reference to the materials ... where have such burial grounds unearthed?
    "" "Sources paint Genghis Khan tall, with a luxurious long beard, with" lynx ", green-yellow eyes" ""
    those. does not deny that Genghis Khan was a Mongoloid?
    comparing the Mongols who came to Russia in the 13th century and the "Mongols" of the time of the Mamayev massacre is at least not correct ...
    "" "Mongolian names Bayan (conqueror of South China), Temuchin-Chemuchin, Batu, Berke, Sebeday, Ogedei-Guess, Mamai, Chagatai-Chagadai, Borodai-Borondai, etc. are not Mongolian names. They clearly belong to the Scythian tradition "" "
    the author heard something about the "Scythian-Siberian world"?
    "" The "Mongols" who came to Russia were typical representatives of the Caucasian race, the white race. There were no anthropological differences between the Polovtsy, "Mongols" and the Russians of Kiev and Ryazan.
    I would like to know what such confidence is based on? from what sources is this taken? evidence, in short ...
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 17 March 2016 08: 43
      +4
      I would like to ask you a question.
      If you throw a bunch of links now, will this be proof for you, or will you require links to links?
      The author relies on simple logic.
      The army of Genghis Khan would simply eat all the oats and Turkish delight in the area. Hold her on a campaign for at least a week. Or the entire army did not exceed several thousand. But with a small army, vast enemy lands cannot be conquered. Logic is the queen of evidence. And not the fabrications of swindlers from history, writing for the sake of momentary profit.
      1. Pig
        Pig 17 March 2016 09: 01
        +4
        It has already been proven that the "Hordes of Genghis Khan" were not so "huge" ... the Mongols, therefore, became one of the most effective conquerors because they took into account all these feeding problems!
        for example, the Batu horde that rolled up North-Eastern Russia numbered no more than 40-50 thousand soldiers
        so a reference to the studio! yes, the link is not anti-scientific sites where they generate such nonsense, but to the official ones - where it is indicated who dug the burial grounds, where and when, as well as a link to the mentioned "written" sources ...
        1. andj61
          andj61 17 March 2016 10: 38
          +6
          Quote: Pig
          for example, the Batu horde that rolled up North-Eastern Russia numbered no more than 40-50 thousand soldiers

          In fact, Chivilikhin in his novel-essay "Memory" examines this moment about the "countless" troops of nomads and comes to the conclusion that this simply did not happen. He takes a well-known episode - the siege of Kozelsk by Batu's troops. He comes to the conclusion that there can be no question of any tens of thousands there. And so much would not fit near the city, and it is impossible to feed horses and people, especially in winter - and the siege lasted more than a month.
          Anyway, 30 troops are very, very many. Professional cavalrymen — and such were still encountered in the 000s and 70s of the 80th century, said that the cavalry division — 20–5 thousand during the war — could not go along the steppe with a front of 7 km for more than a day — everything was trampled on, finding feed going for advanced was difficult, it was possible to feed the horses only with their portable forage. And if there were not 1, but 5? 000 30? or 000? And if this is not the steppe, but there are very few forests and roads? The population is also small and fodder with the invaders to share the desire does not burn? How to feed horses for a long time? Therefore, the raids were carried out mainly after the harvest, and if the raid deep into the country, then in the winter after freezing, they walked along the frozen rivers.
          Chivilikhin generally believes that the army of Batu numbered far less than 10, and left with the victors with a loot in general a thousand or two ..
          1. Pig
            Pig 17 March 2016 11: 15
            +1
            "" He takes a well-known episode - the siege of Kozelsk by the troops of Batu ""
            Kozelsk was besieged not by the whole Horde but just by one of the units
            1. ver_
              ver_ 17 March 2016 13: 23
              -1
              .. the siege of Kozelsk by the army of Khan Batu = Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was caused by the epidemic in Kozelsk and it was not his goal to take the city; the goal was to burn and prevent infection in other cities ..
            2. andj61
              andj61 17 March 2016 22: 03
              -2
              Quote: Pig
              "" He takes a well-known episode - the siege of Kozelsk by the troops of Batu ""
              Kozelsk was besieged not by the whole Horde but just by one of the units

              There was Batu - and the whole Horde came there. Then the detachments dispersed from the city - it was also necessary to feed themselves, but in winter it was not so easy to do this, especially since they were sitting in one place.
              Quote: ver_
              .. the siege of Kozelsk by the army of Khan Batu = Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was caused by the epidemic in Kozelsk and it was not his goal to take the city; the goal was to burn and prevent infection in other cities ..

              Winter epidemic? This is something new ... Usually all epidemics happened in spring, summer, autumn.
              Moreover, in order to simply burn down the city, it was not necessary to plunder it first. And the goal here was one - to get "good", food, fodder for horses. And to engage in battle with the infected meant to be infected yourself. This version of Nosovsky-Fomenko is generally extremely weak. Okay, there would be only Kozelsk, but after all, a bunch of cities were taken "on the spear"! Was it an epidemic too?
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. kumaxa
            kumaxa 18 March 2016 07: 18
            0
            and they forget the physiology of the human body, no matter how skillful and hardy the rider is, what a comfortable saddle you have, and the spine and small fellow will remind of themselves after a day's jump.
        2. Balagan
          Balagan 17 March 2016 19: 04
          +1
          Of these 40 thousand Mongols themselves, there was, I do not remember, a figure, but less than 10%.
        3. Seal
          Seal 18 March 2016 17: 04
          +1
          for example, the Batu horde that rolled up North-Eastern Russia numbered no more than 40-50 thousand soldiers

          Is this according to Genesis Khan’s approved staffing table?
      2. Snow
        Snow 17 March 2016 09: 20
        +4
        Read about the tactics of nomadic conquests. The last conquest of China by the Manchus is well described in history.
        1. Seal
          Seal 20 March 2016 10: 56
          +1
          And that the Manchus are already nomads? But what about the traditional version of the story, which claims that the Manchu are Jurchen?
          Initially, the Jurchen culture was formed in the basin of the Sungari and Amur rivers. However, in ancient times, Amur was not regarded as a single water artery, but it was believed that its upper and middle course is an inflow of Sungari. Lower Amur is a continuation of the Sungari, which flows into the sea.
          Jurchen settlements.
          The Jurchen lived in un fortified and fortified settlements (hillforts), which were usually located along river banks. Settlements are settlements fortified with ramparts and moats. In the Amur Region, Jurchen dwellings were excavated on the hillforts of Mount Shapka (village of Poyarkovo), Kuchugury (village of Markovo), Novopetrovskoye. The Jurchens built fortified settlements of various types. It depended on the landscape and fortification traditions that the builders followed, drawing on the experience of neighboring peoples: Bohai, Koreans, Khitan, and Chinese. The Jurchen household was diversified. They bred pigs, horses, bulls, dogs. They were also engaged in agriculture, plowed the land using the draft power of animals. The hunt was not forgotten either. They hunted Manchurian deer, moose, goats, bears, tigers, wild boars, wolves, pheasants. An important place in the Jurchen's economy was occupied by fishing, as evidenced by ceramic and stone sinkers and fishing hooks found on the monuments. They also hunted by gathering, flight-keeping, they mined gold and river pearls.
    2. Snow
      Snow 17 March 2016 09: 18
      -1
      Author PLUS! Article MINUS!
      Such articles are possible only against the background of a deterioration in the quality of education in the country. Here are all sorts of Zadornovs and appear.
      1. guzik007
        guzik007 17 March 2016 09: 46
        +8
        Such articles are possible only against the background of a deterioration in the quality of education in the country. Here are all sorts of Zadornovs and appear.
        --------------------------------
        and the earth rests on three pillars: =)
        Unfortunately, the bony thinking of most people rejects any thoughts and ideas that break their habitual ideas about the world that have been drilled into their heads since childhood. they, like ostriches, hide their heads in the cozy sand, stubbornly refusing to accept anything new. This is what the "Zadornovs" use, trivializing really fresh data that could give a new look at their history.
        The very same Petukhov, with all the innovative thought that was certainly present in his works, gave reason to not take his work seriously. You think where it came from: the Etruscans are Russians? Yes, all the same Roosters.
        But in our time, many really serious scientists and scientific schools have doubted that "Mongols" are not exactly "Mongols".
        1. Pig
          Pig 17 March 2016 09: 57
          +1
          "" many have doubted in our time ""
          doubted but did not prove! and until it is proven all this is fiction
          1. guzik007
            guzik007 17 March 2016 11: 10
            +4
            "in our time many have doubted" "
            doubted but did not prove! and until it is proven all this is fiction
            -------------------------------------------------- -----------------
            Dear pig, hmm, .. you look like it .. (smacks of Freudianism, because the neck of the pigs is horizontal and the stars cannot see it). So, dear Pig. As for the evidence, well, look in the internet for the work of Novosibirsk archaeologists on this topic-8000 skulls of their Siberian mounds of that era, and not one Mongoloid. Do you need material evidence? Well, why do you think that something should be presented to you on a silver platter. Seek, and ye shall find.
            1. Pig
              Pig 17 March 2016 11: 22
              +1
              "" -8000 skulls of their Siberian burial mounds of that era ""
              what TOY era ??? Or do you mean BEFORE the Mongolian population? In Siberia, many different people lived before the Mongols!
              "Why do you think that you should bring something on a silver platter" "
              Ha! I believe that a person should be responsible for his words! and even more so if he puts them on public display!
              otherwise you ask to prove what was written and they start to drive you a blizzard about Freud and the stars;) you still show your ren-tv as "proof" ...
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 17 March 2016 21: 59
            +6
            Is it a respected video, those who did not doubt, also did not prove anything, historians create history without any evidence. Axiomatics is inherent in science; history does not have it. History is based on the authority of previous historians, and not on some kind of scientific basis and evidence. The main and only proof of the historian is the authority of another historian.
            1. andj61
              andj61 17 March 2016 22: 11
              +3
              Quote: KaPToC
              Is it a respected video, those who did not doubt, also did not prove anything, historians create history without any evidence. Axiomatics is inherent in science; history does not have it. History is based on the authority of previous historians, and not on some kind of scientific basis and evidence. The main and only proof of the historian is the authority of another historian.

              To the very point! There is a version of an authoritative historian - they repeated it hundreds of times twice, you see - this is not a version, but an axiom! bully Moreover, the one to dispute is an unscientific heresy ... So there is an axiomatics in history, only not supported by anything, except for the results of excavations. But excavation is such a thing. Imagine if a landfill near a major city in a thousand years, archaeologists dig up? wink
              And what conclusions can be made? In principle - whatever! yes
        2. ver_
          ver_ 17 March 2016 14: 21
          +2
          ..elementary, Watson is an example of a ruin .. the history of the ancient world is taught at school and zombies of children ..
  • venaya
    venaya 17 March 2016 06: 14
    +22
    "The myth of the" Mongols from Mongolia in Russia "is the most ambitious and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia"

    I fully support the article itself and the position of the author! The article is a definite plus (+).
    A huge number of inconsistencies, the so-called official or traditional history, in this article is almost completely explained by the normal scientific language, without any traditional in this case, substitution of concepts, which clearly stands out this author.
    1. BIP PS FSB RF
      BIP PS FSB RF 17 March 2016 08: 22
      -3
      Fomenkoids Otake! am
      1. guzik007
        guzik007 17 March 2016 09: 50
        +5
        Fomenkoids Otake!
        ---------------------
        and you do not confuse horseradish with a finger. The article does not refer to Fomenko’s fabrications. Personally, I think that he was very confused with the brahms of his mathematics. but 10 percent in his work makes you think. For the logic is still traceable, but, unfortunately, there are a lot of overlaps.
        1. Oldwiser
          Oldwiser 17 March 2016 14: 11
          +1
          Quote: guzik007
          but, unfortunately, there are a lot of overlaps

          And especially the appeal to the Bible (Egypt = Babylon = Assyria = MOSH), as the last argument, on the alleged basis that
          European rebels-reformers distorted and rewrote world and Russian history, but left <in the form of the Bible> a more or less correct version - "for the consecrated"
        2. Oldwiser
          Oldwiser 17 March 2016 14: 11
          0
          Quote: guzik007
          but, unfortunately, there are a lot of overlaps

          And especially the appeal to the Bible (Egypt = Babylon = Assyria = MOSH), as the last argument, on the alleged basis that
          European rebels-reformers distorted and rewrote world and Russian history, but left <in the form of the Bible> a more or less correct version - "for the consecrated"
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Snow
      Snow 17 March 2016 09: 28
      -2
      The article is good only for realizing the feeling of national greatness "that we have been lied to all our lives."
      It is unfortunate that such an Author as Samsonov writes such a fucking thing.
      You say "inconsistencies in history"? Are you a historian to judge this? - You're just repeating. Read academicians, not charlatans, read those who own real scientific works, not thin ones. books, read to those who excavate, etc.
      1. Pig
        Pig 17 March 2016 09: 51
        0
        I'm afraid you will not understand here
        1. Seal
          Seal 20 March 2016 11: 14
          0
          Correctly afraid. Stupid statements are not welcome here.
      2. guzik007
        guzik007 17 March 2016 11: 30
        +5
        Snow

        . Read academics,
        -------------------------
        Well, about many of the noneshnie academicians I can advise one thing, read the brilliant books from the Forbidden Archeology cycle. It clearly explains how and why stunning finds are gathering dust in storerooms, how scientists who dare "encroach on the foundations" are hounded and driven away.
        I understand academics — admit the facts — and you admit that all your regalia and labors are nothing more than waste paper.
      3. ver_
        ver_ 17 March 2016 13: 40
        -1
        ..history is not science ..
      4. Seal
        Seal 20 March 2016 11: 13
        +1
        Are you a historian to judge this?

        You see, Mr. Snow, what's the problem. 99% of history consists of military operations, troop movements (campaigns), preparation for military operations ... and the like, in general, with everything related to military operations. Can you personally name at least one "historian" who has at least a basic military education? And at least one historian with a higher military education?
        So what kind of devil are all these utter ignoramuses in military affairs undertaking to explain to all of us how the "army of Alexander the Great" fought there. And what kind of devil do you indulge in this?
        Maybe historians give their historical academic works on issues related to the description of ancient conquests and campaigns before they are sent to print for review at the Academy of the General Staff? Yeah, we ran away. Although they are historians, even they have the intelligence not to give their "historical works" for examination to professionals.

        Peaceful history largely consists of the development of painting, sculpture, architecture and so on.
        Can you personally name at least one historian who is at least a little recognized artist, sculptor, architect or just a builder?

        Another story consists of the development of medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy and cartography, and so on.

        You personally can name at least one historian who is at least a little recognized physician, chemist, physicist, astronomer or cartographer.

        I'm not talking about the history of shipbuilding. I guarantee you that none of the historians, even those who in their academic books extensively discuss the advantages of small Athenian ships versus clumsy Persian ones, is not closely related either to shipbuilding or to navigation (navigation).
    4. saruman
      saruman 17 March 2016 09: 59
      +1
      Yes ... Most commentators apparently taught history on the table of contents of school books and on television.
      Quote: venaya
      A huge number of inconsistencies, the so-called official or whatever traditional history

      Historical science studies "a huge number of inconsistencies" just by scientific methods, and does not engage in "logical" adjustment to its fantasies, like Fomenko-Nosovsky. Samsonov - to the same place, a fighter with "windmills". They fight myths that they themselves create. The Mongol-Tatar invasion and yoke are presented by cartoons and films for children ...
    5. saruman
      saruman 17 March 2016 09: 59
      0
      Yes ... Most commentators apparently taught history on the table of contents of school books and on television.
      Quote: venaya
      A huge number of inconsistencies, the so-called official or whatever traditional history

      Historical science studies "a huge number of inconsistencies" just by scientific methods, and does not engage in "logical" adjustment to its fantasies, like Fomenko-Nosovsky. Samsonov - to the same place, a fighter with "windmills". They fight myths that they themselves create. The Mongol-Tatar invasion and yoke are presented by cartoons and films for children ...
      1. Pig
        Pig 17 March 2016 10: 06
        +1
        "" taught history from the table of contents of school textbooks and on TV ""
        Ren-TV should be banned! because the damage from the "activity" of this channel is colossal ... breeds obscurantists on an industrial scale
      2. Seal
        Seal 20 March 2016 11: 18
        +1
        Historical science (damn, already ridiculous), in your opinion, what is the quintessence of all other sciences? And if it’s not, then what kind of devil does she undertake to explain to us in which she herself does not understand anything?

        99% of history consists of military operations, troop movements (campaigns), preparation for military operations .. and the like, in general, with everything related to military operations. Can you personally name at least one "historian" who has at least a basic military education? And at least one historian with a higher military education?
        So what kind of devil are all these utter ignoramuses in military affairs undertaking to explain to all of us how the "army of Alexander the Great" fought there. And what kind of devil do you indulge in this?
        Maybe historians give their historical academic works on issues related to the description of ancient conquests and campaigns before they are sent to print for review at the Academy of the General Staff? Yeah, we ran away. Although they are historians, even they have the intelligence not to give their "historical works" for examination to professionals.

        Peaceful history largely consists of the development of painting, sculpture, architecture and so on.
        Can you personally name at least one historian who is at least a little recognized artist, sculptor, architect or just a builder?

        Another story consists of the development of medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy and cartography, and so on.

        You personally can name at least one historian who is at least a little recognized physician, chemist, physicist, astronomer or cartographer.

        I'm not talking about the history of shipbuilding. I guarantee you that none of the historians, even those who in their academic books extensively discuss the advantages of small Athenian ships versus clumsy Persian ones, is not closely related either to shipbuilding or to navigation (navigation).
    6. The comment was deleted.
  • Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 17 March 2016 06: 33
    +4
    every writer, historian, simply contemporary, interprets events in his own way ... therefore, we will never know the truth. It will always be "somewhere nearby."