71. ABOUT THE REIGN OF MICHAEL Vsevolodovich in Kyiv, and about the invasion of the evil Batu. YEARS FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD 6748, from the birth of Christ 1240, the prince in Kyiv Mikhail Vsevolodovich, the evil Batu Tatars sent his spies of Kyiv, and seeing his majesty and beauty, he was surprised,

“And that summer, Tsar Takhtamysh sent his servants to the city called Bulgars, which is on the Volga, and ordered Russian merchants and Christian guests to rob, and to take away their ships with goods and take them to him for transportation.”
So, the trip was prepared in advance. In Bulgar, Tokhtamysh’s people obtained a river fleet in advance to organize a crossing across the Volga. Accordingly, the route of movement of Tokh#x2011;Tamysh’s troops passed from the Trans-Volga possessions of the khan to the confluence of the Volga and Kama. Next - “to this side of the Volga” and from there to Rus'. Note that the Russian lands closest to the crossing point are Nizhny Novgorod, the possession of Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich, father-in-law of the Moscow Prince Dmitry Donskoy.
“And he himself, struggling with rage, having gathered many warriors, moved to the Volga, with all his strength he was transported to this side of the Volga, with all his princes, with godless warriors, with Tatar regiments, and went into exile against the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and all of Rus'. He led the army suddenly, with secret skill and robber cunning - not allowing himself to be led forward, so that his aspiration would not be heard in Rus'.”
The composition of Tokhtamyshev’s army is noteworthy: “godless warriors” are, apparently, pagans, “Tatar regiments” are Muslims, and “with all their princes” means: with their main army - the feudal militia.
Particularly worth noting is the term “expelled”, that is, very quickly. The Tatars moved with only two horses, or even with a large number of horses per person and with minimal stops. With this method of movement, the horse army moves at the same speed as the messengers who could warn about the movement of this army.
Movement by exile excludes any foot army, as well as the presence of any immobile units. There can be no talk of ships, a kind of naval component of the campaign. Tokhtamysh did not have his own fleet, otherwise he would not have confiscated ships from merchants (this is a waste of time, a leak of information, and in general, it is not profitable to scare away merchants - they pay taxes).
So, Tokhtamysh only has a mobile cavalry army.
“And having heard this, Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal (aka Nizhny Novgorod - Author's note) sent two of his sons, Vasily and Semyon, to Tsar Tokhtamy#x2011;shu. When they arrived, they did not find him, since he was walking quickly towards the Christians, and they chased after him for several days, and crossed his road at a place called Sernach, and they followed his road with diligence, and overtook him near the borders of the Ryazan land."
Attention should be paid to the futility of Tokhtamysh’s efforts to achieve secrecy and surprise in his campaign. Dmitry Konstantinovich will be the first to know about his campaign. He sends his sons to meet Tokhtamysh in order to intercept him on the approach to Rus'. It would be strange to send your children to meet an enemy attacking you. After all, the enemy can kill them or take them hostage. Consequently, Dmitry Konstantinovich did not consider Khan Tokh#x2011;Tamysh his enemy.
Vasily and Semyon missed the Tatars, failed to intercept them, but followed the army’s trail and caught up with it near the border with Ryazan land. If the princes were sent by their father with the sole purpose of appeasing Tokhtamysh so that he would not attack Nizhny, then it is not clear why the brothers rushed to catch up with his army. It turns out that the goal of Vasily and Semyon was to be present in Tokhtamysh’s army during his actions.
“And Prince Oleg of Ryazan met Tsar Tokhtamysh before he even entered the land of Ryazan, and beat him with his forehead, and was his assistant in the victory of Rus', but also an accomplice in dirtying the Christians. And he uttered some other words about how to captivate the Russian land, how to easily take the stone city of Moscow, how to defeat and exterminate Prince Dmitry (Donskoy - Author's note). Moreover, he circled the king around his entire fatherland, the Ryazan land, because he did not want good for us, but he helped his reign,” writes the Moscow chronicler.
It turns out that Prince Oleg also knew about Tokhtamysh’s campaign in advance, since he managed to go out to meet him. And again, he “went out to meet us,” and did not run away, leaving Pereyaslavl#x2011;Ryazansky, did not lock himself within its walls, did not stand with the army on the borders, meeting the enemy. The Russian princes behave with Tokhtamysh not as with a formidable invader, but as with an angry master, trying to appease him, deceive him, and slander his political opponents. And in the chronicle itself, Tokhtamysh is referred to as a king, that is, a lawful, legitimate ruler.
So, Oleg acts to benefit himself and to the detriment of Moscow - this is his natural behavior. But if Tokhtamysh went on a raid on Moscow and the entire Russian land as enemies who rebelled against the rule of the Golden Horde, then it is unclear why he didn’t chop down and rob everyone, starting with Nizhny and Ryazan closest to him? However, no, he bypasses the Ryazan lands and invades the possessions of the Principality of Moscow, attacking Serpukhov.
“And at that time, a little later, as soon as the news came to the great prince, announcing the Tatar army, although Tokhtamysh did not want anyone to bring the news to Rus' about his arrival, for this sake all the Russian guests were caught and robbed, and held, so that there would not be to lead in Rus'. But there were some well-wishers on the borders of the Horde, arranged for this purpose, champions of the Russian land.”
That is, some well-wishers - either Russian spies in the Horde, or border outposts “on the Horde borders” - inform Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich about the Tatar campaign.
Once again, the “secrecy” of the movement of Tokhtamysh’s army is worthy of admiration! One gets the impression that either he simply failed, despite all his efforts, to ensure this secrecy, or did not strive for it at all. Apparently, Tokhtamysh hid his movements from Jagiello, and not from the Russian princes, whom he informed about the campaign, or gave them the opportunity to obtain such information through their “well-wishers” in the Horde.
His entire biography speaks against the version that Tokhtamysh simply failed to ensure the proper secrecy of the movements of his troops. Tokhtamysh is a very skilled military leader and politician, who reunited what seemed to be a completely collapsed Golden Horde and managed it for 15 years. He challenged the greatest commander of his time, Tamerlane, and successfully resisted him for a long time.
“When the great prince heard the news that the king himself was coming against him with much of his strength, he began to gather soldiers and unite his regiments, and left the city of Moscow, although to go against the Tatars. And then Prince Dmitry began to think about the Duma with the other Russian princes, and with the governors, and with the Duma members, and with the nobles, with the elder boyars, and wondered in every possible way. And when the princes became discordant, they did not want to help each other, and did not deign to help brother to brother... there was not unity between them, but disbelief.”
So, the princes had already prepared for the campaign and set out from Moscow. And suddenly, “rosiness” and “incredibility” appear in the ranks of the Moscow prince’s subjects. One gets the impression that we are present at a family scandal, because the chronicler is trying to present what happened precisely as disagreement in a large patriarchal family. However, when the house is attacked by enemies, all internal contradictions disappear in it. Moreover, in the state - a well-functioning hierarchical feudal system consisting of the Moscow prince, his allies (relatives and simply neighbors connected with him by a system of agreements on military assistance), his subjects (service princes with their squads, Moscow boyars and the squad of the Moscow prince, headed his commanders). These are the relatives and allies who swore that they would not violate the treaties, as well as vassals obliged to bear military service on the orders of the prince, and the soldiers (combatants, boyars) who are under his direct subordination show “incredibility.” During a campaign, in fact, in the face of the enemy, disobedience to the commander’s orders occurs.
The chronicler clearly chose very mild terms to describe such actions. I think he had reasons for this, but let's call a spade a spade - it was a rebellion and treason.
“And having learned this, and understood, and examined, the faithful was in bewilderment and in great thought, and was afraid to stand in front of the king himself. And he did not stand up to fight against him, and did not raise his hand against the king, but went to his city of Pereyaslavl, and from there - past Rostov... to Kostroma.”
That is, Dmitry Donskoy led his troops on a military campaign, but then a mutiny occurred, and the Grand Duke fled from his own army! Note that Dmitry Ivanovich fled not to Moscow, but to Kostroma. And he ran so fast that he “forgot” his wife in Moscow, who had just given birth to his son.
It is clear that such cowardice does not at all adorn the Grand Duke. But let's take a closer look. The rebels probably knew what they were getting into. Having said “A”, you must also say “B”. The rebellion against the prince was supposed to end with his murder. The surviving prince could gather loyal people and return to punish the rebels. Dmitry Ivanovich, apparently, went to his homeland Kostroma for this reason.
“And in Moscow there was a great turmoil and a great rebellion. There were people in confusion, like sheep without a shepherd, the civilian people were shaken and shaken like drunken people. Some wanted to sit, shutting themselves up in the hail, while others thought of running away. And there was a great discord between them: some entered the city with junk, while others fled from the city, having been robbed.”
So, the chronicle plainly says that there was a rebellion in Moscow. Rebellion is disobedience to the existing authorities, an uprising against Dmitry. This version is confirmed by other sources: “The people of the vechem, the metropolitan and the Grand Duchess were robbed and barely released from the city” (Tver Chronicle), and also: “And the Grand Duchess Eudokea was offended” (Nikon Chronicle). That is, the anger of the rebels was also directed at Dmitry Ivanovich’s wife.
According to most chronicles, Metropolitan Cyprian remained in Moscow for some time after power passed to the veche, but then he managed to obtain permission from the townspeople to leave the city along with the Grand Duchess.
It is interesting that some residents, with all their property, fled from rebellious Moscow (apparently following Dmitry, who fled from his own army), while others, on the contrary, entered Moscow with all their belongings. There was a “feud” between both, and Moscow society split.
“And having held the veche, they rang all the bells. And in the evening the rebel people, the unkind people, the seditious people stood up: those who wanted to leave the city were not only not allowed out of the city, but they were also robbed, without being ashamed of the metropolitan himself, nor the best boyars were put to shame, without the gray hairs of the many-year-old elders being put to shame. But having threatened everyone, they stood on all the gates of the city, with a stone shibahu on top, and below on the ground with spears, and with sulits, and with naked weapons, they stood, and did not allow them to get out of the hail, and they barely begged and were later once released from the hail, And then they robbed me.”
They rob Dmitry's supporters or everyone who did not join the rebellion. This happens “without dismaying” the metropolitan, the venerable elders - let’s say, for the rebellious mob they are not an authority - and “without dismaying” the best boyars! It is strange that the boyars are placed on the same level as the feeble elders and the metropolitan. Any boyar, that is, “ardent in battle,” is much more capable and combat-ready than a simple city dweller. Here it is not enough to be ashamed; here we must not be afraid.
A boyar is a Russian feudal lord, a lord who had social status, comparable to a Western European baron. Remember the famous 16th-century engraving “Attack of Peasants on a Knight,” in which a crowd of peasants, armed with anything, trample warily, still not daring to attack a lone, confident warrior. But each boyar had servants, including armed and well-trained military serfs - his own feudal squad, with which he reported for military service. It is unlikely that the boyars who, judging by the chronicles, were present in Moscow were unable to restore proper order. After all, when going on a campaign, Dmitry could not help but leave a garrison in Moscow sufficient to protect the city and to perform police functions in it. And if the chronicle does not mention clashes between the rebels and this garrison, it means that both the garrison and the boyars, and perhaps several boyars with their troops were this very Moscow garrison) either supported the rebellion openly, or sympathized with it and therefore did not stop it in the bud.
So, in our opinion, instead of “without being ashamed” one should read “with the connivance”, or even “with the instigation” of the best boyars.
“A certain prince of Lithuania, named Ostey, grandson of the Olgerds, came to their city. Ion strengthened the people, and tamed the city rebellion, and shut himself up with them in the city under siege with a multitude of people, with how many townspeople remained, and how many refugees fled from the volosts, and how many from other cities and countries. It happened at that time that boyars, surozhans, cloth workers and other merchants, archimandrites and abbots, archpriests, priests, deacons, monks, and all ages - male and female, and with babies - happened to be there.”
Ostey is the son of Dmitry Olgerdovich, who reigned in Lithuanian Trubchevsk and went over to the side of Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow in 1379, during the Muscovites’ campaign against Yagai#x2011;lo. Let us remember that Dmitry Olgerdovich with his entire family, boyars and servants fled from Lithuania and entered the service of the Moscow prince, who granted him possession of Pereyaslavl#x2011;Zalessky.
So, the son of Dmitry Olgerdovich, a Lithuanian, who has only lived on Moscow soil for three years, comes to Moscow. He probably doesn’t arrive alone, but it’s unlikely with a large armed detachment (otherwise this would have been mentioned in the chronicle).
The chronicle also does not specify whether Ostey came to Moscow on his own initiative or whether someone sent him there with certain instructions and powers. However, from further events it will become clear in whose interests he acted. Let us note that Ostey “tames” the rebellion. I wonder how? There is no mention of military clashes or the threat of force in the chronicles, but Ostey did what the boyars left in Moscow by Dmitry could not or did not want to do. Moscow itself submitted to Osteus. He arrived and, meeting no resistance, immediately began to govern it, preparing the city to “be under siege.” This could only happen if in Moscow there was not just a riot against Dmitry Ivanovich, but this riot was staged by pro-Lithuanian forces. Otherwise, it is not clear why it was Ostya who led the defense of the rebellious Moscow, and not some other prince and not Dmitry’s governors, not Moscow’s “best boyars”?
The composition of the people present in Moscow at the time of the siege is noteworthy. Here are Muscovites who did not flee the city during the rebellion, and those who came to Moscow from the outskirts (the former did not want to part with their property, or they themselves participated in robberies; the latter saved their property under the protection of the stone walls of Moscow), and some people “from other cities and countries” (it is not clear what they needed in the rebellious city?), as well as boyars and, most interestingly, “Surozh residents, cloth workers and other merchants,” that is, residents or trading partners of the Genoese cities #x2011; colonies of Surozh and Cafes. There is obvious support for the Moscow rebellion by Western trading capital. Moscow merchants#x2011;surozhans supporting Dmitry Donskoy, apparently, did not participate in the rebellion and fled from the city, being among those who were robbed. Subsequently, after the suppression of the rebellion, they remained in the favor of the Moscow Grand Duke and retained all their privileges.
“Prince Oleg led the king around his land and showed him all the fords that were on the Oka. The king crossed the river and first of all took the city of Serpukhov and burned it with fire. And from there he went to Moscow, suddenly rushing, filled with the military spirit, the volosts and villages were burning and warring, and the Christian people were cutting and other people were full of them. And the army came to the city of Moscow. And the Tatar power came on Monday, August 23rd. And not all the regiments arrived at the city, they began to call, asking: “Is Prince Dmitry here?” They answered from the city from the fence, saying: “No.” The Tatars retreated not far, and riding near the city, they looked around and examined the attacks and ditches, and gates, and fences, and archers. And so they stood, looking at the hail.”
For the first time on his way, Tokhtamysh encounters resistance, apparently in Serpukhov, captures and burns the city. He did not burn cities in Ryazan. This is logical if we take the standard point of view that Tokhtamysh went to war against Dmitry Ivanovich and Moscow, and for now spared Ryazan, which surrendered to his mercy. But at that time, Dmitry’s army rebelled, and he himself fled to Kostroma. Who opposed Tokhtamysh?..
Serpukhov was the possession of Prince Vladimir Andreevich, Dmitry Ivanovich’s cousin. However, Vladimir himself was not in Serpukhov; he and his entire army, as will be further indicated in the chronicle, stood at Volok Lamsky.
Thus, resistance to the Tatars could be provided either by the troops who rebelled against Dmitry, or by the townspeople themselves and the garrison of Serpukhov (protection of their hometown from those who would at least plunder it is a very significant motive). Tokhtamysh could have burned the city not only in retaliation for the resistance shown, but also because of its important strategic location - the city’s fortifications made it possible to control the fords across the Oka.
Please note: having approached the city with a small force, the Tatars ask the Muscovites: “Is Prince Dmitry here?” They are answered: “No.” After which the Tatars carry out a typical reconnaissance - inspection of the walls and terrain, in order to study the upcoming battlefield, instead of chasing the prince who fled to Kostroma.
“And then in the city, good people prayed to God... some unkind people began to go around the courtyards, taking out the master’s honey and silver vessels from the cellars, and they even got drunk to the piano, and added insolence to vacillation, saying: “We are not afraid of finding the filthy Tatars, since our city is solid, its walls are stone and its gates are iron. They will not be able to stand long under our hail, great fear having, from within the city - fighters, and from without - the princes of our united aspirations are afraid.”
According to Muscovites, the stone walls of the city were so impregnable that in view of the enemy they could safely get drunk and go wild. Let us remember that Ostey allegedly “pacified” them. But if he had pacified them by force of arms or threats, if he had been sent by Prince Dmitry Donskoy to organize the defense of Moscow from the Tatars, he would never have allowed such dangerous disgrace and sloppiness to happen. No, this episode clearly shows that the Muscovites were not at all pacified by Ostei. They simply obeyed him as a military leader they needed for protection from the Tatars. Muscovites ruled Ostei, not he ruled them. Ostey owed his rise to the rebellious Moscow and therefore allowed “unkind people” looting, pogroms and brawls inside the besieged city.
And another interesting point: Muscovites were sure that the Tatars would not stand at the city walls for long; they believed that someone from outside would help them against the Tatars. But who? Dmitry Donskoy, against whom they rebelled, whose wife they robbed and “abused”? Even according to the official chronicle version, Donskoy could not help them, since he had just refused to resist the tsar and fled to Kostroma. Or did they rely on the army of Vladimir Andreevich? Or to the rebel army abandoned by Dmitry Ivanovich? But this army, if it still existed and did not run away in fright, for some reason could not stop the Tatars at Serpukhov, at the Oka Fords, and as they moved towards Moscow. So what hope is there for her now? Maybe for someone else?.. For now, let’s just note that we were hoping for a lot ambulance from outside.
“And so they climbed onto the walls, staggering drunk, scolding the Tatars in a shameless, annoying manner, and some abusive words, full of reproach, and blasphemy, and kidnapping them, thinking that only this was the Tatar forces. The Tatars waved their naked sabers right at them, as if they were cutting, making signs from afar.”
The drunken mob, to put it mildly, “teases” the Tatars, demonstrating full confidence the unbridled crowd in its impunity.
“And that day, in the evening, these regiments retreated from the hail, and in the morning the king himself approached the hail with all his strength and with all his regiments. The townspeople, seeing the great power from the city, were terribly afraid. The Tatars went to the city.”

So, Tokhtamysh brings all his troops to Moscow and throws people into the assault stone walls, knowing that Prince Dmitry was not in Moscow, that the city rebelled against Dmitry and the Prince of Moscow fled to Kostroma. If we assume that the campaign was launched in order to destroy Dmitry personally, then this is a completely useless step, leading only to unnecessary losses in the army. However, the tsar might have considered Moscow an easy prey. The first attack can be explained as an attempt to take the city by raid. But how to explain the rest?
“The townspeople shot an arrow at them, and they also shot, and their arrows hit the hail like a rain cloud. And many who stood in the city and on the fences fell from the arrows, for the Tatar arrows caused more damage than the arrows of the townspeople, since the Tatars have great arrows. Some shot from them while standing, while others were trained to shoot while running, others from a horse at full gallop with both hands, and also shot forward and backward quickly without errors.”
From the description of the battle it is clearly visible that the shooting of the city’s defenders was completely suppressed by the return shooting of the attackers. The professionalism and organization of the besiegers was so much greater that they were able to drive the defenders away from the high stone walls and suppress the shooting of the townspeople from the “fences” (covered galleries) dominating the area, from loopholes and towers.
It is interesting that among the besieging troops there are found not only professional mounted shooters, but also equally professional foot soldiers who shot effectively both standing and running. It is unlikely that the Tatars of Tokhtamysh, who shoot perfectly from horseback, on the move, while jumping both forward and backward, would dismount to shoot while standing, much less while running. Only infantrymen could behave this way, but Tokhtamysh had no infantry in his army, as was already proven above! It turns out that locals, Russians, and professional “shooters of great rank” took part in the siege of Moscow. The fact, at first glance, is surprising. But further from the chronicle it will become clear whose troops these were.

“And others made ladders from them and, leaning them against them, climbed onto the walls. The townspeople boiled water in cauldrons and poured it on them, and thus restrained them. Having departed, they began again. And so for three days they fought among themselves until exhaustion. When the Tatars approached the city, approaching the city walls close to them, then the townspeople guarding the city resisted them, defending themselves: some shot with arrows from the fence, some threw stones at them, others threw mattresses at them, and others shot, drawing crossbows and beat from vices. There were some who fired from the cannons themselves.”
So, the besiegers, using ladders, tried to climb the walls. Apparently, Moscow had been preparing for sieges and assaults for a long time and diligently, the boilers were at hand, just boil the water. Usually these cauldrons were hung on special mobile “cranes”, which made it possible to move the cauldron so as to pour boiling water directly on the heads of enemies. To scald enemies, special gutters were also used, through which boiling water flowed in those places where it was convenient to place ladders.
It turned out that pallets (small-caliber artillery, usually firing grapeshot) and cannons had already been installed in the right places, and that the grapeshot from these guns, aimed tangentially along the fortress walls, easily mowed down everyone who wanted to attach ladders to these walls. At the same time, the low accuracy, rate of fire and maneuverability of the artillery of the late 14th century clearly did not allow it to successfully compete in a shootout with the archers of the besiegers, otherwise they would not have been allowed to even get close to the walls. Crossbows, “vices” (throwing machines such as arc#x2011;ballistas) and simply enthusiasts throwing stones at enemies from the walls, of course, also played a role. And most importantly, among the defenders there were probably military men who had real combat experience: Prince Ostya, the boyars, their closest associates and warriors. They were able to organize and direct the activities of the townspeople in the right direction. Some with advice, some with timely reinforcements, and some with personal example, they raised the fighting efficiency of the townspeople to a level sufficient to prevent the besiegers from breaking through to the walls.
“Among them there was one Moscow city dweller, a clothier named Adam, who was above the Frolov gates. Having noticed and taken a fancy to one deliberate and glorious Tatar, who was the son of a certain prince of the Horde, he strained a self-propelled arrow, released it suddenly, and with it he pierced the angry heart, causing him a quick death. And this was a great plague for all the Tatars, so that the tsar himself grieved about it.”
The episode itself is revealing. A certain cloth worker Adam, judging by his name, a Catholic, a Genoese, contrived and killed a noble Tatar with a crossbow. Apparently, this well-aimed shot was the most significant and important success defending Muscovites. It is obvious that the chronicle was written from the words of an eyewitness (or by the eyewitness himself), since throughout the narrative we do not see mountains of Tatar corpses under the walls of Moscow. All Muscovites’ defense measures did not so much destroy manpower the enemy, how many experienced warriors, protected by armor and wise in combat experience, were scared away from the walls.
“So the king stood at the city for 3 days, and on the 4th day he deceived Prince Os#2011; with false speeches and a false world, and called him out of the city, and killed him before the gates of the city, and ordered all his troops to surround the city on all sides "
Tokhtamysh did not limit himself to the first assault on Moscow. Having made sure that the city could not be taken by raid, he nevertheless stormed it for three days. Moreover, not a word is said about attempts to blockade Moscow, or about any siege operations. But it is known that the Tatar Mongols took Ryazan, Kyiv, Vladimir and many other Russian cities using battering machines, “vices” and other siege technologies back in the time of Batu. In 1345, the Tatars besieged (though unsuccessfully) Kafa, using siege engines.
Nevertheless, Tokhtamysh again and again throws his people into the assault, without waiting for either the construction of vices or the construction of siege towers. By doing this, he inevitably increases losses among his soldiers. In a hurry? Afraid of being stabbed in the back? That same blow from the united princes that the Muscovites were boasting about? And it is precisely this haste that apparently determines the subsequent deception.
“...and on the 4th day in the morning, at noon, at the order of the Tsarev, the deliberate Tatars, the great princes of the Horde and his nobles, arrived, with them two Suzdal princes, Vasily and Semyon, the sons of Prince Dmitry of Suzdal. And having come to the city, they approached the city walls with caution, and began to speak to the people who were in the city..."
So, together with the “deliberate Tatars” and the “grand princes of the Horde”, Vasily and Semyon, the sons of Dmitry Konstantinovich, the prince of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod, are traveling to the walls of Moscow. And they act as representatives of Tokhtamysh. This means that it was the Suzdal Nizhny Novgorod squads, along with the Tatars, that participated in the attacks on Moscow.
“The Tsar wants to favor you, his people, because you are innocent and not worthy of death, he did not come against you fighting, but against Dmitry, while fighting, he took up arms. You deserve to be pardoned. The king does not demand anything else from you, unless you come out to meet him with honor and with gifts, all together and with your prince, the king wants to see this city and enter it, and visit it, and he will give you peace and his love, and you will open the gates of the city for him.”
That is, Tokhtamysh came to Moscow as a tourist. He just dreams of looking at this city from the inside! Before this, Tokhtamysh attacked Moscow for three days in a row, knowing that Dmitry Ivanovich was not in the city. And now on his behalf they say - the markings, they say, came against Dmitry, and not against you...
The story about the fact that Tsar Tokhtamysh fought for so long without knowing with whom can only be believed by a very illiterate lumpen who is far from politics. It is clear that among those who defended Moscow they made up the majority. It is clear that they could easily take the bait, but not Prince Ostey! Not the boyars! Not church hierarchs! Why did they, with the stupidity of an illiterate alcoholic, with the innocence of a compassionate housewife, open the gates to Tokhtamysh? Why, after fighting for three days and successfully repulsing the enemy, do they suddenly give up and go out to meet Tokhtamysh? procession?
“Likewise, the princes of Nizhny Novagrad said: “Have faith in us, we are your Christian princes, we give you the truth (an oath - Author’s note).”
This is the answer that the chronicler gives to this question. These wise men believed the word...
Wait, maybe it's us modern people, we don’t understand something and, taught by the bitter experience of our present life, we don’t believe anything. Maybe then everyone really kept their word, and the phrase “we give you the truth on that” was quite enough to voluntarily let the enemy army into an almost impregnable city?.. Chronicles testify that even in those days the prince’s word alone was not a guarantor of safety for those who trusted .
“The civil peoples, believing their words, thought and were seduced, they were blinded by the Tatar malice and darkened by the charm of the Besermen... And they opened the gates of the city, and went out with their prince and with many gifts to the king, as well as archimandrites, abbots and priests with crosses, and after them the boyars and the best men, and then the people and black people.”
However, they believed. Unconditionally. Without any insurance. They opened the gates and went out to meet the Tatars. Everyone who was able to organize any kind of resistance in the city came out, if suddenly (of course it’s incredible, but suddenly) Tsar Tokhtamysh did not keep his word given by two Russian princes. Why would the king suddenly keep the word given by someone else on his behalf?
“And at that hour the Tatars suddenly began to cut them down in a row. First of all, Prince Ostya was killed in front of the city, and then they began to cut down priests and abbots, although they were in robes and with crosses, and black people. And then it was visible how the holy icons were thrown down and lay on the ground, and honest crosses without honor were not taken care of, trampled underfoot by us, robbed and torn.”
It is clear that the first blow was aimed at decapitating Moscow's defenses. Ostey was killed, and then, apparently, “in a row,” “the boyars and the best men, and then the people and black people” - according to the degree of social significance and real ability resist. But why should the Tatars kill priests, abbots and other clergy? Isn’t it more profitable to take them captive and then release them for a ransom or take them captive and sell them on the slave market? Did the unarmed priests, waving their crosses and icons, put up such strong resistance that the Tatars were forced to kill them all?
From the point of view of a Muslim (which most of Tokhtamysh’s people were at that time), the murder of a Christian priest is not such a harmless act. If Christians considered Muslims to be “pagan” (i.e., pagans who do not recognize one God), then Muslims considered Christians to be “infidels” (i.e., praying to the right god, but in the wrong way). So Orthodox clergy were respected even among Muslims. Moreover, among those besieging Moscow there were also Russian soldiers from the Suzdal#x2011;Nizhny Novgorod principality. The unjustified beating of Orthodox priests should have caused indignation among them, but it did not!
“The Tatars went into the city, continuing to cut down people, and others climbed up the stairs to the city, but no one resisted them from the fence, there were no guards on the walls, and there were no deliverers, there were no savers. And the slaughter was great inside the city, and outside as well. Until they chopped, until their arms and shoulders were weakened, and their strength was exhausted, their sabers no longer chopped - their edges became dull.”
They took Moscow “on the month of August 26... at 7 o’clock in the afternoon on Thursday for food.”
It turns out that after the beating of Osteya and the boyars, none of the Muscovites were able to resist. Some of the Tatars burst into the gates, while others calmly climbed the walls, which no one was defending.
Further in the story there is a story about the sack of Moscow, the fire and the author’s lamentations about each killed priest... Let us ask ourselves once again, why were the priests killed? After all, I remember exactly Orthodox Church just two years earlier she blessed the Russian army for the war against Tokhtamyshev’s enemy, Mamai. The king should have been grateful, and he showed his gratitude, but in other places. The same priests who now found themselves in Moscow were brutally dealt with by his people. It is unlikely that anyone would have decided to do this without the connivance, or even the direct order of Tokhtamysh.
“The great prince with the princess and children stayed in Kostroma, and his brother Vladimir in Volok, and Vladimir’s mother and princess in Torzhok, and Gerasim, the ruler of Kolomna in Novgorod.”
From where they watched, without taking, judging by the chronicle, any active actions, how Tokhtamysh was ruining Moscow.
“Then the tsar disbanded the Tatar force across the Russian land to fight the great reign, some who went to Vladimir flogged many people and took them away, and other regiments went to Zvenigorod and Yuryev, and others to Volok and Mozhaisk, and others to Dmitrov , and sent another army to the city of Pereyaslavl. And they took it and burned it with fire, and the people of Pereyaslavl ran out of the city, abandoned the city and disappeared into the courts on the lake...”
Note that only Pereyaslavl was taken and burned, and the army sent to it is mentioned separately. Why such an honor? Yes, it’s very simple: Pereyaslavl is a possession given for service by the Moscow prince Dmitry Olgerdovich, Osteya’s father. The father could (and maybe was going to) avenge his son. It turns out that this is the only place from which Tokhtamysh feared an attack and where he launched his preemptive strike.
“Prince Vladimir Andreevich stood up in arms near Volok, gathering strength around himself. And some of the Tatars, neither knowing nor knowing, ran into him. He strengthened himself in God and struck at them, and so by the grace of God he killed some, and caught others alive, and others ran, and running to the king, they told him what had happened. From that moment onwards, he began to receive hail little by little. Walking from Moscow, he set out with his army to Kolomna, and so walking, he took the city of Kolomna and retreated. The tsar crossed the river beyond the Oka and burned the entire land of Ryazan with fire, and cut down people, and others fled, and led countless multitudes into the Horde, full of them.”
It is interesting that Vladimir Khorobry, having gathered all the military force around him, did not stop the Tatars from storming and plundering Moscow. Another interesting point: the Tatars “unknowingly ran into him.” That is, if they knew that it was he who was standing with military force, they would not have “attacked”?
And after this incident (i.e. after the defeat of a small detachment of Tatar marauders), the king begins to “little by little retreat from the city.” There is no talk of any panic flight. A systematic retreat is underway. That is, Tokhtamysh leaves the Moscow principality without ever losing, without even fighting a general battle, after the very first accidental skirmish with the people of Vladimir Andreevich. Very strange behavior for someone who “went into exile against Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and all of Rus'.” This behavior can be explained by the fact that Tokhtamysh completed a certain task for which he went on a campaign, or by the fact that he was convinced of the impossibility of completing this task.
Well, the fact that the Tatars, retreating, plundered the Ryazan land is quite in the order of things. Anyone can offend the weak. Moreover, Tokhtamysh had a grudge against the prince of Ryazan - Oleg, when there was a struggle for the Golden Horde throne, supported Mamai, or rather, did not actively support Dmitry and Tokhtamysh.
“Prince Oleg Ryazansky saw that and ran away. The Tsar, going to the Horde from Ryazan, sent his ambassador, brother-in-law Shikhmat, to Prince Dmitry of Suzdal along with his son, Prince Semyon, and took his other son, Prince Vasily, with him to the Horde.”
There is a standard hostage exchange. This usually occurs between parties who have given each other certain mutual obligations as a guarantee that these obligations will be fulfilled. The exchange of hostages is a common phenomenon and was often used in ancient times. Hostages do not necessarily have to languish in prison. Usually the highest-ranking ones live at the court of the sovereign, becoming familiar with foreign life, sometimes intriguing on their own. They are only forbidden to flee to their homeland. So all this suggests that between Tokhtamysh and Dmitry Konstantinovich Nizhny Novgorod, a relationship was established that was so serious that it required mutual obligations.
“After the Tatars had departed for several days, the noble prince Dmitry and Vladimir, each with his oldest boyars, entered their homeland, the city of Moscow...
And he took the bodies of the dead to be buried, and gave half a ruble from 40 dead, and a ruble from 80. And a total of 300 rubles were given for the burial of the dead.”
It turns out that 24,000 people were buried at the expense of the prince. So how many warriors did Tokhtamysh have that “their strength was exhausted, their sabers did not have them - their edges became dull” when slaughtering 24 thousand inhabitants? Either this is a clear exaggeration, or there were very few Tatars. After all, in order to get tired of the massacre, everyone had to kill at least a few Muscovites. And Muscovites died, as indicated in the chronicle, also from fire and water. It turns out that Tokhtamysh’s army numbered no more than ten thousand. And most likely, it did not exceed two#x2011;three thousand selected horsemen.
“After several days, Prince Dmitry sent his army against Prince Oleg of Ryazan. Oleg and his squad barely escaped, but they completely captured the land of Ryazan and created a waste - it was worse for him than from the Tatar armies,” the Moscow chronicler writes gloatingly.
Here we see an interesting picture. Tokhtamysh and Dmitry Ivanovich treat Ryazan like twin brothers. Well, the fact that Dmitry cleaned out the Ryazan bins even more thoroughly than Tokhtamysh is not surprising. He simply had more time and opportunity to methodically destroy the foundations of the enemy’s economy and export looted valuables.
“By their works you will know them” – isn’t it? Based on the facts, it turns out that Tokhtamysh acted in the interests of Dmitry Ivanovich throughout his entire campaign. Both the defeat of Moscow, which rebelled against Dmitry, and the ruin of the Principality of Ryazan can be considered as a retaliatory step of Tokhtamysh, grateful to Dmitry for the sacrifices that the Moscow Principality suffered on the Kulikovo Field.
And the new king of the Golden Horde, whose kingdom was earned, among other things, by the light bones of Nepryadva’s regiments of Dmitry, thus simply supported the shaken power of his faithful and very valuable vassal. And at the same time he preserved the power of the Horde over Moscow. But this power could have left Tokhtama's hands if the pro-Lithuanian coup in the Moscow principality had been a success!
“That same fall, an ambassador came to Moscow to Prince Dmitry from Takhtamysh, named Karach, also about peace.”
That is, the ambassadors with a proposal for peace arrived on the still-still ashes. And they achieved it. And, as we know from history, they received a considerable tribute from Moscow. Could it be that Dmitry paid tribute to the tsar, who managed to take his capital, defended by a poorly organized crowd, only by deception? The Tsar, who captured only three towns besides Moscow (Serpukhov, Pe#x2011; Zalessky, Kolomna), who was frightened by the mere sight of Vladimir Andreevich’s detachment accidentally encountered by his marauders and fled without fighting a single major battle, without suffering a single defeat? The chronicle is trying to convince us that Dmitry, out of fear of a new invasion, paid tribute to just such a person - Tsar Tokhtamysh. This is a very cowardly and stupid Dmitry, surrounded by not a single sane person. And Tokhtamysh is no better. Both of them are represented by persons who are completely unable to govern the state. However, this contradicts the facts. Rather, it can be assumed that during the events described in the chronicle, something happened that was very unpleasant for the chronicler, something that he wanted to keep silent about. That is why the real motivation and real relationships between the participants in the conflict were deliberately distorted by the chronicler. But he could not distort the facts known to a huge number of eyewitnesses. The chronicle was written literally in hot pursuit. The ashes of Moscow have not yet cooled. It was only possible to hide little-known behind-the-scenes negotiations and intrigues.
Let's try to imagine how everything really was.