Was it - the Battle of the Ice?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

As you know from the Soviet school history course, in the summer of 1240, an army of thousands of German Teutonic knights moved to Russia, which captured several cities and planned to storm Novgorod.

At the request of the Novgorod veche, Prince Alexander Yaroslavich, who left Novgorod in the winter of 1240 after a quarrel with a part of the Novgorod boyars, returned to the city and led the people's militia. He and his retinue liberated Koporye and Pskov, and then on April 5, 1242 lured the Germans onto the ice of Lake Peipsi. As he planned, the ice could not withstand the weight of the knights chained in armor and cracked, sinking most of the Teutonic army and ensuring a glorious victory for the Russians. At the dawn of Soviet times, the great Eisenstein made a wonderful film "Alexander Nevsky" about this, which very figuratively showed how it all happened. But was it all like that, as taught at school and shown in the film?

Independent researchers and historians with a clear eye argue that this was not the case at all. This is yet another propaganda myth with a single purpose: to create in Russian history the personality of a great commander, in scale not inferior to David, Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan. This completely unpatriotic version is hotly defended by sober Russian scientists, including the historian and archaeologist Alexei Bychkov.

Direct recourse to sources tends to disappoint the uninitiated. A careful study of all the early documents telling about the events of those early years, it turns out that they either contain extremely contradictory information about the legendary battle with the German knights, or they do not contain them at all. The greatest battle appears in these early monuments as an episode, if not at all ordinary, then certainly, in any case, by no means fateful.

The chronicles and chronicles do not say a word about the withdrawal of the Russians across Lake Peipsi and the battle on its ice (all the more, not a word is said about the replicated Livonian wedge that split the Russian order at the beginning of the battle). Not a single date is mentioned, and there is no reference to a specific place where the battle took place. And, finally, all the chronicles mention the unconditional inequality of forces, which clearly reduces the heroic touch of the legend of the Battle of the Ice.

In order to create the image of the great liberator Alexander Nevsky, a number of myths were created. The very first is about who the Russians fought with. Anyone who knows even a little history will exclaim: "Of course, with the Germans!" And he will be absolutely right, because in the Novgorod chronicle it is said that these were precisely the "Germans". Yes, of course, Germans, only now we use this word exclusively for Germans (we even study German, not German), in the 13th century the word "German" meant "dumb", that is, one who cannot speak. So the Russians called all the peoples whose speech was incomprehensible to them. It turns out Danes, French, Poles, Germans, Finns, etc. the inhabitants of medieval Russia considered them "Germans".

The Livonian Chronicle indicates that the army that went on a campaign against Russia consisted of knights of the Livonian Order (one of the units of the Teutonic Order based in the territory of the present Baltic), Danish vassals and a militia from Dorpat (present-day Tartu), a significant part of which was a miracle (as the Russians called legendary people "white-eyed chud", as well as Estonians and sometimes Finns). Consequently, this army is not something that is "German", it cannot even be called "Teutonic", because most of the soldiers did not belong to the Livonian Order. But they can be called crusaders, because the campaign was partly religious in nature. And the Russian army was not exclusively the army of Alexander Nevsky. In addition to the squad of the prince himself, the army included a detachment of the bishop, the Novgorod garrison, subordinate to the mayor, the militia of the posad, as well as the squads of boyars and wealthy merchants. In addition, the "grassroots" regiments from the Suzdal principality came to the aid of the Novgorodians: the prince's brother Andrei Yaroslavich with his retinue, and with him the city and boyar detachments.

The second myth concerns the hero of the battle. In order to understand it, let us turn to the "Elder Livonian Rhymed Chronicle", roughly recorded in the last decade of the 13th century from the words of a participant in the Russian-Livonian battles of the 40s. With a careful and, most importantly, unbiased reading of it, the sequence of old events can be reconstructed as follows: the Russians attacked the Estonians, the Livonians volunteered to defend them; the Livonians captured Izborsk, and then broke into Pskov, which surrendered to them without a fight; a certain Novgorod prince, whose name is not mentioned, gathered a large detachment and moved to Pskov, having won it from the Germans. The status quo was restored; at that moment the Suzdal prince Alexander (after the battle on the Neva, popularly nicknamed "Nevsky"), together with his numerous retinue, went to war on the Livonian lands, causing robberies and fires. In Dorpat, the local bishop gathered his army and decided to attack the Russians. But it turned out to be too small: "The Russians had such an army that, perhaps, sixty men of one German attacked. The brothers fought hard. Yet they overpowered them. Some of the Dorpat people left the battle to save themselves. They were forced to retreat. There were twenty brothers killed and six were taken prisoner. " Moreover, based on the words of the German chronicler, the key seems to be the battle for Pskov ("if Pskov had been saved, it would now benefit Christianity until the very end of the world"), which was not won by Prince Alexander (most likely, we are talking about his brother Andrei).

However, the Livonian chronicle could well contain false information and did not fully reflect the role of Prince Alexander in the successes on the western front.

From Russian sources, the earliest is the news of the Laurentian Chronicle, which was compiled at the end of the XIV century. Literally, she narrates the following: "In the summer of 6750 (1242 according to modern chronology), the Grand Duke Yaroslav sent his son Andrei to Novgorod the Great, to help Alexander the Germans and defeated them over Pleskovskoye on the lake, and captured many people, and Andrei returned. to his father with honor."

Recall that this is the first Russian evidence of the so-called Battle on the Ice was compiled 135 years (!) After the events described. In it, by the way, the Novgorodians themselves regarded the "massacre" as a small skirmish - only a hundred words were given to the battle in the annals. And then "the elephants began to grow," and the battle with a small detachment of Dorpat, Chudi and Livonians turned into a fateful slaughter. By the way, in the early monuments, the Battle of the Ice is inferior not only to the Rakovor battle, but also to the battle on the Neva. Suffice it to say that the description of the Battle of the Neva takes up one and a half times more space in the Novgorod First Chronicle than the description of the Battle on the Ice.

As for the role of Alexander and Andrey, then the well-known game of "spoiled phone" begins. In the Academic List of the Suzdal Chronicle, compiled in Rostov at the episcopal see, Andrei is not mentioned at all, but it was Alexander who dealt with the Germans, and this already happened "on Lake Peipsi, near the Crow Stone."

Obviously, by the time this canonical chronicle was compiled (and it dates from the end of the 15th century), there could be no reliable information about what really happened 250 years ago.

The most detailed story about the Battle on the Ice, however, is found in the Novgorod first chronicle of the Elder edition, which, in fact, was referred to by most of the Russian chroniclers who had a hand in creating the official version of this historical event. She, of course, became a source for the Suzdal Chronicle, although she mentions both Alexander and Andrey as defenders of the Russian land (indeed, it seems that the latter was later deliberately "pushed" in historical chronicles for the sake of creating a personality cult of his older brother). And no one pays attention to the fact that it fundamentally contradicts both the Livonian Chronicle and the Laurentian Chronicle.

There is one more "authentic" source of the prince's deeds, which is called "The Life of Alexander Nevsky". This work was written with the aim of glorifying Prince Alexander as an invincible warrior, who stands at the center of the narrative, overshadowing the historical events presented as an insignificant background. The country should know its heroes, and Nevsky is an excellent example for the religious and patriotic education of citizens at all times.

In addition, this work is a typical fiction of its time, various researchers noted that episodes of "The Life of Alexander Nevsky" are full of numerous borrowings from biblical books, "History of the Jewish War" by Josephus and the southern Russian chronicles. This primarily refers to the description of the battles, including, of course, the battle on Lake Peipsi.

Thus, we can conclude that there are very few reliable facts about the Russian-German battles of the middle of the 13th century. It is only known for certain that the Livonians captured Izborsk and Pskov, and Andrei and Alexander, after some time, expelled the invaders from the city.

The fact that all the laurels were subsequently given to the elder brother lies on the conscience of the chroniclers, and the myth of the Battle of the Ice was invented, it seems, they …

By the way, on the initiative of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1958, an expedition was undertaken to the area of the supposed site of the Battle on the Ice. Archaeologists have not found any traces of the battle either at the bottom of the lake or on its shores … It turns out that the key element of the history of Russia is just a propaganda invention?

Another myth concerns the number of troops. Since Soviet times, some historians, when mentioning the number of armies that clashed on Lake Peipsi, indicate that the army of Alexander Nevsky numbered about 15-17 thousand people, while 10-12 thousand German soldiers opposed them. For comparison, note that the population of Novgorod at the beginning of the XIII century was only about 20-30 thousand people, and this includes women, old people and children. Approximately the same number lived in medieval Paris, London, Cologne. That is, if you believe the facts set forth, armies equal in size to half the population of the largest cities in the world should have met in the battle. Quite doubtful, isn't it? So the maximum number of militias that Alexander could call under his banners simply physically could not exceed two thousand warriors.

Now there are historians who, on the contrary, argue that the battle of 1242 was a very insignificant event. Indeed, the Livonian chronicle says that, on their part, the Germans lost only twenty "brothers" killed and six prisoners. Yes, only pundits seem to forget that not every warrior in medieval Europe was considered a knight. Knights were only well-armed and well-equipped noble people, and usually with each of them there were a hundred people of support: archers, spearmen, cavalry (so-called knechts), as well as local militia, which the Livonian chroniclers could not take into account. The Novgorod Chronicle asserts that the losses of the Germans amounted to 400 killed, and 50 were captured, as well as "Chudi beschisla" (that is, countless people died). Russian chroniclers probably counted everyone, regardless of clan and tribe.

So, it seems that the figures of researchers who claim that the German army numbered about 150 knights, one and a half thousand bollards and a couple of thousand of the Chudi militia deserve the most credible figures. Novgorod opposed them with about 4-5 thousand fighters.

The next myth asserts that the heavily armed soldiers of the "Germans" opposed the lightly armed Russian soldiers. Like, the armor of the German warrior was two or three times heavier than the Russians. Allegedly, it was thanks to this that the ice broke on the lake, and the heavy armor pulled the Germans to the bottom. (And the Russians - also, by the way, in iron, albeit "light" - for some reason did not drown …) In fact, the Russian and German soldiers were protected in about the same way. By the way, plate armor, in which knights are usually depicted in novels and films, appeared later - in the XIV-XV centuries. The knights of the 13th century, like the Russian warriors, put on a steel helmet, chain mail before the battle, on top of it - a mirror, plate armor, or brigandine (a leather shirt with steel plates), the warrior's arms and legs were covered with bracers and leggings. All this ammunition pulled twenty kilograms. And even then not every warrior had such equipment, but only the most noble and wealthy.

The difference between the Russians and the Teutons was only in the "headdress" - instead of the traditional Slavic shishak, the head of the knight brothers was protected by a bucket-shaped helmet. There were no plate horses in those days either.

(It is also worth noting that the Teutons earned the nickname "knight-dogs" six centuries later thanks to an incorrect translation of the works of Karl Marx into Russian. The classic of the communist doctrine used the noun "monk" in relation to the Teutons, which in German is consonant with the word "dog".)

From the myth of the opposition of heavy weapons to light, the following follows: that Alexander hoped for ice, and therefore lured the Teutons to the frozen lake. Here's an anecdote!.. First, let's see when the battle took place: at the beginning of April. That is, into a muddy road. Well, Alexander Nevsky was a genius and lured the "Germans" onto the ice. Were they complete idiots? Why are they dragged onto the ice in a muddy road? There was no other place to fight ?! We must not forget the fact that the armies of both sides had extensive experience in conducting hostilities in this region at all seasons, so it is unlikely that the Teutonic camp did not know about the degree of freezing of rivers and the impossibility of using their ice in spring.

Secondly, if we carefully consider the scheme of the battle (let us assume, again, that it actually took place), we will see that the "Germans" did not fall under the ice at all where the battle took place. It happened later: while retreating, some of them accidentally ran out to the "sigovitsa" - a place on the lake where the water freezes badly due to the current. This means that breaking the ice could not be part of the prince's tactical plans. The main merit of Alexander Nevsky was that he chose the right place for the battle and was able to break the classic "German" formation with a pig (or wedge). The knights, concentrating the infantry in the center and covering it on the flanks with cavalry, as usual attacked "head-on", hoping to sweep away the main forces of the Russians. But there was only a small detachment of light warriors, which immediately began to retreat. Yes, only in pursuit of him, the "Germans" unexpectedly came up against a steep bank, and at this time the main forces of the Russians, turning the flanks, struck from the sides and rear, taking the enemy in a ring. Immediately, the cavalry detachment of Alexander, hidden in an ambush, entered the battle, and the "Germans" were broken. As the chronicle describes, the Russians drove them seven miles to the far shore of Lake Peipsi.

By the way, in the first Novgorod chronicle there is not a word about the fact that the retreating Germans fell through the ice. This fact was added by Russian chroniclers later - a hundred years after the battle. Neither the Livonian chronicle nor any other chronicle that existed at that time mentions this. European chronicles begin to report about the drowned only from the 16th century. So, it is quite possible that the knights drowning among the ice are also just a myth.

Another myth is the battle at Ravenstone. If we look at the scheme of the battle (again, let us assume that it was actually and in fact on Lake Peipsi), we will see that it took place on the eastern coast, not far from the junction of Lake Peipsi and Pskov. In fact, this is just one of the many supposed places where the Russians might have encountered the crusaders. Novgorod chroniclers quite accurately indicate the place of the battle - at the Crow Stone. Yes, only where is this very Raven Stone, historians are guessing to this day. Some argue that this was the name of the island, and now it is called Voroniy, others that high sandstone was once considered a stone, which was washed away over the centuries by the current. The Livonian chronicle says: "On both sides, the killed fell on the grass. Those who were in the army of the brothers were surrounded …". Based on this, it is possible with a high degree of probability to assume that the battle could have taken place on the shore (dry reeds would have completely disappeared for the grass), and the Russians were chasing the retreating Germans along the frozen lake.

Recently, a quite slender version has emerged that the Crow Stone is a transformation of the word. In the original there was the Gate Stone - the heart of the water gates to Narva, to Velikaya and Pskov. And on the shore next to him there was a fortress - Roerich saw the remains of it …

As we have already mentioned, many researchers are confused by the fact that even with the help of modern equipment, no weapons and armor of the 13th century have yet been found in the lake, which is why doubts arose: was there a Battle on the Ice at all? However, if the knights did not actually drown, then the absence of the equipment that went to the bottom is not at all surprising. In addition, most likely, immediately after the battle, the bodies of the dead - both their own and those of others - were removed from the battlefield and buried.

In general, not a single expedition has ever established a reliable place of the battle between the crusaders and the troops of Alexander Nevsky, and the points of a possible battle are scattered over a hundred kilometers long. Perhaps the only thing that no one doubts is that a certain battle in 1242 did take place. Prince Alexander was walking with five dozen fighters, they were greeted by about three dozen knights. And the Teutons went into the service of Alexander Yaroslavich. That's the whole battle.

But who launched all these myths among the people? Bolshevik filmmaker Eisenstein? Well, he only tried partly. So, for example, the local residents around Lake Peipsi, in theory, should have preserved legends about the battle, it should have entered folklore … However, the local old people learned about the Battle of the Ice not from their grandfathers, but from Eisenstein's film. In general, in the twentieth century there was a reassessment of the place and role of the Battle of the Ice in the history of Russia-Russia. And this reassessment was connected not with the latest scientific research, but with a change in the political situation. A kind of signal for a revision of the meaning of this event was the publication in 1937 in No. 12 of the Znamya magazine of a literary film script by P. A. Pavlenko and S. M. Eisenstein "Rus", the central place in which was occupied by the Battle of the Ice. Already the title of the future film, which is quite neutral in today's view, sounded like big news then. The script drew rather harsh criticism from professional historians. The attitude towards him was precisely defined by the title of the review by M. N. Tikhomirova: "A mockery of history."

Speaking about the goals that, according to the will of the script authors, the Master of the Order declares on the eve of the battle on the ice of Lake Peipsi (“So, Novgorod is yours. "), Tikhomirov noted:" The authors, apparently, do not understand at all that the order was not even able to set such tasks for itself. " Whatever it was, but the film "Alexander Nevsky" was filmed according to the proposed, slightly modified script. However, he "lay on the shelf." The reason was, of course, not divergences with historical truth, but foreign policy considerations, in particular, unwillingness to spoil relations with Germany. Only the beginning of the Great Patriotic War opened his way to the wide screen, and this was done for quite understandable reasons. Here and the education of hatred for the Germans, and the display of Russian soldiers in a better color than it really is.

At the same time, the creators of "Alexander Nevsky" were awarded the Stalin Prize. From this moment, the formation and consolidation in the public consciousness of a new myth about the Battle of the Ice begins - a myth that even today lies at the basis of the mass historical memory of the Russian people. It was here that incredible exaggerations appeared in the characterization of "the largest battle of the early Middle Ages."

But Eisenstein, this genius of cinema, was far from the first. All this hype, inflating the scale of the feat of Alexander Nevsky, was beneficial to the Russian Orthodox Church and only to it. So the roots of myths go back centuries. The idea of the important religious significance of the Battle of Chudskoye goes back to the life story about Alexander Yaroslavich. The very description of the battle is extremely metaphorical: "And there was a slash of evil, and a coward from the spears of breaking, and a sound from the cut of a sword, as if the ezer would freeze to move, and would not see the ice, covered in fear of blood." As a result, with God's help (the incarnation of which was the "regiment of God at the entrance, having come to the aid of Alexandrovi") the prince "I conquer … and my dasha will splash, and I will chase, like a yayer, and do not comfort me". "And Prince Alexander returned with a glorious victory, and there were a multitude of people in his regiment, and they were leading barefoot near the horses, who called themselves God's rhetoric." Actually, it was the religious significance of these battles of young Alexander that became the reason for placing the story about them in the hagiographic story.

The Russian Orthodox Church honors the feat of the Orthodox army that defeated the aggressors in a decisive battle on the ice of Lake Peipsi. The life of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky compares the victory in the Battle of the Ice with the biblical holy wars in which God Himself fought with the enemies. "And I heard this from an eyewitness who told me that he saw the army of God in the air, coming to the aid of Alexander. And so he defeated them with the help of God, and the enemies turned to flight, and the soldiers of Alexandrov drove them away, as if they were flying through the air", - narrates the ancient Russian chronicler. So the battle on the ice was the beginning of the centuries-old struggle of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Catholic expansion.

So what, in principle, can be drawn from all this? And very simple: when studying history, you need to be very sober about what the canonical textbooks and scientific works offer us. And in order to have this sober attitude, historical events cannot be studied in isolation from the historical context in which either the chronicles, or chronicles, or textbooks were written. Otherwise, we risk studying not history, but the view of those in power. And this, you see, is far from the same thing.