Why didn't Tamerlane go to Russia? Yu. Loshchits

On February 18, 1405, in the area of ​​the current Kazakh village of Talapty, a man who considered himself the ruler of the world died. The full name of the person is Timur ibn Taragay Barlas. He is better known to us as Tamerlane.

Acquaintance with this character for many began with a book Gaidar“Timur and his team”, when in response to the question “Who is Timur?” the main character receives: “One king is like that. Angry, lame and from a middle story."

Oddly enough, this casual phrase is an almost perfect description of one of the most famous conquerors in history.

Good bad evil

Tamerlane, who conquered all of Central Asia from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean and from China to Egypt in less than 40 years from 1366 to 1404, simply could not be "white and fluffy." Another thing is that cruelty was then understood differently. Islamic eyewitnesses considered the most heinous crime of Tamerlane that he executed his fellow believers. It was quite in his style to demand the surrender of the city on the terms of non-shedding of Muslim blood. They surrendered the city. And Tamerlane kept his promise. Christians and Jews were massacred. And Muslims were buried alive in the ground, without spilling a single drop of blood.

Timur on the throne in Balkh, 1550. Photo: www.globallookpress.com

The few Europeans who witnessed the atrocities of Tamerlane did not divide people into Christians and Muslims - they were horrified by the very fact of mass and sophisticated murders. The memories of a German Johann Schiltberger, who, being a squire, was captured first by the Turks, and then by Tamerlane himself, and spent almost 30 years in his state.

“Having gathered the inhabitants of Isfahan, he ordered to kill everyone who was over 14 years old. The heads of the dead were stacked in the form of a pyramid in the center of the city. He then ordered the women and children to be taken to a field outside the city, where he separated children under 7 years of age. After that, he ordered his soldiers to run over them with their horses. Tamerlane's own advisers and the mothers of these children fell on their knees before him and begged him to spare the children. But he did not heed their pleas, he repeated his order, which, however, not a single warrior dared to fulfill. Angry at them, Tamerlane himself ran into the children and said that he would like to know who would dare not follow him. Then the soldiers were forced to follow his example and trample the children with the hooves of their horses. In total, they counted about seven thousand trampled." By the way, it was this story that inspired Russian artist Vasily Vereshchagin on the canvas "The Apotheosis of War" - the famous pyramid of skulls.

Vasily Vereshchagin Apotheosis of War. 1871 Photo: Public Domain

Non-combat wound

Actually, Tamerlane, or rather Timur-e Liang, is an insulting nickname. Consists of two words. Given at birth, the name "Timur" or "Temir" in some Mongolian dialects means "iron". The addendum, meaning "lame", he received under really shameful circumstances.

Here is how the legend says about it: “He was not rich and had only means to support three or four horsemen. With their help, he began to take away from his neighbors one day a ram, another - a cow, and when he succeeded, he feasted with his people. When he already had 500 people, he attacked a flock of sheep in the land of Sistan. But the owners came and rushed at him and his people, killed many, and they threw him off his horse and wounded him in his right hand, so that he lost two small fingers. And also in the right leg, which left him lame. For the ambitious "ruler of the world", the reminder of the theft of sheep was like a mockery.

Ruins of Tamerlane's Palace, Uzbekistan (present). Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org / Alaexis

Audacity second happiness

On the banner of Tamerlane, a triangle was depicted, inside of which three ovals were placed. It was believed that this symbolizes the whole world, that is, the three parts of the world - Europe, Asia and Africa, which submitted to the conqueror. In 1402 Tamerlane challenged Turkish Sultan Bayezid. In the battle of Ankara, the sultan was defeated and then kept by Tamerlane in an iron cage until his death. But before the battle, they managed to exchange pleasantries. Bayazid, having seen the banner of Tamerlane, allegedly declared: “What impudence must be had to imagine oneself as the ruler of the whole world!”. To which Tamerlane, hinting at the Turkish standard with a crescent, replied: “And what impudence do you have to have to consider yourself the ruler of the moon?”.

Throne stone of Timur. Photo: Public Domain

Spaniard Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo who visited as an ambassador King Enrique III court of Tamerlane in Samarkand, left a report testifying to the extreme arrogance of the conqueror. The audience began with his question, "How is my son the King of Spain?" and ended with the words "Well, I will give my blessing to the king, my son." According to the concepts of that time, this was rudeness. The one whom the sovereigns considered their equal was called “brother”, to the dependent - “younger brother”. The word "son" in the mouth of a politician meant "slave".

Perhaps this should be attributed to the traditional oriental arrogance. So, the court chronicler of Tamerlane Ghiyassaddin Ali with full seriousness he assured that in one of his campaigns he even reached the lands of the Franks. This was not enough for other flatterers, and they claimed that in the campaign to the north Tamerlane reached "the limits of the sixth climate." Islamic scientists divided the world into 7 climates - the first was the equator, the seventh - the pole. The sixth, it turns out, is the polar circle.

Tamerlane's conquests. Photo: Public Domain

Russian trace

In reality, the Russian city of Yelets turned out to be the extreme northern point of Tamerlane's conquests. It happened in August 1395. Tamerlane, pursuing the Tatar Khan Tokhtamysh, set out to destroy not only his armies, but also the state itself - the Golden Horde. Theoretically, Russia, as a tributary of the Horde, could also fall under the swords.

But it turned out differently. Taking Yelets and captivating the local Prince Fyodor, Tamerlane did not go to Moscow, but turned back. Why?

Tamerlane and his warriors. Miniature. Photo: Public Domain

There are three versions of events. According to our chronicle, Russia was saved by the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, which was brought to Moscow on the eve of the invasion. Tamerlane, allegedly, had a vision that a certain Queen with a myriad army of angels tells him to get out of the Russian land.

According to Eastern legends, Tamerlane generally attacked the city of Vladimir. But there he also had a vision. It seems to have come Khizr, Islamic righteous man, to which he did not order to fight, but simply ordered to show his strength to the “Uruses”. Why did Tamerlane allegedly take a two-year-old stallion and throw him into the walls of the city. The walls collapsed, and Tamerlane shouted so "that the soldiers lost their tongues from fear and a terrible pallor covered their whole face."

In reality, Tamerlane simply had no plans to conquer Russia. His voyage to Yelets is just an attempt to overtake one of the fleeing Tatar commanders, Bek-Yaryk-Oglana. Yelets fell under the distribution, as it were, for the company.

True, the Russian chronicle insists that Khromets was still going to attack Russia a second time. But then General Frost stepped in - the cold hit. Tamerlane, wanting to keep warm, drank too much wine and died from it.

Surprisingly, this almost exactly corresponds to the true circumstances of the death of Tamerlane. At the beginning of the campaign to China, his stomach began to hurt badly. Doctors tried to alleviate the suffering by applying ice to the stomach. This was not successful, and the frustrated conqueror really took a shock dose of alcohol, which caused an exacerbation of the disease and death.

Tokhtamysh, fighting with Tamerlane, suffered defeats from him, but continued military operations until the latter in 1394 launched a large-scale offensive against the ruler of the Horde. April 15, 1395 on the river. Terek (on the territory of modern North Ossetia) Tamerlane inflicted a major defeat on Tokhtamysh. Khan fled beyond the Dnieper and took refuge in the possessions of the Lithuanian great prince Vitovt. Devastating the lands left by Tokhtamysh, Tamerlane approached the possessions of the Russian princes. Having learned about the movement of his troops, Vasily Dimitrievich fortified Moscow and with an army went to the Oka to repel the enemy. The Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was brought from Vladimir to Moscow, before which prayers were performed. Tamerlane, having ruined Yelets, did not go to Moscow, the threat of his invasion was over.

But 2 months later, the Horde prince Yentyak, together with the former Nizhny Novgorod prince Semyon Dmitrievich, attacked Nizhny Novgorod and took it. Vasily Dimitrievich sent troops here under the command of his brother Prince Yuri. Having learned about the approach of the Grand Duke's rati, Yentyak and Semyon fled from Nizhny Novgorod, and Yuri successfully fought for 3 months in the Horde's Middle Volga region. The Moscow rati got rich booty there, Prince Yuri used part of it for church construction in his specific center of Zvenigorod.

WHY "RETURN ON YOUR OWN"?

Written sources speak rather than of hostility, but of Timur's neutral attitude towards the rulers of Moscow and Lithuanian Rus, who since 1395 have been not only in a dynastic, but also in a military-political union. Both of them - both Vasily I Dmitrievich and Vitovt - took the necessary precautions, placing mobilized armies in the border with the Horde - the Moscow prince along the Oka River, and the Lithuanian prince in Smolensk captured by him. Timur, having stood with the army near Yelets for two weeks, left it on August 26, 1395 and, according to the chronicler, “returned to his homeland”, completing the defeat of the Horde cities on the way back. His campaign through the territory of the vital center of the Golden Horde, in its devastating consequences, became a real economic and political disaster for her.

It is very likely that it was during the camp near Yelets that Timur decided not to go to war against Russia, because peaceful relations with potential enemies of the Horde were more in line with his strategic goal than war. It is difficult to determine exactly when the decision was made to "politically split" the Ulus of Jochi - in the fall of 1395 or earlier, on the eve of the war with the Horde. In any case, it was undoubtedly the result of understanding the experience of the previous (1391) campaign of Amir Timur against Khan Tokhtamysh, which showed the amazing ability of the Horde state to quickly revive in the presence of the Khan's autocracy and huge material and human resources. It is known, however, that even at the beginning of his second anti-Horde campaign, most likely in the first half of 1395, Timur proclaimed Koirichak-oglan Khan of the Golden Horde, but the aristocracy of the western uluses declared Tash-Timur as their Khan, who managed to escape from the blows of the troops Amir Timur ... The former Khan Tokhtamysh, who fled from Timur's army, began the struggle for the return of power to himself in full. Thus, in accordance with the plan of Amir Timur or in addition to it, but the political disintegration of the Horde state began again and was very intense immediately after the defeat of Tokhtamysh in the North Caucasus.

History has confirmed the correctness of the political calculation of Amir Timur regarding both the political instability of the Horde and its potential opponents. Immediately after the departure of his army from the Upper Don region, the anti-Horde nature of the Lithuanian-Moscow alliance was fully manifested, which lasted for about three years. Already in the autumn of 1395, Moscow troops captured the cities of Bulgar, Zhukotin, Kremenchuk, Kazan in the Horde Volga region and, having conquered the "Tatar land", returned "with much self-interest."

At the same time, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania also entered into a military conflict with the Golden Horde, but the scale, results and, obviously, the goals of its military actions were different. The annals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania report inconsistently and unclearly about the first of them: “Grand Duke Vytautas himself went to the Podolsk land, and commanded Prince Skirgail to go from Kyiv to Cherkassy and Zvenigorod. The great prince Skirgailo, by the help of God and the great prince Vitovt, took Cherkasy and Zvenigorod by command and returned back to Kiev. Until recently, historiography was dominated by what was expressed by the historian of the second half of the 16th century. Maciej Stryjkovsky is of the opinion that Skirgail's campaign in Porosie was caused by the unwillingness of the previous Kyiv prince to cede this region to him. At present, it can be considered proven that Skirgail's campaign was of a liberating nature and was committed to the southern part of the Kyiv principality, torn away by the Horde of Mamai or Tokhtamysh ...

Already in 1397, Vitovt led a campaign in the Horde Lower Don and Crimea, which had been devastated by Timur’s army shortly before, where he forced the powerful ulus of Shirinov to recognize Tokhtamysh as Khan again. In 1398, the army of Vitovt reached the mouth of the Dnieper, on the banks of which they built the frontier castle of St. Jan (Tavan). The main goal of both campaigns was to restore the shaken political positions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the south. The achievement of this goal was fixed by a special label, by which the former khan and then client of Vitovt Tokhtamysh in 1398 renounced in favor of the Grand Duke of Lithuania from the supreme rights of the Horde mainly to the Ukrainian lands, "more from Kiev, and the Dnieper and to the mouth."

Vitovt also hatched more far-reaching plans: relying on Tokhtamysh to make the Golden Horde dependent on his power, and then with its help to overthrow the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the main rival of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russian and Samogitian in the political unification of the East Slavic lands. These plans, as is known, were crossed out by the battle on the banks of the Vorskla in 1399, which turned out to be a complete defeat for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the war against the Horde of Timur-Kutluk and Emir Edigey.

MEETING OF THE VLADIMIR ICON OF THE MOTHER OF GOD

More than once miraculously, the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God saved the Russian army from inevitable defeats.

In 1395, Tamerlane with hordes of Tatars entered the Russian land and approached Moscow. The number of his troops at times exceeded the Russian squads, their strength and experience were incomparable. The only hope remained in chance and God's help. Then the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Dmitrievich sent to Vladimir for a miraculous icon. For ten days the journey with the Vladimir Icon continued from Vladimir to Moscow, people knelt on the sides of the road with the prayer "Mother of God, save the Russian land." In Moscow, the icon was greeted on August 26: “the whole city was disgusted with the icon to meet it” ... At the hour of the meeting of the icon, Tamerlane was sleeping in a tent. The legend says that at that moment he saw in a dream a high mountain, from which saints with golden wands descended to him. Above them in the air in the radiance of bright rays stood the "radiant Wife." Countless darknesses of angels with swords surrounded her. In the morning Tamerlane called the wise men. “You can’t cope with them, Tamerlane, this is the Mother of God, the intercessor of the Russians,” the fortune tellers said to the invincible khan. “And Tamerlane fled, persecuted by the power of the Blessed Virgin” ...

Grateful for their liberation, the Russians built the Sretensky Monastery at the meeting place of the icon. After 235 years in Vladimir, the icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir moved to Moscow and was installed in the cathedral built in honor of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos.

Tamerlane is one of the greatest conquerors in world history. His whole life was spent on campaigns. He took Khorezm, defeated the Golden Horde, conquered Armenia, Persia and Syria, defeated the Ottoman sultan and even reached India.

Tamerlane (or Timur) is a Turkic-Mongolian conqueror whose victories made him the master of most of Western Asia. Tamerlane belonged to the Turkicized Mongol clan Barlas, whose representatives, as the Mongol armies moved westward, settled in the Kashka valley, near Samarkand. Tamerlane was born near Shakhrisabz on April 9, 1336. This place is located on the territory of modern Uzbekistan between the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya, and at the time of his birth, these lands belonged to Khan Chagatai, named after the founder of his family, the second son of Genghis Khan.

In 1346-1347. Kazan Khan Chagatai, was defeated by Emir Kazgan and was killed, as a result of which Central Asia ceased to be part of his khanate. After the death of Kazgan in 1358, a period of anarchy followed, and the troops of Tughlak-Timur, the ruler of the territories beyond the Syr Darya, known as Mogolistan, invaded Maverannahr, first in 1360 and then in 1361 in an attempt to seize power.

Tamerlane declared himself a vassal of Tughlak-Timur and became the ruler of the territory from Shakhrisabz to Karshi. Soon, however, he rebelled against the rulers of Mogolistan and formed an alliance with Hussein, the grandson of Kazgan. Together in 1363 they defeated the army of Ilyas-Khoja, the son of Tughlak-Timur. However, around 1370, the allies quarreled and Tamerlane, having captured his colleague, announced his intention to revive the Mongol Empire. Tamerlane became the sole owner of Central Asia, settling in Samarkand and making this city the capital of the new state and his main residence.

From 1371 to 1390, Tamerlane made seven campaigns against Mogolistan, finally defeating the army of Qamar ad-Din and Anka-Tur in 1390. Tamerlane undertook the first two campaigns against Qamar ad-Din in the spring and autumn of 1371. The first campaign ended with a truce; during the second, Tamerlane, leaving Tashkent, moved towards the village of Yangi on Taraz. There he put the Moghuls to flight and captured much booty.

In 1375, Tamerlane carried out the third successful campaign. He left Sairam and passed through the regions of Talas and Tokmak, returning to Samarkand through Uzgen and Khujand. However, Qamar ad-Din was not defeated. When Tamerlane's army returned to Maverannahr, Qamar ad-Din invaded Ferghana in the winter of 1376 and laid siege to the city of Andijan. The governor of Ferghana, the third son of Tamerlane Umar-sheikh, fled to the mountains. Tamerlane hurried to Ferghana and pursued the enemy for a long time behind Uzgen and the mountains of Yassy to the very valley of At-Bashi, the southern tributary of the upper Naryn.

In 1376-1377, Tamerlane made his fifth campaign against Qamar ad-Din. He defeated his army in the gorges west of Issyk-Kul and pursued him to Kochkar. The sixth campaign of Tamerlane in the Issyk-Kul region against Kamar ad-Din took place in 1383, but the ulusbegi again managed to escape.

In 1389 Tamerlane went on his seventh campaign. In 1390, Qamar ad-din was finally defeated, and Mogolistan finally ceased to threaten the state of Tamerlane. However, Tamerlane reached only the Irtysh in the north, Alakul in the east, Emil and the headquarters of the Mongol khans Balig-Yulduz, but he could not conquer the lands east of the Tangri-tag and Kashgar mountains. Qamar ad-Din fled to the Irtysh and subsequently died of dropsy. Khizr-Khoja established himself as the Khan of Moghulistan.

2 The first trips to Asia Minor

In 1380, Tamerlane went on a campaign against Malik Ghiyas-ad-din Pir-Ali II, since he did not want to recognize himself as a vassal of the Emir Tamerlane and began to strengthen the defensive walls of his capital city of Herat in response. At the beginning, Tamerlane sent an ambassador to him with an invitation to the kurultai in order to solve the problem peacefully, but Giyas-ad-din Pir-Ali II rejected the proposal, detaining the ambassador. In response to this, in April 1380, Tamerlane sent ten regiments to the left bank of the Amu Darya. His troops captured the regions of Balkh, Shibirgan and Badkhyz. In February 1381, Tamerlane himself came out with troops and took Khorasan, the cities of Serakhs, Jami, Kausia, Tuye and Kelat, and the city of Herat was taken after a five-day siege. In addition to Kelat, Sebzevar was taken, as a result of which the state of the Serbedars finally ceased to exist. In 1382, Tamerlane's son Miran Shah was appointed ruler of Khorasan. In 1383, Tamerlane devastated Sistan and brutally crushed the uprising of the Serbedars in Sebzevar. In 1383, he took Sistan, in which the fortresses of Zireh, Zave, Farah and Bust were defeated. In 1384, he captured the cities of Astrabad, Amul, Sari, Sultania and Tabriz, in fact capturing all of Persia.

3 Three-year campaign and the conquest of Khorezm

The first, so-called "three-year" campaign in the western part of Persia and the regions adjacent to it, Tamerlane began in 1386. In November 1387, Tamerlane's troops took Isfahan and captured Shiraz. Despite the successful start of the campaign, Tamerlane was forced to return back due to the invasion of Maverannahr by the Golden Horde Khan Tokhtamysh in alliance with the Khorezmians. A garrison of 6,000 soldiers was left in Isfahan, and Tamerlane took away its ruler Shah Mansur from the Muzaffarid dynasty. Shortly after the departure of the main troops of Tamerlane, a popular uprising took place in Isfahan, led by the blacksmith Ali Kuchek. The entire garrison of Tamerlane was killed.

In 1388, Tamerlane drove out the Tatars and took the capital of Khorezm, Urgench. By order of Tamerlane, the Khorezmians who resisted were mercilessly exterminated, the city was destroyed.

4 First campaign against the Golden Horde

In January 1391, the army of Tamerlane set out on a campaign against the Golden Horde Khan Tokhtamysh. To gain time, Tokhtamysh sent ambassadors, but Tamerlane refused to negotiate. His army passed Yasy and Tabran, passed the Hungry Steppe, and by April, having crossed the Sarysu River, entered the Ulytau Mountains. The army of Tokhtamysh, however, eluded the battle.

On May 12, Tamerlane's army reached Tobol, and by June saw the Yaik River. Fearing that the guides might lead his people to an ambush, Tamerlane decided not to use the usual fords, but ordered to swim across in less favorable places. A week later, his army arrived on the banks of the Samara River, where scouts reported that the enemy was already nearby. However, the Golden Horde retreated to the north, using the tactics of "scorched earth". As a result, Tokhtamysh accepted the battle, and on June 18 a battle took place on the Kondurche River near Itil. In this battle, the Golden Horde were utterly defeated, but Tokhtamysh managed to escape. The army of Tamerlane did not force the Volga and moved back through Yaik and reached Otrar two months later.

5 "Five-year campaign" and the defeat of the Horde

Tamerlane began the second long, so-called "five-year" campaign in Iran in 1392. In the same year, Tamerlane conquered the Caspian regions, in 1393 - western Persia and Baghdad, and in 1394 - Transcaucasia. Tsar George VII managed to carry out defensive measures by 1394 - he gathered a militia, to which he attached the Caucasian highlanders, including the Nakhs. At first, the united Georgian-Mountain army had some success, they were even able to push back the advanced detachments of the conquerors. However, in the end, Tamerlane's approach with the main forces decided the outcome of the war. The defeated Georgians and Nakhs retreated north into the mountain gorges of the Caucasus. Given the strategic importance of the pass roads to the North Caucasus, in particular, the natural fortress - the Darial Gorge, Tamerlane decided to capture it. However, a huge mass of troops was so mixed up in the mountain gorges that they turned out to be unfit for combat. Tamerlane appointed one of his sons, Umar Sheikh, the ruler of Fars, and another son, Miran Shah, the ruler of Transcaucasia.

In 1394, Tamerlane learned that Tokhtamysh had again raised an army and made an alliance against him with the Sultan of Egypt, Barquq. The Golden Horde Kipchaks poured south through Georgia and again began to devastate the borders of the empire. An army was sent against them, but the Horde retreated to the north and disappeared into the steppes.

In the spring of 1395, Tamerlane held a review of his army near the Caspian Sea. Rounding the Caspian, Tamerlane went first to the west, and then turned north in a wide arc. The army passed through the Derbent passage, crossed Georgia and entered the territory of Chechnya. On April 15, two armies converged on the banks of the Terek. In the battle, the army of the Golden Horde was destroyed. So that Tokhtamysh would not recover again, Tamerlane's army went north to the banks of the Itil and drove Tokhtamysh into the forests of Bulgar. Then the army of Tamerlane moved west to the Dnieper, then rose to the north and ruined Russia, and then descended to the Don, from where they returned to their homeland through the Caucasus in 1396.

6 Campaign in India

In 1398, Tamerlane undertook a campaign against India, and the highlanders of Kafiristan were defeated along the way. In December, under the walls of Delhi, Tamerlane defeated the army of the Delhi Sultan and occupied the city without resistance, which a few days later was plundered by his army and burned. By order of Tamerlane, 100 thousand captured Indian soldiers were executed for fear of a rebellion on their part. In 1399, Tamerlane reached the banks of the Ganges, took several more cities and fortresses on the way back, and returned to Samarkand with huge booty.

7 Campaign in the Ottoman state

Returning from India in 1399, Tamerlane immediately began a new campaign. This campaign was originally caused by unrest in the area ruled by Miran Shah. Tamerlane deposed his son and defeated the enemies who invaded his possessions. Moving west, Tamerlane encountered the Turkmen state of Kara-Koyunlu, the victory of Tamerlane's troops forced the leader of the Turkmen Kara Yusuf to flee west to the Ottoman Sultan Bayazid the Lightning. After that, Kara Yusuf and Bayezid agreed on a joint action against Tamerlane.

In 1400, Tamerlane began hostilities against Bayezid, who captured Erzinjan, where Tamerlane's vassal ruled, and against the Egyptian sultan Faraj an-Nasir, whose predecessor, Barquq, ordered the assassination of Tamerlane's ambassador back in 1393. In 1400 he took the fortresses of Kemak and Sivas in Asia Minor and Aleppo in Syria, which belonged to the Egyptian sultan, and in 1401 he occupied Damascus.

On July 20, 1402, Tamerlane won a major victory over the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I, defeating him at the Battle of Ankara. The Sultan himself was taken prisoner. As a result of the battle, Tamerlane captured all of Asia Minor, and the defeat of Bayazid led to a peasant war in the Ottoman state and internecine strife among Bayazid's sons.

The fortress of Smyrna, which belonged to the Knights of St. John, which the Ottoman sultans could not take for 20 years, Tamerlane captured by storm in two weeks. The western part of Asia Minor in 1403 was returned to the sons of Bayazid, in the eastern part the local dynasties deposed by Bayazid were restored.

8 Hike to China

In the autumn of 1404, 68-year-old Tamerlane began to prepare for an invasion of China. The main goal was to capture the rest of the Great Silk Road in order to obtain maximum profits and ensure the prosperity of the native Maverannahr and its capital Samarkand. The campaign was stopped due to the beginning of a cold winter, and in February 1405, Tamerlane died.

The history of the war between Emir Timur (Tamerlane) and the Golden Horde Khan Tokhtamysh has been studied quite well. Much less is known about one of its important episodes, connected with the military expedition to the Dnieper.

This was already the third war between the rulers of the two most powerful states of that time. In 1391, Tamerlane in the battle on the Kondurcha River already smashed Tokhtamysh, but a few years later the Golden Horde Khan managed to restore the combat capability of his army and again challenge the great conqueror. There was little space for two Turkic empires in the Eurasian expanses. One of the states had to die.

In addition to problems between states, there was also the problem of personal relationships between the two Turks. The fact is that Tokhtamysh was a khan from the Genghisides family, who had ruled the Golden Horde for almost a century and a half. As for Timur, he was just an emir who began his career as a mercenary with the Central Asian beys and paved the way to power with a sword. Obviously, to kneel before Timur, according to the concepts of the Golden Horde, was unworthy for their khan.

Timur's military operations in 1395 partly resembled the famous raid on Khazaria by the Arab commander Muhammad ibn Marwan in 737. Then the Arabs, passing through Transcaucasia, defeated the Khazar army in the North Caucasus and began its pursuit, occupying territories in the basin of the Don, Seversky Donets and Lower Volga rivers.

The situation was similar during the campaign of 1395. Just like Marwan's army, Timur's troops marched in two columns: through Georgia and along the coast of the Caspian Sea. The decisive battle took place in April. Three days later, on the Terek River, the Golden Horde army of Tokhtamysh suffered a crushing defeat. One of its reasons, according to the Arab historian Ibn Arabshah, was discord among the command of the army of the Golden Horde. Khan's attempts to establish interaction and command and control of the troops were unsuccessful. The "Genealogy of the Turks" unequivocally says that "this defeat fell to Toktamysh Khan as a result of the inclination of his great emirs to Timur Gurgan." Immediately after the result of the battle became obvious, Tokhtamysh fled to the north with a group of supporters.

Unlike the campaign of 1391, when, after the victory at Kondurcha, Timur did not pursue the Golden Horde Khan, this time the emir set a more ambitious goal - the complete defeat of the Jochi Ulus, turning it into a weak and completely dependent state. Before the start of the campaign, Timur carried out a total mobilization in his state, concentrating almost all the forces that he had at his disposal in the direction of the main attack. In doing so, he left most of the empire defenseless.

After the victory in the battle on the Terek, the emir sent part of his troops to Samarkand in order to cover the capital from a possible attack by Timur's numerous enemies. The rest of the armies moved in the footsteps of Tokhtamysh. According to I. Mirgaleev, at the very end of the battle, Tokhtamysh held a meeting of his emirs, at which a retreat plan was developed. According to this plan, one of the commanders of the Golden Horde, Udurk, retreated to the Caucasus mountains with part of the army in order to cut off the supply routes to Timur's troops. This forced the Central Asian commander to go back and defeat Udurka.

The remnants of the armies of Tokhtamysh went to the Dnieper and the Crimea. As for the Khan himself, he hid with a small part of the army in the "wooded area" in the north.

Timur moved to the Don, then his troops turned towards the Dnieper. “Heading against the right wing of the ulus of Jochi Khan, he (Timur) moved into that boundless steppe to the Uzi (Dnepr) River and appointed Emir Osman to the guard detachment, who, taking guides, bravely set off. Having reached the Uzi River, he robbed Bek-Yaryk-Oglan and some of the people of the Uzbek ulus who were there and subdued most of them, so that only a few, and then with only one horse, could escape ... Turning from the Uzi River, Timur happily headed for the Russians,” reports Sharaf ad-din Yazdi.

Bek-Yaryk-oglan was the emir of the western ulus of the Golden Horde, who had serious economic and human resources at his disposal. The destruction of these resources was the main goal of Timur's campaign.

After the Battle of Blue Waters (1362), the Kiev principality was in the zone of influence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. However, there is no need to talk about the complete control of the Lithuanians over this territory. According to B. Cherkas, in the 90s of the XIV century, in the steppe zone between the Dnieper and Vorskla, there was a Mankerman (Kyiv) ulus, which Kyiv itself was not included in.

The raid of Timur's army on the Dnieper was short-lived and was in the nature of a show of force in relation to the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vitovt, whose army was at full readiness in Smolensk.

Having dealt with Bek-Yaryk-oglan, Timur moved further north. Perhaps, initially, his plans included the destruction of all the principalities of northeastern Russia, primarily the most powerful of them - the Grand Duchy of Moscow. But having reached the lands of the Ryazan Principality and having defeated the city of Yelets, Timur suddenly turned his army back. Moving south, the horde swept a number of the most important economic and political centers from the face of the earth, including Saray, the capital of the Jochi Ulus.

There were several reasons that prompted the emir to abandon the war with Moscow. Timur knew well that his troops would have to wage war in a wooded area, with an already mobilized enemy, having in the rear the Lithuanian army of Vitovt, at that time an ally of the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily. In addition, after the capture of Yelets, it turned out that the population of the region was too poor, tortured by exactions and numerous wars. His robbery was a hopeless pursuit. And finally, the main factor that prompted Timur to abandon the campaign was the fact that Lithuania and Moscow themselves posed a serious danger to the Golden Horde.

Almost immediately after the departure of Timur, the state of Tokhtamysh plunged into an abyss of civil strife. Lithuania and Moscow tried to take advantage of this. But in the Battle of Vorskla (1399), the Lithuanian prince Vitovt suffered a crushing defeat from Tamerlane's henchman, Khan Timur Kutlug. This event prolonged the agony of Ulus Jochi for a whole century.

Tamerlane returned from the Eastern European campaign in triumph. Ahead of him were new battles and great conquests.

Other materials from the "History of Islam in Ukraine" series can be found at.

Oleksandr Stepanchenko specially for "Islam in Ukraine"

About the invasion of Russia in 1395 by the troops of Timur, the story in several versions has been preserved in the annalistic vaults. This event is described most briefly (incorrectly under 1398) in the Simeon Chronicle and in the Rogozhsky Chronicle. It only says here that Timur (“Temir-Aksak Sharakhmansky”) attacked the Russian land and the Moscow Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich opposed him with an “army” to the Oka, where he “stood”, waiting for the arrival of the invaders. At the same time, Muscovites also expected the approach of Timur's hordes and prepared for it. They thought that Moscow would be besieged. Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov-Borovsk remained in charge of the defense of the city. However, Timur, having reached Yelets (within the limits of the Ryazan land), turned back and "there was great joy in the city of Moscow."

Of course, it is difficult to form a sufficiently clear idea of ​​the events of 1395 from the above laconic story. It can only be seen that the possible invasion of military forces led by a formidable conqueror was considered in Russia as a terrible danger. After this danger had passed, everyone sighed lightly. Until the threat of Timur's invasion ceased to be real, the population of the Moscow principality remained on guard and took measures to resist. An army was sent to the Oka to prevent the invaders from crossing and prevent them from penetrating into the central Russian lands. But just in case, Moscow armed itself. Taking into account the experience of 1382, when during the offensive of Tokhtamysh all the princes left Moscow and an anti-feudal uprising broke out there, the Moscow government in 1395 acted differently. Speaking to meet the enemy, the Moscow Grand Duke Vasily I left his cousin uncle Prince Vladimir Andreevich at the head of the civil and military administration of the capital.

A somewhat more complete account of Timur's invasion is contained in the Ermolin Chronicle. Here the campaign against Russia is considered in connection with its general policy of conquest. Therefore, first of all, the chronicle lists the countries, cities, peoples subject to Timur, emphasizing that as a result of his conquests, the latter became the owner of large material resources and military forces: so many regiments. The invasion of the regiments led by Timur into Russia was preceded by his victory over the Khan of the Golden Horde Tokhtamysh. Having defeated the Golden Horde ruler, Timur entered the Ryazan land, captured the local princes and brutally ruined civilians ("and people will suffer"). The Grand Duke of Moscow "gathered many howls" and went to Kolomna, where he deployed an army on the banks of the Oka. And the inhabitants of Moscow were anxiously awaiting the approach of a terrible enemy (“people are in a lot of ace and sadness…”). The city was overcrowded: people of various social status concentrated there, both representatives of the ruling class and the lower social strata (“... mali and veliti”). The analyzed chronicle story is permeated with religious philosophy. The deliverance of Russia and Moscow from the hordes of Timur is attributed to the miracle of the icon of Our Lady of Vladimir. Grand Duke Vasily I and Metropolitan Cyprian, fearing "the discovery of the godless", sent to Vladimir for this icon. Muscovites came out of the city to meet her and solemnly set her up in one of the Moscow churches. According to the chronicle, on the day of the transfer of the icon of the Mother of God from Vladimir to Moscow (August 26), Timur, who had been with his army for two weeks without moving in one place (“standing in one place for two weeks”), was seized by fear (“at that hour his fear and thunderstorm in his everyday life). Fearing that he would have to face large Russian military forces (“... like some kind of army, coming from Russia, fearing ...”), he retreated “to his own land”.

The parsed story is interesting with some factual data that are absent in the Simeon Chronicle and the Rogozh Chronicle (Timur's struggle with Tokhtamysh, Timur's ruin of the Ryazan land). It is very important to point out that the entire Russian people was preparing for the fight against the conqueror (“... Mali and Great”), that the “Russian army” posed a certain threat to Timur (although it is doubtful, of course, that only fear of “the army coming from Russia is coming ', made him run away).

It seems to me that the legend cited in the Yermolinsky Chronicle about the miraculous salvation of the Russian people from the danger hanging over them of being conquered by the ruler of a number of eastern countries has a special political meaning. The transfer of the icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir to Moscow at a terrible hour for her, when the enemy was expected to attack, is a symbol of the fact that Moscow has become the successor of Vladimir as a political and national all-Russian center, that it has become the focus of Russia in the fight against foreign invaders. This idea of ​​historical continuity (in itself progressive for that time) is given, however, in a purely religious and church interpretation, which leaves a certain imprint on the interpretation of the events of 1395 by the annals. That is a fairly broad, apparently, liberation movement that captured the Russian people on the eve of the expected arrival of Timur's troops to Moscow, is obscured. According to the concept of the story, the people themselves do not strive to overcome the disaster that awaits them, but this disaster is prevented by a miracle. The actions of the people in the chronicle are obscured by the figures of the prince and the metropolitan, who not so much organize resistance to the enemy as hope to defeat him with the help of heavenly forces. However, behind the church shell of the chronicle story, one can both discern the true behavior of the masses of the people (actively strengthening the defense of Moscow), and reveal the political concept that has developed among the advanced part of the feudal class about Moscow - the political center of the emerging unified state and the stronghold of Russia's struggle for independence.

It can be assumed that the story of Timur's invasion, preserved in the Yermolinsky chronicle, was compiled shortly after 1395. It is rather simple in terms of literary design, devoid of pretentiousness and stylization. The political concept presented in it could have developed after the Battle of Kulikovo.

A more detailed version of the Yermolinskaya Chronicle is set forth in the Voskresenskaya Chronicle. Here, the aggressive nature of Timur’s campaigns is more emphasized (“this king Temir-Aksak raises many battles ... destroys many people ... many regions and languages ​​\u200b\u200bof captivity, conquer many kingdoms and princes under him”). Timur himself is depicted as a ruthless oriental despot, sweeping away everything in his path (“and this Temir-Aksak was very merciless, and mercilessly unmerciful, and a cruel tormentor, and an angry persecutor, and a cruel tormentor ...”). Timur's conquests are considered in accordance with the church concept of that time, as the result of the offensive of the "cursed Agarians" against the "Christians". And in the same plan, the invasion of Timur's hordes into the Russian land is assessed. He “boasts of going to Moscow, although he takes me, and captivate the Russian people, and destroy the holy places, and eradicate the Christian faith, and torment the Christians, and drive, and torment, burn, and burn, and slash swords ... ". There is no doubt that Timur is attributed in the Resurrection Chronicle with aggressive plans for Russia, greater than he was going to and could carry out at that time. It seems that the above assessment of Timur's campaigns could have appeared in the first half of the 15th century, when great changes took place in the fate of the southern Slavs (which were followed by Russian chroniclers), they fell under the Turkish yoke. Then the Orthodox peoples of the Caucasus became the object of Turkish aggression. In Russia, at the same time, the process of forming a single state was going on, accompanied by a gradual weakening of its dependence on the Horde. At that period of world history, when the foreign policy conditions of life of different branches of the Slavs were changing in opposite directions, the concept of the struggle of Christianity (in the form of Orthodoxy) with the "filthy" and "infidels" as a force that determined the difference could acquire special political relevance in ecclesiastical and feudal circles. ways of development of the Eastern and Southern Slavs (as well as some other Orthodox peoples).

Some of the details interspersed in the text of the Resurrection Chronicle supplement our understanding of what was happening within the Moscow principality at the time of the expected arrival of Timur there. In Moscow, a lot of people accumulated from different places, assuming that they would have to withstand the siege (“the city of Moscow is in confusion and is preparing to sit in a siege, and many people exist in it, I have gathered from everywhere”). A characteristic chronicle indicates that Moscow received daily reports of Timur’s actions and intentions (“every day, frequent news comes to Moscow, announcing the banning of the thunderstorm by Temir Aksakov ...”). Obviously, watchmen were systematically sent to the Ryazan land, where Timur was.

The short story of the Yermolinsky chronicle about the miraculous salvation of Moscow with the help of the icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir turns into a lengthy ornate story of religious content in the Resurrection Chronicle. Although it mentions the “people” and the Russian “army”, they are not visible, they are not active participants in the events. By. the idea of ​​the story did not need either the speech of “our bastards” or the “voice of trumpets” that would frighten the invaders, it was only necessary to call on “God for help and his most pure mother”, as the “godless” Timur took to flight (“with a run to the Horde return, persecuted by the wrath of God").

A special type of story about Timur's invasion has been preserved as part of the Tver collection and (with some features) as part of the annals of Sofia II, Lvov, Typographic.

Its main difference from the story of the Resurrection Chronicle is that it gives (with a certain amount of fantasy) a biography of Timur. Its simple origin is emphasized (“... and right away it’s not a tsar born, not a son of tsars, not a royal tribe, not a prince, not a boyar, but tacos out of the blue, the only one from thin people…”). By profession, we read in the story, Timur was a blacksmith, by way of life he was a robber and a thief (“by custom and deed he is merciless, and a predator, and a snitch, and a robber”). He lived as a serf "with a certain ... sovereign", but he kicked him out because of his "evil temper". Having no food, Timur began to feed on "tatboy". Once, the story continues, he stole a sheep, whose owners caught him, beat him, broke his legs and thigh, and, thinking that he was dead, left him to be eaten by dogs. However, Timur recovered, bound his broken leg with iron, but remained lame for the rest of his life. Hence his nickname Temir-Aksak ("temir" - in Polovtsian - iron; "aksak" - lame). This nickname, says the compiler of the story, reflected his nature and character. By profession he was a blacksmith, and he became lame because of his bad deeds. Healed from his wounds, as the story indicates, Timur did not improve, but began to rob even more (“he did not lose the white custom of the right, did not reconcile himself, and tamed, but even more bitterly, and more bitter than the old and more than the former, and was fierce and robber"), Over time, other evil people began to come to Timur and rob him along with him, the same as him, "robbers" and "predators". When Timur's detachment grew to 100 people, they began to call him "the elder of the robbers." When the number of his accomplices reached 1000, he received the title of "prince". The number of "robbers", as the story says, increased, they seized a lot of land, and Timur finally received the royal title. Then Timur conquered a number of countries, captivated the "king ... of Turus", whom he carried everywhere with him in an iron cage so that "the many people of the earth could see such his strength and glory, a godless enemy and persecutor." Finally, he imagined himself to be the second Batu and decided to "go to the Russian land and capture it ..."

The campaign of Timur's hordes to Russia is described in the story of the type in question in much the same way as in the Resurrection Chronicle. There are no significant discrepancies with it of an actual or ideological nature. The biography (of course, speaking conditionally, because there is a lot of fiction in it) of Timur is written figuratively and vividly. Her style (simple and lively) somehow does not fit well with the church-book stencil, the imprint of which lies on the subsequent presentation (the transfer of the icon of Our Lady of Vladimir to Moscow). Despite the author's obvious desire to discredit Timur, the story shows a certain fascination with his image - the image (in the image of the story) of a simple artisan and serf who became a powerful ruler of a number of countries: the owner of the royal title. The material for the biography of Timur was probably borrowed by the author from the monuments of the Turkic feudal epic. The idea of ​​the story is to denounce Timur as a usurper. A robber, a predator, a robber, he illegally reached the highest social levels and seized power in a number of states, overthrowing their legitimate rulers. It seems that the image of Timur acquires, under the pen of a person who described (according to his idea) his life path, to a certain extent a typical character. This, according to the author, is the usual path of eastern despots, including the Horde khans. They are usurpers and invaders of foreign lands and titles. But the Russian princes, as the story says, can boast of their pedigree. Power in their family passes from generation to generation in a straight line. The invasion of Timur’s regiments into the Russian land took place “in the days of the reign of the faithful and Christ-loving Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich, the autocrat of the Russian land, the grandson of the Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich, the great-grandson of the faithful and Christ-loving great autocrat and the brother of the Russian land, Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich”. Here is a pedigree that testifies to the indisputability of the rights to the great Moscow reign, the compiler of the story under study wants to say. And the usurpers of foreign power will always be punished. At one time, Batu captured the Russian land. Timur wanted to repeat his experience, but learned a serious lesson. The Russian land did not accept him (he "did not touch the land of Rustia, neither offend nor cool her, "do not harm her, but go without a gate"). It must be said that in this context the words that the Lord “delivered us to eat ... from the hand of the enemy of our Tatars, delivered us from the slash, and from the sword and from the bloodshed, with the muscle of your strength dispersed our enemies, the sons of Agarina ... ", have a deeper meaning than similar statements of the Resurrection Chronicle. This is not just a miracle. Here the idea is revealed that providence protects the territory of the Russian land and its authorities from usurpation. The sad experience of Timur is, as the author of the story thinks, an omen for those Horde rulers who still consider themselves rulers over Russia. The same thing will happen to them as to Timur. In a word, we have before us the nascent feudal theory of Moscow autocracy as a power established by God and inherited, independent of the rulers of other states. This theory takes shape no earlier than the middle - the second half of the 15th century, and not earlier than this time in the advanced environment of Russian feudal lords the idea of ​​the need to overthrow the Horde dominion grows stronger. Then, obviously, the story about Timur appeared in the version that is now the subject of our consideration. But perhaps the most important thing for us in the issue under consideration is that behind the church tradition about the flight of Timur beyond the borders of the Russian land as a result of interference in the affairs of Russia, the Mother of God reveals purely popular patriotic ideas: the Russian land does not accept its enemies who defile it, and throws it away them out.

One can catch another motive in this story about Timur. The characterization of Timur as a usurper of power was used among the Russian feudal lords to assess not only the situation of their own country, but also international events. Under the blows of the Turkish conquerors, the South Slavic kingdoms fell, their rulers became victims of aggression. This aggression is embodied in the image of Timur, who, in an iron cage, carries another invader - the “king of Tur”.

Finally, I would like to make one more suggestion regarding the possibility of interpreting the political meaning of Timur's biography in the presentation of the Russian scribe, without, however, insisting on my own hypothesis. The epithets awarded to “Temir-Aksak” (“predator”, “trapper”, “robber”, a person “feeding on a tatboy”) are taken from the same verbal arsenal that was usually used by representatives of the ruling class of feudal lords, stigmatizing their class opponents. The image of a serf, a native of the lower classes, who made his way to power, was supposed to serve as a well-known warning for the feudal lords about a possible social danger, because the Russian centralized state took shape in an atmosphere of sharp class contradictions.

A late version of the story about the events of 1395 is reproduced by the Nikon Chronicle. It is based on the version of the Tver collection and similar chronicle monuments, but other chronicle texts are also used. Here the ideology of the Moscow autocracy finds further development, one of the signs of which is the continuity of power. The genealogy of the Moscow Grand Dukes is no longer conducted from Ivan Danilovich Kalita, but is built through his father Daniel and grandfather Alexander Nevsky deep into Vsevolod the Big Nest and Yuri Dolgoruky. According to the annals, the Turkish sultan Bayazet acts as a prisoner of Timur, put by him in an iron cage. It is emphasized that Timur's struggle with Tokhtamysh led to terrible bloodshed (“and only a few were beaten from both in the family of those, like some great mounds of hay lying on both beaten ones”). It also speaks of the terrible damage suffered as a result of the invasion of Timur's troops by the population of the Ryazan land (“and both fields of the Don River created everything empty”).

In connection with the invasion of Russia in 1395 by Timur, in addition to chronicles, other monuments of political literature arose, among which the “Legend of Babylon City” is of interest. The "Tale" speaks of the search by three youths (George the Greek, Yakov the Abkhazian and Laver the Rusyn) in Babylon and the delivery of royal regalia to Byzantium.

M. O. Skripil proved the Russian origin of the studied monument and dated it to the first half of the 15th century. (the oldest list of the monument dates back to the end of the 15th century). M. O. Skripil considers the idea of ​​“equality or equality of Byzantium, Obezia and Russia” to be the main idea of ​​the “Tale”, which “could arise only in a certain specific historical situation, most likely, in the context of Islam’s attack on Christian Orthodox countries at the end of the 14th century and the first half of the 15th century. In the "Tale", says M. O. Skripil, "in the form of a legend, an understanding of the position of Russia is given against the background of the history of all Christian Orthodox countries" of the indicated time. “This is a certain exit of Russian political thought from the circle of immediate and immediate tasks of the internal life of Russia into the sphere of international issues.”

I think that the main conclusions of M. O. Skripil are correct, but they can be significantly refined and specified. It is clear that the "Tale" was compiled before the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 and before the Union of Florence in 1439, at a time when Russia considered Byzantium as an ally in the fight against "non-believing" "enemies" "for the Christian race." And the main idea of ​​the "Tale" is not only the idea of ​​equal rights for Russia, Byzantium and Abkhazia, but especially the idea of ​​common interests of these three Orthodox countries in the struggle against foreign invaders: against the Tatar-Mongol yoke, Turkish aggression, Timur's conquests. The immediate impetus for compiling the Tale was probably given by Timur's invasion of the Russian land in 1395, on the one hand, and the fall of Bulgaria and Serbia under the blows of the Ottoman Turks, on the other. The chronological place of the "Tale" is, it seems to me, between the stories about Timur in the edition of the Resurrection Chronicle (first half of the 15th century) and the annals of Sophia II, Lvov, Typographic (mid-second half of the 15th century).

The "Tale" emphasizes the commonwealth of representatives of three Orthodox countries (Rus, Byzantium, Abkhazia) in the search for royal regalia, as an emblem of the independence of the country whose ruler possesses them from foreign domination. These regalia are delivered by three "men" to Byzantium, which still retained such political independence at the time of the appearance of the Tale. The Byzantine king, having received the regalia, takes the initiative to fight against the "non-believers", embodied in the form of a serpent, who guarded the signs of royal dignity, but did not preserve them. The possession by three "men" (Greek, Russian, obezhanin) of the "sign" is a symbol of gaining independence from the Tatar-Mongol and Turkish yoke by the states they represent. After all, the Byzantine emperor, having put on the crown of Nebuchadnezzar, raises the banner of a common struggle for Byzantium, Russia, Abkhazia (and Armenia - if you recall the words of the “Tale” that the Byzantine Empress Alexandra is Armenian) of the fight against the aggressor. The Tale calls for a rebuff to foreign invaders, who acted under the ideological shell of protecting Orthodoxy from Islam and other faiths alien to it. I repeat once again that Timur’s attacks, terrible for the peoples of the Caucasus and Russia, described in the Resurrection Chronicle and raised in political literature a big topic about foreign aggression against Orthodox countries as a whole, brought to life the Tale, which develops the same topic that is relevant for Russia. The connection of the "Tale" with the story of Timur is indicated, in particular, by the end of the first monument, which tells about the campaign of Emperor Basil in India. After all, Timur's conquests also extended there.

If the "Tale of Babylon City" develops further those thoughts that are embedded in the story about the invasion of Russia by Timur, placed in the Resurrection Chronicle, then the ideas of the "Tale" in turn received a new interpretation in the edition of the story about Timur, which we find in the annals of Sophia II. , Lvov, Typographic. When this edition was compiled, Byzantium had already been conquered by the Turks. Therefore, if in the "Tale" the Byzantine emperor acts as the bearer of royal regalia, then the story about Timur of the considered late edition fixes attention on the "autocracy" of the Russian princes. While the images of invaders destroying foreign kingdoms are embodied in the "Tale" in the form of a sleeping serpent guarding the signs of royal dignity, the story about Timur depicts a specific (and at the same time typical) image of the usurper - Temir-Aksak. One common motif sounds both in the "Tale" and in the story about Timur - this is optimism, manifested in the will to fight the aggressor, terrible, but not invincible. The awakened serpent with its groan shakes the earth for a long distance, but cannot prevent the Grecian, obezhanin, Rusyn from doing their job - to release the "sign". The Russian land does not accept the "godless enemy and persecutor" Timur. If the "Tale" speaks of the joint struggle for their independence of three countries - Byzantium, Abkhazia, Russia, then, according to the later edition of the story about Timur, Russia bears the whole burden of this struggle on its shoulders. She cannot be defeated by Timur, who defeated and captured the Turkish Sultan Bayazed. Undoubtedly, this edition of the story about Timur is much brighter than in the Tale, it emphasizes the strength of the emerging Russian centralized state, which was already clearly defined by the time the monument was created.

It is necessary to dwell a little on the question of in what social circles the "Legend of Babylon City" arose. Undoubtedly, it corresponded to the ideology of that advanced part of the feudal lords (primarily Moscow), who were interested in creating an independent, strong centralized state. I think that the ideology of the townspeople was also reflected in the Tale. Particularly indicative in this regard is the fact that originally Surozhan guests were supposed to go to Babylon as ambassadors (but refused to do so). The idea of ​​the “Tale”, obviously, is something like this: the path of the people of Surozh was blocked by “non-believers”, who had to be fought with military force. If we recall that Timur’s campaigns dealt a blow to Russian trade with the Crimea, then not only will the place about the “surozhans” in the text of the Tale become clear to us, but we will get an extra argument in favor of the connection between the Tale and the story about Timur.

So the invasion of Russia in 1395 by Timur raised a number of serious topics in journalism related to the formation of the Russian centralized state and its struggle for independence. Such tension of social thought is not accidental. Late XIV - early XV century. - this is the time when the Russian people had to rise up more than once to fight the invaders. The invasion of Russia in 1395 by Timur in 1408 was followed by an attack on the Russian lands of Edigei. And a short period of time between these dates is filled with sharp clashes between individual Russian principalities and republics, which took place in an atmosphere of unfolding class struggle.