/ / When was the Kulikov battle and what is its significance?

When was the Battle of Kulikovo and what is its significance?

There are events, forgotten and erased in history,others, on the contrary, are bright and significant, the memory of which does not fade from year to year, and the importance is not lost, no matter how many people want it. The author of "Zadonshchina", a literary work written shortly after the events on the Kulikovo field, writes that the glory from this victory swept the world before Constantinople, and praise came to the princes from all sides for defeating Tatar army. How important is it for every Russian to know and be sure when the battle of Kulikovo was, what is its meaning and significance.

When was the Battle of Kulikovo
Feudal fragmentation weakened the defensescountries, which was the main reason for the establishment of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia in 1237-1240. When the battle of Kulikovo was, fragmentation was not yet completely over, but the centripetal tendencies were already evident. Moscow rose more and more, acting as the spiritual and political center of the northeastern principalities. In the Golden Horde, on the contrary, the period of the struggle for power began. Nevertheless, temnik Mamai was planning a new destructive campaign against Russia. Upon learning of this, the Moscow Prince Dmitry Ivanovich hastily organizes the defense, and then plans to go out to meet the Mongolian army in order to avoid the defeat of their lands. Having sent letters to the Russian princes, Dmitry Donskoy (he will receive this nickname after the victory) appointed a gathering in Kolomna. Almost all the princes of North-Eastern Russia sent their regiments. The combined army, consisting approximately of 50-60 thousand warriors, went towards the enemy. Mamai, unprepared for such a turn of events, was taken by surprise.

Dmitry Donskoy
The two armies met on the banks of the Don, whereThe tributary of Nepryadva flows into the Kulikovo field. Mamaev's horde exceeded the Russian army in numbers, and he was confident of victory. But on September 8, 1380, when the battle of Kulikovo was, the Russian weapon won the first, over such power and scale, a victory over the Mongol-Tatars. For centuries, the folk memory has preserved the image of the Russian bogatyr, monk, Alexander Peresvet, who started the battle that day with the Tatar warrior Chelubey and died on the battlefield. Dmitry Ivanovich did not immediately throw the whole army into battle, leaving the ambush regiment not far beyond the oak forest. The reserve under the leadership of Dmitry Volynsky, in time to join the battle, in fact, decided the outcome of the battle. The tired Tatar warriors, already feeling victory, did not withstand the onslaught of the new Russian forces and fled. On the battlefield, about half of the army of Dmitry Ivanovich was left to lie.

Unfortunately, at the time when Kulikovskaya wasthe battle did not end the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the Russian principalities were forced after 1382 to resume paying tribute to the Horde because of the crushing campaign of Khan Tokhtamysh, but this does not detract from the significance of the feat of arms in the field of Kulikovo. The joint struggle rallied the Russian people, helped unite the northeastern principalities led by Moscow, and gave hope for a speedy release.

end of the 14th century
In recent decades, gaining popularitypublications on the subject of falsification of history and revision in the direction of the “historical truth” of various events, including the Kulikov battle. And the battle was, so-so, an insignificant event, and it was not on the Don, but it turns out that in Moscow, and Mamai was the victim of the aggressiveness of the Moscow prince, and similar clarifications. A number of historians entered into polemics with such publicists, refuting their arguments with irrefutable facts.

We can agree that the end of the 14th century is aboutdays gone by, much of the story has become legendary, and this is natural. But the basic phenomenon remained unchanged, the facts of place and time, of historical significance cannot be redone. And the pseudo-historians, depriving the Russian state of heroes and victories in the pursuit of sensation, what goals do they set for themselves? Be that as it may, this leads to the erosion of the historical basis necessary for building a strong state.