On what lake did the Battle of the Ice take place? Battle of the Ice: date, description, monument. Battle on the Ice What events preceded the Battle on the Ice

And the Vladimir people led by Alexander Nevsky, on the one hand, and the army of the Livonian Order, on the other hand.

The opposing armies met on the morning of April 5, 1242. The Rhymed Chronicle describes the moment the battle began as follows:

Thus, the news from the Chronicle about the Russian battle order as a whole is combined with reports from Russian chronicles about the allocation of a separate rifle regiment in front of the center of the main forces (since 1185).

In the center, the Germans broke through the Russian line:

But then the troops of the Teutonic Order were surrounded by the Russians from the flanks and destroyed, and other German troops retreated to avoid the same fate: the Russians pursued those running on the ice for 7 miles. It is noteworthy that, unlike the Battle of Omovzha in 1234, sources close to the time of the battle do not report that the Germans fell through the ice; according to Donald Ostrowski, this information penetrated into later sources from the description of the battle of 1016 between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk in The Tale of Bygone Years and The Tale of Boris and Gleb.

In the same year, the Teutonic Order concluded a peace treaty with Novgorod, abandoning all of its recent seizures not only in Rus', but also in Letgol. An exchange of prisoners was also carried out. Only 10 years later the Teutons tried to recapture Pskov.

Scale and significance of the battle

The “Chronicle” says that in the battle there were 60 Russians for every German (which is recognized as an exaggeration), and about the loss of 20 knights killed and 6 captured in the battle. “Chronicle of the Grand Masters” (“Die jungere Hochmeisterchronik”, sometimes translated as “Chronicle of the Teutonic Order”), the official history of the Teutonic Order, written much later, speaks of the death of 70 order knights (literally “70 order gentlemen”, “seuentich Ordens Herenn” ), but unites those who died during the capture of Pskov by Alexander and on Lake Peipus.

According to the traditional point of view in Russian historiography, this battle, together with the victories of Prince Alexander over the Swedes (July 15, 1240 on the Neva) and over the Lithuanians (in 1245 near Toropets, near Lake Zhitsa and near Usvyat), was of great importance for Pskov and Novgorod, delaying the onslaught of three serious enemies from the west - at the very time when the rest of Rus' was greatly weakened by the Mongol invasion. In Novgorod, the Battle of the Ice, together with the Neva victory over the Swedes, was remembered in litanies in all Novgorod churches back in the 16th century. In Soviet historiography, the Battle of the Ice was considered one of the largest battles in the entire history of German knightly aggression in the Baltic states, and the number of troops on Lake Peipsi was estimated at 10-12 thousand people for the Order and 15-17 thousand people from Novgorod and their allies (the last figure corresponds to Henry of Latvia’s assessment of the number of Russian troops when describing their campaigns in the Baltic states in the 1210-1220s), that is, approximately at the same level as in the Battle of Grunwald () - up to 11 thousand people for the Order and 16-17 thousand people in the Polish-Lithuanian army. The Chronicle, as a rule, reports on the small number of Germans in those battles that they lost, but even in it the Battle of the Ice is clearly described as a defeat of the Germans, in contrast, for example, to the Battle of Rakovor ().

As a rule, the minimum estimates of the number of troops and losses of the Order in the battle correspond to the historical role that specific researchers assign to this battle and the figure of Alexander Nevsky as a whole (for more details, see Assessments of the activities of Alexander Nevsky). V. O. Klyuchevsky and M. N. Pokrovsky did not mention the battle at all in their works.

The English researcher J. Fennell believes that the significance of the Battle of the Ice (and the Battle of the Neva) is greatly exaggerated: “Alexander did only what numerous defenders of Novgorod and Pskov did before him and what many did after him - namely, rushed to protect the extended and vulnerable borders from invaders." Russian professor I. N. Danilevsky also agrees with this opinion. He notes, in particular, that the battle was inferior in scale to the Battle of Saul (1236), in which the Lithuanians killed the master of the order and 48 knights, and the battle of Rakovor; Contemporary sources even describe the Battle of the Neva in more detail and give it greater significance. However, in Russian historiography it is not customary to remember the defeat at Saul, since the Pskovites took part in it on the side of the defeated knights.

German historians believe that, while fighting on the western borders, Alexander Nevsky did not pursue any coherent political program, but successes in the West provided some compensation for the horrors of the Mongol invasion. Many researchers believe that the very scale of the threat that the West posed to Rus' is exaggerated. On the other hand, L. N. Gumilev, on the contrary, believed that it was not the Tatar-Mongol “yoke”, but rather Catholic Western Europe represented by the Teutonic Order and the Riga Archbishopric that posed a mortal threat to the very existence of Rus', and therefore the role of Alexander Nevsky’s victories in Russian history is especially great.

The Battle of the Ice played a role in the formation of the Russian national myth, in which Alexander Nevsky was assigned the role of “defender of Orthodoxy and the Russian land” in the face of the “Western threat”; victory in the battle was considered to justify the prince's political moves in the 1250s. The cult of Nevsky became especially relevant during the Stalin era, serving as a kind of clear historical example for the cult of Stalin himself. The cornerstone of the Stalinist myth about Alexander Yaroslavich and the Battle of the Ice was the film by Sergei Eisenstein (see below).

On the other hand, it is incorrect to assume that the Battle of the Ice became popular in the scientific community and among the general public only after the appearance of Eisenstein’s film. “Schlacht auf dem Eise”, “Schlacht auf dem Peipussee”, “Prœlium glaciale” [Battle on the Ice (US), Battle of Lake Peipus (German), Battle of the Ice (Latin).] - such established concepts are found in Western sources long before the director’s works. This battle was and will forever remain in the memory of the Russian people just like, say, the Battle of Borodino, which strictly speaking cannot be called victorious - the Russian army abandoned the battlefield. And for us this is a great battle, which played an important role in the outcome of the war.

Memory of the battle

Movies

Music

• The musical score for Eisenstein's film, composed by Sergei Prokofiev, is a cantata focusing on the events of the battle.

Literature

Monuments

Monument to the squads of Alexander Nevsky on Mount Sokolikha

Monument to Alexander Nevsky and Worship Cross

The bronze worship cross was cast in St. Petersburg at the expense of patrons of the Baltic Steel Group (A. V. Ostapenko). The prototype was the Novgorod Alekseevsky Cross. The author of the project is A. A. Seleznev. The bronze sign was cast under the direction of D. Gochiyaev by the foundry workers of NTCCT CJSC, architects B. Kostygov and S. Kryukov. When implementing the project, fragments from the lost wooden cross by sculptor V. Reshchikov were used.

Commemorative cross for prince "s armed force of Alexander Nevsky (Kobylie Gorodishe).jpg

Memorial cross to the squads of Alexander Nevsky

Monument in honor of the 750th anniversary of the battle

Error creating thumbnail: File not found

Monument in honor of the 750th anniversary of the battle (fragment)

In philately and on coins

Data

Due to the incorrect calculation of the date of the battle according to the new style, the Day of Military Glory of Russia - the Day of the Victory of Russian soldiers of Prince Alexander Nevsky over the Crusaders (established by Federal Law No. 32-FZ of March 13, 1995 “On Days of Military Glory and Memorable Dates of Russia”) is celebrated on 18 April instead of the correct new style April 12. The difference between the old (Julian) and new (Gregorian, first introduced in 1582) style in the 13th century would have been 7 days (counting from April 5, 1242), and the difference between them of 13 days occurs only in the period 03.14.1900-14.03 .2100 (new style). In other words, Victory Day on Lake Peipsi (April 5, old style) is celebrated on April 18, which actually falls on April 5, old style, but only at the present time (1900-2099).

At the end of the 20th century in Russia and some republics of the former USSR, many political organizations celebrated the unofficial holiday Russian Nation Day (April 5), intended to become a date for the unity of all patriotic forces.

On April 22, 2012, on the occasion of the 770th anniversary of the Battle of the Ice, the Museum of the History of the Expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences to clarify the location of the Battle of the Ice in 1242 was opened in the village of Samolva, Gdovsky District, Pskov Region.

see also

Write a review about the article "Battle on the Ice"

Notes

2. Razin E. A.
3. Uzhankov A.
6. Battle of the Ice 1242: Proceedings of a complex expedition to clarify the location of the Battle of the Ice. - M.-L., 1966. - 253 p. - P. 60-64.
7. . Its date is considered more preferable, since in addition to the number it also contains a link to the day of the week and church holidays (the day of remembrance of the martyr Claudius and the day of praise to the Virgin Mary). In the Pskov Chronicles the date is April 1.
8. Donald Ostrowski(English) // Russian History/Histoire Russe. - 2006. - Vol. 33, no. 2-3-4. - P. 304-307.
9. .
10. .
11. Henry of Latvia. .
12. Razin E. A. .
13. Danilevsky, I.. Polit.ru April 15, 2005.
14. Dittmar Dahlmann. Der russische Sieg über die “teutonische Ritter” auf der Peipussee 1242 // Schlachtenmythen: Ereignis - Erzählung - Erinnerung. Herausgegeben von Gerd Krumeich und Susanne Brandt. (Europäische Geschichtsdarstellungen. Herausgegeben von Johannes Laudage. - Band 2.) - Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 2003. - S. 63-76.
15. Werner Philipp. Heiligkeit und Herrschaft in der Vita Aleksandr Nevskijs // Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte. - Band 18. - Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973. - S. 55-72.
16. Janet Martin. Medieval Russia 980-1584. Second edition. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. - P. 181.
17. . gumilevica.kulichki.net. Retrieved September 22, 2016.
20. // Gdovskaya Zarya: newspaper. - 30.3.2007.
24. (inaccessible link from 05/25/2013 (2231 days) - story , copy) //Official website of the Pskov region, July 12, 2006 ]
27. .
28. .
29. .

Literature

• Lipitsky S.V. Battle on the Ice. - M.: Military Publishing House, 1964. - 68 p. - (The heroic past of our Motherland).
• Mansikka V.Y. Life of Alexander Nevsky: Analysis of editions and text. - St. Petersburg, 1913. - “Monuments of ancient writing.” - Vol. 180.
• Life of Alexander Nevsky / Prep. text, translation and comm. V. I. Okhotnikova // Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': XIII century. - M.: Fiction, 1981.
• Begunov Yu. K. Monument of Russian literature of the 13th century: “The Tale of the Death of the Russian Land” - M.-L.: Nauka, 1965.
• Pashuto V.T. Alexander Nevsky - M.: Young Guard, 1974. - 160 p. - Series “Life of Remarkable People”.
• Karpov A. Yu. Alexander Nevsky - M.: Young Guard, 2010. - 352 p. - Series “Life of Remarkable People”.
• Khitrov M. Holy Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky. Detailed biography. - Minsk: Panorama, 1991. - 288 p. - Reprint edition.
• Klepinin N. A. Holy Blessed and Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. - St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2004. - 288 p. - Series “Slavic Library”.
• Prince Alexander Nevsky and his era: Research and materials / Ed. Yu. K. Begunova and A. N. Kirpichnikov. - St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1995. - 214 p.
• Fennell J. The crisis of medieval Rus'. 1200-1304 - M.: Progress, 1989. - 296 p.
• Battle of the Ice 1242: Proceedings of a complex expedition to clarify the location of the Battle of the Ice / Rep. ed. G. N. Karaev. - M.-L.: Nauka, 1966. - 241 p.
• Tikhomirov M. N. About the place of the Battle of the Ice // Tikhomirov M. N. Ancient Rus': Sat. Art. / Ed. A. V. Artsikhovsky and M. T. Belyavsky, with the participation of N. B. Shelamanova. - M.: Science, 1975. - P. 368-374. - 432 s. - 16,000 copies.(in lane, superreg.)
• Nesterenko A. N. Alexander Nevsky. Who won the Battle of the Ice., 2006. Olma-Press.

Links

An excerpt characterizing the Battle of the Ice

His illness took its own physical course, but what Natasha called: this happened to him happened to him two days before Princess Marya’s arrival. This was the last moral struggle between life and death, in which death won. It was the unexpected consciousness that he still valued the life that seemed to him in love for Natasha, and the last, subdued fit of horror in front of the unknown.
It was in the evening. He was, as usual after dinner, in a slight feverish state, and his thoughts were extremely clear. Sonya was sitting at the table. He dozed off. Suddenly a feeling of happiness overwhelmed him.
“Oh, she came in!” - he thought.
Indeed, sitting in Sonya’s place was Natasha, who had just entered with silent steps.
Since she began following him, he had always experienced this physical sensation of her closeness. She sat on an armchair, sideways to him, blocking the light of the candle from him, and knitted a stocking. (She learned to knit stockings since Prince Andrei told her that no one knows how to take care of the sick like old nannies who knit stockings, and that there is something soothing in knitting a stocking.) Thin fingers quickly fingered her from time to time the clashing spokes, and the pensive profile of her downcast face was clearly visible to him. She made a movement and the ball rolled off her lap. She shuddered, looked back at him and, shielding the candle with her hand, with a careful, flexible and precise movement she bent, raised the ball and sat down in her previous position.
He looked at her without moving, and saw that after her movement she needed to take a deep breath, but she did not dare to do this and carefully took a breath.
In the Trinity Lavra they talked about the past, and he told her that if he were alive, he would forever thank God for his wound, which brought him back to her; but since then they never spoke about the future.
“Could it or could it not have happened? - he thought now, looking at her and listening to the light steel sound of the knitting needles. - Was it really only then that fate brought me so strangely together with her that I might die?.. Was the truth of life revealed to me only so that I could live in a lie? I love her more than anything in the world. But what should I do if I love her? - he said, and he suddenly groaned involuntarily, according to the habit that he acquired during his suffering.
Hearing this sound, Natasha put down the stocking, leaned closer to him and suddenly, noticing his glowing eyes, walked up to him with a light step and bent down.
- You are not asleep?
- No, I’ve been looking at you for a long time; I felt it when you came in. No one like you, but gives me that soft silence... that light. I just want to cry with joy.
Natasha moved closer to him. Her face shone with rapturous joy.
- Natasha, I love you too much. More than anything else.
- And I? “She turned away for a moment. - Why too much? - she said.
- Why too much?.. Well, what do you think, how do you feel in your soul, in your whole soul, will I be alive? What do you think?
- I'm sure, I'm sure! – Natasha almost screamed, taking both his hands with a passionate movement.
He paused.
- How good it would be! - And, taking her hand, he kissed it.
Natasha was happy and excited; and immediately she remembered that this was impossible, that he needed calm.
“But you didn’t sleep,” she said, suppressing her joy. – Try to sleep... please.
He released her hand, shaking it; she moved to the candle and sat down again in her previous position. She looked back at him twice, his eyes shining towards her. She gave herself a lesson on the stocking and told herself that she wouldn't look back until she finished it.
Indeed, soon after that he closed his eyes and fell asleep. He did not sleep for long and suddenly woke up in a cold sweat.
As he fell asleep, he kept thinking about the same thing he had been thinking about all the time - about life and death. And more about death. He felt closer to her.
"Love? What is love? - he thought. – Love interferes with death. Love is life. Everything, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love. Everything is, everything exists only because I love. Everything is connected by one thing. Love is God, and to die means for me, a particle of love, to return to the common and eternal source.” These thoughts seemed comforting to him. But these were just thoughts. Something was missing in them, something was one-sided, personal, mental - it was not obvious. And there was the same anxiety and uncertainty. He fell asleep.
He saw in a dream that he was lying in the same room in which he was actually lying, but that he was not wounded, but healthy. Many different faces, insignificant, indifferent, appear before Prince Andrei. He talks to them, argues about something unnecessary. They are getting ready to go somewhere. Prince Andrey vaguely remembers that all this is insignificant and that he has other, more important concerns, but continues to speak, surprising them, some empty, witty words. Little by little, imperceptibly, all these faces begin to disappear, and everything is replaced by one question about the closed door. He gets up and goes to the door to slide the bolt and lock it. Everything depends on whether he has time or not time to lock her. He walks, he hurries, his legs don’t move, and he knows that he won’t have time to lock the door, but still he painfully strains all his strength. And a painful fear seizes him. And this fear is the fear of death: it stands behind the door. But at the same time, as he powerlessly and awkwardly crawls towards the door, something terrible, on the other hand, is already, pressing, breaking into it. Something inhuman - death - is breaking at the door, and we must hold it back. He grabs the door, strains his last efforts - it is no longer possible to lock it - at least to hold it; but his strength is weak, clumsy, and, pressed by the terrible, the door opens and closes again.
Once again it pressed from there. The last, supernatural efforts were in vain, and both halves opened silently. It has entered, and it is death. And Prince Andrei died.
But at the same moment as he died, Prince Andrei remembered that he was sleeping, and at the same moment as he died, he, making an effort on himself, woke up.
“Yes, it was death. I died - I woke up. Yes, death is awakening! - his soul suddenly brightened, and the veil that had hitherto hidden the unknown was lifted before his spiritual gaze. He felt a kind of liberation of the strength previously bound in him and that strange lightness that has not left him since then.
When he woke up in a cold sweat and stirred on the sofa, Natasha came up to him and asked what was wrong with him. He did not answer her and, not understanding her, looked at her with a strange look.
This was what happened to him two days before the arrival of Princess Marya. From that very day, as the doctor said, the debilitating fever took on a bad character, but Natasha was not interested in what the doctor said: she saw these terrible, more undoubted moral signs for her.
From this day on, for Prince Andrei, along with awakening from sleep, awakening from life began. And in relation to the duration of life, it did not seem to him slower than awakening from sleep in relation to the duration of the dream.

There was nothing scary or abrupt in this relatively slow awakening.
His last days and hours passed as usual and simply. And Princess Marya and Natasha, who did not leave his side, felt it. They did not cry, did not shudder, and lately, feeling this themselves, they no longer walked after him (he was no longer there, he left them), but after the closest memory of him - his body. The feelings of both were so strong that the external, terrible side of death did not affect them, and they did not find it necessary to indulge their grief. They did not cry either in front of him or without him, but they never talked about him among themselves. They felt that they could not put into words what they understood.
They both saw him sink deeper and deeper, slowly and calmly, away from them somewhere, and they both knew that this was how it should be and that it was good.
He was confessed and given communion; everyone came to say goodbye to him. When their son was brought to him, he put his lips to him and turned away, not because he felt hard or sorry (Princess Marya and Natasha understood this), but only because he believed that this was all that was required of him; but when they told him to bless him, he did what was required and looked around, as if asking if anything else needed to be done.
When the last convulsions of the body, abandoned by the spirit, took place, Princess Marya and Natasha were here.
– Is it over?! - said Princess Marya, after his body had been lying motionless and cold in front of them for several minutes. Natasha came up, looked into the dead eyes and hastened to close them. She closed them and did not kiss them, but kissed what was her closest memory of him.
“Where did he go? Where is he now?..”

When the dressed, washed body lay in a coffin on the table, everyone came up to him to say goodbye, and everyone cried.
Nikolushka cried from the painful bewilderment that tore his heart. The Countess and Sonya cried out of pity for Natasha and that he was no more. The old count cried that soon, he felt, he would have to take the same terrible step.
Natasha and Princess Marya were also crying now, but they were not crying from their personal grief; they wept from the reverent emotion that gripped their souls before the consciousness of the simple and solemn mystery of death that had taken place before them.

The totality of causes of phenomena is inaccessible to the human mind. But the need to find reasons is embedded in the human soul. And the human mind, without delving into the innumerability and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, each of which separately can be represented as a cause, grabs the first, most understandable convergence and says: this is the cause. In historical events (where the object of observation is the actions of people), the most primitive convergence seems to be the will of the gods, then the will of those people who stand in the most prominent historical place - historical heroes. But one has only to delve into the essence of each historical event, that is, into the activities of the entire mass of people who participated in the event, to be convinced that the will of the historical hero not only does not guide the actions of the masses, but is itself constantly guided. It would seem that it is all the same to understand the significance of the historical event one way or another. But between the man who says that the peoples of the West went to the East because Napoleon wanted it, and the man who says that it happened because it had to happen, there is the same difference that existed between the people who argued that the earth stands firmly and the planets move around it, and those who said that they do not know what the earth rests on, but they know that there are laws governing the movement of it and other planets. There are no and cannot be reasons for a historical event, except for the only cause of all reasons. But there are laws that govern events, partly unknown, partly groped by us. The discovery of these laws is possible only when we completely renounce the search for causes in the will of one person, just as the discovery of the laws of planetary motion became possible only when people renounced the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe affirmation of the earth.

After the Battle of Borodino, the enemy’s occupation of Moscow and its burning, historians recognize the most important episode of the War of 1812 as the movement of the Russian army from the Ryazan to the Kaluga road and to the Tarutino camp - the so-called flank march behind Krasnaya Pakhra. Historians attribute the glory of this ingenious feat to various individuals and argue about who, in fact, it belongs to. Even foreign, even French historians recognize the genius of the Russian commanders when speaking about this flank march. But why military writers, and everyone after them, believe that this flank march is a very thoughtful invention of some one person, which saved Russia and destroyed Napoleon, is very difficult to understand. In the first place, it is difficult to understand wherein lies the profundity and genius of this movement; for in order to guess that the best position of the army (when it is not attacked) is where there is more food, it does not require much mental effort. And everyone, even a stupid thirteen-year-old boy, could easily guess that in 1812 the most advantageous position of the army, after the retreat from Moscow, was on the Kaluga road. So, it is impossible to understand, firstly, by what conclusions historians reach the point of seeing something profound in this maneuver. Secondly, it is even more difficult to understand exactly what historians see as the salvation of this maneuver for the Russians and its detrimental nature for the French; for this flank march, under other preceding, accompanying and subsequent circumstances, could have been disastrous for the Russians and salutary for the French army. If from the time this movement took place, the position of the Russian army began to improve, then it does not follow from this that this movement was the reason for this.
This flank march not only could not have brought any benefits, but could have destroyed the Russian army if other conditions had not coincided. What would have happened if Moscow had not burned down? If Murat had not lost sight of the Russians? If Napoleon had not been inactive? What if the Russian army, on the advice of Bennigsen and Barclay, had given battle at Krasnaya Pakhra? What would have happened if the French had attacked the Russians when they were going after Pakhra? What would have happened if Napoleon had subsequently approached Tarutin and attacked the Russians with at least one tenth of the energy with which he attacked in Smolensk? What would have happened if the French had marched on St. Petersburg?.. With all these assumptions, the salvation of a flank march could turn into destruction.
Thirdly, and the most incomprehensible, is that people who study history deliberately do not want to see that the flank march cannot be attributed to any one person, that no one ever foresaw it, that this maneuver, just like the retreat in Filyakh, in the present, was never presented to anyone in its entirety, but step by step, event by event, moment by moment, flowed from a countless number of very diverse conditions, and only then was presented in all its entirety, when it was completed and became the past.
At the council in Fili, the dominant thought among the Russian authorities was a self-evident retreat in a direct direction back, that is, along the Nizhny Novgorod road. Evidence of this is that the majority of votes at the council were cast in this sense, and, most importantly, the well-known conversation after the council of the commander-in-chief with Lansky, who was in charge of the provisions department. Lanskoy reported to the commander-in-chief that food for the army was collected mainly along the Oka, in the Tula and Kaluga provinces, and that in the event of a retreat to Nizhny, food supplies would be separated from the army by the large Oka River, through which transportation in the first winter was impossible. This was the first sign of the need to deviate from what had previously seemed the most natural direct direction to Nizhny. The army stayed further south, along the Ryazan road, and closer to the reserves. Subsequently, the inaction of the French, who even lost sight of the Russian army, concerns about protecting the Tula plant and, most importantly, the benefits of getting closer to their reserves, forced the army to deviate even further south, onto the Tula road. Having crossed in a desperate movement beyond Pakhra to the Tula road, the military leaders of the Russian army thought to remain near Podolsk, and there was no thought about the Tarutino position; but countless circumstances and the appearance again of French troops, who had previously lost sight of the Russians, and battle plans, and, most importantly, the abundance of provisions in Kaluga, forced our army to deviate even more to the south and move to the middle of the routes for their food supplies, from the Tula to the Kaluga road, to Tarutin. Just as it is impossible to answer the question of when Moscow was abandoned, it is also impossible to answer when exactly and by whom it was decided to go to Tarutin. Only when the troops had already arrived at Tarutin as a result of countless differential forces, then people began to assure themselves that they had wanted this and had long foreseen it.

The famous flank march consisted only in the fact that the Russian army, retreating straight back in the opposite direction of advance, after the French offensive had ceased, deviated from the direct direction initially adopted and, not seeing pursuit behind itself, naturally moved in the direction where it attracted by an abundance of food.
If we were to imagine not brilliant commanders at the head of the Russian army, but simply one army without leaders, then this army could not do anything other than move back to Moscow, describing an arc from the side on which there was more food and the edge was more abundantly.
This movement from the Nizhny Novgorod to the Ryazan, Tula and Kaluga roads was so natural that the marauders of the Russian army ran away in this very direction and that in this very direction it was required from St. Petersburg that Kutuzov move his army. In Tarutino, Kutuzov almost received a reprimand from the sovereign for withdrawing the army to the Ryazan road, and he was pointed out the same situation against Kaluga in which he was already at the time he received the sovereign’s letter.
Rolling back in the direction of the push given to it during the entire campaign and in the Battle of Borodino, the ball of the Russian army, having destroyed the force of the push and not receiving new shocks, took the position that was natural to it.
Kutuzov's merit did not lie in some brilliant, as they call it, strategic maneuver, but in the fact that he alone understood the significance of the event that was taking place. He alone understood even then the meaning of the inaction of the French army, he alone continued to assert that the Battle of Borodino was a victory; he alone - the one who, it would seem, due to his position as commander-in-chief, should have been called to the offensive - he alone used all his strength to keep the Russian army from useless battles.
The killed animal near Borodino lay somewhere where the hunter who ran away had left it; but whether he was alive, whether he was strong, or whether he was just hiding, the hunter did not know. Suddenly the groan of this beast was heard.
The groan of this wounded beast, the French army, which exposed its destruction, was the sending of Lauriston to Kutuzov’s camp with a request for peace.
Napoleon, with his confidence that it is not only good that is good, but what came into his head that is good, wrote to Kutuzov the words that first came to his mind and had no meaning. He wrote:

“Monsieur le prince Koutouzov,” he wrote, “j"envoie pres de vous un de mes aides de camps generaux pour vous entretenir de plusieurs objets interessants. Je desire que Votre Altesse ajoute foi a ce qu"il lui dira, surtout lorsqu" il exprimera les sentiments d"estime et de particuliere consideration que j"ai depuis longtemps pour sa personne... Cette lettre n"etant a autre fin, je prie Dieu, Monsieur le prince Koutouzov, qu"il vous ait en sa sainte et digne garde ,
Moscou, le 3 Octobre, 1812. Signe:
Napoleon."
[Prince Kutuzov, I am sending you one of my general adjutants to negotiate with you on many important subjects. I ask Your Lordship to believe everything that he tells you, especially when he begins to express to you the feelings of respect and special reverence that I have had for you for a long time. Therefore, I pray to God to keep you under his sacred roof.
Moscow, October 3, 1812.
Napoleon. ]

“Je serais maudit par la posterite si l"on me regardait comme le premier moteur d"un accommodation quelconque. Tel est l "esprit actuel de ma nation", [I would be damned if they looked at me as the first instigator of any deal; such is the will of our people.] - answered Kutuzov and continued to use all his strength for that to keep troops from advancing.
In the month of the robbery of the French army in Moscow and the quiet stop of the Russian army near Tarutin, a change occurred in the strength of both troops (spirit and number), as a result of which the advantage of strength was on the side of the Russians. Despite the fact that the position of the French army and its strength were unknown to the Russians, how soon the attitude changed, the need for an offensive was immediately expressed in countless signs. These signs were: the sending of Lauriston, and the abundance of provisions in Tarutino, and information coming from all sides about the inaction and disorder of the French, and the recruitment of our regiments with recruits, and good weather, and the long rest of Russian soldiers, and the rest that usually arises in the troops as a result of rest. impatience to carry out the task for which everyone was gathered, and curiosity about what was happening in the French army, so long lost from sight, and the courage with which Russian outposts were now snooping around the French stationed in Tarutino, and news of easy victories over the French by the peasants and the partisans, and the envy aroused by this, and the feeling of revenge that lay in the soul of every person as long as the French were in Moscow, and (most importantly) the unclear, but arose in the soul of every soldier, consciousness that the relationship of force had now changed and the advantage is on our side. The essential balance of forces changed, and an offensive became necessary. And immediately, just as surely as the chimes begin to strike and play in a clock, when the hand has made a full circle, in the higher spheres, in accordance with a significant change in forces, the increased movement, hissing and play of the chimes was reflected.

The Russian army was controlled by Kutuzov with his headquarters and the sovereign from St. Petersburg. In St. Petersburg, even before receiving news of the abandonment of Moscow, a detailed plan for the entire war was drawn up and sent to Kutuzov for guidance. Despite the fact that this plan was drawn up on the assumption that Moscow was still in our hands, this plan was approved by headquarters and accepted for execution. Kutuzov only wrote that long-range sabotage is always difficult to carry out. And to resolve the difficulties encountered, new instructions and persons were sent who were supposed to monitor his actions and report on them.
In addition, now the entire headquarters in the Russian army has been transformed. The places of the murdered Bagration and the offended, retired Barclay were replaced. They thought very seriously about what would be better: to place A. in B.’s place, and B. in D.’s place, or, on the contrary, D. in A.’s place, etc., as if anything other than the pleasure of A. and B., it could depend on this.
At the army headquarters, on the occasion of Kutuzov’s hostility with his chief of staff, Bennigsen, and the presence of the sovereign’s trusted representatives and these movements, a more than usual complex game of parties was going on: A. undermined B., D. under S., etc. ., in all possible movements and combinations. With all these undermining, the subject of intrigue was mostly the military matter that all these people thought to lead; but this military matter went on independently of them, exactly as it should have gone, that is, never coinciding with what people came up with, but flowing from the essence of the attitude of the masses. All these inventions, crossing and intertwining, represented in the higher spheres only a true reflection of what was about to happen.

Myths about the Battle of the Ice

Snowy landscapes, thousands of warriors, a frozen lake and crusaders falling through the ice under the weight of their own armor.

For many, the battle, which according to the chronicles took place on April 5, 1242, is not much different from the footage from Sergei Eisenstein’s film “Alexander Nevsky.”

But was it really so?

The myth of what we know about the Battle of the Ice

The Battle of the Ice truly became one of the most resonant events of the 13th century, reflected not only in “domestic” but also in Western chronicles.

And at first glance, it seems that we have enough documents to thoroughly study all the “components” of the battle.

But upon closer examination, it turns out that the popularity of a historical plot is not at all a guarantee of its comprehensive study.

Thus, the most detailed (and most quoted) description of the battle, recorded “hot on its heels,” is contained in the first Novgorod chronicle of the older edition. And this description is just over 100 words. The rest of the mentions are even more succinct.

Moreover, sometimes they include mutually exclusive information. For example, in the most authoritative Western source - the Elder Livonian Rhymed Chronicle - there is not a word that the battle took place on the lake.

The lives of Alexander Nevsky can be considered a kind of “synthesis” of early chronicle references to the clash, but, according to experts, they are a literary work and therefore can be used as a source only with “great restrictions.”

As for the historical works of the 19th century, it is believed that they did not bring anything fundamentally new to the study of the Battle of the Ice, mainly retelling what was already stated in the chronicles.

The beginning of the 20th century is characterized by an ideological rethinking of the battle, when the symbolic meaning of victory over “German knightly aggression” was brought to the fore. According to historian Igor Danilevsky, before the release of Sergei Eisenstein’s film “Alexander Nevsky,” the study of the Battle of the Ice was not even included in university lecture courses.

The myth of a united Rus'

In the minds of many, the Battle of the Ice is a victory of the united Russian troops over the forces of the German crusaders. This “generalizing” idea of ​​the battle was formed already in the 20th century, in the realities of the Great Patriotic War, when Germany was the main rival of the USSR.

However, 775 years ago, the Battle of the Ice was more of a “local” rather than a national conflict. In the 13th century, Rus' was experiencing a period of feudal fragmentation and consisted of about 20 independent principalities. Moreover, the policies of cities that formally belonged to the same territory could differ significantly.

Thus, de jure Pskov and Novgorod were located in the Novgorod land, one of the largest territorial units of Rus' at that time. De facto, each of these cities was an “autonomy”, with its own political and economic interests. This also applied to relations with its closest neighbors in the Eastern Baltic.

One of these neighbors was the Catholic Order of the Sword, which, after the defeat at the Battle of Saul (Šiauliai) in 1236, was annexed to the Teutonic Order as the Livonian Landmaster. The latter became part of the so-called Livonian Confederation, which, in addition to the Order, included five Baltic bishoprics.

As historian Igor Danilevsky notes, the main cause of territorial conflicts between Novgorod and the Order was the lands of the Estonians who lived on the western shore of Lake Peipsi (the medieval population of modern Estonia, who appeared in most Russian-language chronicles under the name “Chud”). At the same time, the campaigns organized by the Novgorodians practically did not affect the interests of other lands. The exception was the “border” Pskov, which was constantly subject to retaliatory raids by the Livonians.

According to historian Alexei Valerov, it was the need to simultaneously resist both the forces of the Order and Novgorod’s regular attempts to encroach on the city’s independence that could force Pskov to “open the gates” to the Livonians in 1240. In addition, the city was seriously weakened after the defeat at Izborsk and, presumably, was not capable of long-term resistance to the crusaders.

At the same time, as the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle reports, in 1242 there was not a full-fledged “German army” present in the city, but only two Vogt knights (presumably accompanied by small detachments), who, according to Valerov, performed judicial functions on controlled lands and monitored the activities of the “local Pskov administration”.

Further, as we know from the chronicles, the Novgorod prince Alexander Yaroslavich, together with his younger brother Andrei Yaroslavich (sent by their father, the Vladimir prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich), “expelled” the Germans from Pskov, after which they continued their campaign, going “to the chud” (i.e. e. in the lands of the Livonian Landmaster).

Where they were met by the combined forces of the Order and the Bishop of Dorpat.

The myth of the scale of the battle

Thanks to the Novgorod Chronicle, we know that April 5, 1242 was a Saturday. Everything else is not so clear.

Difficulties begin already when trying to determine the number of participants in the battle. The only figures we have tell us about losses in the ranks of the Germans. Thus, the Novgorod First Chronicle reports about 400 killed and 50 prisoners, the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle reports that “twenty brothers were killed and six were captured.”

Researchers believe that these data are not as contradictory as they seem at first glance.

Historians Igor Danilevsky and Klim Zhukov agree that several hundred people took part in the battle.

So, on the German side, these are 35–40 brother knights, about 160 knechts (an average of four servants per knight) and mercenaries-ests (“Chud without number”), who could “expand” the detachment by another 100–200 warriors . Moreover, by the standards of the 13th century, such an army was considered a fairly serious force (presumably, in its heyday, the maximum number of the former Order of the Swordsmen, in principle, did not exceed 100–120 knights). The author of the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle also complained that there were almost 60 times more Russians, which, according to Danilevsky, although an exaggeration, still gives reason to assume that Alexander’s army was significantly superior to the forces of the crusaders.

Thus, the maximum number of the Novgorod city regiment, the princely squad of Alexander, the Suzdal detachment of his brother Andrei and the Pskovites who joined the campaign hardly exceeded 800 people.

From chronicle reports we also know that the German detachment was lined up as a “pig”.

According to Klim Zhukov, we are most likely not talking about a “trapezoidal” pig, which we are used to seeing in diagrams in textbooks, but about a “rectangular” one (since the first description of a “trapezoid” in written sources appeared only in the 15th century). Also, according to historians, the estimated size of the Livonian army gives reason to talk about the traditional formation of the “hound banner”: 35 knights making up the “wedge of banners”, plus their detachments (totalling up to 400 people).

As for the tactics of the Russian army, the Rhymed Chronicle only mentions that “the Russians had many riflemen” (who, apparently, made up the first formation), and that “the army of the brothers was surrounded.”

We don't know anything else about it.

The myth that the Livonian warrior is heavier than the Novgorodian

There is also a stereotype according to which the combat clothing of Russian soldiers was many times lighter than the Livonian one.

According to historians, if there was a difference in weight, it was extremely insignificant.

After all, on both sides, exclusively heavily armed horsemen took part in the battle (it is believed that all assumptions about infantrymen are a transfer of the military realities of subsequent centuries to the realities of the 13th century).

Logically, even the weight of a war horse, without taking into account the rider, would be enough to break through the fragile April ice.

So, did it make sense to withdraw troops against him under such conditions?

The myth of the battle on ice and drowned knights

Let us disappoint you right away: there are no descriptions of how German knights fall through the ice in any of the early chronicles.

Moreover, in the Livonian Chronicle there is a rather strange phrase: “On both sides the dead fell on the grass.” Some commentators believe that this is an idiom meaning “to fall on the battlefield” (version of the medievalist historian Igor Kleinenberg), others - that we are talking about thickets of reeds that made their way from under the ice in the shallow waters where the battle took place (version of the Soviet military historian Georgy Karaev, shown on the map).

As for the chronicle references to the fact that the Germans were driven “across the ice,” modern researchers agree that this detail could have been “borrowed” by the Battle of the Ice from the description of the later Battle of Rakovor (1268). According to Igor Danilevsky, reports that Russian troops drove the enemy seven miles (“to the Subolichi shore”) are quite justified for the scale of the Rakovor battle, but look strange in the context of the battle on Lake Peipsi, where the distance from shore to shore in the supposed location the battle is no more than 2 km.

Speaking about the “Raven Stone” (a geographical landmark mentioned in part of the chronicles), historians emphasize that any map indicating a specific location of the battle is nothing more than a version. No one knows where exactly the massacre took place: the sources contain too little information to draw any conclusions.

In particular, Klim Zhukov is based on the fact that during archaeological expeditions in the area of ​​Lake Peipsi, not a single “confirming” burial was discovered. The researcher associates the lack of evidence not with the mythical nature of the battle, but with looting: in the 13th century, iron was very highly valued, and it is unlikely that the weapons and armor of the dead soldiers could have remained intact to this day.

The Myth of the Battle's Geopolitical Significance

In the minds of many, the Battle of the Ice “stands apart” and is perhaps the only “action-packed” battle of its time. And it really became one of the significant battles of the Middle Ages, “suspending” the conflict between Rus' and the Livonian Order for almost 10 years.

Nevertheless, the 13th century was rich in other events.

From the point of view of the clash with the crusaders, these include the battle with the Swedes on the Neva in 1240, and the already mentioned Battle of Rakovor, during which the united army of seven Northern Russian principalities came out against the Livonian Landmaster and Danish Estland.

Also, the 13th century is the time of the Horde invasion.

Despite the fact that the key battles of this era (the Battle of Kalka and the capture of Ryazan) did not directly affect the North-West, they significantly influenced the further political structure of medieval Rus' and all its components.

Moreover, if we compare the scale of the Teutonic and Horde threats, the difference is calculated in tens of thousands of soldiers. Thus, the maximum number of crusaders who ever participated in campaigns against Rus' rarely exceeded 1000 people, while the estimated maximum number of participants in the Russian campaign from the Horde was up to 40 thousand (version by historian Klim Zhukov).

TASS expresses gratitude for the assistance in preparing the material to the historian and specialist on Ancient Rus' Igor Nikolaevich Danilevsky and the military historian and medievalist Klim Aleksandrovich Zhukov.

© TASS INFOGRAPHICS, 2017

Worked on the material:

There is an episode with the Crow Stone. According to ancient legend, he rose from the waters of the lake in moments of danger for the Russian land, helping to defeat enemies. This was the case in 1242. This date appears in all domestic historical sources, being inextricably linked with the Battle of the Ice.

It is no coincidence that we focus your attention on this stone. After all, historians are guided by it, who are still trying to understand on what lake it happened. After all, many specialists who work with historical archives still do not know where our ancestors actually fought with

The official point of view is that the battle took place on the ice of Lake Peipsi. Today, all that is known for certain is that the battle took place on April 5. The year of the Battle of the Ice is 1242 from the beginning of our era. In the chronicles of Novgorod and in the Livonian Chronicle there is not a single matching detail at all: the number of soldiers participating in the battle and the number of wounded and killed vary.

We don't even know the details of what happened. The only information that has reached us is that a victory was won on Lake Peipsi, and even then in a significantly distorted, transformed form. This is in stark contrast to the official version, but in recent years the voices of those scientists who insist on full-scale excavations and repeated archival research have become increasingly loud. They all want not only to know about which lake the Battle of the Ice took place on, but also to find out all the details of the event.

Official description of the battle

The opposing armies met in the morning. It was 1242 and the ice had not yet broken up. The Russian troops had many riflemen who courageously came forward, bearing the brunt of the German attack. Pay attention to how the Livonian Chronicle speaks about this: “The banners of the brothers (German knights) penetrated the ranks of those who were shooting... many killed on both sides fell on the grass (!).”

Thus, the “Chronicles” and the manuscripts of the Novgorodians completely agree on this point. Indeed, in front of the Russian army stood a detachment of light riflemen. As the Germans later found out through their sad experience, it was a trap. “Heavy” columns of German infantry broke through the ranks of lightly armed soldiers and moved on. We wrote the first word in quotation marks for a reason. Why? We'll talk about this below.

Russian mobile units quickly surrounded the Germans from the flanks and then began to destroy them. The Germans fled, and the Novgorod army pursued them for about seven miles. It is noteworthy that even at this point there are disagreements in various sources. If we describe the Battle of the Ice briefly, then even in this case this episode raises some questions.

The Importance of Victory

Thus, most witnesses say nothing at all about the “drowned” knights. Part of the German army was surrounded. Many knights were captured. In principle, 400 Germans were reported killed, with another fifty people captured. Chudi, according to the chronicles, “fell without number.” That's all the Battle of the Ice in brief.

The Order took the defeat painfully. In the same year, peace was concluded with Novgorod, the Germans completely abandoned their conquests not only on the territory of Rus', but also in Letgol. There was even a complete exchange of prisoners. However, the Teutons tried to recapture Pskov ten years later. Thus, the year of the Battle of the Ice became an extremely important date, as it allowed the Russian state to somewhat calm down its warlike neighbors.

About common myths

Even in local history museums they are very skeptical about the widespread statement about the “heavy” German knights. Allegedly, because of their massive armor, they almost drowned in the waters of the lake at once. Many historians say with rare enthusiasm that the Germans in their armor weighed “three times more” than the average Russian warrior.

But any weapons expert of that era will tell you with confidence that the soldiers on both sides were protected approximately equally.

Armor is not for everyone!

The fact is that massive armor, which can be found everywhere in miniatures of the Battle of the Ice in history textbooks, appeared only in the 14th-15th centuries. In the 13th century, warriors dressed in a steel helmet, chain mail or (the latter were very expensive and rare), and wore bracers and greaves on their limbs. It all weighed about twenty kilograms maximum. Most of the German and Russian soldiers did not have such protection at all.

Finally, in principle, there was no particular point in such heavily armed infantry on the ice. Everyone fought on foot; there was no need to fear a cavalry attack. So why take another risk by going out on thin April ice with so much iron?

But at school the 4th grade is studying the Battle of the Ice, and therefore no one simply goes into such subtleties.

Water or land?

According to the generally accepted conclusions made by the expedition under the leadership of the USSR Academy of Sciences (led by Karaev), the battlefield is considered to be a small area of ​​Teploe Lake (part of Chudskoye), which is located 400 meters from the modern Cape Sigovets.

For almost half a century, no one doubted the results of these studies. The fact is that then scientists did a really great job, analyzing not only historical sources, but also hydrology and, as the writer Vladimir Potresov, who was a direct participant in that very expedition, explains, they managed to create a “complete vision of the problem.” So on what lake did the Battle of the Ice take place?

There is only one conclusion here - on Chudskoye. There was a battle, and it took place somewhere in those parts, but there are still problems with determining the exact localization.

What did the researchers find?

First of all, they read the chronicle again. It said that the slaughter took place “at Uzmen, at the Voronei stone.” Imagine that you are telling your friend how to get to the stop, using terms that you and he understand. If you tell the same thing to a resident of another region, he may not understand. We are in the same position. What kind of Uzmen? What Crow Stone? Where was all this even?

More than seven centuries have passed since then. Rivers changed their courses in less time! So there was absolutely nothing left of the real geographical coordinates. If we assume that the battle, to one degree or another, actually took place on the icy surface of the lake, then finding something becomes even more difficult.

German version

Seeing the difficulties of their Soviet colleagues, in the 30s a group of German scientists hastened to declare that the Russians... invented the Battle of the Ice! Alexander Nevsky, they say, simply created the image of a winner in order to give his figure more weight in the political arena. But the old German chronicles also talked about the battle episode, so the battle really took place.

Russian scientists were having real verbal battles! Everyone was trying to find out the location of the battle that took place in ancient times. Everyone called “that” piece of territory either on the western or eastern shore of the lake. Someone argued that the battle took place in the central part of the reservoir. There was a general problem with the Crow Stone: either mountains of small pebbles at the bottom of the lake were mistaken for it, or someone saw it in every rock outcrop on the shores of the reservoir. There were a lot of disputes, but the matter did not progress at all.

In 1955, everyone got tired of this, and that same expedition set off. Archaeologists, philologists, geologists and hydrographers, specialists in the Slavic and German dialects of that time, and cartographers appeared on the shores of Lake Peipus. Everyone was interested in where the Battle of the Ice was. Alexander Nevsky was here, this is known for certain, but where did his troops meet their adversaries?

Several boats with teams of experienced divers were placed at the complete disposal of the scientists. Many enthusiasts and schoolchildren from local historical societies also worked on the shores of the lake. So what did Lake Peipus give to researchers? Was Nevsky here with the army?

Crow stone

For a long time, there was an opinion among domestic scientists that the Raven Stone was the key to all the secrets of the Battle of the Ice. His search was given special importance. Finally he was discovered. It turned out that it was a rather high stone ledge on the western tip of Gorodets Island. Over seven centuries, the not very dense rock was almost completely destroyed by winds and water.

At the foot of the Raven Stone, archaeologists quickly found the remains of Russian guard fortifications that blocked the passages to Novgorod and Pskov. So those places were really familiar to contemporaries because of their importance.

New contradictions

But determining the location of such an important landmark in ancient times did not at all mean identifying the place where the massacre took place on Lake Peipsi. Quite the opposite: the currents here are always so strong that ice as such does not exist here in principle. If the Russians had fought the Germans here, everyone would have drowned, regardless of their armor. The chronicler, as was the custom of that time, simply indicated the Crow Stone as the nearest landmark that was visible from the battle site.

Versions of events

If you return to the description of the events, which was given at the very beginning of the article, then you will probably remember the expression “... many killed on both sides fell on the grass.” Of course, “grass” in this case could be an idiom denoting the very fact of falling, death. But today historians are increasingly inclined to believe that one should look for archaeological evidence of that battle precisely on the banks of the reservoir.

In addition, not a single piece of armor has yet been found at the bottom of Lake Peipsi. Neither Russian nor Teutonic. Of course, there was, in principle, very little armor as such (we have already talked about their high cost), but at least something should have remained! Especially when you consider how many diving dives were made.

Thus, we can draw a completely convincing conclusion that the ice did not break under the weight of the Germans, who were not very different in armament from our soldiers. In addition, finding armor even at the bottom of a lake is unlikely to prove anything for sure: more archaeological evidence is needed, since border skirmishes in those places happened constantly.

In general terms, it is clear on which lake the Battle of the Ice took place. The question of where exactly the battle took place still worries domestic and foreign historians.

Monument to the iconic battle

A monument in honor of this significant event was erected in 1993. It is located in the city of Pskov, installed on Mount Sokolikha. The monument is more than a hundred kilometers away from the theoretical site of the battle. This stele is dedicated to the “Druzhinniks of Alexander Nevsky”. Patrons raised money for it, which was an incredibly difficult task in those years. Therefore, this monument is of even greater value for the history of our country.

Artistic embodiment

In the very first sentence we mentioned the film by Sergei Eisenstein, which he shot back in 1938. The film was called "Alexander Nevsky". But it’s definitely not worth considering this magnificent (from an artistic point of view) film as a historical guide. Absurdities and obviously unreliable facts are present there in abundance.

One of the most significant events in medieval Russian history was the Battle of the Ice of 1242, which took place on April 5 on the ice of Lake Peipsi. The battle summed up the war that lasted almost two years between the Livonian Order and the northern Russian lands - the Novgorod and Pskov republics. This battle went down in history as a vivid example of the heroism of Russian soldiers who defended the freedom and independence of the country from foreign invaders.

Historical context and beginning of the war

The end of the first half of the 13th century was very difficult and tragic for Rus'. In 1237-1238, it swept through the northeastern principalities. Dozens of cities were destroyed and burned, people were killed or taken prisoner. The territory of the country was in severe desolation. In 1240, the western campaign of the Mongols began, during which the blow fell on the southern principalities. The western and northern neighbors of Rus' - the Livonian Order, Sweden and Denmark - decided to take advantage of this situation.

Back in 1237, Pope Gregory IX declared another crusade against the “pagans” who inhabited Finland. The fighting of the Order of the Sword against the local population in the Baltics continued throughout the first half of the 13th century. Repeatedly, German knights undertook campaigns against Pskov and Novgorod. In 1236, the Swordsmen became part of the more powerful Teutonic Order. The new formation was named the Livonian Order.

In July 1240, the Swedes attacked Rus'. Novgorod Prince Alexander Yaroslavich quickly set out with his army and defeated the invaders at the mouth of the Neva. It was for this feat of arms that the commander received the honorary nickname Nevsky. In August of the same year, the Livonian knights began fighting. First they captured the Izborsk fortress, and after the siege, Pskov. They left their governors in Pskov. The following year, the Germans began to devastate the Novgorod lands, rob merchants, and take the population captive. Under these conditions, the Novgorodians asked the Vladimir prince Yaroslav to send his son Alexander, who reigned in Pereyaslavl.

Actions of Alexander Yaroslavich

Arriving in Novgorod, Alexander first decided to avert the immediate threat. For this purpose, a campaign was undertaken against the Livonian fortress of Koporye, built near the Gulf of Finland, on the territory of the Vod tribe. The fortress was taken and destroyed, and the remnants of the German garrison were taken prisoner.

Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky. Years of life 1221 - 1263

In the spring of 1242, Alexander set out on a campaign against Pskov. In addition to his squad, with him was the Vladimir-Suzdal squad of his younger brother Andrei and a regiment of the Novgorod militia. Having liberated Pskov from the Livonians, Alexander strengthened his army with the joining Pskovites and continued the campaign. Having crossed into the territory of the Order, reconnaissance was sent ahead. The main forces were deployed “in the villages,” that is, in local villages and hamlets.

Progress of the battle

The advance detachment met the German knights and entered into battle with them. Before superior forces, Russian soldiers had to retreat. After the reconnaissance returned, Alexander turned his troops, “backing up” back to the shore of Lake Peipsi. A convenient place for the battle was chosen here. Russian troops stood on the eastern shore of Uzmen (a small lake or strait between Lake Peipus and Pskov Lake), not far from the Crow Stone.

Battle map

The location was chosen in such a way that right behind the warriors there was a wooded snow-covered bank, on which the movement of cavalry was difficult. At the same time, the Russian troops were in shallow water, which was frozen to the very bottom and could easily withstand many armed people. But on the territory of the lake itself there were areas with loose ice - whitefish.

The battle began with a ramming attack by heavy Livonian cavalry directly into the center of the Russian formation. It is believed that Alexander stationed the weaker Novgorod militia here, and placed professional squads on the flanks. This construction provided a serious advantage. After the attack, the knights got stuck in the center; having broken through the ranks of the defenders, they could not turn around on the shore, having no room to maneuver. At this time, the Russian cavalry struck the flanks, surrounding the enemy.

The Chud warriors, allied to the Livonians, walked behind the knights and were the first to scatter. The chronicle notes that in total 400 Germans were killed, 50 were taken prisoner, and the Chuds died “innumerable.” The Sofia Chronicle says that some of the Livonians died in the lake. Having defeated the enemy, the Russian army returned to Novgorod, taking prisoners.

The meaning of the battle

The first brief information about the battle is contained in the Novgorod Chronicle. Subsequent chronicles and lives of Nevsky provide additional information. Today there is a lot of popular literature devoted to the description of the battle. Here the emphasis is often placed on colorful pictures rather than on correspondence with real events. The summary of books for children rarely allows us to fully describe the entire historical outline of the battle.

Historians assess the strengths of the parties differently. Traditionally, the number of troops is approximately 12-15 thousand people on each side. At that time these were very serious armies. True, German sources claim that only a few dozen “brothers” died in the battle. However, here we are talking only about members of the Order, of whom there have never been many. In fact, these were officers, under whose command were ordinary knights and auxiliary warriors - bollards. In addition, along with the Germans, allies from Chud took part in the war, which Livonian sources did not take into account.

The defeat of the German knights in 1242 was of great importance for the situation in northwestern Rus'. Under the conditions, it was very important to stop the Order’s advance on Russian lands for a long time. The next serious war with the Livonians will take place only in more than 20 years.

Prince Alexander Nevsky, who commanded the combined forces, was subsequently canonized. In the history of Russia, an order named after the famous commander was established twice - the first time, the second time - during the Great Patriotic War.

Of course, it is worth saying that the roots of this event go back to the era of the Crusades. And it is not possible to analyze them in more detail within the text. However, in our training courses there is a 1.5 hour video lesson, which in the form of a presentation examines all the nuances of this difficult topic. Become a participant in our training courses