On September 8, 1380, near the confluence of the Nepryadva River with the Don, a battle took place, which became known as the Battle of Kulikovo. The result of the battle on the Kulikovo field was a complete victory for the Russians. About myths and historical facts read about the great event in the Lenta.ru material.

On a field located near the confluence of the Nepryadva River with the Don, Russian and Tatar troops lined up opposite each other at dawn. As soon as the fog cleared, the battle began, which lasted at least three hours. The result was the complete victory of the Russian regiments, which for a long time chased the fleeing enemy across the steppe.

This story is known to every more or less literate Russian, it is studied in school, it has been wandering from textbook to textbook for centuries. Naturally, the matter is not limited to these dry facts, and the story about the battle is overgrown with details. For example, information about the number of troops, the location of regiments, the participation of Dmitry Donskoy himself, the famous duel between Peresvet and Chelubey and many others. However, with this seemingly generally accepted information, things are much more complicated.

The fact is that in our world two completely different “stories” exist simultaneously. There is an academic subject where everything is subordinated to didactics, methodology, patriotic education and other purely pedagogical issues. Most descriptions and interpretations in textbooks are unambiguous, so that it is easier for careless students to remember them; there is almost always a clear division into “us” and “strangers,” “good” and “bad.”

Another “history” is a complex science, where there are practically no exact answers to questions. This is a world of scientific discussions and assumptions, a complex interweaving of data from various historical disciplines and a polyphony of opinions. Historians, archaeologists, ethnographers, numismatists, chroniclers and other pundits (and ladies, of course) are trying to create a version of events that does not contradict many facts, which sometimes turns out to be extremely difficult. Agree, in school textbook there is no need to reflect dozens of points of view on the origin of the Slavs, the emergence of the term “Rus” or the origin of Rurik, which are in modern Russian historical science. But scientists have been struggling with these questions for two and a half centuries, and there is still no clear answer.

With the Battle of Kulikovo the situation is approximately the same. From point of view academic subject and abstract ideas of history buffs - everything seems to be known and obvious. But from the point of view of professionals, they are complete mysteries. Let's try to take a closer look at the events of those years and figure out which of the “well-known” facts really have the right to be called that, and which are legendary.

How do we know about the Battle of Kulikovo

First, let's look at what information we have modern science and how reliable they are. Let's start with chronicle sources.

The earliest written source that has reached us is the so-called Brief Chronicle Tale, which, according to experts, was compiled at the very beginning of the 15th century - most likely before 1409. In any case, the Trinity Chronicle, which was destroyed in a fire in 1812 in Moscow, dates back to this time, but has partially come down to us from the extracts of N.M. Karamzin in the notes to his “History of the Russian State”. Almost verbatim texts coinciding with it were preserved in the work of the Rogozhsky chronicler (mid-15th century) and the Simeonovskaya Chronicle (early 16th century), so it can almost certainly be said that they had one primary source. Apparently, this is the closest in time and most accurate description of the events of 1380, on the basis of which later works were already created.

Around the middle of the 15th century, a lengthy chronicle story appeared, which was included in the IV Novgorod and I Sofia chronicles. This chronicle is no longer an information message, but an artistic and journalistic work, the creation of which used reminiscences from the “Life of Alexander Nevsky”, “Readings about Boris and Gleb”, as well as numerous biblical quotes. In the description of the grief of Russian women and in the “cry of Mamai,” the apocryphal “Word on the Nativity of Christ about the coming of the Magi” is used. Here we find for the first time a relatively detailed account of the course of the battle, the dead princes and boyars, and other details. Some name indications are obviously false (the people mentioned could not participate in the events of 1380, since they simply did not live then), which is explained by the desire of some people to create a genealogy for themselves - to involve their ancestors in real historical events.

The two most famous sources are “Zadonshchina” and “The Legend of Mamaev's massacre" - were born at least a hundred years after the events described in them. These are not historical, but rather epic works, which were to become the basis of the new ideology of the newly independent Moscow kingdom, declared the Third Rome and the heir to the great traditions. The historical outline was taken from the already mentioned Long Description, but many inserts, details, listings of previously unknown names, and so on appeared. Perceive “Zadonshchina” and “The Legend” as historical sources it is possible and necessary, but rather how unique monuments literature and political thought of the late 15th - early 16th centuries, rather than as sources of information about events that happened a hundred years earlier.

In addition, it is worth keeping in mind foreign (German, Polish and Horde) references and archaeological data. The latter could give the most accurate picture, but they are very scarce. For quite a few years now, a comprehensive expedition of the State Historical Museum has been working in the Don and Nepryadva region, but only in Lately Relatively bright artifacts began to appear - fragments of armor, arrowheads and spears. The modesty of the finds should not be embarrassing: weapons in those days were of great value, and they were collected immediately after the battle, and mass graves warriors were located (according to written sources) on the high bank of the Don and could go under water if the coastline. In addition, chernozem soils and especially fertilizers applied to them over the years are very aggressive and do not contribute to the preservation of bones and things.

Photo: Yuri Kaver / Russian Look / Globallookpress.com

But recently reports of paleobotanical research have appeared, which have greatly clarified the picture. Scientists have proven that due to climate change, the structure of forests and steppes has changed and it is not worth focusing on the current landscape when reconstructing events. Was compiled regarding accurate map terrain for the end of the 14th century, and the location of the battle is almost certainly determined - a relatively small clearing among the coastal forests. This is a great success, making it possible to more accurately interpret events.

Vigilantes against the "Genoese"

If you believe “Zadonshchina” and “The Legend”, the number of Russian troops reached 300 thousand people. The Extensive Code speaks of approximately 100 thousand. The numbers are impressive, but no doubt grossly overestimated.

If we compare the reliable data we have on the quantitative indicators of medieval armies, it turns out that they never exceeded several tens of thousands, but more often ranged from five to seven thousand people. This also correlates with the population of Rus' at that time. For example, Moscow in the second half of the 14th century hardly had more than fifty thousand inhabitants, and the combat-ready population was, of course, many times smaller.

The army gathered quickly, so there was simply no time to gather and arm the militia from distant villages. Apparently most Dmitry's army consisted of princely squads, boyar detachments and city militia.

Based on various sources, it can be argued that warriors from Moscow, Vladimir, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Molozhsky, Starodubsky, Kashinsky, Smolensky, Novosilsky, Obolensky, Tarussky, possibly Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod and Murom principalities took part in the Battle of Kulikovo their destinies. In addition, there were small personal squads of landless princes, small detachments from Pskov, where Prince Andrei Olgerdovich “sat,” and Novgorod. Never before had Rus' assembled such a large and representative army, but still its number, according to most researchers, did not exceed thirty thousand warriors. In recent years, referring to the size of the battlefield (according to the recent data already mentioned), experts talk about 7-10 thousand soldiers who took part in the battle.

The Tatar army, apparently, was somewhat inferior in number to the Russian one. Although there are Horde sources talking about Dmitry’s double superiority, most likely this is also an exaggeration. But the Russians had some slight advantage. It is worth noting that Mamai’s Temnik (or beklyarbek) actually had very few Tatar-Mongols, and most of his army consisted of mercenary contingents from the peoples inhabiting the Black Sea steppes, North Caucasus and Crimea. Here it makes sense to recall that Mamai, who is sometimes mistakenly called khan, was a separatist renegade in relation to the Golden Horde - at that time he controlled only the steppe regions west of the Volga, the northern Black Sea region and Crimea. Most of the Golden Horde, right up to the northern Azov region, had already been conquered by Khan Tokhtamysh by this time. Unlike Mamai, the latter was a real Genghisid - a descendant of Genghis Khan.

In Mamai’s army there were Yasses, Kosogi, Burtases, Circassians, Polovtsians, and there were also the notorious “Genoese” - mercenaries recruited in Kafe (Feodosia) and Sugdey (Sudak). It is unlikely that among them there were real Italians, of whom there were very few in Crimea - rather, they were a motley port rabble.

Excommunication of Dmitry and Sergius of Radonezh

On the pediment of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow you can see a high relief (the original is in the Donskoy Monastery): Sergius of Radonezh blesses the kneeling Prince Dmitry Ivanovich and his brother Vladimir Andreevich for battle. Behind the elder are the monk warriors Peresvet and Oslyabya. This scene has become so firmly entrenched in the souls and hearts of Russians that its authenticity is beyond doubt. Meanwhile, there is more legendary than real in it. Did Dmitry visit the Trinity-Sergius Lavra on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo? This question is not idle, since the relationship between the Moscow prince and the official church at that time was very tense.

In 1378, Metropolitan Alexy (in the world – Elevfery Fedorovich Byakont), who replaced Dmitry’s early deceased father and actually ruled the country during the prince’s childhood and adolescence, died. Theoretically, in accordance with the patriarch’s letter, the vacated place should have been taken by Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev and Lithuania, who immediately went to Moscow. But Dmitry did not accept the new metropolitan - moreover, Cyprian was robbed, imprisoned, and then expelled in disgrace outside the principality. It is not surprising that after this the offended metropolitan anathematized the prince, about which he sent letters to all dioceses.

Dmitry, meanwhile, sent an embassy to Constantinople headed by a priest close to him, Mikhail-Mityai, whom he asked to ordain as metropolitan. But the young and healthy Mityai unexpectedly died upon arrival in Byzantium. Perhaps not without someone's help. Then the archimandrites who were at the embassy decided to nominate a new candidate from their team, who became Pimen, abbot of the Goritsky Monastery in Pereslavl-Zalessky. Patriarch Nil confirmed him as Metropolitan of Kyiv and Russia, but at the same time Cyprian became Metropolitan of Lithuania and Little Russia, by which time he had already returned to Constantinople to seek protection.

As a result, Cyprian left for Lithuania, and Pimen moved towards Moscow. But as soon as the new metropolitan reached Kolomna, he was captured, chained in iron and exiled to Chukhloma - Dmitry considered him an impostor. It turned out that there is no higher church authority in Moscow, and the prince seems to have been anathematized by a completely legitimate church hierarch. Considering the mentality of the people of that time, this could have created serious problems for Dmitry when gathering troops. The blessing of Sergius of Radonezh as an unconditionally revered spiritual leader would immediately change the picture, although it would require the elder to go against the line of the official church.

And yet, it seems that Dmitry did not meet with St. Sergius before the Battle of Kulikovo. There is no mention of this in early texts; this plot appears only in “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev” and in “The Life of Sergius of Radonezh.” But last monument, originally created by Epiphanius the Wise at the beginning of the 15th century, came to us only in later, so-called Pachomius (written by Pachomius Logothetes) editions, which appeared even later than the “Tales”. Most likely, the beautiful story about Dmitry’s arrival to Sergius migrated to the “Life” from the “Tale”, where it first appeared.

There are many inconsistencies in this story - both chronological and factual. Having analyzed them, most researchers agree that the described visit of the prince and Sergius’ blessing probably happened in reality, but it happened in 1378 - before the battle on the Vozha River, in which Dmitry’s soldiers defeated the detachment of Mamaev’s Murza Begich. Apparently, this was discussed in the original text of Epiphanius, and a hundred years later the plots were intertwined, and the times in the “Tale” were mixed up. Fundamentally, this does not change anything in the relationship between the revered elder and the prince; it only clarifies the situation. In any case, without looking back at his relationship with the Metropolitan, Sergius of Radonezh took upon himself great responsibility and blessed the prince to fight the Tatars. And perhaps he even sent the monks Peresvet and Oslyabya with him, which will be discussed later. By the way, according to other sources it is known that the march to the Don Russian army in Kolomna, blessed by the local Archbishop Gerasim.

(End to follow)

Mamai, embittered by the defeat, organized a raid on the Ryazan principality and again ruined it. The Horde ruler began to prepare a new big campaign, dreaming of repeating the invasion of Batu ( “as it was under Batu”). He sought to restore the power of the Horde over Russia, resume the flow of tribute, and undermine the growing power of Moscow.

Mamai gathered warriors from all over the Horde and hired heavily armed infantrymen from the Italian colonies that then existed in Crimea. With his army, he moved to Rus' and stopped in August 1380 at its borders in the upper reaches of the Don, waiting for the regiments of his ally, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Yagaila Olgerdovich.

Rus' was also preparing. In addition to the Moscow squads, in the army of Dmitry Ivanovich there were regiments from many lands of North-Eastern Rus'; detachments came from Western Russian lands led by the Jogaila brothers. The prince led his army to Kolomna, from there to Lopasna, on the left bank of the Oka, then south of it, to the Don, at the confluence of the Nepryadva River. In the Russian army there were not only “Russian princes”, “voivodes”, boyars, warriors, but "all people", "people", i.e. peasants, townspeople.

The Russians crossed the Don on the night of September 8, 1380. Here, at the mouth of the Nepryadva, on the vast Kulikovo field, hilly, crossed by ravines and river valleys, a bloody battle began in the morning. In the center of the Russian troops there was a large regiment, on the flanks there were regiments of the right and left arm, in front there was an advanced regiment, behind there was a reserve; on the eastern outskirts, in the green oak grove beyond the Smolka River, there is an ambush regiment. Mamai placed infantry in the center and cavalry on the flanks.

According to legend, the signal for the battle was the duel between Peresvet and Chelubey, Russian and Horde heroes who died in the battle. The Horde forces dealt a terrible blow to the advanced regiment, completely destroyed it, but they themselves lost many soldiers. Then the Horde attacked a large regiment and broke through to the banner of the Grand Duke. Bryansk, Vladimir and Suzdal squads came to the rescue. The large regiment held out. “And there was a strong battle, and an evil slaughter, and blood flowed like water, and countless numbers of dead fell from both sides, from the Tatar and Russian. They not only killed with weapons, but also died under horses’ feet; they suffocated from the great cramped conditions, because such a multitude of converging forces could not fit on the Kulikovo field, between the Don and Mecha.”

Artist I. Glazunov. Battle of Peresvet with Chelubey.

The Horde failed to break the Russian right flank. Mamai carried the attack to their left flank. The mounted Horde regiments flew here like a tornado, and the Russians began to slowly retreat. The enemy rushed forward, threw back the reserve regiment, and began to bypass the large regiment.

The critical moment of the battle came, and then, unexpectedly for the Horde soldiers, an ambush regiment led by Prince Vladimir Andreevich and Dmitry Mikhailovich Bobrok entered the battle. At Beaver's call: “The hour has come and the time is drawing near!” Be brave, brothers and friends!”— fresh Russian cavalry, rushing out of the oak grove like a whirlwind, attacked the enemy in the flank and rear. It was so swift and terrible that the Horde, crushed and defeated, was seized by panic. Their cavalry rushed to run, crushing their own infantry, rushing to the Red Hill, where Mamai’s headquarters was located.

Scheme of the Battle of Kulikovo.

Artist Shmarinov. Battle of Kulikovo.

A general flight began. Mamai’s army ceased to exist, and he himself fled to Crimea and died there.

Dmitry Ivanovich's victory over the Golden Horde breathed new strength and hope into the hearts of the Russian people and captured the imagination of his contemporaries and descendants. “Across the Russian land,” exults the author of “Zadonshchina,” a 14th-century story. about the Battle of Kulikovo, joy and courage spread, and Russian glory ascended..." Moscow showed itself to be the political leader of Rus', its prince, nicknamed Donskoy, - leader national importance. The Russian people, inspired by a great goal, struck enormous power those who wanted to repeat the “Batu pogrom.”

True, two years later Tokhtamysh, the new khan, unexpectedly came to Rus', weakened by losses on the Kulikovo field. He approached Moscow, captured and burned the city by deception. Rus' was forced to resume paying tribute to the Horde. However, this could not negate all the results Battle of Kulikovo. The unification of Russian lands continued.

Dmitry Ivanovich did a lot for Rus'. From boyhood until the end of his days, he was constantly on campaigns, worries, and troubles. He had to fight the Horde, Lithuania, and Russian rivals. The prince also settled church affairs - he tried, although unsuccessfully, to make his protege priest Mityai (Mikhail) metropolitan.

A life full of worries and worries did not last long for the prince; he lived for less than four decades. But, finishing his short earthly journey, he left behind a much stronger Rus' and covenants for the future. Dying, he transferred, without asking the consent of Khan Tokhtamysh, to his son Vasily (1389-1425) the great reign of Vladimir as his patrimony and expressed the hope that "God will change the Horde", i.e., will free Rus' from the yoke.

Chronicle story about the massacre on the Don

...The Grand Duke came to the Don River two days before the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God... They came to the Don, stood here and thought a lot. Some said: “Go, prince, beyond the Don,” and others said: “Don’t go, because our enemies have multiplied, not only the Tatars, but also Lithuania and Ryazan people”... (Dmitry) told his brother to all the princes and governors great: “The time has come, brothers, for our battle...” And he ordered bridges to be paved and fords to be inquired that night. The next day, early on Saturday, September 8, on the very holiday, at sunrise there was great darkness throughout the whole earth, haze, there was no light from the morning until the third hour... The great prince prepared his great regiments, and all his the Russian princes prepared their regiments, and his great commanders dressed in festive clothes, and mortal accidents were destroyed... When the prince crossed the Don into an open field, into the Mamaev land, at the mouth of the Nepryadva, the Lord God alone led him...

And it was at six o’clock in the afternoon, the filthy ones began to appear... And then the Tatar regiments prepared against the Christians, and the regiments met; and, seeing the great forces, they went, and the earth hummed, the mountains and hills shook from the multitude of countless warriors... When they fought from the sixth hour to the ninth, the blood of both - Russian sons and filthy ones - spilled out like a rain cloud... And Mamai , trembling in fear and groaning heavily, said: “Great is the Christian God and great is his power...” And he himself took flight and quickly ran back to the horde... And they drove them to the Swords River...

September 21 is the Day of Military Glory of Russia - the Day of the victory of Russian regiments led by Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy over the Mongol-Tatar troops in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. Historians are unanimous in their opinion when they talk about the Battle of Kulikovo: on that windy autumn day along the banks of the Nepryadva River, the future of the Russian land was decided. Grief and patience, the thirst for liberation from the yoke, strength, will and faith came together at one point. In one place they coincided in their aspirations greatest people of their time: active, wise, far-sighted, strong-willed monks and warriors. Venerable Sergius, abbot of Radonezh, and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, nicknamed Donskoy after the battle, their predecessors, Metropolitans of Moscow and All Rus' Peter and Alexy, who raised Prince Dmitry, as well as hundreds of thousands of nameless Russian soldiers - these are the winners.

The military feat also became a spiritual feat, a sacred feat. As a catalyst, he launched powerful processes that contributed to the unification of disparate lands into a single state. No, the Battle of Kulikovo was not the final victory over the Tatar-Mongols. The yoke was thrown off only a hundred years later. However, it was the Battle of Kulikovo that dispelled the myth of the invincibility of the Golden Horde, gave hope and gave birth to heroes.

XVI-XVII century: hagiographic icon

The Battle of Kulikovo has remained in the field of attention of artists for many centuries. And if in the XVI-XVII centuries we're talking about about rare and canonical images within the framework of chronicle lists and hagiographic stamps on icons, then three centuries later, with the development of interest in history and historical picture, – the plot of the Battle of Kulikovo becomes one of the central themes of the historical genre.

The historical genre in painting has always been ideological. But this has never stopped artists from making their work a conceptual statement and a personal experience.

In 1959, restorers uncovered one of the icons of the Yaroslavl school. Under the dark layer of drying oil and the upper notes, a so-called allotment (that is, an addition to the icon) with a plot about the “Mamaev’s Massacre” was discovered. Apparently, the allotment was made in the eighties of the 17th century.

In the center of the composition is the legendary duel between Peresvet and Chelubey, on the right is the army of Dmitry Donskoy, ready for battle, on the left is Mamai’s camp. The lowest part of the composition depicts the meeting of the victors and the burial of soldiers who died for their friends. The icon is in the collection of the Yaroslavl Art Museum.

First half of the 19th century: “To raise famous ancestors from the grave”

The development of art, the vector of its movement directly depends on the environment and society, time and its fashion. Military turmoil early XIX century, Napoleon's victorious march across Europe, the War of 1812 - these events in one way or another affected almost all spheres of Russian life and determined a surge of interest not only in the present, but also in the heroic past of the country.

Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State,” published in 1818, literally exploded public opinion and became the subject of heated salon discussions for a long time. Karamzin also penned the article “On incidents and characters in Russian history that can be the subject of fiction.” With this article, the historian set the bar and identified a topical topic in art:

“The idea of ​​giving artists objects from national history worthy of your patriotism and is the best way to revive for us its great characters and cases, especially while we still do not have eloquent historians who could raise our famous ancestors from the grave and reveal their shadows in a radiant crown of glory... Russians must be taught to respect their own; must show that it can be the subject of the artist’s inspiration and the powerful effects of art on the heart. Not only the historian and poet, but also the painter and sculptor are organs of patriotism...

We have come closer in our historical memories to the disastrous times of Russia; and if the painter puts down his brush, then the sculptor will take up his chisel in order to preserve the memory of Russian heroism in misfortunes, which most of all reveal strength in the character of people and nations. The shadows of our ancestors, who wanted to die rather than accept chains from the Mongol barbarians, await monuments of our gratitude in a place stained with their blood. Can art and marble find a better use?”

But long before Karamzin’s article, the professors of the Academy of Arts offered graduates the topic “Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field” as an examination test, and the program clearly stipulated how the prince should be depicted: “ Imagine the Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, when, following the victory over Mamai, the remaining Russian Princes and other warriors find him in the grove at his last breath, blood was still flowing from his wounds: but the joyful news of the complete defeat of the Tatars revives the dying Grand Duke».

One such academic work is the painting Orest Kiprensky, written by him in 1805 and entitled “Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field.” The work of Vasily Sazonov, created twenty years later, in 1824, has the same name.

Orest Kiprensky. Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field

The best works of the Italian and Flemish schools of painting were guidelines for the young Orest Kiprensky, who took up the development of the plot final exam at the Academy of Arts. This is probably why in his painting the heroic defender of the fatherland, Prince Dmitry Donskoy, least of all resembles the Russian prince as we are accustomed to imagining him. The lack of national flavor did not bother the author at all, nor did it surprise the examiners.

« The Grand Duke's head is full of expression. And the joy of the victory, he is animated, coupled with gratitude to the Almighty, is vividly depicted in his languid gaze directed to heaven. This work is the first experience of this work young artist, giving great hope about himself“, said the review of the work of the future first Russian portrait painter. On September 1, 1805, Kiprensky was awarded a large gold medal for the painting. Now the work is in the collection of the Russian Museum (St. Petersburg).

Vasily Sazonov. "Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field"

Serf of Count Nikolai Rumyantsev Vasily Sazonov was assigned by his patron in 1804 to study at the Academy of Arts. The young painter's successes in the field of drawing were so outstanding that the count gave the serf his freedom. A brilliant graduate of the Academy, Sazonov, with the support of the count, continued his studies in Italy, where he made copies of works by Caravaggio and Titian.

Returning to Russia, the artist turned to educational topic Academy of Arts and painted the painting “Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo Field”. Sazonov depicted the wounded prince surrounded by soldiers. In front of him are kneeling Cossacks and a man in armor and a royal robe. Apparently, this is the boyar Mikhail Brenok, with whom the prince exchanged clothes and horses at the very beginning of the battle. For this painting, as well as copies made in Italy, Sazonov was awarded the title of academician in 1830. The painting is in the collection of the State Russian Museum in St. Petersburg.

Second half of the 19th century: unattainable historical authenticity

TO mid-19th century, the history of the Battle of Kulikovo disappears from the field of view of artists, giving way to contemporary subjects. And even the attempts of Nicholas I to turn Winter Palace, having survived a terrible fire in December 1837, in the “New Vatican”, remained unrealized. They died in that fire unique interiors, executed by Rastrelli, Montferrand, Quarenghi, and paintings describing key events in Russian history were lost. The new cycle of paintings from Russian history did not work out, but the official request did not go unnoticed by the academic community.

In 1850, by order of Nicholas I, a French battle painter Yvon Adolphe in Paris he painted the monumental canvas “The Battle of the Kulikovo Field”. It was originally planned that the painting would decorate the interiors of the lower corridor of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, conceived as a temple-monument to the heroes of the War of 1812. However, plans have changed. Today the work adorns the flight of stairs (anteroom) leading to the St. George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace.

In the 1870s, the “Battle of Kulikovo” was included as a theme in the interior design program of the Historical Museum. One of the panels was ordered Valentin Serov, whose historical consultant was Ivan Zabelin. Zabelin was not only the head of the Historical Museum, but also one of the most authoritative experts on the history of Ancient Rus'. On the walls of the museum he wanted to see folk epic, which will not leave the viewer indifferent and will make you feel the connection of times.

But neither Serov, nor Sergei Malyutin, who after Serov was entrusted with making the panel, nor Sergei Korovin, completed the work. Too many contradictions arose between customers and performers. Not a single painter has been able to satisfy all the demands of scientists. The frame in which the panel was planned to be placed was empty until 1950, when a neutral landscape with views of Moscow was placed in it.

Valentin Serov. After the Battle of Kulikovo, sketch

Serov worked hard on a sketch for the panel. In 1894, he visited the Kulikovo field and worked on the composition in detail. Hundreds of sketches and eight sketches have survived, some of which were done in oil. The work was regularly discussed at meetings of the Academic Council of the Historical Museum, and was changed compositionally and even artistically at Zabelin’s insistent demands.

At first, Serov obediently followed the instructions, but in 1898, after the next meeting, he refused to continue working on the sketch and returned the money given to him Historical Museum in payment for the painting. Numerous sketches are kept in collections today Tretyakov Gallery and the Historical Museum.

A little earlier, a native of the Ufa merchants addressed the topic of the events of the Battle of Kulikovo Mikhail Nesterov. However, the graduate of the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture was interested not only in the battle side of the events of 1380.

Nesterov was the artist who was one of the first to turn to the theme of the country’s religious identity and made the hero of the painting a holy hermit. The Trinity Lavra of Sergius, next to which the artist settled (he was visiting the Mamontovs’ estate in Abramtsevo), became firmly entrenched in his life. Here he drew inspiration and strength.

The first work on the image of the saint was the painting “Vision to the Youth Bartholomew” (1889-90). The work was bought by Tretyakov, was a success, but was assessed ambiguously by the public. But Nesterov himself was confirmed in his desire to write the “life” of the great ascetic of the Russian land, especially since in 1892 Russia was supposed to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Dormition of St. Sergius, abbot of Radonezh. This is how “The Youth of St. Sergius” (1892), the triptych “The Works of St. Sergius” (1896-97) and “St. Sergius of Radonezh” (1899) appear.

With each new job the image of the saint became more expressive, more monumental and deeper. Nesterov could not ignore the meeting of Prince Dmitry with the Monk Sergius.

The young Prince Dmitry went to defend the entire Russian land, and not just his personal inheritance. He firmly believed in God’s help: and when in front of the Don Icon Mother of God read “God is our refuge and strength,” and when he came to take the elder’s blessing to enter into battle with the atheists.

For Nesterov, the key theme was the tension of that moment when the monk blesses the kneeling prince. However, the sketch “Sergius of Radonezh’s Blessing of Dmitry Donskoy for the Battle of Kulikovo” was never completed by Nesterov. He was not satisfied with his sketches and wrote about them to Elizaveta Mamontova: “... the theme had long been outlined by me for a series of paintings on the history of the Radonezh miracle worker, but all the sketches that I did were not more interesting than any programs..." In 1897, "The Youth of the Venerable", "The Works of the Venerable" and the watercolor "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh blesses Dmitry Donskoy for the battle with the Tatars" were donated by the artist to the city gallery of the Tretyakov brothers.

20th century: the main character is the people

During the most difficult and difficult years of the Second World War, the ideological machine began to work. All forces were mobilized, including fine art, whose goal was to support the spirit of the people through the resurrection of people's memory, through examples of valiant victories over the aggressor. Alexander Bubnov writes his famous “Morning on the Kulikovo Field” (1943-47), and battle painter Mikhail Avilov creates “The Duel on the Kulikovo Field” (1943).

Alexander Bubnov Graduated from the Higher Art and Technical Institute. Fascinated by the work of the Peredvizhniki artists and Russian realism, he focused on historical genre. A young romantic, Bubnov at the beginning of his creative career sinned with excessive idealization of Soviet reality. But it was during the Great Patriotic War, working on propaganda posters and leaflets, that he seriously turned to the historical genre.

In 1943, Bubnov was working on his programmatic work “Morning on the Kulikovo Field”. The artist came up with the idea for “Morning” back in 1938. Initially, the theme of his painting was the history of the battle on Lake Peipsi, however, turning to documents and seriously immersing yourself in historical literature convinced Bubnov to write the Battle of Kulikovo.

A year and a half of work on sketches, the search for images and plastic solutions, long and careful elaboration of details, excluding even a hint of the characters being fake, allowed the artist to create a characteristic canvas. The film not only contains historical truth, it also conveys an epic scope and message: the main hero of any battle is the people.

For the painting “Morning on the Kulikovo Field” in 1948, Bubnov was awarded the USSR State Prize. His painting, reproductions of which were included in history textbooks, is in the collection of the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow.

Mikhail Avilov. Duel between Peresvet and Chelubey

Graduate of the battle workshop of the Academy of Arts, participant in the First World War and civil war, Mikhail Avilov in his works he demonstrates not only the skill of the painter, he amazes with the convincingness of his depiction of battle scenes.

Avilov addressed the topic of the duel between the heroic monk Alexander Peresvet and the Tatar murza Chelubey back in 1917. But then the picture did not work out and was even destroyed by the author.

In 1942, having arrived in Moscow from evacuation, the artist received a large studio, which allowed him to return to the theme of the Battle of Kulikovo. “Dmitry Donskoy with Sergius of Radonezh”, “Dmitry Donskoy decides to cross the Don”, “Battle of Kulikovo”, “Flight of Mamai” - four large sketches were created by Avilov, but only one of them - the confrontation between the Russian knight and the Tatar hero - became a finished work , included in the annals of the world visual arts. In 1946, Avilov was awarded for the painting “Duel of Peresvet with Chelubey on the Kulikovo Field” Stalin Prize first degree. Currently, the painting is in the collection of the State Russian Museum in St. Petersburg.

1980: new wave of interest

The 80s of the 20th century became the next period and a new wave of interest in the topic of the Battle of Kulikovo: in 1980, the country celebrated the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo. The cycle “Kulikovo Field” by Ilya Glazunov and the triptych “Kulikovo Field” by Yuri Raksha were dedicated to this anniversary, and filmed at the Mosfilm studio by director Roman Davydov cartoon"Swans of the Unscrupulous."

Ilya Glazunov. Cycle “Kulikovo Field”. Dmitry Donskoy. 1980

Ilya Glazunov. Cycle “Kulikovo Field”. Eve. 1978

Leningrader, blockade survivor, Ilya Glazunov, like many, lost his parents in that terrible war. After the evacuation, he returned to Leningrad and graduated from the I. E. Repin Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. Studying historical literature, chronicles, and lives, Glazunov devoted twenty years of his life to working on the “Kulikovo Field” cycle, which included thirty paintings. In the sixties, the first paintings appeared: “The Messenger”, “Storm of the City”, “Khan Mamai”, and the public’s acquaintance with the cycle was timed to coincide with the grand anniversary, the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo.

In 1980, Glazunov was awarded the title folk artist THE USSR. Speaking about his cycle, Glazunov explains that he sought “to convey only the authenticity of life, the truth of what is happening, so that once again our contemporary would touch the great past of the Motherland, with new strength I would feel the inextricable connection of times, the connection of generations, my involvement in the events of bygone eras.”

Yuri Raksha. Triptych “Kulikovo Field”. 1980.
Left part – “Blessing for battle”

Yuri Raksha Since childhood, I have been interested not only in drawing, but also in history. He graduated from the Surikov Art School and VGIK with a silver medal, worked at Mosfilm, participated in the filming of a dozen films and never gave up painting. Every New film gave birth to an idea for a future canvas. This was the case with the painting “The Ascension” based on the novel by V. Bykov. “Without the scene of the execution of the main character Sotnikov,” Raksha recalled, “I would not have decided on the bulk of Kulikovo Field.”

He began working on the painting in 1879 and even then realized that it would become his main and last creation. In November, doctors made a terrible diagnosis - leukemia, and promised “a month at most.” The artist’s wife recalls how Yuri worked until exhaustion, courageously fought death and tried to hide his physical torment. “He was in a hurry,” recalled Irina Raksha, “he held on to his wrist like a life preserver, and then he said that everyone should have their own Kulikovo field.”

Yuri Raksha. Triptych “Kulikovo Field”. The central part is “Anticipation”

Raksha loved Nesterov’s works and was guided by them in his plan, but his compositional solution was still different, cinematic. Three scenes of action, scattered over time, are given simultaneously. This author’s discovery, which has iconographic origins, allows the viewer to perceive the events sequentially. “Blessing for the battle”, “Seeing off the militia” and the key center “Imminence” - give rise to the state of the people’s spirit. The spiritual feat is accomplished right here and now, when the holy hermit and prayer book, mothers, sisters and wives stand side by side, among whom are the humble and courageous Evdokia and the soldiers peering into the distance, to where the enemy is encamped.

Yuri Raksha. Triptych “Kulikovo Field”. Right side – “Seeing off the militia”

Raksha wrote about his painting: “Why did the Kulikovo field remain for centuries? Yes, because the idea and faith in Russian statehood were affirmed here. Rus' believed in itself. Rus' has become Russia... as before, the main thing should be in the faces, in the eyes, and I highlight them, and therefore there is less costume and entourage. The landscape is very important. A single horizon for all parts unites Moscow, the Trinity Monastery, and the Kulikovo field. Unites into one whole, and all this is the Motherland. Our blessed Motherland, which must be defended».

Communication with famous painting Mikhail Avilov's "Battle of the Kulikovo Field" provides an amazing opportunity to an amusing trip V Ancient Rus' and feel involved in tragic and great events.

Brief description of Avilov's painting "Duel on the Kulikovo Field"

On the bank of the river there is a wide field, part of which is still covered with grass, part of which is burned out or trampled down. Along the blue ribbon of the river on the bank, the Russian army lined up in full combat gear, ready for battle. On the other side of the picture, as an antithesis - just as numerous and ready to rush into battle at any moment - is the Horde army. In the center on foreground Two horse riders came together in a duel: a Russian knight on a black horse and a Tatar-Mongol warrior on a bay horse. They are depicted at the moment when they knock each other off their heated horses with spears. Above the fighting warriors frozen in combat readiness, the sky swirls with clouds: on the Horde side it is bright blue, on the Russian side, as a threat to enemies, it is yellow-gray, restless.

Rus' and the Horde after Genghis Khan and Batu

In the mid-14th century, after the death of Khan Batu, about 25 rulers changed on the Horde throne, and the Horde was torn apart by strife, as a result of which the state split into two parts: western and eastern. The eastern part of the Golden Horde was led by the descendant of Genghis Khan, Khan Tokhtamysh. And in the western part, power was seized by the treacherous military leader Mamai, who seized the throne by cunning and deceit. Having pacified the strife by force for a while, he decided to regain his former power over Russia. The Arab Shah, sent by him to the Nizhny Novgorod principality, inflicted a severe defeat on the united Russian army, which was led by the Moscow prince Dmitry Bobrok of Volyn. This was followed by a battle between Russian and Horde troops on the Vozha River. The Russian army in this battle was commanded by the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy. And the Horde army is Mamai himself. This time, luck was with the Russians, and the defeated Mamai harbored the thought of revenge in his soul. The possibility and outcome of such a revenge is in the description of the painting “Duel on the Kulikovo Field” presented in the article.

The Great Controversy

A brief description of the painting “Duel on the Kulikovo Field” presents a composition that repeats the formation of troops before the Battle of Kulikovo. On the eve of September 8, 1380, at the confluence of the Nepryadva River and the Don, two huge armies led by Dmitry Ivanovich and Mamai gathered in confrontation.The basis of the Russian army were Muscovites. Under the leadership of the Moscow prince, warriors from almost all Russian principalities united.The peoples of the Volga region and the Caucasus, subordinate to the Horde, as well as the Lithuanian and Ryazan principalities, gathered under the Horde command.

It was this moment that the author depicted on his canvas. On the Kulikovo field, Horde and Russian troops lined up in combat readiness on the left and right. Russian squads are deployed in accordance with historical information near the bank of the Don, which they had just crossed. The soldiers standing in the front rows hold banners with the face of Jesus Christ in their hands as a sign of blessing and God's support.

In order to avoid the inevitable rivers of blood, according to legend, it was decided to determine the outcome of the battle by a duel between two mighty heroes. From the Horde they became Chelubey, and from the Russians - the warrior-monk Peresvet, sent with the army of Dmitry Ivanovich by the founder of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Sergius of Radonezh. It is Peresvet and Chelubey who are the main characters of the canvas. Let's return to the description of the painting "Duel on the Kulikovo Field". They occupy the center of the canvas and, according to the iconic hierarchy, seem much larger than other warriors, which does not correspond to the possible distance between the fighters and their army.

The truth about Peresvet and the image of the Russian hero

Peresvet is a figure that is both real and legendary. Many people consider Peresvet a hero of folk epics, a fictional character, collectively ancient Russian hero. In fact, the warrior glorified in folk art was a very real person. Little is known about his fate. He came from a noble boyar family Bryansk Principality. Alexander Peresvet’s adolescence and youth were spent in labors and prayers, as well as in military training, so that he could stand up for the defense of the Fatherland at any moment. Further, his fate was connected with the defense native land- He devoted a lot of energy to military work, serving in the princely army.

Later, together with his probably cousin Andrei, nicknamed Oslyabya, also from a Bryansk boyar family, he became a monk. According to legend, he was tonsured at the Rostov Boris and Gleb Monastery. Then they moved to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery near Moscow, but how exactly they got there is unknown.

By 1380, these were already middle-aged monks, known to many as brave and invincible knights, mighty Russian heroes. Before leaving for battle, blessed by Sergius of Radonezh, Peresvet performed a prayer in the chapel of St. Dmitry of Thessalonica - patron of the Russian army.

According to surviving descriptions from the Nikon Chronicle, during the duel Alexander Peresvet was dressed in a monastic robe given to him by Sergius of Radonezh. The robe was covered on all sides with images of the cross. The hero was wearing a helmet on his head, and on top of it was a kukol (a headdress of monks covering the head, neck and even shoulders). The only weapon Peresvet had was a spear. Whether he had a horse is not mentioned anywhere.

According to various sources, the outcome of the fight was the serious injury or death of the monk. However, along with all the fallen, he was not buried on the field - he was transported and buried in the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in the Simonovsky Monastery.

As for the artistic image of Peresvet created by Avilov, ideologically the hero is an example of courage and courage, an ideal guide for instilling in those contemplating the canvas pride in their Motherland and its defenders, patriotism and interest in history. But for those who are not only interested, but also compare the facts, it will become obvious that Peresvet Avilova is still quite young. His clothes are more like those of a warrior: a cone helmet, chain mail, and a shield. There is no talk of any monastic vestments with crosses or dolls. So, despite all the plausibility of the image of Alexander Peresvet, the historical truth in the film is clearly violated.

The riddle of Chelubey and the artistic image of a warrior

As for the image of Chelubey, or, as history also knows him, Timir-Murza or Tavrul, Mamai’s favorite warrior, the chronicles have preserved mention of him as a formidable and invincible warrior. In addition, he was considered immortal. Chelubey fought three hundred fights and emerged victorious in all of them. Such luck seems mythological. However, the mystery of the vitality and invincibility of the Horde warrior could now be explained.

Chelubey was a Tibetan monk who mastered the practice of Bon-po combat magic. The art of this fight lies in the mastery of magic spells to summon demon spirits and the ability to use them during battle, calling them to one’s aid. At the same time, the initiated “immortal” actually sells his soul to dark forces, and no one can defeat him. However, such a person voluntarily condemns his soul after death to remain in the kingdom of demons. Only a warrior endowed with power from God can defeat a “possessed” one. That is exactly what the Russian knight-monk Peresvet was.

The image of Chelubey in Avilov’s film is very believable, but is clearly inferior in power to the Russian hero. If you carefully examine the equipment of a Horde warrior and compare it with known facts, it turns out that the Horde usually dressed in a quilted, lined caftan. Underneath he wore a armor reaching to the knees with iron shoulder pads and gloves. And under the armor - a leather jacket with iron hoops fastened from elbow to wrist on narrow sleeves. They put soft leather boots on their feet, upholstered with metal plates, one of which, apparently the heel plate, had a sharp spike. On the head is a round helmet with a nosepiece and a chain mail mesh that covers the shoulders and neck. The crown of the helmet was decorated with two tufts of hair. Weapons usually used were curved sabers, bows, spears, and daggers.

In Avilov’s painting, Chelubey ignores tradition: he is dressed in an ordinary robe made of thin fabric, too richly decorated for a monk. What is worn under the robe is not visible. On his feet are pants and boots that reach mid-calf, with a metal “patch” visible on the back. Neither the plating of iron plates nor the tenon on the “patch” are visible. Chelubey’s head is covered with an expensive hat with a fur trim, not at all similar to a helmet. She doesn't even have two tufts of hair on top of her head. In addition, the character has a shield for protection. While maintaining obvious plausibility, this image in the canvas is historically unreliable. Even if we take Chelubey’s “immortality” into account, it is unlikely that a warrior, understanding the importance and complexity of the moment, will take such risks.

The duel between Good and Evil

The painting “The Duel of Peresvet with Chelubey” was painted by Avilov during the difficult years for the country - the Great Patriotic War.

The author's idea, which had been incubating for about 25 years, was realized in just six months. Did the author want to legendary images Whether to allegorically reflect the events of his time or not is unknown, but it happened that way. If we consider the picture from the point of view of the eternal struggle in the world of Good and Evil in the image of Peresvet and Chelubey, then why not imagine Good Soviet Union and his army, which came to the death in battle with fascist Germany, Hitler’s army - the personification of Evil.

So Avilov’s painting “The Duel on the Kulikovo Field” will always be relevant and can be considered from the point of view of embodying the idea of ​​​​unity of the Russian people against enemies, and the image of Peresvet - as a guideline for imitation in love for the Motherland, readiness to give one’s life for one’s native land.

There are many glorious pages in Russian history! We can talk about them endlessly. One of them is the story of a battle between two warriors that took place before the famous and tragic Battle of Kulikovo.

The duel is a special battle. Literary, musical, and artistic works were dedicated to this battle.

Today we will consider one of the artistic canvases, belonging to the brush of the remarkable realist artist M. I. Avilov.

History of the creation of the work

The full reads as follows: “Duel of Peresvet with Chelubey on the Kulikovo Field.” The picture was painted by the author in the difficult year of 1943, when the fate of our country was decided at Stalingrad. It was in that battle that the Russians won, which determined the outcome of the terrible war in 20th century.

In the picture we see a similar situation: two horsemen are engaged in mortal combat, their spears pierce each other, their horses rear up, both warriors are full of rage, but it is still unknown which of them will be the winner.

The Russian chronicle, describing in detail the plot of the battle, ultimately speaks of the victory of Peresvet, because he, mortally wounded, was brought back to the Russian troops by his horse, while Chelubey died, falling out of the saddle, knocked out by a powerful blow from his opponent.

The plot of the work

The duel on the Kulikovo Field is depicted by the artist as a dramatic clash of two forces: Russian and Tatar.

The composition of the work is extremely clear. In the center of the canvas are two figures of warriors sitting on horses. The warriors' faces are facing each other, while Chelubey's face is hidden by a thick beard, and the audience does not see him. The face opposite is visible looking at the picture.

It is clear that the Russian hero is experiencing severe physical and mental stress, all his strength is concentrated on defeating his enemy.

The characters are dressed differently. Chelubey is dressed in rich robes. Even his horse's blanket is made of red material with gold embroidery. On the head of the Tatar warrior is a helmet-turban trimmed with fur. His shield is painted with expensive script.

The Russian warrior is dressed in simple chain mail, on his head is an iron helmet, and on his horse is ordinary harness. It is clear that the Russian hero is not used to showing off his appearance.

Avilov: the duel on the Kulikovo field as a reflection of the meaning of Russian history

The fight on the Kulikovo field is most important event in the history of our country. After all, this was one of the first major battles when the Russians, after a century-long yoke of the Golden Horde, decided to defend their independence in a terrible battle with the enemy. And this marked the beginning of the process of unifying Russian lands around the Moscow Principality, which helped make the Russian state stronger.

Turning to the events of distant history, the artist seems to instill hope in his compatriots that in 1945 our country will not face defeat, but a future victory over the terrible evil of the 20th century - fascism. Russian warriors will always defend their Motherland, they will never bend in the face of the enemy. This example is shown to us by the Russian hero - Alexander Peresvet, and those warriors who stand behind him.

By the way, the Russian troops in the picture are depicted using modest gray colors, the faces of the soldiers are turned to the fighting Peresvet and his rival. Russians are focused, they are not afraid of death, but they believe in their victory. The Tatar troops are diverse and unsure of themselves, they are not fighting for their Motherland, but for their future booty, which they can get by once again plundering Russian lands.

Symbolic meaning of the work

The duel on the Kulikovo field and the subsequent victory of Russian troops over the Tatars marked the turn of Russian history from the era of feudal split to the gathering of lands. The same thing, according to the artist, will happen when Russian troops enter Berlin and show the whole world what a Russian victory means.

The artist anticipates the events of the future, he instills hope in his viewers that our country cannot be broken by any military force, because the strength of Russia lies in its people, in its defenders, who are ready to sacrifice themselves, but not give up their native land for desecration.

That is why the painting “The Duel of Peresvet with Chelubey on the Kulikovo Field” is so loved by viewers of many generations. After all, the very history of our country was embodied in it.

Thus, Avilova, kept today in the Russian Museum, represents both a talented illustration of Russian history and a prophetic foresight of the outcome of the great war of liberation that our country waged.