Historian Igor Danilevsky on the relationship between Alexander Nevsky and the Golden Horde, the struggle for power between the Genghisides and the special role of the Battle of Neva

How did the internal political struggle between the Genghisides affect the redistribution of power in Russia? Why did Alexander Nevsky actively contribute to the entry of the northwestern Russian lands into the Ulus of Jochi? What role did the Battle of Neva play in the confrontation between Novgorod and Sweden? Doctor of Historical Sciences Igor Danilevsky answers these and other questions.

Alexander Nevsky is probably the most popular of the princes of Ancient Russia. If you believe the results of the television project with the terrible name "Name of Russia", this is the most popular figure in our history in general.

Alexander Nevsky is a controversial, ambiguous figure, and at the same time incredibly popular. This is probably due to the fact that, as you know, cinema is the most important of all the arts, it is this image of Alexander Nevsky that has become entrenched in the mass consciousness of Russian citizens. Indeed, the brilliant film by Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein created the image of an ideal prince, a winner over those forces that threaten Russia, close to the people, kind and at the same time quite tough - an ideal prince. But, true, it was only with Eisenstein that he was like that. Contemporaries assessed the activities of Alexander in a slightly different way.

By the way, he received the nickname Nevsky rather late. Only in the XIV century is he mentioned for the first time with this nickname, and at the same time his sons are mentioned with the same nickname. That is, the nickname was given to him clearly not in connection with the very Neva battle, which everyone remembers, since they once took a course in national history at school. Alexander was then only 18 years old, and therefore his children clearly could not take part in this battle. We are talking about something else - these are some of Alexander's possessions in the Neva region, most likely, although this is also one of the questions.

The story of Alexander itself is rather curious. He received the princely throne already at the time when Russia became part of the Ulus of Jochi after the Mongol invasion. And this receipt of a label for reigning was fraught with a number of difficulties. The first Russian prince who received a label for a great reign from the hands of Batu was Alexander's father, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. And here, too, some incomprehensible things begin, because the same Yaroslav was summoned to Karakorum, where he, apparently, was poisoned, we have evidence, say, Plano Carpini is a Catholic missionary who was in Karakorum, who if he himself did not see, then, in any case, he heard about what happened to Yaroslav.

After that, Alexander, along with his brother Andrei, were immediately summoned to Karakorum. True, they did not go immediately, and it is clear why: the same Plano Carpini wrote that everyone said that they were called in order to kill, although it is not clear why they had to go so far to kill, it was possible on the spot as -something to solve this problem. But nevertheless, the brothers arrived in Karakorum, and there Andrei, the younger brother, receives a label for a great reign, and Alexander - a label for Kyiv and the entire Russian land - a rather strange distribution. But Kyiv at that time was in a deplorable state: even before the invasion, two campaigns of absolutely colossal united troops, which Andrei Bogolyubsky organized, ravaged Kyiv, and in 1240 Kyiv was still captured by the Mongols, and there were about 200 courtyards left, that is, its and by and large it is already difficult to call a city.

Therefore, Alexander did not go to Kyiv, but to Novgorod. But only 4 years have passed, and in 1252 he was summoned to the headquarters of Batu, who at that time manages just the very Ulus of Jochi, and there from the hands of Batu he receives a label for the great reign of Vladimir, although his brother is sitting in Vladimir at that time Andrei, who also has a label for a great reign on behalf of the great khan. Batu sends together with Alexander a large detachment under the command of Nevruy. Alexander asked for this, Alexander did not ask for this - disputes can continue indefinitely.

Most importantly, Vladimir was taken, Andrei fled, and Alexander became the Grand Duke of Vladimir.

And a new phase begins in his reign, when in 1256 he suppresses an uprising in Novgorod against the Horde clerics, and he cracks down on the Novgorodians very cruelly: he cut off the noses of one, gouged out the eyes of the other, after which the census was carried out. That is, in fact, Alexander is making very serious efforts to ensure that the northwestern Russian lands, to which the hordes of Batu did not reach, become part of the Ulus of Jochi and begin to pay tribute.

Here, of course, a certain contradiction arises between our consciousness and what the chronicler knew about Alexander. There is a period of relative calm. It all ends with Alexander once again going to the Horde headquarters, wishing, as the chroniclers write, to pray away from a big misfortune, from the participation of ancient Russian squads in the Mongol campaigns. I must say that before that they took part in such campaigns and after that they will take part, and this, in general, was an action that, on the one hand, seemed to be really a disaster, but, on the other hand, brought certain income to those princes and those warriors who took part in these campaigns.

Returning from the Horde, Alexander fell ill and died in Gorodets.

Two battles bring the main glory to Alexander - the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of the Ice. Battles, I must say, are not as global as we sometimes imagine them. Much more important is Alexander's struggle with the Lithuanian danger, because at that time the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was formed and mutual raids were made on the northwestern lands and from the northwestern lands. It was a much more serious thing. But it is customary for us to say that Alexander allegedly made a historic choice: on the one hand, he fought against crusader aggression, and on the other hand, he established relations with the Horde. I must say that it is difficult to talk about choice here, in my opinion, because, on the one hand, it is not Alexander who chooses between these two forces - he is chosen in the Horde, and Batu chooses him.

The fact is that behind all these transfers of labels to great reigns there is an internal political struggle between the Genghisides. While still on a campaign to the west, Batu quarreled with his cousin Guyuk, the son of the great Khan Ugedei, and Ugedei summoned Guyuk to Inner Mongolia, there he slandered his son, was even going to execute him, then decided to send Batu for reprisal and suddenly died. Plano Carpini said that his aunt Guyuk poisoned him. Batu, having learned about the death of Ogedei, did not go to Inner Mongolia, because he had well-established intelligence, he apparently understood who would become the new great khan. An amazing election campaign was carried out, as a result of which - organized by Khansha Turakina, Guyuk's mother - Guyuk becomes a great khan. And when Batu gives a label for the great reign to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, by doing this he violates the rule: he could only give a letter of administration, the labels are issued by the great khan. That is precisely why Yaroslav was summoned to Karakorum and killed there. But then the sons of Yaroslav are summoned to Karakorum to give them the right labels. And when they go, Guyuk is no longer there - Guyuk went to sort things out with Batu, but died on the way. And at that time, Ogul-Gaymysh, Guyuk's widow, who gives labels to the great reign of Andrei and the reign of Kyiv and the Russian land to Alexander, rules.

But at this time, Batu begins an amazing intrigue with his cousin Menke in order to replace Ogul-Gaymysh - she will be accused of treason, of conspiracy and executed as a sorceress, as a criminal. And Batu actually gives the throne of the Great Khan to his cousin Menke, on the condition that Batu himself will have a certain autonomy. It was then, in 1252, that he gave a label to the great reign of Alexander, that is, all this was backed by his own political showdown within the Mongol Empire. The fact that Batu favors Alexander is for sure. I must say that all these vicissitudes associated with the redistribution of power in Russia, with the transfer of labels - these are all interesting stories, but they, as a rule, remain on the sidelines.

Alexander is credited with two very serious victories, on which, in fact, all the attention is concentrated both in textbooks and in monographs - this is the battle on the Neva and the Battle of the Ice. Paradoxically, up to a certain point, or rather, before the Great Patriotic War, if the Battle on the Ice is mentioned, then in passing, it was not mentioned at all in university courses.

They wrote and talked about the Battle of the Neva, and it is clear why: because the Battle of the Neva played a special role.

True, we know about the Battle of the Neva only from one source - this is the Novgorod First Chronicle. This information is not supported by anything.

Therefore, those stories that we know are slightly expanded stories of the Novgorod First Chronicle with the addition of a huge number of quotations from the "Jewish War" by Josephus Flavius, from the "Trojan Tales", from the Byzantine story about Digenis Akrita (there was such a Byzantine border guard), which, in fact, these beautiful details tell the story. Details about how Alexander “put a seal on the king’s face with his sharp copy”, about how the Swedes were killed on the opposite bank of the Izhora, where “Alexander’s regiment was impassable”. The losses of the Swedes were much less, this clash itself is not recorded by Swedish sources, and in principle it is clear why: the Battle of the Neva was one of the episodes of a showdown between Novgorod and Sweden.

In 1187 - no one here tries to remember this - the biggest victory in the offensive policy of Novgorod against Sweden was won - these are the words of one of the largest experts in the struggle of Russia against crusader aggression. In 1187, the Karelians, incited by the Novgorodians, and, most likely, the Novgorodians, reached the city of Sigtuna and destroyed it, simply wiped it off the face of the earth. Now few people remember Sigtuna, but then it was the capital of Sweden. The gates of Sigtuna, as they say, adorn the Novgorod Cathedral of Sofia, either these Karelians or Novgorodians took it with them as a souvenir.

So it was a very difficult long struggle, contracts were signed, contracts were violated, and the landing on the Neva is one of the episodes. By the way, this is not the most serious episode, because then the Swedes will build the Vyborg fortress, then just at the site of the battle between Alexander and the Swedes at the mouth of the Izhora, they will build the Landskrona fortress - now it is the territory of the city of St. Petersburg, Izhora district. But both of these fortresses, although they were built, did not actually play any role, the Swedes were forced to abandon them in a year and a half: it is impossible to live, the natural conditions are absolutely monstrous, plus the endless attacks of Karelians, Izhors, Novgorodians, therefore these two Swedish fortresses - not just a landing, but Swedish fortresses - they did not play any role in blocking the northwestern Russian lands, cutting off access to the main trade routes.

And even more so, the Neva battle did not play such a role. By the way, the description is quite peculiar. The story about the Battle of the Neva ends with a rather strange phrase that "20 people died from Novgorod and Ladoga, and maybe less - God knows." The fact that this event is clearly less than is usually attributed to it is yes. Nevertheless, the nickname Alexander Nevsky reinforces this rather rigid connection between the battle of Nevsky and the role attributed to Alexander in repelling Swedish aggression. In fact, this is not so much aggression as a struggle - for trade routes, for spheres of influence. And here Alexander won quite a serious victory for his time. But this, probably, is the significance of the Battle of the Neva and is exhausted. But as for the Battle on the Ice, it deserves special consideration.

Introduction.

It is unlikely that in the history of Russia it will be possible to find a more famous and more controversial personality than Alexander Nevsky. And this is not surprising. The true image of the prince is hidden by a veil of myths created by official historiography, which eventually recognized two merits for the prince: ensuring the security of the northwestern borders of Russia and alleviating the hardships of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

Nevsky's contemporaries did not particularly single out his undoubtedly outstanding victories in an endless series of border clashes with the Germans, Swedes, Danes and Lithuanians. On the contrary, a quarter of a century after the Battle of the Ice, the chronicler wrote about the battle that happened then that "neither our fathers nor our grandfathers have seen such a cruel slaughter." However, in later times, it was the prince's military triumphs that made him a symbol of the correct course of the state policy pursued.

Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky was canonized by the Orthodox Church, and through the efforts of Russian and Soviet historians, he became one of the main figures in Russian history. Speaking about him, one involuntarily wants to recall the famous saying: "A myth repeated a thousand times becomes true." And, as V.V. Mayakovsky, "if the stars are lit, then someone needs it."

And everyone needed Nevsky. The Moscow princes, starting from Ivan Kalita, needed a saint and great ancestor to substantiate their claims to the possession of Russia. Peter I needed it to justify the war with Sweden and the construction of St. Petersburg. And why it was necessary to shoot the film "Alexander Nevsky" in 1938, and after 6 years to establish an order in his name, hardly needs to be explained.

There is no doubt that these myths have fulfilled their role, but at the same time they have extremely confused the history of Russia in the XIII century. And in order to understand it, we will have to rely only on reliable sources and obvious facts.

Thus, our goal will be to determine the relationship between myth and reality in the history of Russia associated with the name of Alexander Nevsky. The tasks of our work, therefore, are the analysis of chronicle and hagiographic literature about Alexander Nevsky, as well as the analysis of foreign sources directly or indirectly related to the prince.

Alexander Nevskiy. Fate and legends

So, Alexander Yaroslavovich was born either in 1219, or in 1220, or in 1221. We will not enter into disputes among historians about the exact date of birth. Alexander was the second son of Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (circa 1191–1246) and Rostislava-Feodosia, daughter of Mstislav Mstislavovich Udaly. Paternal grandfather was Vsevolod Yurievich Big Nest.

Alexander's older brother Fedor was born in 1218 or 1219. In 1228, the brothers Fedor and Alexander were appointed by their father to reign in Novgorod. But in February 1229, the Novgorodians gathered a veche and sent both brothers home, or, in the language of that time, "showed them the way." Instead, the Novgorodians invited Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov (the son of Vsevolod of Chernigov, a distant relative of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich). However, there was a rather cunning intrigue. The fact is that Mikhail was helped by Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, Yaroslav's brother.

But on December 30, 1230, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich with his retinue again appeared in Novgorod. Having stayed there for only two weeks, he left Fedor and Alexander to reign again, and he himself went to reign in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky. It may seem strange to leave rich and successful Novgorod for the sake of some kind of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, but the status of the prince in Novgorod and in the rest of Russia was very different. In free Novgorod, Yaroslav could only be the "Minister of Defense", who at any moment could be driven out by the veche, while in Pereyaslavl he was "both god, and king, and military commander."

In 1233, a classic marriage deal was made - on the orders of his father, Fyodor was to marry Theodulia, the daughter of Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov. The details of the deal between the two pretenders to reign in Novgorod have not been preserved in history. But on June 5, 1233, the day before the wedding, Fedor suddenly dies. He was buried in the Yurievsky Monastery in Novgorod. The bride Theodulia took the vows in one of the Suzdal monasteries as a nun, and after her death in September 1250. became Saint Euphrosyne of Suzdal. By the way, the question still arises: why in Suzdal, and not in Novgorod?

An interesting fact is that all the relatives of Alexander, mentioned above, became saints at different times. We have already talked about St. Alexander, we will soon talk about St. Michael of Chernigov, but Fedor Yaroslavovich will become a saint in 1614, though a whole series of almost detective stories will happen to Fedor in the 15th, 17th and 20th centuries.

So, both Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and his son Alexander took, to put it mildly, a strange position during the Batu invasion of 1237–1238. According to the chronicle, having learned about the death of the Grand Duke, the eldest brother after him, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, came to reign in Vladimir. He cleared the churches of the corpses, gathered the people left from the extermination, consoled them and, as the elder, began to dispose of the volosts: he gave Suzdal to his brother Svyatoslav, and Starodub (Northern) to his brother Ivan. " In summer. ҂s҃. ѱ҃ . m҃s. Ӕroslav sn҃b Vsevolod the Great / l.163v. / sitting on the table in Volodimer. And bıs̑ joy̑ is great hrs̑bӕnom̑ and ​​deliver B҃ with your strong hand. ѿ bezbozhnıh̑ Tatars. and more often rѧdı rѧditi. ӕkozh̑ pr҃k glet̑ Be҃ judgment̑ your tsr҃vi dazh. and your truth sn҃vi ts̑rvi. judge by your people with justice. and your poor in judgment. and then affirmed in his hs̑tnѣm reign Togozh̑ lѣt̑. Knѧz̑ Ӕroslav the great. ѿda Suzhdal to his brother St҃goslav. Togozh̑. fly. ѿda Ӕroslav. Ivan Starodub. Togozh̑. fly. it was peaceful" one .

If we now pick up a geographical map of the north-east of Russia and a piece of paper with a pen, amazing things will be revealed. The Tatars took Vladimir on February 7–8, 1238. The battle on the Sit River took place on March 4. But in no annals of those times is it explained why uncleaned corpses lay in the capital of North-Eastern Russia for almost a month. Was there someone to clean up? So who did Yaroslav come to “comfort” then?

So, we can assume two options. First: Yaroslav arrived in Vladimir before the Battle of the City or a week after it, that is, in mid-March. But then he was not going to go to the City at all, but went to occupy the great table.

And the second: Yaroslav, due to some urgent business, was delayed and learned about the battle on the City in Kyiv or on the way. But even then it is not clear, but how did he get to Vladimir? After all, according to chronicle data, the Tatars turned at Ignatiev Cross in April 1238. 2 And even without a chronicle, it is clear that the mudslide 100 km from Novgorod does not begin before April. So the Tatars were in the Kozelsk region in May, and even in June.

Now let's look at the map. Kozelsk is located almost in a straight line Kyiv - Vladimir, and from Kyiv it is one and a half times further than from Vladimir. The Tatar army was large and marched across Russia like a veil. So how could Yaroslav in March-June 1238 drive through this veil from Kyiv to Vladimir? And why go to the devastated city, leaving the huge rich Kyiv, which in the summer of 1238 could be approached by the Tatars?

Or maybe Yaroslav came to Vladimir in the autumn of 1238, when the Tatars left for the steppes? But then why did uncleaned corpses lie in Vladimir all spring and summer? Life in a devastated city usually resumes a few days after the departure of the enemy. Let's remember Moscow in 1812 after the departure of the French, at least in the wonderful description of L.N. Tolstoy.

One conclusion suggests itself, it may be unpleasant for us, but it removes all questions - Yaroslav agreed with the Tatars. He knew that they would not go to Kyiv, he knew that the Tatar detachments would not detain him on the way to Vladimir. Then it becomes clear why Yaroslav, upon arrival in Vladimir, did not lift a finger to organize a rebuff to the Tatars, but took up administrative and economic activities.

And what did Alexander do in Novgorod in the spring of 1238? Also the daily military-political study of the squad. Well, okay, I didn’t help Uncle Yura in the City, with whom my father had a bad relationship. Why didn't Torzhok help? After all, as history shows, Novgorodians and their princes fought to the death with any "grassroots" prince who encroached on Torzhok. Apparently, the Bulgarian chronicler is right: there was also an agreement with the Tatars. 3

In 1239, in Novgorod, Alexander Yaroslavovich deigned to marry Alexandra (according to another version, Paraskeva) Bryachislavovna. Her origin is unknown (perhaps her father is Bryachislav Vasilkovich, Prince of Polotsk).

But the new Grand Duke of Vladimir Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in the same 1239 went to Bulgar with a large treasury. Moreover, please note: the year 1239, Kyiv has not yet been taken, there is no Golden Horde, the practice of issuing Horde labels to Russian princes has not yet appeared, not to mention the fact that Yaroslav sat absolutely legally in the place of his older brother. And finally, the Tatars have not yet established any tribute.

However, Grand Duke Yaroslav comes to Bulgar to the Tatar governor Kutlu-Bug. The tribute brought by Yaroslav was divided among themselves by Gazi Baraj and Kutlu-Buga: three-quarters were taken by the vicegerent ambassador, and a quarter by the emir 4 .

Professor 3.3. Miftakhov is ironic about this: “Who forced Yaroslav to bring such a huge amount of tribute? None. Emir Gazi Baraj was even very surprised at such agility, such a degree of humility. Both the ambassador and the emir were even more surprised at the appearance of the Grand Duke. According to eyewitness Ghazi Baraj, Yaroslav "appeared with his head and chin shaved as a sign of submission and paid tribute for three years" 5 . A reasonable question arises: who forced the Grand Duke to shave his head and beard as a sign of humility? He did this on his own initiative, for both the emir of the Volga Bulgaria and the ambassador-viceroy of the great khan of the Mongol Empire were amazed at what they saw. Thus began the development of the phenomenon, which later became known as the yoke. As you know, the term “yoke” was launched into the world of Russian historiography by N.M. Karamzin (1766–1826). “Our sovereigns,” he wrote, “solemnly renounced the rights of an independent people and bowed their necks under the yoke of the barbarians” 6 . “So, N.M. Karamzin argued: "Our sovereigns voluntarily renounced the rights of an independent people and bowed their necks under the yoke of barbarians." And indeed, how true and figuratively said! Indeed, Grand Duke Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, on his own initiative, laid the foundation for new relations between North-Eastern Russia, on the one hand, the Mongol Empire and Volga Bulgaria, on the other. 7

It may be a shame to read this, but there is nothing to object to! Is it possible to say that, apparently, Yaroslav considered this money a payment to the Tatars and Gazi Baradzh (a participant in the campaign) for not seizing him on the way to Vladimir and giving him the opportunity to sit on the throne of Vladimir. It is possible that Yaroslav did not think that in this way he was establishing a "yoke", creating a precedent for paying tribute.

The second time Yaroslav Vsevolodovich went to the Horde in 1242. According to some chronicles, he went at the invitation of Batu Khan, according to others - again on his own initiative. But in any case, Batu, according to the chronicler, received Yaroslav with honor and, letting him go, said to him: “Be the eldest among all the princes in the Russian people” 8 .

Following the Grand Duke of Vladimir, other princes, almost in a crowd, moved to the Horde to bow. So, in 1244, Vladimir Konstantinovich Uglitsky, Boris Vasilkovich Rostovsky, Gleb Vasilkovich Belozersky, Vasily Vsevolodovich came there, and in 1245 - Boris Vasilkovich Rostovsky, Vasily Vsevolodovich, Konstantin Yaroslavovich, Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich, Vladimir Konstantinovich Uglitsky, Vasilko Rostovsky with his two sons - Boris and Gleb and with his nephew Vsevolod and his sons Svyatoslav and Ivan.

But in 1246, the Russian prince, Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigov, was first killed in the Horde. This incident received a wide response in Russia, both among priests and later among historians. Let's consider it in more detail.

After Batu left for the Volga, Mikhail Vsevolodovich decided to return from a trip to Europe. He came to Kyiv and decided to reign there. However, Kyiv was devastated, and there was simply nothing to take from the few surviving residents. The son of Mikhail Vsevolodovich Rostislav at the end of 1241 started a war with Daniel of Galicia, was defeated and fled to Hungary. There, in 1243, he managed to get the hand and heart of Princess Anna, daughter of Bela IV. Upon learning of this, Michael urgently went to Hungary. Needless to say, he went on this journey not to congratulate the newlyweds, but for the Hungarian army, which was supposed to help him seize some Russian inheritance.

1. Alexander Sailors life as a feat

   Abstract >> History

   Who admired examples Alexandra Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Alexandra Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov ... kindergarten everyone is familiar with legend about Alexandra Matrosov - legend about how brave ... a terrible war, where it was decided fate country and people. Yes, ...

2. Alexander I (5)

   Abstract >> History

   fate Alexander I. legends Alexandra Nevsky- the patron saint of St. Petersburg. ...

3. Alexander I (6)

   Abstract >> Historical figures

   2.2 The program of transformations of N.M. Speransky and its fate 9 2.3 Financial reform 11 2.4 Reform... this period of our history reigned Alexander I. legends are born and die. But... II named him after Alexandra

In 1240, the first test fell for Alexander Yaroslavovich, the Swedes decided to attack the Novgorod principality. Their goal was to subjugate Novgorod and create a stronghold there for the further conquest of Russia. Having landed, they sent an ultimatum demanding to obey the Novgorod prince. Alexander fought a quick and successful battle, unexpectedly attacking the Swedes. He expelled them from the territory of Russia for a long time. This victory gave the nickname "Nevsky" to Alexander. The victory was achieved thanks to the surprise and skill of the Russian warriors. And also due to intelligence and a well-thought-out plan of the prince.

M. Khitrov

“It was on the morning of July 15, 1240. The fog gradually dissipated with the rising of the sun, and a bright and sultry day came. The enemies did not suspect anything ...

Before the enemies had time to come to their senses, the Russians attacked them with a unified onslaught. Like a thunderstorm of God, the young prince rushed ahead of everyone into the midst of enemies and ... saw his terrible enemy. With indomitable courage, rushing at Birger, he dealt him a heavy blow to the face - "put a seal on his face," according to the chronicle. The Russian squad passed, beating the confused enemies, through the entire camp. The enemy horde rushed to the shore and hurried to take cover on the ships.

However, the best part of the militia managed to recover from the sudden blow, and a stubborn battle broke out in different parts of the vast camp, which continued until night.

But the cause of the enemies was already lost irrevocably. Novgorodians mastered the battle. The young leader skillfully disposed of, in the midst of a passion for battle, he knew how to maintain clarity of thought, directing the detachments of his squad; his voice resounded loudly, terrifying the enemies. The bravest of them were beaten. The survivors, with the onset of night, hurried to remove the most from the battlefield: the famous fallen and, having filled three ships with them, fled at dawn. The victory of the Russians was so unexpected and decisive that, in a sense of humility, they did not dare to attribute it to their courage and were sure that together with them the angels of God struck down the enemies.

Upon returning to Novgorod, Alexander Yaroslavich was joyfully greeted by the jubilant people, but he first of all hurried to the temple to give warm thanks to God.

M. Khitrov describes the events of the battle and the personal exploits of Alexander Yaroslavovich, the large number and ferocity of the enemies, who, however, could not do anything against the sudden attack of the Russians and were forced to flee from the battlefield.

Khitrov M.I. - "Alexander Nevsky - Grand Duke"; Lenizdat, St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 112

S. Solovyov

“Knowing the nature of this struggle, with what intention the Swedes came, we will understand the religious significance that the Neva victory had for Novgorod and the rest of Russia; this meaning is clearly seen in a special legend about the exploits of Alexander: here the Swedes are called Romans in no other way - a direct indication of the religious difference in the name of which the war was undertaken.

S. Solovyov in his work defines the goal of Alexander Nevsky: to preserve the Orthodox faith in Russia, and hence its spiritual independence from the West and uniqueness.

Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times // Solovyov S. M. Works: In 18 books. Moscow., 1993. Book. 2. Vol. 3–4. S. 174

L. Gumilyov

“Alexander failed to gather large forces. With his small Suzdal detachment and a few Novgorod volunteers, Alexander forced his march to the Neva and attacked the Swedish camp.

In this battle, the Novgorodians and Suzdalians covered themselves with eternal glory. So, one Novgorodian named Gavrila Oleksich on horseback broke into Swedish boat, fought with the Swedes on their ship, was thrown into the water,survived and fought again. Alexander's servant, Ratmir, died heroically, fighting on foot with many opponents at once. The Swedes, who did not expect an attack, were utterly defeated and fled at night on ships from the place of defeat. Novgorod was saved by the sacrifice and valor of Alexander's comrades-in-arms.

L. Gumilyov attaches special importance to the battle. He believes that it was the heroic victory of Alexander and his associates in this battle that saved Novgorod.

Gumilyov L. N. - “From Russia to Russia. Essays on ethnic history"; AST, Moscow, 2003, p.156

S. Platonov

“The victory [on the Neva] was so decisive, and its significance seemed so great for Russia, that the feat of Prince Alexander became the subject of many pious legends. The victory on the Neva was seen as the triumph of Orthodoxy over Catholicism; she served as the first reason to rank Prince Alexander, a good sufferer for the Russian land, as a saint. Since then, Alexander has forever remained the nickname "Nevsky".

S. Platonov speaks about the significance of this victory for Russia and about the triumph of the Orthodox faith.

Platonov S.F. - “Textbook of Russian history for secondary school: Systematic course. At 2 o'clock." Moscow., 1994. S. 86–87

V. Belinsky

“Alexander, according to the “Great Russian writings,” won the first, so-called “great victory” on July 15, 1240. On that day, at the head of his own squad, he attacked the Swedes who landed on the banks of the Neva, and "smashed them to smithereens." It would seem, indeed, it is worth being proud of the "greatest victory" of the prince. An, no! Conscience does not allow. The word "battle" no one calls such a small skirmish. No more than 300 people took part in that fight from both sides. And Alexander did not win that skirmish with that brilliance, as we were told.

V.B. Belinsky in his statement focuses on the small number of attackers, so he does not consider the Battle of Neva significant.

Belinsky V. B. - "Country Moksel, or the Discovery of Great Russia"; Kyiv, 2009, p.67

A. Nesterenko

“It is noteworthy that Alexander, according to the Life, does not tell his father about the impending danger and acts at his own peril and risk. “It was sad to hear that his father, the great prince Yaroslav, did not know about the invasion of his son, dear Alexander, and he had no time to send a message to his father, for the enemies were already approaching,” reports Life.

Of course, there was some logic in taking advantage of the slowness of the Swedes and suddenly attacking them. But why not at the same time send a messenger to Vladimir to Yaroslav, so that he gathers Russian regiments? Why, while Alexander is moving towards the enemy, not start mobilizing the Novgorod militia? Well, what if the Swedes had defeated Alexander's hastily assembled detachment? Then, in the event of the failure of Alexander's enterprise, they really could suddenly appear right in Novgorod, whose inhabitants not only knew nothing about the approach of the enemy, but were also left without a military command and a princely squad.

Why did the Novgorodians invite the prince? To protect their city. The prince arbitrarily resigned his post. What is due in wartime for unauthorized abandonment of one's post? Death. In fact, this episode characterizes Alexander as a person who thinks not about the interests of the Fatherland, but about his personal glory.

A. Nesterenko believes that Alexander opposed the Swedes without informing his father of the danger, solely for the sake of his own glory and self-interest.

A. Nesterenko - “Alexander Nevsky. Who won the battle on the ice”; Olma-Press; 2006. Pp. thirty

Battle on the Ice

In 1242 trouble again came to Russia. Crusader knights attacked from the west. Under the slogan of the destruction of the infidels and the cover of the Catholic faith, they plundered the Novgorod and Pskov lands. Alexander, called by the Novgorodians, again had to defend the independence of Russia. Having put into execution a brilliant plan and using non-standard weapons (carts connected with chains, hooks), he defeated the German invaders on Lake Peipus. This victory drove away the knights of the Livonian Order from the Russian borders for many years and obliged them to pay tribute.

L. Gumilyov

“The number of knights themselves was small - only a few dozen, but each knight was a formidable fighter. In addition, the knights were supported by foot mercenaries armed with spears, and the allies of the order - Livs. The knights lined up like a “pig”: the most powerful warrior in front, two others behind him, four behind those, and so on. The onslaught of such a wedge was irresistible for the lightly armed Russians, and Alexander did not even try to stop the blow of the German troops. On the contrary, he weakened his center and made it possible for the knights to break through it. Meanwhile, the reinforced flanks of the Russians attacked both wings of the German army. The Livs fled, the Germans resisted fiercely, but since it was spring time, the ice cracked and the heavily armed knights began to fall into the water of Lake Peipsi. The Novgorodians, on the other hand, did not allow the enemy to escape from the fatal trap. The defeat of the Germans on Lake Peipsi on April 5, 1242 delayed their advance to the East.

Gumilyov L. N. “From Russia to Russia. Essays on ethnic history”; AST, Moscow, 2003. p. 146.

M. Khitrov

“Then a terrible slaughter began. An unimaginable noise arose from the frequent blows of swords on shields and helmets, from the crack of breaking spears, from ice breaks, from the screams of the slain and drowning. It seemed that the whole lake shook and groaned heavily... The ice turned purple with blood... There was no longer a proper fight: the beating of the enemies, who fought hard until late evening, began. But their losses were enormous. Many tried to flee, but the Russians overtook them. The lake was covered with corpses for seven miles, right up to the Subolichsky shore. Many glorious knights fell in battle and were taken prisoner. The army, recently so formidable and brilliant, no longer existed. Without a doubt, that was one of the brightest days in the history of Pskov, when the victorious leader triumphantly returned to the Battle of the Ice.

M. Khitrov assesses the Battle on the Ice as a very important battle and a magnificent victory. He writes that it was one of the best pages in the history of Russia.

Khitrov M.I. "Alexander Nevsky - Grand Duke"; Lenizdat, St. Petersburg, 1992. p. 115

“Here is the limit to the spread of German rule, here God himself judged the age-old dispute between the Germans and the Slavs, protecting our fatherland forever from dangerous foreigners.”

M. Khitrov expresses his attitude to the problem of the West and the East. He believes that it was the Germans and other Catholics who were the threat to Russia.

Khitrov M. And "Decree". op. S. 103.

S. Platonov

“Alexander went to the Germans, took away the Russian cities from them and met their main army on the ice of Lake Peipus (this was April 5, 1242). In a stubborn battle, the swordsmen were utterly defeated: many of them were killed, fifty "God's nobles" (as the Russians called the knights) were captured and were brought by Prince Alexander to Pskov. After this “battle on the ice”, the swordsmen had to leave the Russian lands alone.”

S. Platonov summarizes: it was after the victory of the Russians in the Battle of the Ice that the Catholics stopped trying to capture Russia.

Platonov S.F. - “Textbook of Russian history for secondary school: Systematic course. At 2 o'clock." Moscow, 1994, pp. 86–87

N. Kostomarov

“The battle on the ice is of great importance in Russian history. True, the manifestations of enmity between the Germans and the Russians did not stop even after that ... but the thought of conquering the northern Russian lands, of enslaving them ... left the Germans forever.

N. Kostomarov believes that it was after the defeat in the Battle of the Ice that the Catholics stopped trying to capture Russia.

Kostomarov N. I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. Moscow., 1990. Book. 1. Issue. 1–3. S. 158.

“I saw the army of God in the air, which came to the aid of Alexander. And so he defeated the enemies with the help of God, and they turned to flight, while Alexander cut them down, driving them as if through the air, and there was nowhere for them to hide. Here God glorified Alexander before all the regiments, like Joshua at Jericho. And the one who said: "We will capture Alexander," God gave into the hands of Alexander. And there has never been an opponent worthy of him in battle. And Prince Alexander returned with a glorious victory, and there were many prisoners in his army, and they led barefoot near the horses those who call themselves "God's knights."

And when the prince approached the city of Pskov, the abbots, and the priests, and all the people met him in front of the city with crosses, giving praise to God and glorifying the lord prince Alexander, singing a song to him: “You, Lord, helped meek David defeat the foreigners and the faithful prince with our weapons of faith, free the city of Pskov from foreign pagans by the hand of Alexander.

The life describes the attitude to the victory of Alexander by his contemporaries, who glorified Alexander and glorified his magnificent victory.

"The Life of Alexander Nevsky" Moscow, Higher School, 1998 p. 15

V. Belinsky

“Almost the same level was the “battle” of Alexander with the Germans and Estonians on April 5, 1242 on Lake Peipsi. By the way, the Ipatiev Chronicle simply does not confirm its "existence". "In the summer of 6750, do not be nothing," says the chronicle. Meanwhile, 6750 is 1242. According to the Order, the Chud skirmish nevertheless took place and the losses of the Order amounted to 20 knights killed and 6 knights captured. However, we are not talking about destruction. Such is the scale of the "Chudskaya battle."

V. Belinsky doubts whether there was a battle, referring to the Ipatiev Chronicle. He believes that the Battle of the Ice was not a great battle, but was an ordinary skirmish.

Belinsky V.B. "Country Moksel, or the Discovery of Great Russia"; Kyiv, 2009, p. 70.

D. Fennel

"... Metropolitan Kirill or someone else who wrote the "Life" inflated the significance of Alexander's victory in order to brighten up in the eyes of his contemporaries Alexander's subsequent servility to the Tatars.

D. Fennel believes that the Battle of the Ice was not a significant battle.

Fennel John The Crisis of Medieval Russia: 1200–1304. Moscow., 1989. S. 156–157, 174.

I. Danilevsky

“In the early monuments, the Battle of the Ice is inferior not only to the Battle of Rakovor, but also to the battle on the Neva. Suffice it to say that the description of the Battle of the Neva takes up one and a half times more space in the Novgorod Chronicle than the description of the Battle of the Ice. In Lavrentievskaya, only the list of feats accomplished by Alexander's warriors at the mouth of the Izhora is twice as long as the story we are interested in in terms of the number of words.

I. Danilevsky is sure that the significance of the Battle of the Ice is greatly exaggerated.

Danilevsky I. "Battle on the Ice: change of image" Journal domestic notes No. 5 (2004)

A. Nesterenko

“Since among those who fought the Russians in the Battle on Ice, there were no more than a few dozen knights with crosses on their cloaks, even in the terms of a Polish novelist it is incorrect to call them “crusaders”, or a knightly army. After all, it never occurs to anyone to call an army with several dozen tanks a tank army. Why is an army with several dozen knights called knightly? No, why they call it, it’s understandable - to give due weight to Alexander’s victory.

A. Nesterenko does not consider the Battle of the Ice a significant battle.

Nesterenko A. “Alexander Nevsky. Who won the battle on the ice”; Olma-Press; 2006. Pp. 35

Nevryuev's army

In 1252, the Pope of Rome offered help to the Russian princes in the fight against the Mongol-Tatars. Alexander, understanding the intention of the Catholics, refused, but his brother Andrei, bribed by the flattery and promises of Catholic ambassadors, leaned towards Catholicism. Alexander Nevsky had to speak out against his own brother, who raised an uprising against the Mongol-Tatars. To save Russia from more at the cost of little blood.

N. Karamzin

“Alexander, with prudent ideas, subdued Sartak’s anger at the Russians and, recognized in the Horde as the Grand Duke, triumphantly entered Vladimir, Metropolitan Kirill, Abbots, Priests met him at the Golden Gate, also all citizens and Boyars under the command of the Thousand capital, Roman Mikhailovich. The joy was general. Alexander hurried to justify it with vigilant concern for the people's welfare, and calm soon reigned in the Grand Duchy.

N. Karamzin believes that by supporting the Nevryuev army, Alexander ensured stability and tranquility in the Novgorod principality.

Karamzin N.M. "History of the Russian state" Golden Alley, Kaluga, 1993, volume 4, pp. 197-200

L. Gumilyov

"By the middle of the thirteenth century. the idea of ​​the unification of Russia has already become completely illusory. Alexander Nevsky understood this well, but Daniil and Andrey did not understand it at all.

L. Gumilyov appreciated Andrei's desire to go against the Mongols by uniting Russia. He wrote that Alexander, unlike his brother Andrei, was well versed in the current situation.

Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. Essays on ethnic history”; AST, Moscow, 2003, p. 164

From "The Life of Alexander Nevsky"

“After this, Tsar Batu was angry with his younger brother Andrei and sent his governor Nevryuy to ruin the land of Suzdal. After the devastation of Nevryuy land of Suzdal, the great prince Alexander erected churches, rebuilt the cities, gathered the dispersed people into their houses. Isaiah the prophet said about such people: "The prince is good in the countries - quiet, affable, meek, humble - and in that he is like a god." Not seduced by wealth, not forgetting the blood of the righteous, orphans and widows, he judges in truth, is merciful, kind to his household and hospitable to those who come from foreign countries. God also helps such people, for God does not love angels, but people, in his generosity he generously bestows and shows his mercy in the world. God filled the land of Alexander with wealth and glory, and God prolonged his days.

Once, ambassadors from the pope from great Rome came to him with the following words: “Our dad says this: “We heard that you are a worthy and glorious prince and your land is great. so that you hear what they say about the law of God."

Prince Alexander, having thought with his wise men, wrote him the following answer: “From Adam to the flood, from the flood to the division of peoples, from the mixing of peoples to the beginning of Abraham, from Abraham to the passage of the Israelites through the sea, from the exodus of the sons of Israel to the death of King David , from the beginning of the reign of Solomon to Augustus and until the birth of Christ, from the birth of Christ and to his crucifixion and resurrection, from his resurrection and ascension to heaven and to the reign of Constantine, from the beginning of the reign of Constantine to the first council and the seventh - we know all this well but we will not accept teachings from you." They returned home."

The life describes the attitude of contemporaries to Alexander. The fact that he restored the devastated principalities, and refused the help of the Catholics, realizing its detrimental consequences.

"The Life of Alexander Nevsky" Moscow, Higher School, 1998, p. 15.

V. Belinsky

“For many years of his life at the court of the Khan, Alexander became the first of the Suzdal princes who was imbued with a truly Tatar-Mongolian sovereign spirit, absorbed the psychology of a conquering steppe from childhood, fully accepted the customs of the people among whom he grew up, their style of behavior and the psychology of actions. He clearly understood that he had only the only chance to take the Vladimir Grand Duke's table, removing his brother Andrei from the road. And it was worth hurrying while the power was in the hands of the Anda - Sartak. Alexander, the so-called Nevsky, took advantage of his dirty chance. Even studying only the "scriptures" of N.M. Karamzin, one can clearly trace the vile deeds of Alexander. Naturally, N.M. Karamzin elevated ordinary betrayal into a fateful heroic act. By the way, soon both Andrey and Yaroslav returned back, "bowed their necks" before the Khan of the Horde and sat down on specific ulus tables. Which once again testified to our thought: Andrei did not rebel against Batu, did not raise his sword against the Tatars, but became just a victim of the betrayal of his native "brother".

V. Belinsky accuses Alexander of betraying his brother, of wanting to appropriate all the power for himself without disdaining any means.

Belinsky V. B. "Country Moksel, or the Discovery of Great Russia"; Kyiv, 2009, p. 73.

Uprising in Novgorod

The year 1257 was not very calm. There was no stability in the Horde. Khans changed one after another. First, the death of Batu and the accession of Sartak, then the death of Sartak. When changing the khan in the horde, the named brother Alexander Sartak, who was baptized, was killed by his uncle Berke. He was a Muslim and tried in every possible way to limit Christian Russia. Berke wanted to impose tribute on the Novgorod lands. To do this, it was necessary to "give a number" - to conduct a census. The people of Novgorod rebelled. He did not want to obey the Mongols and give a number. Moreover, the Mongols did not capture Novgorod, and paying tribute just like that was doubly offensive for the Novgorodians. But, Alexander brutally suppressed the uprising, realizing that in case of refusal there would be serious punitive measures up to the destruction of the free city.

N. Pronina

“By order of the Grand Duke in Pskov, his son Vasily (son, first-born, successor! ..) was captured and arrested. Only after that the investigation and trial began in Novgorod. The chronicler directly points out: first of all, Alexander Nevsky severely punished precisely those “who led Prince Vasily to evil” - the most active instigator and leader of the rebellion, a certain “Alexander the Novgorodian”, was executed, and his supporters, the “team” but to others you will open your eyes.” Novgorod was terrified. But the prince had no other way. To save the city from general devastation, he had to "prepare the subordination of the Novgorod Republic to the Tatar-Mongolian authorities"

N. Pronina considers it necessary to suppress the uprising in order to save the city from ruin.

Pronina N.M. "Alexander Nevsky - a national hero or a traitor?" Yauza, Eksmo, 2008, p. 211

L. Gumilyov

“Faithful to his principle of fighting for the interests of the Fatherland, Alexander Yaroslavich, this time too, “lay down his soul for his friends.” He went to Berke and negotiated the payment of tribute to the Mongols in exchange for military assistance against the Lithuanians and Germans. But when Mongolian scribes came to Novgorod together with the prince to determine the amount of the tax, the Novgorodians staged a riot, headed by Vasily Alexandrovich, the eldest son of the Grand Duke, a fool and a drunkard. Alexander led the "Tatar" ambassadors out of the city under his personal guard, preventing them from being killed. Thus, he saved Novgorod from destruction - after all, we know how the Mongols acted with the population of cities where the murder of the ambassadors of the Mongol Khan was committed. Alexander Yaroslavich acted cruelly with the leaders of the turmoil: they were “taken out of their eyes”, believing that a person still does not need eyes if he does not see what is happening around. Only at this price did Alexander manage to subdue the Novgorodians, who, along with passionarity, lost common sense and did not understand that those who do not have the strength to defend themselves are forced to pay for protection from enemies. Of course, giving away your money is always unpleasant, but it’s probably better to part with money than with independence and life.”

L. Gumilyov positively assesses the forced actions of Alexander. He believes that it was by these actions that Alexander saved Novgorod from death.

Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. Essays on ethnic history"; AST, Moscow, 2003, p.166

S. Baimukhametov

“All previous oral agreements remain in force. And finally, an official alliance was concluded with the Horde (with Berke!) on military assistance with payment in the form of an annual tax - “exit”. From that moment, from 1257-58, twenty (!) years after Batu's campaign, what our historians called tribute begins. Nevsky is taking the Horde Baskaks to Novgorod for the census and accounting for the “exit”. And then he receives a terrible blow from his own son Vasily. Vasily, a drunkard and a brawler, raises a rebellion against his father and leads the conspirators to kill the Horde envoys. At that moment, the fate of the entire cause of Alexander and Russia was on the map. The Mongols never forgave the murders of ambassadors. Thank you faithful friend. Alexander leads the ambassadors out of the city and gets a free hand. And - punishes the rebels. This is probably where Afanasiev's words come from: "He killed Russians, cut off their noses and ears in a way that the Tatars themselves did not do."

S. Baymukhametov believes that Alexander, in a difficult moment, made a key and correct decision for the good of Russia, suppressing the uprising.

Baymukhametov S. "Princely Cross" Website of the magazine "Bulletin online" Access mode - http://www.vestnik.com

V. Belinsky

“In 1257, the Tatar-Mongol Empire carried out in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, or in another way - in its Northern Uluses, a census of all settlements and the entire population of the region to tighten taxation. In this event, the Golden Horde primarily involved Prince Alexander Nevsky. It was he, Alexander, who carried out the military cover of the Tatar numbers, having at hand his own and the Tatar squads. Great Russian historians, every single one, are trying to justify Alexander's participation in the census of the population of the Vladimir-Suzdal land, and later Novgorod and Pskov, as a purely forced step. But this is a pure lie. The prince set foot on the path of betrayal much earlier, but here he already acted, as we shall see, voluntarily and not without the greatest zeal. This betrayal should not be whitewashed. It was the Mongol-Tatar polling census that tied the population to the Tatar rulers with an iron chain.

V. Belinsky accuses Alexander of suppressing the uprising in order to obtain personal gain and does not consider the suppression of the uprising a forced step.

Belinsky V.B. "Country Moksel, or the Discovery of Great Russia"; Kyiv, 2009, p. 78

Y. Afanasiev

“Alexander Nevsky was the first of the Russian Grand Dukes, who, instead of resisting the Tatars, went to direct cooperation with them. He began to act in alliance with the Tatars against other princes: he punished Russians - including Novgorodians - for disobedience to the conquerors, and in such a way that the Mongols did not even dream of (he cut his noses, and cut off his ears, and cut off his heads, and impaled ) ... But today's mythological consciousness will perceive the news that the prince was actually the "first collaborator" quite unambiguously - as an anti-patriotic slander.

Y. Afanasiev calls Alexander Yaroslavovich a collaborator and a cruel tyrant.

Afanasie Yu.N. Rodina magazine Access mode: http://malech.narod.ru/liki2.html

V. Yanin

“Unfortunately, I must now engage in criticism of one of the largest figures in Novgorod, Novgorod, Novgorod history. Namely, Alexander Nevsky. Alexander Nevsky, having concluded an alliance, you understand, with the Horde, subordinated Novgorod to the Horde's influence. He extended to Novgorod, which was never conquered by the Tatars, he extended, so to speak, to Novgorod, which means power, Tatar power. Moreover, he gouged out the eyes, you know, of dissenting Novgorodians. And there are many sins behind him. Despite the fact that, here, he was the winner, you understand, of the Germans there, during the battle on the ice and in other battles, on Lake Peipus. But, nevertheless, Novgorod was betrayed by the Tatars to them.

V. Yanin negatively assesses the activities of Alexander Yaroslavovich, believing that he betrayed and subjugated Novgorod to the Tatars, who without his help would never have conquered the “free city”.

Yanin V.L. "Alexander Nevsky was a sinner" - lecture, on the TV channel "Culture" within the framework of the ACADEMIA project. Access mode:

The life and deeds of the right-believing Prince Alexander Nevsky may seem to be set out quite fully. Many works of both ecclesiastical and secular nature have already been written about the holy prince, but, nevertheless, his personality will always attract attention. Alexander Nevsky at all times was an example for many generations of citizens of our country. His earthly life makes us think not only about the role of morality in politics, which is relevant for today, but also about how a person can serve God in the rank in which he is called. As for his policy, we can say that it created the most optimal model of Russia's relations with the East and West for its time.

Recently, however, a different trend has emerged in historical science: in the 80-90s of the last century, historical works appeared in both Western European and Russian science, the purpose of which was to rethink the significance for the history of Russia of the politics and activities of the noble prince. The result of this was the idea that his feat was not just a typical, ordinary act for a warrior-prince, but rather a fatal mistake that predetermined the “wrong” path of development of medieval Russia, and then Russia.

Moral assessments in historical science are inevitable: assessing the past, each generation determines its future path. However, such a "judgment of history" is not always fair. And, contrary to the accusations made by such authors, there are indisputable facts that testify to the truth of the merits and labors of the Right-Believing Prince Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky. This article is devoted to one of these facts - the veneration of Prince Alexander as a saint.

But before turning to the question of the history of glorification, it is necessary to make at least a brief historiographical review of the works devoted to the study and evaluation of the work of the holy Prince Alexander.

The largest Russian historians N.M. Karamzin, N.I. Kostomarov, S.M. Solovyov paid considerable attention to the personality of the prince and at the same time paid due respect to his activities. N.M. Karamzin calls Alexander "the hero of Nevsky"; N.I. Kostomarov notes his wise policy with the Horde and the Orthodox spirit of his reign; CM. Solovyov writes: "The observance of the Russian land from trouble in the east, the famous feats for faith and land in the west brought Alexander a glorious memory in Russia and made him the most prominent historical figure in ancient history from Monomakh to the Don".

In general, historians of the late 18th - early 19th centuries, on the basis of a thorough study of the sources about Alexander Nevsky, basically established the data about him that modern science has. At the same time, in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, unlike later times, there were no too sharp disagreements and controversies in assessing the activities of Alexander Nevsky.

The works of Soviet historians consolidated and supported the traditional interpretation, according to which Alexander Nevsky played an exceptional role in the dramatic period of Russian history, when Russia was attacked from three sides: the Catholic West, the Mongol-Tatars and Lithuania. Alexander Nevsky, who had not lost a single battle in his entire life, showed the talent of a commander and diplomat, repulsing the German attack and, submitting to the inevitable dominion of the Horde, prevented the devastating campaigns of the Mongol-Tatars against Russia.

Skeptical modern historians conclude that the traditional image of Alexander Nevsky - a brilliant commander and patriot - is exaggerated. They believe that objectively he played a negative role in the history of Russia and Russia. At the same time, they focus on the evidence in which Alexander Nevsky acts as a power-hungry and cruel person. They also express doubts about the scale of the Livonian threat to Russia and the real military significance of the clashes on the Neva and Lake Peipsi.

Notes concerning the actual history of the veneration of Prince Alexander as a saint are found in the works of many researchers. However, so far there is not a single monograph directly devoted to the study of the history of the veneration of the Right-Believing Prince Alexander. Nevertheless, the following works can be distinguished: Reginskaya N.V., Tsvetkov S.V. "The Blessed Prince of Orthodox Russia - the Holy Warrior Alexander Nevsky"; Surmina I.O. "Alexander Nevsky in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography", as well as an article by Frithion Benjamin Schenk "Russian hero or myth?" .

Among the primary sources, one should first of all point to the historical and hagiographic "The Tale of the Life and Courage of the Right-Believing and Grand Duke Alexander". The "Tale" has come down to us in several editions of the 13th-18th centuries. The first edition was written within the walls of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery by a younger contemporary of Alexander Nevsky no later than the 1280s. The original life was a panegyric in honor of Alexander. The writer selected the facts in order to show the deep impression that the personality of the prince made on his contemporaries. The life consisted of a monastic preface and a dozen separate episodes from the life of the prince, which bore the character of the testimony of "self-evident"; at the end, a lamentation for the deceased was attributed, which included a posthumous miracle with a spiritual diploma. At the same time, the last episode was evidence of the unconditional holiness of the prince, and the entire text of his life spoke of the moral purity and height of Alexander's spiritual feat.

In the XV-XVI centuries, the life was repeatedly processed. At the same time, they either sought to bring the text to the hagiographic canons, or expanded its historical content by inserting from the annals. Various versions of the life have survived as part of chronicles and collections of the lives of the saints.

The veneration of the Grand Duke originated after his death at the burial site, in the Nativity Monastery in Vladimir, in the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality. It is known about the miracle that happened during the burial of the prince: when, during the funeral service, Metropolitan Kirill approached the coffin to put a permit into Alexander's hand, the hand of the deceased itself extended, as if alive, and accepted the letter. After the metropolitan told the people about what he saw, “some from that day began to call on St. Alexander in their prayers,” writes Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) of Moscow and Kolomna. "The Tale of the Life of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky", written in the hagiographic genre by a monk of the Nativity Monastery between 1260 and 1280, confirms the assumption that Alexander was revered in the region soon after his death as a holy prince. In the XIV-XV centuries, "The Life of Alexander Nevsky" was known in many Russian cities, including Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov. There is evidence that already from the 14th century, Alexander was addressed on the eve of battles with the enemy as the patron saint of the Russian army. The miracle of the appearance of St. Alexander Nevsky to the sacristan of the Vladimir Church of the Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos is known on the night of September 8, 1380, that is, on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo, when in a vision the noble prince Alexander Yaroslavich rose from the grave and came out “to help his great-grandson, Grand Duke Dmitry, overcome I exist from foreigners." After the Battle of Kulikovo, in 1381, the first discovery and examination of the relics of the holy prince took place. “After 117 years in the earth,” the holy relics were found incorruptible. Metropolitan Cyprian of Moscow ordered from then on to call Alexander Nevsky "blessed." A monastic church celebration was held for the saint, a canon and the first icons were painted.

The growth of his veneration is observed in the first half of the 15th century in Novgorod. In the first half of the 16th century, the famous church writer Pakhomiy Serb compiled a canon for Alexander Nevsky, and at the Council of 1547, the Russian Orthodox Church ranked the prince, on the basis of investigations about the miracles he performed, already among the all-Russian saints as a new miracle worker. For this event, on the orders of Metropolitan Macarius, the first canonical life of the holy prince Alexander Nevsky was written for the Great Menaia of the Fourth, compiled on the basis of his princely biography, well known from the end of the 13th century.

In 1552, a miracle happened in the presence of Ivan the Terrible, who was marching on the Kazan kingdom and stopped in Vladimir. During a prayer service at the shrine of St. Alexander Nevsky for the granting of victory, the close tsar, Arkady, received healing of his hands; he subsequently wrote another life of the saint. Over time, churches began to be built throughout Russia and monasteries were founded in the name of the holy noble prince Alexander. In the works of court history (Book of Powers, Nikon Chronicle), the prince is glorified as the founder of the Danilovich family.

The rise in the veneration of the prince occurred in the 18th century under Peter I. In 1710, the tsar ordered the erection of a monastery in the name of Alexander Nevsky on the site of the victory of the Novgorod squad over a detachment of Swedes in 1240 and transfer the relics of the prince to the new capital. By this symbolic act, Peter wanted to firmly link the memory of his own victory over the Swedes with the memory of Alexander's triumph at the Battle of the Neva. In 1724, the first Russian emperor ordered that henceforth the saint should no longer be portrayed as a schemnik and a monk, but only “in the robes of the Grand Duke.” Moreover, Peter ordered to postpone the day of the celebration of the memory of Prince Alexander from November 23 (the day of his burial in Vladimir in 1263) to August 30 (the date of the signing of the peace treaty with the Swedes in Nystadt in 1721). It was on this day in 1724 that the solemn transfer of the relics of Alexander Nevsky from Vladimir to St. Petersburg took place. Peter personally brought the relics of the holy prince, which arrived by water from Vladimir, into the Church of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos built on the territory of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery. From that moment on, the prince was recognized as the heavenly patron of the empire and its new capital, as well as the great predecessor of Peter. After the transfer of the relics, Peter I ordered "according to the new service, instead of the service that was previously for this saint on November 23rd, from now on, celebrate August 30th."

Thus, in the 18th century, the noble prince Alexander appears before us no longer as a reverend saint of God, but as a glorified prince and great ancestor of the royal family. Having connected the name of Saint Alexander Nevsky with the most important date in the history of Russia - the signing of a peace treaty with the Swedes, Peter I gave his veneration a state and political character. Already after the death of the emperor, in 1725, fulfilling the will of her late husband, Catherine I established an order in honor of St. Alexander Nevsky, which became one of the highest and most honorable Russian awards. And by August 30, 1750, at the behest of the daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, a silver tomb was made for the relics of the saint. For its manufacture, 90 pounds of pure silver were spent - the first product of the Kolyvan Mining Plant. In the 19th century, three Russian emperors were named after the noble prince Alexander, thus emphasizing the role of the noble prince-warrior as the patron of the reigning house. The latter circumstance largely predetermined why hundreds of churches and temples were consecrated in the name of St. Alexander Nevsky.

At the end of the 18th century, and finally in the 19th century, under the influence of the works of secular historians, the personality of Alexander acquires the features of a national hero. In a characteristic elevated tone, he wrote about Alexander N.M. Karamzin, the prince appeared very worthily in S.M. Solovyov, and even the skeptic N.I. Kostomarov, whose assessments are often very sarcastic, made an exception for Alexander and wrote about him in an almost Karamzin spirit.

The image of Alexander Nevsky in the 19th century stands out, firstly, for its secular character: in the texts of Russian historians, the saint appears as the ruler of the Russian land; secondly, Alexander turned into a historical figure who not only defended the Russian state from invaders, but also defended the Russian people, Russian way of life and the Orthodox faith.

In the summer of 1917, in view of the threat of a German attack on Petrograd, a commission of the Holy Synod opened the tomb and examined the relics of the noble prince in case of their urgent evacuation. But the evacuation was not carried out.

After the October Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks in the first two decades of their rule did not take into account the activities of Alexander Nevsky. There were several reasons for this: firstly, he was a saint and a symbol of the Orthodox Church; secondly, a representative of the monarchical regime and the ruling class; thirdly, the Russians glorified him as a national hero. M.N. Pokrovsky and his student branded the prince as "a henchman of the Novgorod merchant bourgeoisie." In 1918-1920, the Bolsheviks launched a fierce anti-religious campaign, during which about 70 holy relics were opened and looted. At that time, the dictator of "Red Petrograd" G.E. Zinoviev and his Commissariat of Justice tried to get permission from the Petrograd Soviet to open and remove the relics of the blessed Prince Alexander, but the Soviet refused because of active protests from Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd and Gdov and all the believers of the city. However, in May 1922, G.E. Zinoviev managed to advance in the Petrograd Soviet a resolution on opening the saint's shrine.

On May 12, 1922, at 12 noon, the communist authorities of the city, despite the resistance of the clergy and believers, opened the casket. The relics were opened in public. For this, workers of the district committees of the party, communists, representatives of military units, and the public were invited. The silver tomb was disassembled into pieces and taken from the Holy Trinity Cathedral by trucks to the Winter Palace. The relics of the saint were put on public display, confiscated and later placed in the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism. The Bolsheviks filmed the opening of the relics on film, and in 1923 the “chronicle tape” “The Opening of the Relics of Alexander Nevsky” was shown in cinemas.

Alexander Nevsky was not forgotten only due to the radical ideological turn of the mid-1930s, which declared Soviet patriotism a new propaganda doctrine. Along with other historical figures of pre-revolutionary Russian history, Alexander was completely "rehabilitated" in 1937. Having been persecuted before, he has now become an outstanding figure in the history of the USSR. One of the most important moments of this "rehabilitation" was the film by S. Eisenstein "Alexander Nevsky" (1938). It turned out to be so topical on the eve of the war that it was not allowed to be shown. And only after the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, he appeared on the screens of the country.

Appeal to Russian patriotic, including Orthodox church, traditions played an extremely important role during the Great Patriotic War. In the Soviet Armed Forces, orders were established in honor of famous Russian commanders. In April 1942, a nationwide celebration of the 700th anniversary of the Battle of the Ice was held in the USSR. Famous paintings by P.D. were painted for this event. Korina and V.A. Serov. The Soviet press published a significant amount of materials on the events of 1242, the purpose of which was to raise and maintain patriotic mood in the ranks of the Red Army and the civilian population.

Postcards were issued and posters were put up depicting Prince Alexander Nevsky. And on July 29, a decree was published by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the establishment (in fact, the restoration) of the Order of Alexander Nevsky.

In the besieged Leningrad in the autumn of 1942, the artists A.A. Leporskaya and A.A. Ranchevskaya decorated the vestibule in the Trinity Cathedral, where until 1922 there was a shrine with the relics of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky. And in the spring of 1943, access was opened to the burial places of the great Russian commanders - Alexander Nevsky, A.V. Suvorov, M.I. Kutuzov, Peter I. In 1944, an exhibition dedicated to the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky was organized in the Trinity Cathedral, which was visited by a large number of military personnel of the Leningrad Front and residents of the city. This wave of civil popularity of the noble prince was also supported by the Russian Orthodox Church. During the war years, she collected donations for the construction of an aviation squadron named after Alexander Nevsky. The name of the prince was perceived as a symbol of the fight against German aggression on Russian lands. At the same time, it was taken into account that the Novgorod prince, who defeated the knights of the Teutonic Order on the ice of Lake Peipus in 1242, was more suitable than anyone else for Soviet propaganda against Nazi Germany: “Hitler, who dared to attack the USSR, will be defeated by the Red Army in the same way how Alexander Nevsky defeated the knights of the Teutonic Order in 1242.

The relics of the noble prince were again returned from the Kazan Cathedral, which housed the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in 1989. In 1990, on the initiative of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, the land taken at the site of the battle in Ust-Izhora was consecrated and, in a special casket, accompanied by a military escort, was delivered to the Lavra, where it was placed in the Holy Trinity Cathedral next to the relics of the prince. Consecrating the Ust-Izhora land, the Patriarch called to pray for all those who died defending their homeland. The 750th anniversary of the Battle of the Neva was solemnly celebrated in Leningrad in 1990. The Alexander Nevsky Church was restored at the site of the battle. The domestic mass media also remembered the activities of the holy prince. And the celebrations of the days of memory of the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of Peipsi are now held annually and with the involvement of clubs of military historical reconstruction.

In 2007, with the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, the relics of the saint were transported throughout the cities of Russia and Latvia for a month.

Interest in the personality of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky remains to this day. Information about his life and activities, recorded by written monuments, is scarce, but for the most part compiled by witnesses and eyewitnesses of events, therefore they are read again and again with interest by both specialists and the general reader. Unfortunately, far from all the details of the life and work of Prince Alexander Nevsky are known to us.

So, in the chronology of the veneration of the saint in historical time, several stages can be distinguished:

XIII-XIV centuries - Novgorod-Vladimir stage,

XIV-XVII centuries - Moscow stage,

XVIII century - 1920s - St. Petersburg-European stage,

1920s - 1990s - the Soviet stage,

1990s - 2010s - the Orthodox-iconological stage.

It should be noted that each of the stages of veneration of the right-believing Prince Alexander is associated with key periods in Russian history.

From a locally venerated Vladimir saint, Prince Alexander Nevsky in historical time became the heavenly patron of the Russian Empire. And in this, without a doubt, we see a special Providence of God. As noted by G.V. Vernadsky, “two feats of Alexander Nevsky - the feat of warfare in the West and the feat of humility in the East - had one goal: the preservation of Orthodoxy as the moral and political strength of the Russian people. This goal was achieved: the growth of the Russian Orthodox kingdom took place on the soil prepared by Alexander.

Instead of a conclusion

As noted above, works are currently appearing, the main purpose of which is to review the activities and personality of Alexander Yaroslavich from a critical side. We will not take into account the personal mystical experience of prayer, but the answer to all the arguments put forward by these authors for us is the fact that the blessed Prince Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky is a saint! He was glorified almost immediately after his death. And this cannot but be evidence of his charitable life. And even if his canonization was directly related to the fact that, according to I.N. Danilevsky, “in the eyes of his contemporaries, he turned out to be the last defender of Orthodoxy on the eve of the expected end of the world,” one must clearly understand that one does not become a saint just like that. Saints are people glorified by God Himself. And if the Lord was pleased to glorify in the centuries His saint, the right-believing Prince Alexander Yaroslavich, then this has a deep meaning. For by imitating the saints, we draw nearer to God. “From the life of the holy prince Alexander, we can conclude that not only those who strive in life, strive in piety, not only those who refuse the affairs of the world, can please the Lord by serving the people in the most various forms of service. In every rank, in every social position, if everything that we do, that we set as the goal of our life, we will do in the name of the Lord. So live, imitating the holy prince Alexander, glorifying God in your souls!”

The fact remains that Prince Alexander has always occupied and will continue to occupy an important place in the historical memory of the people. "Alexander Nevsky - Russian hero or myth?" - this is the question that critics are trying to answer. And the answer to this question lies in the very understanding of the word "myth", in which two meanings can be distinguished. One comes down to the opposition of myth and real history. According to the second, the myth has a culture-forming meaning, according to it the basic values ​​of society and the state are verified. But can we give a correct answer to the question: “What is “real history”? Is it possible to have an objective perception of it, a perception outside of someone's interpretations, which ultimately appeal to certain myths? When a person doubts the expediency of his existence, in the absence of a counterweight, this leads to suicide. When a nation doubts the justification of its existence, this leads to its degeneration. For, as St. Nicholas of Serbia wrote: “Everyone who wants to shame God is himself put to shame, and God is given an opportunity to become even more glorified. And everyone who tries to humiliate the righteous, in the end humiliates himself, and exalts the righteous even more. "Don't you know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Cor. 6: 2) - the Apostle Paul tells us. Critics should seriously think about these words, for “what God has cleansed, you shall not call unclean” (Acts 10:15).

Much more interesting for us is the history of the spread of veneration of the saint. In different eras of the existence of the Russian state, the attitude towards the activities and personality of the Grand Duke Alexander acquired one color or another. Until the 18th century, we see Alexander in the rank of saints. And although we know that the all-Russian veneration of the saint began long before Peter, it was under Peter I that Alexander Nevsky became one of the most revered national saints in Russia. Peter, who founded the new capital of the country, saw a certain symbolic meaning in the fact that the city was founded near the place where in 1240 the Novgorod prince Alexander Yaroslavich defeated the Swedes. Peter found in Prince Alexander the necessary historical and religious example, which, among other things, was revered by the people and the Church, and the tsar needed their support in carrying out reforms and building a new capital. As noted by A.V. Kartashev, Peter needed Alexander to unite the heavenly (the old church worship) and the earthly (drawn by Peter to contemporary realities). Thus, the deep reverence by the Church and the people of Alexander Yaroslavich received strong support from the state. Under Peter, a kind of Orthodox-state cult of veneration of the saint took shape. And the military successes of Alexander during his lifetime allowed him to take an important place among historical figures in the Soviet era.

The answer to the question of modern researchers: how to explain the phenomenon that the image of Alexander Nevsky has occupied a firm place in Russian cultural memory for more than seven centuries, despite the fact that the interpretation of this image has repeatedly and thoroughly changed over this time? - lies in the fact that the foundation of his house was originally laid on a stone (see: Matt. 7: 24-27). This stone is Christ! “Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am laying for a foundation in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a cornerstone, a precious one, firmly established: whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame” (Isaiah 28:16). And again: "Therefore, He is for you, the believers, a jewel, but for the unbelievers, the stone that the builders rejected, but which became the head of the corner, a stumbling stone and a stone of offense, on which they stumble, not obeying the word, to which they are left" (1 Pet. 2:7-8).

“Wonderful is God in His saints, the God of Israel!” (Ps. 67:36).

Holy Blessed Prince Alexandra, pray to God for us!

Frithion Benjamin Schenk. Russian hero or myth? pp. 90–93.

during the early medieval period of Russia

1942 Can one person change the course of history? Was freedom sacrificed in vain? Is the path of Orthodoxy in Russia chosen correctly? It is difficult after so many years to reflect on these questions. To condemn or justify certain actions. But the significance of the events of that time, and the role of Alexander in these events, is undoubtedly great.

It can be noted that in general the era was full of political events of great importance. And this rapid course of events, the change of scenery, do not allow us to unambiguously determine the motives and causes of actions. This partly explains the subjectivism and divergence of points of view on the same facts of historians. It is indisputable that these historical events were the root cause of the emergence of new stereotypes of behavior and features of the “Russian character”. Alexander acts as an accomplice of new ideas. It is he who plays a significant role in the formation of new features of the Russian mentality. What exactly was done? He traveled, analyzed, compared, negotiated, introduced new rules of life and state laws.

The first is an agreement with the Mongols. On the one hand, protection from Western aggressors, on the other hand, enslavement for 300 years. From Gumilyov's point of view: this union marked the beginning of the formation of new ethnic traditions in relations with the peoples of Eurasia. The purpose of the union was to protect the common Fatherland, “whether he himself understood the profound significance of the step he had taken is unknown, and it is not so important”, because “in the conciliar opinion of the descendants, his choice received the highest approval.” Will or not, doubts arise on this score. In an ethnic sense, this is indeed true. But is it to protect the common Fatherland? And what about his non-supporting contemporaries? It turns out that they were so much more stupid, or they are less patriotic. After all, it is possible that this approval was expressed only in an attempt to retroactively find support for the chosen state course, and at the same time justify wars and internal contradictions. Here it is possible to play on the feeling of patriotism. However, there is also an opposite assessment of the actions of the prince: “During the period of Alexander’s stay in the great reign of Vladimir, the system of Mongol rule over Russia was streamlined (census 1257-1259). Based on this fact, Alexander is often portrayed as almost the main culprit in establishing the yoke, friend of Batu and Sartak. So, according to the modern American historian, D. Fennel, whose book was published in our country, the receipt of the Great reign by Alexander “marked ... the beginning of a new era of the subordination of Russia to the Tatar state ... The so-called Tatar yoke began not so much during the invasion of Batu to Russia, how much from the moment Alexander betrayed his brothers” ” The points of view of historians, as we see, are diametrically opposed. Why? Of course, they are determined by the subjective position of the authors, which, in turn, depends on the cultural, historical and religious specifics of a given society in a given historical period. It seems to me that it is not worth considering the events of the past years so unambiguously, especially if confirmation by historical sources is difficult? The presented points of view are extreme approaches to the consideration of the issue. But most likely, in each of them there is a grain of truth.

Almost all significant events of that period are somehow connected with religion and upholding the ideas of Christianity. The approval of the church had both a positive and a negative meaning, one way or another influenced the politics and economy of the country. Historians noted that: “The process of Christianization of Russia is a very long period, irreducible to a single act.” The reason for this was the unwillingness of the country's population to part with the pagan traditions of their ancestors every hour. By the time of Alexander's reign, the new church orders did not yet have solid ground under their feet. The church was determined to endow all the victories accomplished in the name of protecting its interests with high motives. We see this in the descriptions by contemporaries of the events of the Battle of Neva and the Battle of the Ice. Here, some facts are exaggerated, the figure of Alexander, his role in these events, is extolled.

Considering the tolerance of the Mongols towards alternative beliefs, the church also favorably looked at the alliance with the “filthy”, justifying it by the fact that the yoke of strangers is the punishment of the Almighty for earthly sins, and we must reconcile ourselves and go through these sufferings, in atonement for sins, as soon as Russia is cleansed - the oppression of the Tatars will end.

When you analyze the influence of the church, the conclusion suggests itself about a kind of agreement between the prince and the church: exaltation and support in exchange for protecting interests.

Only freedom-loving Novgorodians from time to time opposed the Grand Duke. And in all likelihood, for this he could not but respect them and reckoned with their opinion. And yet, the interests of the state stood above his personal feelings and desires. This is evidenced by the cruelty and tricks that Alexander went to in choosing the tactics of relations with the recalcitrant people, who stood at odds with common interests (the uprising against the clerics, the "renunciation" of the top of the Novgorod boyars from the hardships of the Horde tribute in favor of "smaller" people, yes and hostilities conducted against Novgorod). The prince could not but see the anxieties and hardships of the people, but the interests of the entire state were more important.

Perhaps the rule highlighted by Karamzin worked here: “... The virtues of the sovereign, contrary to the strength, security, tranquility of the State, are not the essence of virtue.” Unable to refuse to support the allies of the boyars, Alexander often turned a blind eye to the growing social injustice and inequality. However, “and by his very position, Alexander, of course, was closer to the Novgorod nobility, the “higher”, rather than the “lesser”. He probably did not imagine the world otherwise than divided into "big" and "smaller", rich and poor. This is how God created the world. And can people doubt the wisdom of his plan? There were quite a few such stereotypes in the behavior of Russian princes, and even Russians at that time. The reason for this was tradition, "old." People constantly looked back and compared their achievements with the works of their ancestors. Probably, Alexander himself realized and evaluated himself through the biography of his father.” “Looking back at the whole range of deeds of the Neva hero, it is easy to notice: he is surprisingly similar to his father's track record. In all his affairs and campaigns, Alexander was not a pioneer; he literally followed his father, repeating his fate even in detail. However, his victories look incomparably brighter not only because of the change in the historical background (they are like flashes in the darkness of universal despair!), but also because of his youth, the brilliance of personal courage and some special cheerful audacity.”

The next distinctive moment of the activity of the Russian princes is an indomitable desire for power. Alexander felt the rules of the cruel game after the death of his father. “Whether he wants it or not, he faces a tough struggle for power. His rivals will be not only his father's younger brothers - Svyatoslav, Ivan, but also his own brothers - Andrei, Mikhail, Yaroslav, Konstantin, Vasily, Daniel. It has long been customary in princely families: love of power invariably triumphs over brotherly love, the desire to occupy the best, richest “table” turns out to be stronger than the fear of “falling into sin”, and thereby incurring the wrath of God, about which the preachers calling to the world spoke so often.” However, at that time Russia already knew examples of a qualitatively different behavior - the adoption of monasticism. “Such people in Russia enjoyed special authority. This tradition was reflected in the spiritual and moral research of advanced Russian people at a later time. At the heart of such, at first glance, inexplicable actions was the desire to suffer for the people, who bore all the hardships of life and hard work, and by suffering, thereby atone for their guilt, sins, remove the burden from the soul, gaining moral purity and kingdom through physical and spiritual suffering. heavenly. People left worldly life, worldly freedoms in search of inner freedom, fencing off the inner bustle of loneliness, consciously refusing life's blessings, because only loneliness creates the conditions for genuine service to God. “The unmarried cares about the Lord's things, how to please the Lord; but a married man takes care of the things of the world, how to please his wife,” taught the Apostle Peter.” Alexander respected such people, but this path was not for him.

In the last days of his restless life, when his hours were numbered, “Alexander wanted to accept the great schema - the most complete form of monastic vows. Of course, he tonsured a dying man, and even to the highest monastic degree! - contradicted the very idea of ​​monasticism. However, an exception was made for Alexander. Later, following his example, many Russian princes accepted the schema before their death. It has become a kind of custom.” The methods of struggle for power have also changed. “... the struggle took on an unprecedentedly cruel, base character. And if earlier the main means of resolving princely disputes was the battle “in an open field”, now a new, terrible weapon was increasingly used - a denunciation of Batu or the Great Khan himself against his enemy.” The agreement with Batu contributed to the merging of ethnic groups, and consequently the merging of the characteristic features of the Mongolian and Russian peoples.

Lifetime merits are far from all that the image of the Grand Duke is famous for.

ChapterIV. Evaluations of the personality and results of the board

In historical science there is no single assessment of the activities of Alexander Nevsky, the views of historians on his personality are different, sometimes opposite.

Historians express both positive and negative assessments of the activities of Alexander Nevsky. According to the traditional interpretation, Alexander Nevsky played an exceptional role in Russian history, during a dramatic period when Russia was attacked from three sides: the Catholic West, the Mongol-Tatars and Lithuania. Alexander Nevsky, who had not lost a single battle in his entire life, showed the talent of a commander and diplomat, repulsing the German attack and, submitting to the inevitable dominion of the Horde, prevented the devastating campaigns of the Mongol-Tatars against Russia. Skeptical historians (in particular, Igor Danilevsky, Sergei Smirnov) believe that the traditional image of Alexander Nevsky as a brilliant commander and patriot is exaggerated. They focus on the evidence in which Alexander Nevsky acts as a power-hungry and cruel person. They also express doubts about the scale of the Livonian threat to Russia and the real military significance of the clashes on the Neva and Lake Peipsi.

4.1. Canonical evaluation

According to the "canonical" version, Alexander Nevsky played an exceptional role in Russian history. In the XIII century, Russia was attacked from three sides - the Catholic West, the Mongol-Tatars and Lithuania. Alexander Nevsky, who has not lost a single battle in his entire life, showed the talent of a commander and diplomat, making peace with the most powerful (but more tolerant) enemy - the Golden Horde - and repelling the German attack, while protecting Orthodoxy from Catholic expansion. This interpretation was officially supported by the authorities both in pre-revolutionary and Soviet times, as well as by the Russian Orthodox Church. The idealization of Alexander reached its zenith before the Great Patriotic War, during and in the first decades after it. In popular culture, this image was captured in the film "Alexander Nevsky" by Sergei Eisenstein. There is also a more moderate interpretation of this point of view. So, according to the modern historian Anton Gorsky, in the actions of Nevsky “one should not look for some kind of conscious fateful choice ... Alexander Yaroslavich was a pragmatist ... he chose the path that seemed more profitable for him to strengthen his land and for him personally ... when it was a decisive battle , he fought when an agreement seemed most useful, he went for an agreement.

4.2. Eurasian assessment

Alexander's friendly relations with Batu, whose respect he enjoyed, his son Sartak and his successor, Khan Berke, made it possible to conclude the most peaceful relations with the Horde, which contributed to the synthesis of Eastern European and Mongol-Tatar cultures.

4.3. Critical Assessment

The third group of historians, in general agreeing with the "pragmatic" nature of the actions of Alexander Nevsky, believes that objectively he played a negative role in the history of Russia. This position is shared, in particular, by Igor Danilevsky and John Fennel. According to their interpretation, there was no serious threat from the German knights (moreover, the Battle of the Ice was not a major battle), and the example of Lithuania (to which a number of Russian princes with their lands crossed), according to Danilevsky, showed that a successful fight against the Tatars was quite possible. Alexander Nevsky deliberately entered into an alliance with the Tatars in order to use them to strengthen his personal power. In the long term, his choice predetermined the formation of despotic power in Russia.

Conclusion

Prince Alexander was destined to find a second, posthumous life. His name has become a symbol of military prowess. The halo of holiness surrounding the prince, created by Metropolitan Kirill, made it possible to expect from Nevsky and heavenly intercession. Where people sincerely asked for a miracle, it certainly happened. The prince-saint got up from the tomb and encouraged his compatriots on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo and during the terrible raid of the Crimean Tatars in 1571. In 1547, he was included in the number of saints whose memory was celebrated in all churches of the Russian church without exception.

Alexander Nevsky was especially often remembered when there was a war with the Swedes or Germans ...

Having almost lost his real features, Alexander turned into a kind of historical and patriotic icon. No one wanted to listen to historians who timidly tried to recall common sense. However, any extreme inevitably gives rise to another, opposite extreme. Creating idols, people eventually experience an urgent need to destroy them. As gullible idolatry as a form of assimilation of historical knowledge is overcome, more and more people will appear who want to “debunk” Alexander Nevsky. Well, everyone is free to understand in their own way what the sources are silent about ...

And yet we should not forget that in the history of our country there are, as it were, two Alexander Nevskys: a tired, exhausted man, who died in the late autumn of 1263 in Gorodets-on-Volga, and a huge shadow cast by him into the future. This man was, of course, not sinless, but at the same time by no means the worst son of his cruel age. Concluding the story about him, we would like to offer the reader three provisions, the truth of which can hardly be doubted:

This was a commander whose successes were the result of a combination of rich military experience,

accumulated by his ancestors, with outstanding personal fighting qualities;

It was a politician of the medieval type, far from sentimental;

This was a ruler who, in the most difficult time, provided his country with ten years of peaceful life.

List of used literature:

Borisov N.S. // Russian commanders of the XII - XYI centuries. // - M., 1993

Great statesmen of Russia.// - M., 1996

Gumilyov L. // From Russia to Russia. Essays on Russian history.// - M., 1996

Klepinin N.// The Holy and Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky.// - M., 1994

Karamzin N.M.// Illustrative history of Russia.// - St. Petersburg, 1993

Rybakov B.A.// The world of history.// - M., 1984

Reader on Russian military history.- M., 1947

http://www.lants.tellur.ru/history/

Abstract >> History

in which exaggerated role Scandinavian warriors in... in stories Russia very close to estimated pre-revolutionary historians. Personality and ... did not give practical results. Depletion of raw materials... Hordes 1252–1263 – Governing body Alexandra Nevsky in Vladimir (b. ...

1. Story Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century

   Abstract >> History

   Kolovrat. About victories Alexandra Nevsky is narrated in his "... authoritarian board accompanied by an extraordinary growth roles personalities in Russian stories. ... Russia. Range ratings here it is extremely wide - from the recognition of the overthrow of the autocracy result ...

2. Answers to questions about stories Russia

   Cheat sheet >> History

   ... board. 3. In literature, the main themes were heroic and biographical (lives). In "The Life of a Saint" Alexandra Nevsky"... what role in stories Russia played ... his evaluation Chaadaev's speeches... result efforts of "critical thinkers personalities" ...