Unknown Alexander Nevsky: was the massacre "ice", did the prince bow to the Horde and other controversial issues

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Prince of Novgorod (1236-1240, 1241-1252 and 1257-1259), and later the Grand Duke of Kiev (1249-1263), and then Vladimirsky (1252-1263), Alexander Yaroslavich, known in our historical memory as Alexander Nevsky, - one of the most popular heroes of the history of Ancient Russia. Only Dmitry Donskoy and Ivan the Terrible can compete with him. An important role in this was played by Sergei Eisenstein's brilliant film "Alexander Nevsky", which turned out to be consonant with the events of the 40s of the last century, and recently also the "Name of Russia" competition, in which the prince won a posthumous victory over other heroes of Russian history.

The glorification of Alexander Yaroslavich as a blessed prince by the Russian Orthodox Church is also important. Meanwhile, the nationwide veneration of Alexander Nevsky as a hero began only after the Great Patriotic War. Before that, even professional historians paid much less attention to it. For example, in pre-revolutionary general courses on the history of Russia, the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of the Ice is often not mentioned at all.

Now a critical and even neutral attitude towards the hero and the saint is perceived by many in society (both in professional circles and among history buffs) very painfully. Nevertheless, active controversy continues among historians. The situation is complicated not only by the subjectivity of the views of each scientist, but also by the extreme difficulty of working with medieval sources.

All information in them can be divided into repetitive (quotes and paraphrases), unique and verifiable. Accordingly, you need to trust these three types of information to varying degrees. Among other things, professionals sometimes call the period from about the middle of the XIII to the middle of the XIV century "dark" precisely because of the scarcity of the source base.

In this article, we will try to consider how historians assess the events associated with Alexander Nevsky, and what, in their opinion, his role in history. Without going too deep into the argumentation of the parties, we will nevertheless present the main conclusions. Here and there, for convenience, we will divide part of our text about each major event into two sections: “for” and “against”. In fact, of course, on each specific issue, the range of opinions is much greater.

Battle of the Neva

The battle of the Neva took place on July 15, 1240 at the mouth of the Neva River between the Swedish landing (the Swedish detachment also included a small group of Norwegians and warriors of the Finnish Emi tribe) and the Novgorod-Ladoga squad in alliance with the local Izhora tribe. The assessments of this collision, like the Battle of the Ice, depend on the interpretation of the data from the Novgorod First Chronicle and the Life of Alexander Nevsky. Many researchers treat the information in the life with great distrust. Scientists also disagree on the question of the dating of this work, on which the reconstruction of events strongly depends.

Per The Battle of the Neva is a fairly large battle of great importance. Some historians even talked about an attempt to blockade Novgorod economically and close the exit to the Baltic. The Swedes were led by the son-in-law of the Swedish king, the future Jarl Birger and / or his cousin Jarl Ulf Fasi. A sudden and quick attack by the Novgorod squad and Izhora soldiers on the Swedish detachment prevented the creation of a strong point on the banks of the Neva, and, possibly, a subsequent attack on Ladoga and Novgorod. It was a turning point in the fight against the Swedes.

Six soldiers of Novgorod distinguished themselves in the battle, whose exploits are described in the "Life of Alexander Nevsky" (there are even attempts to connect these heroes with specific people known from other Russian sources). During the battle, the young prince Alexander "put a seal on his face," that is, he wounded the general of the Swedes in the face. For the victory in this battle, Alexander Yaroslavich subsequently received the nickname "Nevsky".

Against The scale and significance of this battle is clearly exaggerated. There could be no question of a blockade. The skirmish was clearly petty, since, according to the sources, 20 or fewer people died in it from the Rus side. True, we can only talk about noble warriors, but this hypothetical assumption is unprovable. Swedish sources do not mention the Battle of the Neva at all.

It is characteristic that the first large Swedish chronicle - "The Chronicle of Eric", which was written much later than these events, mentioning many Swedish-Novgorod conflicts, in particular the destruction of the Swedish capital Sigtuna in 1187 by the Karelians, incited by the Novgorodians, is silent about this event.

Naturally, there was no talk of an attack on Ladoga or Novgorod either. It is impossible to say exactly who led the Swedes, but Magnus Birger, apparently, was in a different place during this battle. It is difficult to call the actions of the Russian soldiers swift. The exact place of the battle is unknown, but it was located on the territory of modern St. Petersburg, and from it to Novgorod 200 km in a straight line, and it takes longer to go over rough terrain. But it was still necessary to gather the Novgorod squad and somewhere to unite with the Ladoga residents. This would have taken at least a month.

It is strange that the Swedish camp was poorly fortified. Most likely, the Swedes were not going to go deep into the territory, but to baptize the local population, for which they had priests. This is what determines the great attention paid to the description of this battle in the Life of Alexander Nevsky. The story about the Battle of the Neva in his life is twice as long as about the Battle on the Ice.

For the author of the life, whose task is not to describe the feats of the prince, but to show his piety, it is, first of all, not about military, but about spiritual victory. It is hardly possible to speak of this clash as a turning point if the struggle between Novgorod and Sweden continued for a very long time.

In 1256, the Swedes again tried to gain a foothold on the coast. In 1300, they managed to build the Landskronu fortress on the Neva, but a year later they left it due to the constant raids of the enemy and the difficult climate. The confrontation took place not only on the banks of the Neva, but also on the territory of Finland and Karelia. Suffice it to recall the winter Finnish campaign of Alexander Yaroslavich 1256-1257. and campaigns against the Finns of Jarl Birger. Thus, at best, we can talk about the stabilization of the situation for several years.

The description of the battle as a whole in the chronicle and in the Life of Alexander Nevsky should not be taken literally, as it is full of quotations from other texts: The Jewish War by Joseph Flavius, Eugene's Deeds, Trojan Tales, etc. As for the duel between Prince Alexander and the leader of the Swedes, there is practically the same episode with a wound in the face in The Life of Prince Dovmont, so this plot is most likely a rolling one.

Some scholars believe that the life of the Pskov prince Dovmont was written earlier than the life of Alexander and, accordingly, the borrowing occurred from there. The role of Alexander is also unclear in the scene of the death of a part of the Swedes on the other side of the river - where the prince's squad was "impassable".

Perhaps the enemy was destroyed by Izhora. The sources speak of the death of the Swedes from the angels of the Lord, which is very reminiscent of the episode from the Old Testament (19th chapter of the Fourth Book of Kings) about the destruction of the Assyrian army of King Sennacherib by the angel.

The name "Nevsky" appears only in the 15th century. More importantly, there is a text in which the two sons of Prince Alexander are also called "Nevsky". Perhaps these were proprietary nicknames, that is, the family owned land in the area. In sources close in time to the events, Prince Alexander bears the nickname "Brave".

Russian-Livonian conflict 1240 - 1242 and the Battle of the Ice

The famous battle, known to us as the Battle of the Ice, took place in 1242. In it, the troops under the command of Alexander Nevsky and the German knights with the Estonians (Chud) subordinate to them met on the ice of Lake Peipsi. There are more sources for this battle than for the Battle of the Neva: several Russian chronicles, the Life of Alexander Nevsky and the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, reflecting the position of the Teutonic Order.

Per In the 40s of the XIII century, the papacy organized a crusade to the Baltic States, in which Sweden (the Battle of the Neva), Denmark and the Teutonic Order participated. During this campaign in 1240, the Germans captured the fortress of Izborsk, and then on September 16, 1240 the Pskov army was defeated there. Perished, according to the chronicles, from 600 to 800 people. Then Pskov was besieged, which soon capitulated.

As a result, the Pskov political group headed by Tverdila Ivankovich is subordinate to the Order. The Germans are rebuilding the Koporye fortress, making a raid on the Vodskaya land, controlled by Novgorod. The Novgorod boyars ask the Grand Duke of Vladimir Yaroslav Vsevolodovich to return to them the reign of the young Alexander Yaroslavich, who was expelled by "lesser people" for reasons unknown to us.

Prince Yaroslav first offers them his other son Andrey, but they prefer to return Alexander. In 1241, Alexander, apparently with an army of Novgorodians, Ladozhians, Izhor and Karelians, conquered Novgorod territories and took Koporye by storm. In March 1242, Alexander with a large army, including the Suzdal regiments brought by his brother Andrey, expelled the Germans from Pskov. Then the fighting is transferred to the enemy's territory in Livonia.

The Germans defeat the advance detachment of Novgorodians under the command of Domash Tverdislavich and Kerbet. Alexander's main troops retreat to the ice of Lake Peipsi. There, on Uzmen, at the Crow Stone (the exact place is not known to scientists, there are discussions) on April 5, 1242, and a battle takes place.

The number of troops of Alexander Yaroslavich is at least 10,000 people (3 regiments - Novgorod, Pskov and Suzdal). The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle suggests that there were fewer Germans than Russians. True, the text uses rhetorical hyperbole, that there were 60 times fewer Germans.

Apparently, the Russians carried out an encirclement maneuver, and the Order was defeated. German sources report that 20 knights were killed, and 6 were taken prisoner, and Russian sources tell about the losses of the Germans in 400-500 people and about 50 prisoners. Chudi died "innumerable". The Battle on the Ice is a major battle that significantly influenced the political situation. In Soviet historiography, it was even customary to speak of "the largest battle of the early Middle Ages."

AgainstThe version of a general crusade is doubtful. At that time, the West did not have sufficient forces or a common strategy, which is confirmed by the significant time difference between the actions of the Swedes and the Germans. In addition, the territory, which historians conditionally call the Livonian Confederation, was not united. Here were the lands of the archbishoprics of Riga and Dorpat, the possession of the Danes and the Order of the Swordsmen (from 1237 the Livonian Land Mastership of the Teutonic Order). All these forces were in a very difficult, often conflicting relationship with each other.

The knights of the order, by the way, received only a third of the lands they conquered, and the rest went to the church. Difficult relations were also within the order between the former swordsmen and the Teutonic knights who came to them for reinforcement. The policy of the Teutons and the former swordsmen in the Russian direction was different. So, having learned about the beginning of the war with the Russians, the head of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, Hanrik von Wind, dissatisfied with these actions, removed the landmaster of Livonia, Andreas von Wölven, from power. The new landmaster of Livonia, Dietrich von Groeningen, after the Battle of the Ice, made peace with the Russians, freeing all the occupied lands and exchanging prisoners.

In such a situation, there could be no talk of any united "Onslaught on the East". Collision 1240-1242 - This is a common struggle for spheres of influence, which either escalated or subsided. Among other things, the conflict between Novgorod and the Germans is directly related to the Pskov-Novgorod policy, first of all, with the history of the expulsion of the Pskov prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich, who found refuge with the Dorpat Bishop German and tried to regain the throne with his help.

The scale of the events seems to be somewhat exaggerated by some modern scholars. Alexander acted carefully so as not to completely ruin relations with Livonia. So, taking Koporye, he executed only the Estonians and the leaders, and released the Germans. The capture of Pskov by Alexander is in fact the expulsion of two knights of the Vogt (that is, judges) with a retinue (hardly more than 30 people) who were sitting there under an agreement with the Pskovites. By the way, some historians believe that this agreement was actually concluded against Novgorod.

In general, Pskov's relations with the Germans were less conflicting than those of Novgorod. For example, the people of Pskov participated in the Battle of Siauliai against the Lithuanians in 1236 on the side of the Order of the Swordsmen. In addition, Pskov often suffered from the German-Novgorod border conflicts, since the German troops sent against Novgorod often did not reach the Novgorod lands and plundered the closer Pskov possessions.

The Battle of the Ice itself took place not on the lands of the Order, but of the Dorpat Archbishop, so most of the troops most likely consisted of his vassals. There is reason to believe that a significant part of the Order's troops were simultaneously preparing for war with the Semigallians and Curonians. In addition, it is usually not customary to mention that Alexander sent his troops to "disperse" and "heal", that is, in modern terms, to plunder the local population. The main method of waging a medieval war is to inflict maximum economic damage on the enemy and seize loot. It was in the "dispersal" that the advance detachment of the Russians was defeated by the Germans.

The exact details of the battle are difficult to reconstruct. Many modern historians believe that the German army did not exceed 2,000 people. Some historians speak of only 35 knights and 500 foot soldiers. The Russian army may have been somewhat larger, but hardly significantly. The "Livonian Rhymed Chronicle" only reports that the Germans used the "pig", that is, the formation in a wedge, and that the "pig" broke through the ranks of the Russians, who had many archers. The knights fought bravely, but they were defeated, and some of the Dorpat people fled to escape.

As for the losses, the only explanation why the data of the chronicles and the "Livonian Rhymed Chronicle" differ is the assumption that the Germans considered only losses among the full knights of the Order, and the Russians - the total losses of all Germans. Most likely, here, as in other medieval texts, the reports on the death toll are very conditional.

Even the exact date of the Battle of the Ice is unknown. The Novgorod Chronicle gives the date of April 5, Pskov - April 1, 1242. And whether it was "ice" is unclear. In the "Livonian Rhymed Chronicle" there are the words: "On both sides, the dead fell on the grass." The political and military significance of the "Battle on the Ice" is also exaggerated, especially in comparison with the larger battles of Siauliai (1236) and Rakovor (1268).

Alexander Nevsky and the Pope

One of the key episodes in the biography of Alexander Yaroslavich is his contacts with Pope Innocent IV. Information about this is in two bulls of Innocent IV and "The Life of Alexander Nevsky". The first bull is dated January 22, 1248, the second - September 15, 1248.

Many believe that the fact of the prince's contacts with the Roman curia is very harmful to his image of an implacable defender of Orthodoxy. Therefore, some researchers even tried to find other addressees for the Pope's messages. They offered either Yaroslav Vladimirovich, an ally of the Germans in the war of 1240 against Novgorod, or the Lithuanian Tovtivil, who reigned in Polotsk. However, most researchers consider these versions to be unfounded.

What was written in these two documents? In the first message, the Pope asked Alexander to inform him through the brothers of the Teutonic Order in Livonia about the Tatars' offensive in order to prepare for a rebuff. In the second bull to Alexander, "the Most Serene Prince of Novgorod," the Pope mentions that his addressee agreed to join the true faith and even allowed to build a cathedral in Pleskov, that is, in Pskov, and, possibly, even establish an episcopal see.

No reply letters have survived. But from the "Life of Alexander Nevsky" it is known that two cardinals came to the prince to persuade him to convert to Catholicism, but received a categorical refusal. However, apparently, for some time Alexander Yaroslavich maneuvered between the West and the Horde.

What influenced his final decision? It is impossible to answer exactly, but the explanation of the historian A. A. Gorsky seems interesting. The fact is that, most likely, the second letter from the Pope did not find Alexander; at that moment he was on his way to Karakorum - the capital of the Mongol Empire. The prince spent two years on the trip (1247 - 1249) and saw the might of the Mongol state.

When he returned, he learned that Daniel Galitsky, who received the royal crown from the Pope, never received the promised help from the Catholics against the Mongols. In the same year, the Catholic Swedish ruler Jarl Birger began the conquest of Central Finland - the lands of the tribal union Eme, which was previously part of the sphere of influence of Novgorod. And, finally, the mention of the Catholic cathedral in Pskov should have caused unpleasant memories of the conflict of 1240-1242.

Alexander Nevsky and the Horde

The most painful moment in discussing the life of Alexander Nevsky is his relationship with the Horde. Alexander did travel to Sarai (1247, 1252, 1258 and 1262) and Karakorum (1247-1249). Some hotheads declare him to be almost a collaborationist, a traitor to the fatherland and motherland. But, firstly, such a formulation of the question is an obvious anachronism, since such concepts did not even exist in the ancient Russian language of the 13th century. Secondly, all the princes traveled to the Horde for labels to reign or for other reasons, even Daniil Galitsky, who had shown direct resistance to her the longest.

The Horde, as a rule, accepted them with honor, although the chronicle of Daniel Galitsky stipulates that "Tatar honor is more evil than evil." The princes had to observe certain rituals, go through the kindled fires, drink koumiss, worship the image of Genghis Khan - that is, do what defiled a person according to the concepts of a Christian of that time. Most of the princes and, apparently, Alexander too, obeyed these requirements.

Only one exception is known: Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, who refused to obey in 1246 and was killed for this (canonized by the rite of martyrs at a council in 1547). In general, the events in Russia, starting from the 40s of the XIII century, cannot be viewed in isolation from the political situation in the Horde.

One of the most dramatic episodes of Russian-Horde relations took place in 1252. The course of events was as follows. Alexander Yaroslavich goes to Sarai, after which Baty sends an army led by the commander Nevryuy ("Nevryuev's army") against Andrey Yaroslavich, Prince Vladimir, Alexander's brother. Andrey flees from Vladimir to Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, where their younger brother Yaroslav Yaroslavich rules.

The princes manage to escape from the Tatars, but Yaroslav's wife dies, the children are captured, and "countless" ordinary people are killed. After the departure of Nevryuya, Alexander returns to Russia and sits on the throne in Vladimir. There are still discussions about whether Alexander was involved in Nevryuya's campaign.

Per The harshest assessment of these events from the English historian Fennel: "Alexander betrayed his brothers." Many historians believe that Alexander specially went to the Horde to complain to the khan about Andrey, especially since such cases are known at a later time. Complaints could be as follows: Andrei, the younger brother, unjustly received the great reign of Vladimir, taking his father's cities, which should belong to the eldest of the brothers; he does not pay extra tribute.

The subtlety here was that Alexander Yaroslavich, being the Grand Duke of Kiev, formally possessed more power than the Grand Duke of Vladimir Andrey, but in fact Kiev, ruined in the 12th century by Andrei Bogolyubsky, and then by the Mongols, by that time had lost its significance, and therefore Alexander was in Novgorod. This distribution of power was consistent with the Mongol tradition, according to which the younger brother gets the property of the father, and the older brothers conquer the lands for themselves. As a result, the conflict between the brothers was resolved in such a dramatic way.

Against There are no direct indications of Alexander's complaint in the sources. An exception is Tatishchev's text. But recent research has shown that this historian did not use, as previously thought, unknown sources; he did not distinguish between the retelling of the chronicles and his comments. The statement of the complaint appears to be a commentary by the writer. The analogies with later times are incomplete, since later the princes, who successfully complained to the Horde, themselves participated in punitive campaigns.

The historian A. A. Gorsky offers the following version of events. Apparently, Andrei Yaroslavich, relying on the shortcut to Vladimir reign, received in 1249 in Karakorum from the hostile Sarai khansha Ogul-Gamish, tried to behave independently of Batu. But in 1251 the situation changed.

Khan Munke (Mengu) comes to power in Karakorum with the support of Batu. Apparently, Batu decides to redistribute power in Russia and summons the princes to his capital. Alexander is going, but Andrey is not. Then Batu sends the army of Nevryuya against Andrey and at the same time the army of Kuremsa against his father-in-law, the rebellious Daniel Galitsky. However, for the final resolution of this controversial issue, as usual, there are not enough sources.

In 1256-1257, a population census was carried out throughout the Great Mongol Empire in order to streamline taxation, but it was disrupted in Novgorod. By 1259, Alexander Nevsky suppressed the Novgorod uprising (for which some in this city still do not like him; for example, the outstanding historian and leader of the Novgorod archaeological expedition V. L. Yanin spoke out very harshly about him). The prince provided for the census and the payment of the "exit" (as the sources call the tribute to the Horde).

As you can see, Alexander Yaroslavich was very loyal to the Horde, but then it was the policy of almost all the princes. In a difficult situation, they had to make compromises with the irresistible power of the Great Mongol Empire, about which the papal legate Plano Carpini, who visited Karakorum, noted that only God could defeat them.

Canonization of Alexander Nevsky

Prince Alexander was canonized at the Moscow Cathedral in 1547 in the guise of the faithful. Why did he become venerated as a saint? There are different opinions on this matter. So F. B. Schenck, who wrote a fundamental study on the change in the image of Alexander Nevsky in time, asserts: "Alexander became the founder of a special type of Orthodox holy princes who deserved their position, first of all, by secular acts for the benefit of the community …".

Many researchers prioritize the military successes of the prince and believe that he was revered as a saint who defended the "Russian land". The interpretation of I. N. Danilevsky: “Amid the terrible trials that befell the Orthodox lands, Alexander is almost the only secular ruler who did not doubt his spiritual righteousness, did not hesitate in his faith, did not abandon his God. Refusing to act jointly with Catholics against the Horde, he suddenly becomes the last powerful stronghold of Orthodoxy, the last defender of the entire Orthodox world.

Could the Orthodox Church refuse to recognize such a ruler as a saint? Apparently, therefore, he was canonized not as a righteous man, but as a faithful (listen to this word!) Prince. The victories of his direct heirs in the political arena consolidated and developed this image. And the people understood and accepted this, forgiving the real Alexander all the cruelties and injustices."

And, finally, there is the opinion of AE Musin, a researcher with two backgrounds, historical and theological. He denies the importance of the prince's "anti-Latin" policy, fidelity to the Orthodox faith and social activity in his canonization, and tries to understand what qualities of Alexander's personality and peculiarities of life caused him to be worshiped by the people of medieval Russia; it began much earlier than the official canonization.

It is known that by 1380 the veneration of the prince had already taken shape in Vladimir. The main thing that, according to the scientist, was appreciated by his contemporaries is "a combination of the courage of a Christian warrior and the sobriety of a Christian monk." Another important factor was the very strangeness of his life and death. Alexander could have died of illness in 1230 or 1251, but he recovered. He was not supposed to become a Grand Duke, since he originally occupied the second place in the family hierarchy, but his older brother Theodore died at thirteen years old. Nevsky died strangely, having taken tonsure before his death (this custom spread in Russia in the XII century).

In the Middle Ages, unusual people and passion-bearers were loved. The sources describe miracles associated with Alexander Nevsky. The incorruptibility of his remains also played a role. Unfortunately, we do not even know for sure whether the real relics of the prince have survived. The fact is that the lists of the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles of the 16th century say that the body burned down in a fire in 1491, and in the lists of the same chronicles for the 17th century it is written that it was miraculously preserved, which leads to sad suspicions.

The choice of Alexander Nevsky

Recently, the main merit of Alexander Nevsky is not the defense of the northwestern borders of Russia, but, so to speak, the conceptual choice between the West and the East in favor of the latter.

PerMany historians think so. The famous statement of the Eurasian historian GV Vernadsky from his publicistic article “Two exploits of St. Alexander Nevsky ":" … with a deep and brilliant hereditary historical instinct, Alexander realized that in his historical era the main danger for Orthodoxy and the originality of Russian culture was from the West, not from the East, from Latinism, not from Mongolism."

Further, Vernadsky writes: “Alexander's submission to the Horde cannot otherwise be assessed as a feat of humility. When the times and dates came when Russia gained strength, and the Horde, on the contrary, became smaller, weakened and exhausted and then Aleksandrov's policy of subordination to the Horde became unnecessary … then the policy of Alexander Nevsky naturally had to turn into the policy of Dmitry Donskoy."

Against First, such an assessment of the motives of Nevsky's activity - an assessment of the consequences - suffers from the point of view of logic. After all, he could not foresee the further development of events. In addition, as I. N. Danilevsky ironically noted, Alexander did not choose, but he was chosen (Batu chose), and the choice of the prince was "a choice for survival."

In some places Danilevsky speaks even more harshly, believing that the policy of Nevsky influenced the duration of the dependence of Russia on the Horde (he refers to the successful struggle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the Horde) and, along with the earlier policy of Andrei Bogolyubsky, on the formation of the type of statehood of the North-Eastern Russia as a "despotic monarchy". Here it is worth citing a more neutral opinion of the historian A. A. Gorsky:

Favorite childhood hero

This is how one of the sections of a very critical article about Alexander Nevsky was called by the historian I. N. Danilevsky. I confess that for the author of these lines, along with Richard I the Lionheart, he was a favorite hero. The "Battle on the Ice" was "reconstructed" in detail with the help of soldiers. So the author knows exactly how it all really was. But if we speak coldly and seriously, then, as mentioned above, we do not have enough data for a holistic assessment of the personality of Alexander Nevsky.

As is most often the case in the study of early history, we more or less know that something happened, but often we do not know and will never know how. The author's personal opinion is that the argumentation of the position, which we conditionally designated as “against,” looks more serious. Perhaps the exception is the episode with "Nevrueva's Host" - there is nothing to say for sure. The final conclusion remains with the reader.

BONUS

Bibliography1. Alexander Nevsky and the history of Russia. Novgorod. 1996. 2. Bakhtin A. P. Internal and foreign policy problems of the Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia in the late 1230s - early 1240s. The Battle on the Ice in the Mirror of the Epoch // Collection of scientific works dedicated. 770th anniversary of the Battle of Lake Peipsi. Compiled by M. B. Bessudnova. Lipetsk. 2013 S. 166-181. 3. Runners Yu. K. Alexander Nevskiy. Life and deeds of the holy noble grand duke. M., 2003 4. G. V. Vernadsky Two exploits of St. Alexander Nevsky // Eurasian time book. Book. IV. Prague, 1925. 5. Gorsky A. A. Alexander Nevsky. 6. Danilevsky I. N. Alexander Nevsky: Paradoxes of Historical Memory // "Chain of Times": Problems of Historical Consciousness. Moscow: IVI RAN, 2005, p. 119-132.7. Danilevsky I. N. Historical reconstruction: between text and reality (theses). 8. Danilevsky I. N. The Battle on the Ice: Change of Image // Otechestvennye zapiski. 2004. - No. 5. 9. Danilevsky I. N. Alexander Nevsky and the Teutonic Order. 10. Danilevsky I. N. Russian lands through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (XII-XIV centuries). M. 2001.11. Danilevsky I. N. Contemporary Russian discussions about Prince Alexander Nevsky. 12. Egorov V. L. Alexander Nevsky and Chingizids // Domestic history. 1997. No. 2.13. Prince Alexander Nevsky and His Era: Research and Materials. SPb. 1995.14. A. V. Kuchkin Alexander Nevsky - statesman and commander of medieval Russia // Patriotic history. 1996. No. 5. 15. Matuzova E. I., Nazarova E. L. Crusaders and Russia. End XII - 1270 Texts, translation, commentary. M. 2002.16. Musin A. E. Alexander Nevskiy. The secret of holiness. // Almanach "Chelo", Veliky Novgorod. 2007. No. 1. S.11-25.17. Rudakov V. N. “Toiled for Novgorod and for the whole Russian land” Book review: Alexander Nevsky. Sovereign. Diplomat. Warrior. M. 2010. 18. Uzhankov A. N. Between two evils. Historical choice of Alexander Nevsky. 19. Fennell. D. The crisis of medieval Russia. 1200-1304. M. 1989.20. Florea B. N. At the origins of the confessional schism of the Slavic world (Ancient Russia and its western neighbors in the XIII century). In the book: From the history of Russian culture. T. 1. (Ancient Russia). - M. 2000.21. Khrustalev D. G. Russia and the Mongol invasion (20-50s of the XIII century) St. Petersburg. 2013.22. Khrustalev D. G. Northern Crusaders. Russia in the Struggle for Spheres of Influence in the Eastern Baltic States of the 12th - 13th centuries. v. 1, 2. SPb. 2009.23. Schenk FB Alexander Nevsky in Russian cultural memory: Saint, ruler, national hero (1263–2000) / Authorized trans. with him. E. Zemskova and M. Lavrinovich. M. 2007 24. Urban. W. L. The Baltic Crusade. 1994.

1. Danilevsky I. G. Historical reconstruction between text and reality (lecture) 2. Hour of Truth - Golden Horde - Russian Choice (Igor Danilevsky and Vladimir Rudakov) 1st program. 3. Hour of Truth - Horde yoke - Versions (Igor Danilevsky and Vladimir Rudakov) 4. The Hour of Truth - The Borders of Alexander Nevsky. (Peter Stefanovich and Yuri Artamonov) 5. Battle on the Ice. Historian Igor Danilevsky about the events of 1242, about Eisenstein's film and the relationship between Pskov and Novgorod.