Battle on the ice Alexander Nevsky vs. The Battle of Alexander Nevsky on the Ice: the Battle of Lake Peipsi - diagram, meaning

April 18th The next Day of Military Glory of Russia is celebrated - the Day of the victory of Russian soldiers of Prince Alexander Nevsky over the German knights on Lake Peipsi (Battle of the Ice, 1242). The holiday was established by Federal Law No. 32-FZ of March 13, 1995 “On the days of military glory and memorable dates of Russia.”

According to the definition of all modern historical reference books and encyclopedias,

Battle on the Ice(Schlacht auf dem Eise (German), Prœlium glaciale (Latin), also called Ice battle or Battle of Lake Peipsi- the battle of the Novgorodians and Vladimirites led by Alexander Nevsky against the knights of the Livonian Order on the ice of Lake Peipus - took place on April 5 (in terms of the Gregorian calendar - April 12) 1242.

In 1995, Russian parliamentarians, when adopting a federal law, did not particularly think about the dating of this event. They simply added 13 days to April 5 (as is traditionally done to recalculate the events of the 19th century from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar), completely forgetting that the Battle of the Ice did not happen at all in the 19th century, but in the distant 13th century. Accordingly, the “correction” to the modern calendar is only 7 days.

Today, anyone who has studied in high school is sure that the Battle of the Ice or the Battle of Lake Peipus is considered the general battle of the conquest campaign of the Teutonic Order in 1240-1242. The Livonian Order, as is known, was the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, and was formed from the remnants of the Order of the Sword in 1237. The Order waged wars against Lithuania and Rus'. Members of the order were "brothers-knights" (warriors), "brothers-priests" (clergy) and "brothers-servants" (squires-artisans). The Knights of the Order were given the rights of the Knights Templar (templars). The distinctive sign of its members was a white robe with a red cross and a sword on it. The battle between the Livonians and the Novgorod army on Lake Peipus decided the outcome of the campaign in favor of the Russians. It also marked the actual death of the Livonian Order itself. Every schoolchild will enthusiastically tell how, during the battle, the famous Prince Alexander Nevsky and his comrades killed and drowned almost all the clumsy, ponderous knights in the lake and liberated the Russian lands from the German conquerors.

If we abstract from the traditional version set out in all school and some university textbooks, it turns out that practically nothing is known about the famous battle, which went down in history as the Battle of the Ice.

Historians to this day break their spears in disputes about what were the reasons for the battle? Where exactly did the battle take place? Who took part in it? And did she exist at all?..

Next, I would like to present two not entirely traditional versions, one of which is based on an analysis of well-known chronicle sources about the Battle of the Ice and concerns the assessment of its role and significance by contemporaries. The other was born as a result of a search by amateur enthusiasts for the immediate site of the battle, about which neither archaeologists nor specialist historians still have a clear opinion.

The “Battle on the Ice” is reflected in a lot of sources. First of all, this is a complex of Novgorod-Pskov chronicles and the “Life” of Alexander Nevsky, which exists in more than twenty editions; then - the most complete and ancient Laurentian Chronicle, which included a number of chronicles of the 13th century, as well as Western sources - numerous Livonian Chronicles.

However, having analyzed domestic and foreign sources for many centuries, historians have not been able to come to a common opinion: do they tell about a specific battle that took place in 1242 on Lake Peipsi, or are they about different ones?

Most domestic sources record that some kind of battle took place on Lake Peipus (or in its area) on April 5, 1242. But it is not possible to reliably establish its causes, the number of troops, their formation, composition on the basis of annals and chronicles. How did the battle develop, who distinguished himself in the battle, how many Livonians and Russians died? No data. How did Alexander Nevsky, who is still called “the savior of the fatherland”, finally show himself in the battle? Alas! There are still no answers to any of these questions.

The obvious contradictions contained in the Novgorod-Pskov and Suzdal chronicles telling about the Battle of the Ice can be explained by the constant rivalry between Novgorod and the Vladimir-Suzdal lands, as well as the difficult relationship between the Yaroslavich brothers - Alexander and Andrey.

The Grand Duke of Vladimir Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, as you know, saw his youngest son, Andrei, as his successor. In Russian historiography, there is a version that the father wanted to get rid of the elder Alexander, and therefore sent him to reign in Novgorod. The Novgorod “table” at that time was considered almost a chopping block for the Vladimir princes. The political life of the city was ruled by the boyar “veche”, and the prince was only a governor, who in case of external danger must lead the squad and militia.

According to the official version of the Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL), for some reason the Novgorodians expelled Alexander from Novgorod after the victorious Battle of the Neva (1240). And when the knights of the Livonian Order captured Pskov and Koporye, they again asked the Vladimir prince to send them Alexander.

Yaroslav, on the contrary, intended to send Andrei, whom he trusted more, to resolve the difficult situation, but the Novgorodians insisted on Nevsky’s candidacy. There is also a version that the story of the “expulsion” of Alexander from Novgorod is fictitious and of a later nature. Perhaps it was invented by Nevsky’s “biographers” to justify the surrender of Izborsk, Pskov and Koporye to the Germans. Yaroslav feared that Alexander would open the Novgorod gates to the enemy in the same way, but in 1241 he managed to recapture the Koporye fortress from the Livonians, and then take Pskov. However, some sources date the liberation of Pskov to the beginning of 1242, when the Vladimir-Suzdal army led by his brother Andrei Yaroslavich had already arrived to help Nevsky, and some - to 1244.

According to modern researchers, based on the Livonian Chronicles and other foreign sources, the Koporye fortress surrendered to Alexander Nevsky without a fight, and the Pskov garrison consisted of only two Livonian knights with their squires, armed servants and some militias from local peoples who joined them (Chud, water, etc.). The composition of the entire Livonian Order in the 40s of the 13th century could not exceed 85-90 knights. That is exactly how many castles existed on the territory of the Order at that moment. One castle, as a rule, fielded one knight with squires.

The earliest surviving domestic source mentioning the “Battle of the Ice” is the Laurentian Chronicle, written by a Suzdal chronicler. It does not mention the participation of the Novgorodians in the battle at all, and Prince Andrei appears as the main character:

“Grand Duke Yaroslav sent his son Andrei to Novgorod to help Alexander against the Germans. Having won on the lake beyond Pskov and taken many prisoners, Andrei returned with honor to his father.”

The authors of numerous editions of Alexander Nevsky’s Life, on the contrary, argue that it was after “The Battle of the Ice” made the name of Alexander famous “across all countries from the Varangian Sea and to the Pontic Sea, and to the Egyptian Sea, and to the country of Tiberias, and to the Ararat Mountains, even to Rome the Great...”.

According to the Laurentian Chronicle, it turns out that even his closest relatives did not suspect Alexander’s worldwide fame.

The most detailed account of the battle is contained in the Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL). It is believed that in the earliest list of this chronicle (Synodal) the entry about the “Battle on the Ice” was made already in the 30s of the 14th century. The Novgorod chronicler does not mention a word about the participation of Prince Andrei and the Vladimir-Suzdal squad in the battle:

“Alexander and the Novgorodians built regiments on Lake Peipus on Uzmen near the Crow Stone. And the Germans and Chud drove into the regiment, and fought their way through the regiment like a pig. And there was a great slaughter of the Germans and Chuds. God helped Prince Alexander. The enemy was driven and beaten seven miles to the Subolichi coast. And countless Chuds fell, and 400 Germans(later scribes rounded this figure to 500, and in this form it was included in history textbooks). Fifty prisoners were brought to Novgorod. The battle took place on Saturday, April 5th.”

In later versions of the “Life” of Alexander Nevsky (late 16th century), discrepancies with the chronicle information are deliberately eliminated, details borrowed from the NPL are added: the location of the battle, its course and data on losses. The number of killed enemies increases from edition to edition to 900 (!). In some editions of the “Life” (and there are more than twenty of them in total) there are reports about the participation of the Master of the Order in the battle and his capture, as well as the absurd fiction that the knights drowned in the water because they were too heavy.

Many historians who analyzed in detail the texts of the “Life” of Alexander Nevsky noted that the description of the massacre in the “Life” gives the impression of obvious literary borrowing. V.I. Mansikka (“The Life of Alexander Nevsky”, St. Petersburg, 1913) believed that the story about the Battle of the Ice used a description of the battle between Yaroslav the Wise and Svyatopolk the Accursed. Georgy Fedorov notes that the “Life” of Alexander “is a military heroic story inspired by Roman-Byzantine historical literature (Palea, Josephus),” and the description of the “Battle on the Ice” is a tracing of Titus’ victory over the Jews at Lake Gennesaret from the third book of the “History of the Jews.” wars" by Josephus.

I. Grekov and F. Shakhmagonov believe that “the appearance of the battle in all its positions is very similar to the famous Battle of Cannes” (“World of History”, p. 78). In general, the story about the “Battle of the Ice” from the early edition of Alexander Nevsky’s “Life” is just a general place that can be successfully applied to the description of any battle.

In the 13th century there were many battles that could have become a source of “literary borrowing” for the authors of the story about the “Battle on the Ice.” For example, about ten years before the expected date of writing the “Life” (80s of the 13th century), on February 16, 1270, a major battle took place between the Livonian knights and the Lithuanians at Karusen. It also took place on ice, but not on a lake, but on the Gulf of Riga. And its description in the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle is exactly like the description of the “Battle on the Ice” in the NPL.

In the Battle of Karusen, as in the Battle of the Ice, the knightly cavalry attacks the center, there the cavalry “gets stuck” in the convoys, and by going around the flanks the enemy completes their defeat. Moreover, in neither case do the winners try to take advantage of the result of the defeat of the enemy army in any way, but calmly go home with the spoils.

The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle (LRH), telling about a certain battle with the Novgorod-Suzdal army, tends to make the aggressors not the knights of the order, but their opponents - Prince Alexander and his brother Andrei. The authors of the chronicle constantly emphasize the superior forces of the Russians and the small number of the knightly army. According to LRH, the Order's losses in the Battle of the Ice amounted to twenty knights. Six were captured. This chronicle says nothing about the date or place of the battle, but the minstrel’s words that the dead fell on the grass (ground) allows us to conclude that the battle was fought not on the ice of the lake, but on land. If the author of the Chronicle understands “grass” not figuratively (the German idiomatic expression is “to fall on the battlefield”), but literally, then it turns out that the battle took place when the ice on the lakes had already melted, or the opponents fought not on the ice, but in coastal reed thickets:

“In Dorpat they learned that Prince Alexander had come with an army to the land of the brother knights, causing robberies and fires. The bishop ordered the men of the bishopric to rush into the army of the brother knights to fight against the Russians. They brought too few people, the army of the brother knights was also too small. However, they came to a consensus to attack the Russians. The Russians had many shooters who bravely accepted the first onslaught. It was seen how a detachment of brother knights defeated the shooters; there the clanking of swords could be heard, and helmets could be seen being cut apart. On both sides the dead fell onto the grass. Those who were in the army of the brother knights were surrounded. The Russians had such an army that each German was attacked by perhaps sixty people. The brother knights stubbornly resisted, but were defeated there. Some of the Derpt residents escaped by leaving the battlefield. Twenty brother knights were killed there, and six were captured. This was the course of the battle."

The author LRH does not express the slightest admiration for Alexander’s military leadership talents. The Russians managed to encircle part of the Livonian army not thanks to Alexander’s talent, but because there were much more Russians than Livonians. Even with an overwhelming numerical superiority over the enemy, according to LRH, the Novgorodian troops were not able to encircle the entire Livonian army: some of the Dorpattians escaped by retreating from the battlefield. Only a small part of the “Germans” were surrounded - 26 brother knights who preferred death to shameful flight.

A later source in terms of the time of writing - “The Chronicle of Hermann Wartberg” was written one hundred and fifty years after the events of 1240-1242. It contains, rather, an assessment by the descendants of the defeated knights of the significance that the war with the Novgorodians had on the fate of the Order. The author of the chronicle talks about the capture and subsequent loss of Izborsk and Pskov by the Order as major events of this war. However, the Chronicle does not mention any battle on the ice of Lake Peipsi.

The Livonian Chronicle of Ryussow, published in 1848 on the basis of earlier editions, states that during the time of Master Conrad (Grand Master of the Teutonic Order in 1239-1241. Died from wounds received in the battle with the Prussians on April 9, 1241) there was King Alexander. He (Alexander) learned that under Master Hermann von Salt (Master of the Teutonic Order in 1210-1239), the Teutons captured Pskov. With a large army, Alexander takes Pskov. The Germans fight hard, but are defeated. Seventy knights and many Germans died. Six brother knights are captured and tortured to death.

Some Russian historians interpret the messages of the Chronicle of Ryussov in the sense that the seventy knights whose deaths he mentions fell during the capture of Pskov. But it's not right. In the Chronicle of Ryussow, all the events of 1240-1242 are combined into one whole. This Chronicle does not mention such events as the capture of Izborsk, the defeat of the Pskov army near Izborsk, the construction of a fortress in Koporye and its capture by the Novgorodians, the Russian invasion of Livonia. Thus, “seventy knights and many Germans” are the total losses of the Order (more precisely, the Livonians and Danes) during the entire war.

Another difference between the Livonian Chronicles and the NPL is the number and fate of captured knights. The Ryussov Chronicle reports six prisoners, and the Novgorod Chronicle reports fifty. The captured knights, whom Alexander proposes to exchange for soap in Eisenstein’s film, were “tortured to death,” according to LRH. NPL writes that the Germans offered peace to the Novgorodians, one of the conditions of which was the exchange of prisoners: “what if we captured your husbands, we will exchange them: we will let yours go, and you will let ours go.” But did the captured knights live to see the exchange? There is no information about their fate in Western sources.

Judging by the Livonian Chronicles, the clash with the Russians in Livonia was a minor event for the knights of the Teutonic Order. It is reported only in passing, and the death of the Livonian Lordship of the Teutons (Livonian Order) in the battle on Lake Peipsi does not find any confirmation at all. The order continued to exist successfully until the 16th century (destroyed during the Livonian War in 1561).

Battle site

Until the end of the 20th century, the burial places of soldiers who died during the Battle of the Ice, as well as the location of the battle itself, remained unknown. The landmarks of the place where the battle took place are indicated in the Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL): “On Lake Peipsi, near the Uzmen tract, at the Crow Stone.” Local legends specify that the battle took place just outside the village of Samolva. In ancient chronicles there is no mention of Voronii Island (or any other island) near the site of the battle. They talk about fighting on the ground, on the grass. Ice is mentioned only in later editions of the “Life” of Alexander Nevsky.

The past centuries have erased from history and human memory information about the location of mass graves, the Crow Stone, the Uzmen tract and the degree of population of these places. Over many centuries, the Crow Stone and other buildings in these places have been wiped off the face of the earth. The elevations and monuments of mass graves were leveled with the surface of the earth. The attention of historians was attracted by the name of Voroniy Island, where they hoped to find the Raven Stone. The hypothesis that the massacre took place near Voronii Island was accepted as the main version, although it contradicted chronicle sources and common sense. The question remained unclear which way Nevsky went to Livonia (after the liberation of Pskov), and from there to the site of the upcoming battle at the Crow Stone, near the Uzmen tract, behind the village of Samolva (one must understand that on the opposite side of Pskov).

Reading the existing interpretation of the Battle of the Ice, the question involuntarily arises: why did Nevsky’s troops, as well as the heavy cavalry of knights, have to go through Lake Peipsi on the spring ice to Voronii Island, where even in severe frosts the water does not freeze in many places? It is necessary to take into account that the beginning of April for these places is a warm period of time. Testing the hypothesis about the location of the battle at Voronii Island dragged on for many decades. This time was enough for it to take a firm place in all history textbooks, including military ones. Our future historians, military men, and generals gain knowledge from these textbooks... Considering the low validity of this version, in 1958 a comprehensive expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences was created to determine the true location of the battle of April 5, 1242. The expedition worked from 1958 to 1966. Large-scale research was carried out, a number of interesting discoveries were made that expanded knowledge about this region, about the presence of an extensive network of ancient waterways between Lakes Peipus and Ilmen. However, it was not possible to find the burial places of the soldiers who died in the Battle of the Ice, as well as the Voronye Stone, the Uzmen tract and traces of the battle (including at Voronii Island). This is clearly stated in the report of the complex expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The mystery remained unsolved.

After this, allegations appeared that in ancient times the dead were taken with them for burial in their homeland, therefore, they say, burials cannot be found. But did they take all the dead with them? How did they deal with the dead enemy soldiers and the dead horses? A clear answer was not given to the question of why Prince Alexander went from Livonia not to the protection of the walls of Pskov, but to the region of Lake Peipsi - to the site of the upcoming battle. At the same time, historians for some reason paved the way for Alexander Nevsky and the knights through Lake Peipus, ignoring the presence of an ancient crossing near the village of Mosty in the south of Lake Warm. The history of the Battle of the Ice is of interest to many local historians and lovers of Russian history.

For many years, a group of Moscow enthusiasts and lovers of the ancient history of Rus', with the direct participation of I.E., also independently studied the Battle of Peipus. Koltsova. The task before this group was seemingly almost insurmountable. It was necessary to find burials hidden in the ground related to this battle, the remains of the Crow Stone, the Uzmen tract, etc., on a large territory of the Gdovsky district of the Pskov region. It was necessary to “look” inside the earth and choose what was directly related to the Battle of the Ice. Using methods and instruments widely used in geology and archeology (including dowsing, etc.), the group members marked on the terrain plan the supposed locations of the mass graves of soldiers of both sides who died in this battle. These burials are located in two zones east of the village of Samolva. One of the zones is located half a kilometer north of the village of Tabory and one and a half kilometers from Samolva. The second zone with the largest number of burials is 1.5-2 km north of the village of Tabory and approximately 2 km east of Samolva.

It can be assumed that the wedge of knights into the ranks of Russian soldiers occurred in the area of ​​the first burial (first zone), and in the area of ​​the second zone the main battle and the encirclement of the knights took place. The encirclement and defeat of the knights was facilitated by additional troops from the Suzdal archers, who arrived here the day before from Novgorod, led by A. Nevsky’s brother, Andrei Yaroslavich, but were in ambush before the battle. Research has shown that in those distant times, in the area south of the now existing village of Kozlovo (more precisely, between Kozlov and Tabory) there was some kind of fortified outpost of the Novgorodians. It is possible that there was an old “gorodets” here (before the transfer, or the construction of a new town on the site where Kobylye Settlement is now located). This outpost (gorodets) was located 1.5-2 km from the village of Tabory. It was hidden behind the trees. Here, behind the earthen ramparts of a now defunct fortification, was the detachment of Andrei Yaroslavich, hidden in ambush before the battle. It was here and only here that Prince Alexander Nevsky sought to unite with him. At a critical moment in the battle, an ambush regiment could go behind the knights' rear, surround them and ensure victory. This happened again later during the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380.

The discovery of the burial area of ​​the dead soldiers allowed us to confidently conclude that the battle took place here, between the villages of Tabory, Kozlovo and Samolva. This place is relatively flat. Nevsky's troops on the northwestern side (on the right hand) were protected by the weak spring ice of Lake Peipus, and on the eastern side (on the left) by the wooded part, where the fresh forces of the Novgorodians and Suzdalians, entrenched in a fortified town, were in ambush. The knights advanced from the southern side (from the village of Tabory). Not knowing about the Novgorod reinforcements and feeling their military superiority in strength, they, without hesitation, rushed into battle, falling into the “nets” that had been placed. From here it can be seen that the battle itself took place on land, not far from the shore of Lake Peipsi. By the end of the battle, the knightly army was pushed back onto the spring ice of the Zhelchinskaya Bay of Lake Peipsi, where many of them died. Their remains and weapons are now located half a kilometer northwest of the Kobylye Settlement Church at the bottom of this bay.

Our research has also determined the location of the former Crow Stone on the northern outskirts of the village of Tabory - one of the main landmarks of the Battle of the Ice. Centuries have destroyed the stone, but its underground part still rests under the strata of cultural layers of the earth. This stone is presented in the miniature of the chronicle of the Battle of the Ice in the form of a stylized statue of a raven. In ancient times, it had a cult purpose, symbolizing wisdom and longevity, like the legendary Blue Stone, which is located in the city of Pereslavl-Zalessky on the shore of Lake Pleshcheyevo.

In the area where the remains of the Crow Stone were located, there was an ancient temple with underground passages that led to the Uzmen tract, where there were fortifications. Traces of former ancient underground structures indicate that there were once above-ground religious and other structures made of stone and brick here.

Now, knowing the burial places of the soldiers of the Battle of the Ice (the place of the battle) and again turning to the chronicle materials, it can be argued that Alexander Nevsky with his troops walked to the area of ​​​​the upcoming battle (to the Samolva area) from the south side, followed on the heels of the knights. In the “Novgorod First Chronicle of the Senior and Younger Editions” it is said that, having freed Pskov from the knights, Nevsky himself went to the possessions of the Livonian Order (pursuing the knights west of Lake Pskov), where he allowed his warriors to live. The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle testifies that the invasion was accompanied by fires and the removal of people and livestock. Having learned about this, the Livonian bishop sent troops of knights to meet him. The Nevsky stopping place was somewhere halfway between Pskov and Dorpat, not far from the border of the confluence of the Pskov and Tyoploye lakes. Here was the traditional crossing near the village of Mosty. A. Nevsky, in turn, having heard about the performance of the knights, did not return to Pskov, but, having crossed to the eastern shore of Lake Warm, hurried in a northern direction to the Uzmen tract, leaving a detachment of Domash and Kerbet in the rear guard. This detachment entered into battle with the knights and was defeated. The burial place of warriors from the detachment of Domash and Kerbet is located at the south-eastern outskirts of Chudskiye Zakhody.

Academician Tikhomirov M.N. believed that the first skirmish of the detachment of Domash and Kerbet with the knights took place on the eastern shore of Lake Warm near the village of Chudskaya Rudnitsa (see “Battle of the Ice”, published by the USSR Academy of Sciences, series “History and Philosophy”, M., 1951, No. 1 , vol. VII, pp. 89-91). This area is significantly south of the village. Samolva. The knights also crossed at Mosty, pursuing A. Nevsky to the village of Tabory, where the battle began.

The site of the Battle of the Ice in our time is located away from busy roads. You can get here by transport and then on foot. This is probably why many authors of numerous articles and scientific works about this battle have never been to Lake Peipus, preferring the silence of the office and a fantasy far from life. It is curious that this area near Lake Peipus is interesting from historical, archaeological and other points of view. In these places there are ancient burial mounds, mysterious dungeons, etc. There are also periodic sightings of UFOs and the mysterious “Bigfoot” (north of the Zhelcha River). So, an important stage of work has been carried out to determine the location of the mass graves (burials) of soldiers who died in the Battle of the Ice, the remains of the Crow Stone, the area of ​​​​the old and new settlements and a number of other objects associated with the battle. Now more detailed studies of the battle area are needed. It's up to archaeologists.

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

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

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

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

Scale and significance of the battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memory of the battle

Movies

Music

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

Literature

Monuments

Monument to the squads of Alexander Nevsky on Mount Sokolikha

Monument to Alexander Nevsky and Worship Cross

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

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

Memorial cross to the squads of Alexander Nevsky

Monument in honor of the 750th anniversary of the battle

Error creating thumbnail: File not found

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

In philately and on coins

Data

Due to the incorrect calculation of the date of the battle according to the new style, the Day of Military Glory of Russia - the Day of the Victory of Russian soldiers of Prince Alexander Nevsky over the Crusaders (established by Federal Law No. 32-FZ of March 13, 1995 “On Days of Military Glory and Memorable Dates of Russia”) is celebrated on 18 April instead of the correct new style April 12. The difference between the old (Julian) and new (Gregorian, first introduced in 1582) style in the 13th century would have been 7 days (counting from April 5, 1242), and the difference between them of 13 days occurs only in the period 03/14/1900-14/03 .2100 (new style). In other words, Victory Day on Lake Peipsi (April 5, old style) is celebrated on April 18, which actually falls on April 5, old style, but only at the present time (1900-2099).

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

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

see also

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

Notes

2. Razin E. A.
3. Uzhankov A.
6. Battle of the Ice 1242: Proceedings of a complex expedition to clarify the location of the Battle of the Ice. - M.-L., 1966. - 253 p. - P. 60-64.
7. . Its date is considered more preferable, since in addition to the number it also contains a link to the day of the week and church holidays (the day of remembrance of the martyr Claudius and the day of praise to the Virgin Mary). In the Pskov Chronicles the date is April 1.
8. Donald Ostrowski(English) // Russian History/Histoire Russe. - 2006. - Vol. 33, no. 2-3-4. - P. 304-307.
9. .
10. .
11. Henry of Latvia. .
12. Razin E. A. .
13. Danilevsky, I.. Polit.ru April 15, 2005.
14. Dittmar Dahlmann. Der russische Sieg über die “teutonische Ritter” auf der Peipussee 1242 // Schlachtenmythen: Ereignis - Erzählung - Erinnerung. Herausgegeben von Gerd Krumeich und Susanne Brandt. (Europäische Geschichtsdarstellungen. Herausgegeben von Johannes Laudage. - Band 2.) - Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 2003. - S. 63-76.
15. Werner Philipp. Heiligkeit und Herrschaft in der Vita Aleksandr Nevskijs // Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte. - Band 18. - Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973. - S. 55-72.
16. Janet Martin. Medieval Russia 980-1584. Second edition. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. - P. 181.
17. . gumilevica.kulichki.net. Retrieved September 22, 2016.
20. // Gdovskaya Zarya: newspaper. - 30.3.2007.
24. (inaccessible link since 05/25/2013 (2114 days) - story , copy) //Official website of the Pskov region, July 12, 2006 ]
27. .
28. .
29. .

Literature

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

Links

An excerpt characterizing the Battle of the Ice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly 866 years ago, on April 5, 1242, the famous Battle of the Ice took place on Lake Peipsi. Let's find out some interesting details once again.

“On the day of remembrance of the martyr Claudius and the praise of the Holy Mother of God,” that is, April 5, 1242, the fate of Rus', the Baltic states and Germany was decided on the ice of Lake Peipsi. Prince Alexander Nevsky dealt a terrible blow to the Teutonic Order. Then it will be called the Battle of the Ice. This formulation in some circles causes a flurry of indignation: they say, this was not a battle at all, but just a skirmish between medieval “brothers” dividing spheres of influence. Did the Russians win? Well, maybe. But no traces of the battle seemed to be found. Russian chronicles? Lies and propaganda! They are good only to please national pride.

However, one fact is missing. News of the Battle of the Ice was preserved not only in Russian chronicles, but also “on the other side.” The manuscript “Livonian Rhymed Chronicle” was written 40 years after the battle from the words of eyewitnesses and participants in the events. So what did the Russian soldiers and the whole situation look like through the visor of a knight’s helmet?

The “cowardly Russian rabble” in sheepskin and with drekoly evaporates. Instead, the knights see the following: “In the kingdom of Russia there were people of very strong character. They did not hesitate, they got ready to march and galloped menacingly at us. They were all in shining armor, their helmets shone like crystal." Note: there are still two years left before the Battle of the Ice. The very beginning of the war is described - the capture by the Germans of the Russian cities of Izborsk and Pskov, which caused a retaliatory strike by Alexander Nevsky.

What the German author honestly says: “The Russians became offended by their failures. They quickly got ready. King Alexander came out to us, and with him many noble Russians. They had countless bows and a lot of beautiful armor. Their banners were rich. Their helmets emitted light."

These helmets, emitting light, and other wealth clearly haunted the author of the Chronicle. Presumably, the desire to rip them off Russian corpses was very great. But it turned out differently: “The brother knights stubbornly resisted, but they were defeated. King Alexander was glad that he had won.” The conclusion is logical and economic in German: “Whoever conquered good lands and occupied them poorly with military force will cry because he will have a loss.”

The Chronicle talks in some detail about how exactly the “good lands” were conquered and what was planned to be done in Rus' later. Just enough to properly admire the European values ​​that the “warriors of the bright West” brought to us: “A great cry began everywhere in the Russian land. Whoever defended himself was killed. Those who fled were overtaken and killed. Whoever laid down his arms was captured and killed. The Russians thought that they would all die. The forests and fields rang with sorrowful cries.”

These are the means. What was the purpose that justified them? Maybe there really is a “redistribution of spheres of influence”, as they are trying to convince us?

“The brother knights pitched their tents in front of Pskov. Many knights and bollards well earned their right to flax in these battles.” In German tradition, a fief is a piece of land that the king grants to nobles for their service. Having broken into the borders of Rus' and carried out an outright massacre, the Germans immediately began to divide the devastated lands. There is no talk of any collection of tribute or “influence”. Continuous: “I have come to live with you forever.” And not just to settle.

“Two brother knights were left in Pskov, who were made Vogts and assigned to guard the land.” Vogt is an official charged with administrative and judicial functions. The Vogts conducted office work according to German laws and in the German language.

Even the Tatars did not do this on Russian lands. They took tribute, but, say, polygamy was not introduced and they were not forced to speak Tatar.

The most interesting thing is the battle on Lake Peipus itself. The author of the Chronicle, a German of the 13th century, describes the course of the battle in the same way as modern historians. “The Russians had many riflemen who bravely took on the first onslaught. It was seen how a detachment of brother knights defeated the shooters. There the clanking of swords could be heard, and helmets could be seen being cut apart. Those who were in the army of the brother knights were surrounded. Some left the battle and were forced to retreat. On both sides, warriors fell onto the grass. There, 20 brother knights were killed and 6 were captured.”

Finally, you can say: “And yet: I don’t believe it! Why do they fall on the grass? This means there was no ice at this Battle of the Ice! And the Germans lost only 26 people. And Russian chronicles said that 500 knights died there!”

The grass is really fun. The original says: “In das Gras beisen.” Literal translation: "Bitten the grass." This is an old German expression that poetically and beautifully conveys the bitterness: “Fell on the battlefield.”

As for losses, too, oddly enough, everything agrees. The original speaks of the German attacking detachment as follows: “Banier”. This is a standard knightly formation - a “banner”. The total number is from 500 to 700 horsemen. Among them are from 30 to 50 brother knights. The Russian chronicler did not lie at all - the detachment was indeed destroyed almost completely. And who is the brother knight and who is on the sidelines is not so important.

Something else is more important. If anyone thinks that such a number of killed Germans is not enough, let them remember how many the Teutonic Order lost just a year earlier, in the Battle of Legnica, when the famous knighthood was completely defeated by the Tatars. 6 knight brothers, 3 novices and 2 sergeants died there. The defeat was considered terrible. But only to Lake Peipus - there the order lost almost three times as much.

Battle on the ice: why did Alexander Nevsky defeat the Germans on the ice of Lake Peipsi?

German mounted knights in the Baltic states regularly used a special troop formation in the form of a wedge or trapezoid; Our chronicles called this system a “pig.” Servants went into battle on foot. The main purpose of the infantry was to help the knights. Among the Teutons, the infantry consisted of townspeople-colonists, detachments fielded by conquered peoples, etc. The knights were the first to enter the battle, and the infantry stood under a separate banner. If infantry was also brought into the battle (which apparently took place in the Battle of Peipsi), then its formation was probably closed by a number of knights, since the infantry of the above composition was unreliable.

The task of the wedge was to fragment the central, strongest part of the enemy army. Using this formation, the German crusaders defeated scattered detachments of Livs, Latgalians, and Estonians. But the Russians (and later the Lithuanians) found ways to fight the armored “pig”.

A brilliant example of this is the battle on the ice of Lake Peipsi. The usual battle formation of Russian troops consisted of a strong center, where a large regiment (“brow”) was stationed, and two less strong flanks (“wings”). This formation was not the best in the fight against the “pig” of the crusaders, and Alexander Nevsky, boldly breaking the established tradition, changed the tactics of the Russian troops: he concentrated the main forces on the flanks, which greatly contributed to the victory. The new tactics caused the Russians to retreat to the ice of the lake. As one would expect, “the Germans are crazy about them.” Prince Alexander stationed a regiment on the steep eastern shore of Lake Peipus, at Voronie Kamen, opposite the mouth of the Zhelcha River. The chosen position was advantageous in that the enemy, moving on open ice, was deprived of the opportunity to determine the location, number and composition of the Russian troops.

On April 5, 1242, the entire mass of German troops rushed towards the Russians, “running into a regiment of Germans and people and punching a pig through the regiment...”. The crusaders fought their way through the Russian army and considered the battle won. Suddenly they were attacked by the main forces of the Russians, concentrated, contrary to tradition, on the flanks, and “there was a great slaughter of the Germans and the people.” Russian archers with crossbows brought complete disorder to the ranks of the surrounded knights.

A “self-witness” of the battle said that “the coward from the breaking spears and the sound from the sword section” was as if “the sea was frozen and you couldn’t see the ice: everything was covered in blood.”

The victory was decisive: the Russians furiously pursued the fleeing enemy across the ice to the Subolichi coast. 400 knights alone were killed, in addition 50 Russian knights “by the hands of Yasha”; many Estonians fell. The disgraced captive crusaders were led to Novgorod, as it is said in the Pskov Chronicle, “they were beaten and tied barefoot and led across the ice.” Apparently, the fleeing crusaders threw off their heavy armor and shoes.

The 10th century in densely populated - by medieval standards, of course - Western Europe was marked by the beginning of expansion. Subsequently, from century to century, this expansion expanded, taking on a wide variety of forms.

The European peasant, bent under the burden of duties to the lord, ventured into the unruly forests. He cut down trees, cleared the land of bushes and drained swamps, obtaining additional arable land.

The Europeans were pushing back the Saracens (the Arabs who captured Spain), and the reconquista (“reconquest” of Spain) was underway.

Inspired by the lofty idea of ​​liberating the Holy Sepulcher and overwhelmed by a thirst for riches and new lands, the crusaders stepped into the Levant - as the territories located along the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea were called in the Middle Ages.

The European “push to the east” began; peasants, skilled city craftsmen, experienced traders, and knights appeared en masse in Slavic countries, for example, in Poland and the Czech Republic, and began to settle and settle there. This contributed to the rise of the economy, social and cultural life of the Eastern European countries, but at the same time gave rise to problems, creating rivalry and confrontation between the newcomer and indigenous populations. A particularly large wave of immigrants poured from the German lands, where the rulers of the German Empire (following Emperor Frederick Barbarossa) supported the “onslaught on the East.”

Soon the eyes of Europeans were drawn to the Baltic states. It was perceived as a forest desert, lightly populated by wild Letto-Lithuanian and Finno-Ugric pagan tribes who did not know state power. Since ancient times, Rus' and the Scandinavian countries have been expanding here. They colonized the areas bordering them. Local tribes were subject to tribute. Back in the time of Yaroslav the Wise, the Russians built their Yuryev fortress beyond Lake Peipus in the land of the Finno-Ugric Estonians (named after Yaroslav the Wise at his baptism, the name George). The Swedes advanced into the possessions of the Finns until they reached the borders of the Karelian land controlled by Novgorod.

At the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th centuries, people from Western Europe appeared in the Baltic states. The first to come were Catholic missionaries carrying the word of Christ. In 1184, the monk Maynard unsuccessfully tried to convert the Livs (ancestors of modern Latvians) to Catholicism. Monk Berthold in 1198 preached Christianity with the help of the swords of the crusading knights. Canon Albert of Bremen, sent by the Pope, captured the mouth of the Dvina and founded Riga in 1201. A year later, an order of monastic knights was created on the Livonian lands conquered around Riga. He called Order of the Swordsmen in the shape of a long cross, more like a sword. In 1215-1216, the Swordsmen captured Estonia. This was preceded by their struggle with the Russian and Lithuanian princes, as well as enmity with Denmark, which had laid claim to Estonia since the beginning of the 12th century.

In 1212, the Swordsmen came close to the borders of Pskov and Novgorod lands. Mstislav Udaloy, who reigned in Novgorod, successfully resisted them. Then, during the reign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich's father in Novgorod, the Swordsmen were defeated near Yuryev (modern Tartu). The city remained with the crusaders on the condition that tribute was paid to Novgorod for it (Yuriev's tribute). By 1219, Denmark had reconquered Northern Estonia, but 5 years later the Swordsmen regained it.

The activity of the crusaders pushed the Lithuanian tribes (Lithuania, Zhmud) to unite. They, the only Baltic peoples, began to form their own state.

In the land of the Baltic tribe of Prussians, which was located near the Polish border, another order of crusaders was founded - the Teutonic. Previously, he was in Palestine, but the Polish king invited the Teutons to the Baltic states, hoping for their help in the fight against the pagan Prussians. The Teutons soon began to seize Polish possessions. As for the Prussians, they were exterminated.

But defeat in 1234 by Alexander Nevsky's father Yaroslav, and in 1236 by the Lithuanians led to the reform of the Order of the Sword. In 1237 it became a branch of the Teutonic Order, and it began to be called Livonian.

Batu’s invasion gave rise to the hope among the crusaders that expansion could be expanded to the northern lands of the Orthodox, who in the West had long been considered heretics after the split of the churches in 1054. Mister Veliky Novgorod was especially attractive. But the crusaders were not the only ones who were seduced by the Novgorod land. The Swedes were also interested in it.

Mr. Veliky Novgorod and Sweden fought more than once when their interests in the Baltic states collided. At the end of the 1230s, news was received in Novgorod that the son-in-law of the Swedish king, Jarl (title of the Swedish nobility) Birger, was preparing a raid on the Novgorod possessions. Alexander, the 19-year-old son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, was then sitting as prince in Novgorod. He ordered the Izhora elder Pelgusius to monitor the coast and report the Swedish invasion. As a result, when the Scandinavian boats entered the Neva and stopped at the confluence of the Izhora River, the Prince of Novgorod was notified in time. July 15, 1240 Alexander arrived at the Neva and, with the help of a small Novgorod detachment and his squad, unexpectedly attacked the enemy.

Against the backdrop of the devastation of northeastern Rus' by the Mongol Khan Batu, this battle opened a difficult circle for his contemporaries: Alexander brought victory to Rus' and with it hope, faith in one’s own strength! This victory brought him the honorary title of Nevsky.

Confidence that the Russians were capable of winning victories helped them survive the difficult days of 1240, when a more dangerous enemy, the Livonian Order, invaded the Novgorod borders. Ancient Izborsk fell. The Pskov traitors opened the gates to the enemy. The crusaders scattered across the Novgorod land and plundered in the outskirts of Novgorod. Not far from Novgorod, the crusaders built a fortified outpost, carried out raids near Luga and Sabelny Pogost, which was located 40 versts from Novgorod.

Alexander was not in Novgorod. He quarreled with the independent Novgorodians and left for Pereyaslavl Zalessky. Under pressure from circumstances, the Novgorodians began to ask the Grand Duke of Vladimir Yaroslav for help. The Novgorodians wanted to see Alexander Nevsky at the head of the Suzdal regiments. Grand Duke Yaroslav sent another son, Andrei, with a cavalry detachment, but the Novgorodians stood their ground. In the end, Alexander arrived and brought his Pereyaslav squad and the Vladimir-Suzdal militia, which consisted mainly of peasants. Novgorodians also assembled shelves.

In 1241, the Russians launched an offensive, recapturing Koporye from the crusaders. The fortress built by the knights in Koporye was destroyed. In the winter of 1242, Alexander Nevsky unexpectedly appeared near Pskov and liberated the city.

Russian troops entered the Order, but soon their vanguard was defeated by the knights. Alexander took his regiments to the eastern shore of Lake Peipus and decided to give battle.

April 5, 1242 of the year A great slaughter took place on the melted ice. The Russians stood in the traditional “eagle”: in the center was a regiment consisting of Vladimir-Suzdal militias, on the sides were regiments of the right and left hands - heavily armed Novgorod infantry and princely equestrian squads. The peculiarity was that a significant mass of troops were located on the flanks; usually the center was the strongest. Behind the militia was a steep bank covered with boulders. A convoy's sleigh, fastened with chains, was placed on the ice in front of the shore. This made the coast completely impassable for knightly horses and was supposed to keep the faint-hearted in the Russian camp from fleeing. A horse squad stood in ambush near the island of Voroniy Kamen.

The knights moved towards the Russians "boar's head" This was a special system that more than once brought success to the crusaders. In the center of the “boar’s head”, bollard infantrymen marched in closed ranks. On the sides of them and behind them, in 2-3 rows, rode riders clad in armor; their horses also had armor. Ahead, narrowing to a point, the ranks of the most experienced knights moved. The “Boar’s Head,” nicknamed the “pig” by the Russians, rammed the enemy and broke through the defenses. Knights destroyed the enemy with spears, battle axes, and swords. When it was defeated, bollard infantrymen were released to finish off the wounded and those fleeing.

The chronicle story about the battle on the ice reports “the speed of the slashing of evil, and the crackling from the spears, and the breaking, and the sound from the cutting of the sword.”

The knights crushed the Russian center and began to spin around, breaking their own formation. They had nowhere to move. “Regiments of the right and left hands” pressed on the knights from the flanks. It was as if they were squeezing the “pig” with pincers. There were many dead on both sides of the fighting. The ice turned red with blood. The enemy suffered mainly from infantry. Killing a knight was difficult. But if he was pulled off his horse, he became defenseless - the weight of the armor did not allow him to stand up and move.

Suddenly the April ice cracked. The knights mingled. Those who fell into the water sank like stones to the bottom. Alexander Nevsky's troops struck with redoubled energy. The crusaders ran. Russian horsemen pursued them for several kilometers.

The ice battle was won. The crusaders' plan to establish themselves in Northern Rus' failed.

In 1243, ambassadors of the Order arrived in Novgorod. Peace was signed. The Crusaders recognized the borders of the Lord of Veliky Novgorod as inviolable and promised to regularly pay tribute to Yuryev. The terms for the ransom of several dozen knights who were captured were agreed upon. Alexander led these noble captives from Pskov to Novgorod next to their horses, barefoot, with their heads uncovered, and with a rope around their necks. It was impossible to think of a greater insult to knightly honor.

In the future, military skirmishes occurred more than once between Novgorod, Pskov and the Livonian Order, but the border of the possessions of both sides remained stable. For the possession of Yuryev, the Order continued to pay tribute to Novgorod, and from the end of the 15th century - to the Moscow unified Russian state.

In political and moral terms, victories over the Swedes and the knights of the Livonian Order were very important: the scale of the Western European onslaught on the northwestern borders of Rus' was reduced. The victories of Alexander Nevsky over the Swedes and the Crusaders interrupted the series of defeats of the Russian troops.

For the Orthodox Church, it was especially important to prevent Catholic influence in Russian lands. It is worth remembering that the crusade of 1204 ended with the capture by the crusaders of Constantinople, the capital of the Orthodox empire, which considered itself the Second Rome. For more than half a century, the Latin Empire existed on Byzantine territory. The Orthodox Greeks “huddled” in Nicaea, from where they tried to recapture their possessions from the Western crusaders. The Tatars, on the contrary, were allies of the Orthodox Greeks in their fight against the Islamic and Turkish onslaught on the eastern Byzantine borders. According to the practice that has developed since the 10th century, most of the highest hierarchs of the Russian Church were by origin Greeks or southern Slavs who came to Rus' from Byzantium. The head of the Russian church - the metropolitan - was appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Naturally, the interests of the universal Orthodox Church were above all else for the leadership of the Russian Church. Catholics seemed much more dangerous than Tatars. It is no coincidence that before Sergius of Radonezh (second half of the 14th century), not a single prominent church hierarch blessed or called for the fight against the Tatars. The invasion of Batu and the Tatar armies were interpreted by the clergy as the “scourge of God,” the punishment of the Orthodox for their sins.

It was the church tradition that created around the name of Alexander Nevsky, canonized after his death, the aura of an ideal prince, warrior, “sufferer” (fighter) for the Russian land. This is how he entered the national mentality. In this case, Prince Alexander is in many ways a “brother” of Richard the Lionheart. The legendary “doubles” of both monarchs overshadowed their real historical images. In both cases, the “legend” was far removed from the original prototype.

In serious science, meanwhile, debates about the role of Alexander Nevsky in Russian history do not subside. Alexander’s position in relation to the Golden Horde, his participation in the organization of the Nevryuev army in 1252 and the spread of the Horde yoke to Novgorod, the cruel reprisals even for that time, characteristic of Alexander in the fight against his opponents, give rise to conflicting judgments regarding the results of the activities of this undoubtedly bright hero of Russian history .

For Eurasians and L.N. Gumilyov Alexander is a far-sighted politician who correctly chose an alliance with the Horde and turned his back to the West.

For other historians (for example, I.N. Danilevsky), Alexander’s role in Russian history is rather negative. This role is the actual conductor of Horde dependence.

Some historians, including S.M. Solovyova, V.O. Klyuchevsky, does not at all consider the Horde yoke to be a “useful alliance for Rus',” but notes that Rus' did not have the strength to fight. Supporters of continuing the fight against the Horde - Daniil Galitsky and Prince Andrei Yaroslavich, despite the nobility of their impulse, were doomed to defeat. Alexander Nevsky, on the contrary, was aware of the realities and was forced, as a politician, to seek a compromise with the Horde in the name of the survival of the Russian land.

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

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

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

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

Official description of the battle

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

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

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

The Importance of Victory

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

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

About common myths

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

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

Armor is not for everyone!

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

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

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

Water or land?

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

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

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

What did the researchers find?

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

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

German version

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

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

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

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

Crow stone

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

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

New contradictions

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

Versions of events

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

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

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

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

Monument to the iconic battle

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

Artistic embodiment

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