Each state cultivates its own historical myths. Some want to justify their deeds; some others want to look exceptional. Russia's myths paradoxically sound rather like self-indictments. Rafael Khakimov, MH, political counselor of the President of Tatarstan, shares his views on how far our history can sometimes be stretched
MALLEABLE HISTORY FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
The origins of Russian history have two main sources: Kievan Rus and Golden Horde. No matter how many times you rewrite the textbooks, they will remain
TATARS REHABILITATED
By his opening statement Khakimov probably wanted to burn his bridges.
— The prevailing traditional view of the invasion of Russia by the Mongols and the Tatars, the claim that because of it Russia's development was delayed for three hundred years, is obviously a load of rubbish.
— Wait, I have to record this, it will be held against you in court. Now, what is your argument? I have to understand what my teacher of history at school taught me wrong.
— My argument is simple. They say: Tatars conquered Russia. At the time of the invasion, in XII century there was no such state, there were nine of them, all independent sovereign principalities that emerged from the collapse of Kievan Rus. It was not Russia, it was these principalities that the Mongols conquered. To be fair, we must admit that it was not just Mongols or Mongols «and a few allied Tatar tribes» as they are also sometimes referred to by those who wish to spare the Tatars' ego. The invaders were Mongols and Tatars. Mongols relied on Turkic tribes and structured their armies following these tribes' rules. In that war they marched side by side.
When Mongols and Tatars came, Russian principalities, torn by rivalries, were too busy slaughtering each other. Kluchevski and other respected historians wrote about it in the most unflattering terms. If it weren't for their fear of the Khan's wrath, this mayhem would have continued until their full extinction. So that was one obvious improvement.
Second, Russian people did not have much to fear from the Mongols and Tatars; Teutonic and Lithuanian orders, on the other hand, were a serious threat because they imposed their culture and religion on the conquered. Not a single Orthodox church survived their invasions. Under Genghis' law, on the contrary, all religions were equal, and all Orthodox churches were exempt from tax. That tax, by the way, amounted to ten percent only, sort of what you achieve today by establishing an offshore company.
Those who nevertheless wish to prove that the Tatars were ruthless and barbaric, like to invoke the pillage of Kozelsk and the slaughter of its entire people.
— I remember, indeed, having read in my textbook about how «Tatars put to the fire the «evil» town of Kozelsk». Presumably, because it refused to surrender.
— That is what they teach in schools, and it is a true story. But not all the story. To my knowledge, when they laid siege to a town, Tatars always began by sending messengers to learn that town's final choice: to fight or to surrender; if its people chose to fight, an assault was launched and a battle fought. But first, there were always two messengers. What happened in Kozelsk was extremely unusual, even by the austere standards of those times. The leaders of Kozelsk ordered the messengers to be decapitated and their heads thrown over the town's walls. The atrocities that followed have been thoroughly described in the textbooks. But nowhere is it mentioned that prior to that messengers, whose immunity should have been honored, had been executed! Under Genghis' law, messengers were never to be touched. Otherwise, the guilty town was to be razed to the ground. Anyway, even though Kozelsk did happen, it was only an isolated case.
— This Genghis' law, was it something like a Constitution or a Penal Code?
— Yes, it was a set of rules, or laws. Mongols were as ruthless as everybody else in the Middle Ages, no more, no less. They were no angels, but their practices differed little from those of the crusaders or the inquisitors. It was within the then prevailing general norm, and this should be kept in mind. They should not be judged by today's standards.
— Depending on their priorities and political interests of the moment governments have always manipulated historical truth.
— To a certain degree, definitely. History, in general, is seriously biased by ideology, and this bias is difficult to overcome. It is not easy to write true history. Today, in the XXI century, we have some objective records, especially of the past hundred years. But as soon as we go further back in time, looking at XIX, XVIII centuries and beyond, we come across more and more fantasies. Because in those days, history was considered as nothing more than ideology and a possibility to make up stories that could be used to influence or mobilize peoples.
Each nation has a history of myths that were used to justify its existence, or its deeds. Russia was exceptionally prolific in that sense. Look at the new concepts and interpretations of Russia's past suggested by researchers like Fomenko or Nosovski; some of their versions sound incredible. And yet, they have a point when they depart from traditional notions, because it is a fact that under Peter the Great and Catherine II, Russian history was being re-written to fit into a «western mold». Peter started the process; he needed to severe all roots that were linking Russia to its past as part of the Golden Horde.
— Did Russia have any?
— It did. What was the Sobor, this assembly of peers who elected the tsar? It was so similar to the kurultai of the Khanate of Kazan. Incidentally, many serious historians, especially in the West, assert that tsar is synonymous to khan, and kurultai to sobor. Elections of tsars were identical to elections of khans held in the Golden Horde and in the khanates of Kazan, Siberia and Crimea. It was democracy in a Middle-Age fashion.
— Speaking of democracy, were the Russian lands and princes allowed to participate to those democratic elections held by Tatars?
— Yes, Russian principalities did take part. Because he supported Batu-Khan at one such election, Alexander Nevski got a reward from him in the form of 40 000 cavalrymen under the command of Nevrui. Together, Nevski and Nevrui pushed back the troops of the Teutonic orders on the western border. Nevski got himself a formidable unit that had never been defeated. Each man had three horses and could switch from one to another, as they got tired. These cavalrymen could sleep while still riding. To set up camp they used the carts carrying their supplies, putting them in a circle. A similar procedure is to this day used by the Cossacks who are probably the last remaining people to preserve practices that have their origins in Genghis' system. The system itself however does not exist in its integrity anymore, because its sole purpose was to prepare for war and to make war.
That period of our history was grim in many respects and I am not going to deny it; when you deal with history there is no need for embellishment. But one has to admit that Orthodox monasteries flourished in those times. There were more and more of them, and they were pushing relentlessly far to the North converting pagan tribes and making them part of Saint Russia. This was happening under the Tatars. One more gain for the Russian people, one more reason to «rehabilitate» Tatars.
FORGERIES AND SUBTERFUGES
— So how did they substitute our history with Peter the Great's versions? And had those earlier accounts been more faithful to the truth?
— In some respects they were. Before Peter's reign, oriental culture and traditions were part of our life. Ivan the Terrible spoke fluent Tatar. His wife's brother, Boris Godunov, was of Tatar stock, from the clan of Chet-khan. Not enough blue blood, but he was close to Ivan and had excellent administrative skills, so eventually he was elected tsar. At those elections, the runner-up was Simeon Bekbulatovich, khan of Kasym, of much better lineage since he traced his roots direct to Genghis.
— So this much better Tatar lineage could have made our tsar? Awful, all these descendants everywhere.
— Don't feel frustrated and look at it in perspective. The dogmatic view is that there was an ongoing struggle of Russians against Tatars and of Orthodox against Muslims. But the reality was more subtle, more sophisticated than this. It was less brutal and mostly had to do with shifting alliances and competition, basically between an alliance of Crimea, Moscow and Kazan on one side, and the Great Horde — Astrakhan and the rest of them — on the other. Until early XVI century there were no wars, only competition. Ivan the Terrible changed all that. Not only for geopolitical reasons but also because of his evil nature and beliefs. Remember, he pillaged Novgorod and Pskov as well, not just Kazan. He could not tolerate any of the democratic practices those cities had developed, and in any case he believed them to be «Swedish bastards».
Fast forward to Peter's times. He was absolutely pro-West, and he wanted Russian history to be in keeping with the rationale of his sweeping reforms. Researchers were brought from Germany to help rewrite the records. Karamzin, of Tatar origins from the Kara-Murza family, came up with the first official new version. Tatischev's accounts differed substantially but his archives disappeared, never to be seen again. They were most probably destroyed following the simple logic that, if you re-write history, don't leave any traces behind, keep your ideology coherent. They did the same thing in the Soviet days, when archives, photographs, memoirs were all thoroughly revised.
— Any opinion different from ours is wrong by definition, as they used to say.
— Peter the Great needed those revisions badly. Eager to integrate Russia into the West, he could not reconcile himself with the traditional ways prevailing in Moscow that was too oriental for his liking, and too deeply rooted in the Golden Horde of which it was flesh and blood. Of Moscow, Prince Trubetskoi — whose lack of any Tatar connection should add to his credibility — said that after the collapse of the Golden Horde it inherited all the powers of its capital, Serai. That would have been a natural development. After all, Moscow became capital of Russia because it was raising taxes throughout the land on behalf of the Tatars, and kept a hefty commission. It grew fast, luring eventually the Patriarch and other leaders of the Orthodox church into coming and joining it. Because its fortunes depended on Tatar taxes, Moscow could not turn against the Golden Horde. Nor could it oppose oriental traditions since they were historically inherent in its nature.
— What was it that Peter the Great had to gain through all this rewriting and uprooting of history?
— A lot was at stake. He had to decide what to do next with his country, where should it go and how could it access the latest technologies. Put bluntly, the question was: who has the best weapons? The Orient was already in decline and had lost its attractiveness. Europe was the place to go because it had it all: canons, ships, technologies, education and universities. To win public approval and support, Peter needed to present history in a new, appropriate format.
But, one cannot change the course of events by this kind of subterfuge. Our future is predetermined by our real past not by Peter's or Catherine II's forgeries. The origins of Russian history have two main sources: Kievan Rus and Golden Horde. No matter how many times you rewrite the textbooks, they will remain. They are in our genotype, together with the Orthodox and Muslim faiths. Islam was adopted in 922 in Bolgar and Christian faith, in 988 in Kiev. Nothing can change that. Russia will always be by nature Slav and Turk, Orthodox and Muslim.
Those who shape our policies have to accept this reality and live with it. Until they do, there will be no stability and no real future for this nation. We are all thrown into it together, a big symbiotic group of peoples who nevertheless have very distinct cultures and cannot melt into one homogenous community. We cannot live apart as well, because coexisting has long ago become part of our nature. Therefore no one should try to dominate the other; this is definitely not the right thing to do.
Dmitri AKSENOV
In photos:
- «SYUUMBIKE». THE PICTURE OF ILYAS FAIZULLIN