Battle of the Shishev Forest (1365)

The Battle of the Shishev Forest is the battle between the troops of the Ryazan and Karachev principality led by Oleg Ivanovich, Vladimir Dmitriyevich and Tit Fyodorovich against the Golden Horde led by Tagay Beq (c1330-1369) in 1365, which resulted in a decisive victory of the Russian troops.

Background
In 1359, a long struggle for power began in the Golden Horde. The Horde were defeated by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd Gediminovich in the Battle of Blue Waters in 1362. Having conquered Mordovian lands in 1361, the Horde "prince" Tagay in 1365 made a ruinous raid on the Principality of Ryazan, burned Pereyaslavl-Ryazan. Oleg Ivanovich was not in the principality. But having learned about the raid, he joined forcea with the with the principalities of Pronsk and Kozelsk, was able to catch up with the returning Horde and defeat them.

A number of chronicles XV - XVI centuries. tell of the unexpected attack in 1365 of Tagay Beq (c1330-1369) of the Golden Horde with support of the Tatars and Mordvinians in Ryazan and its looting: That same summer Tagay prince Ordinsky ... He gathered himself together with all his strength and with all the country of Narachad, and raided much to the Ryazan land; and come secretly and unknown to Ryazan, and take the hail of Pereslavl Ryazan and burned, and near his captivity all the power and village, and a lot of polonas are taken, and tacos move slowly, with a lot of pain in the field (Nick., pp. 5- 6). When the victors, burdened with booty, returned back, they were overtaken by the Ryazan army led by Prince Oleg Ivanovich with Vladimir Pronsky and Tit Kozelsky, who resolutely acted in retaliation. After a short battle near the Shishevsky forest on the River Voin in the Ryazan principality, the Ryazans gained victory, Tagay escaped with few people [5, p. 107].

This battle was significant for contemporaries and the subsequent history of the principality, as it became one of the last evidence of the union of the Ryazan and Prons rulers. It was already broken in the seventies of the fourteenth century, hence attention to the battle of Shishev in the historical narrative. The Sophia I senior izvoda (XV century), Lviv (16th century) and the Resurrection (XVI century) chronicles in the framework of a short story tell of the Tatars' attack on Ryazan, not localizing the battlefields and not pointing out as a participant of Tit Kozelsky. The scribes clearly sympathize with the people of Ryazan, stipulating the need for God's will in their victory: And God help Prince Olga and Prince Volodimer, in Malakh / Tyagai, a diversion into Narachad (Sof., P. 436). The Ermolin chronicle (the end of the 15th century) gives a lengthy weather record: The same autumn Priaga Tagai came from Peruchal, take Pereslavl Rezanski, burn and go; Prince Oleg with Volodymyr Pronsky, his hijacking, his bivshe, and himself the diversion in Naruchadi (Yerm., pp. 153). The lack of details of the battle and geographical names, inaccurate information about the participants indicate a possible annalistic fixation of this news far from the Ryazan land.

The most detailed description is read in the Simeonovsky (late XV century) and Nikon (16th century) arches as part of a long chronicle story, and only these sources refer to Oleg Ryazan as Grand Duke. In the Simeon chronicle, the text is marked with a cinnabar title "The Assassination of the princes of Ryazan Tatars", which indicates the interest of the author or editor of the arch in the formulation of the text to the events occurring within the Ryazan principality.

Only Nikonovsky vault leads the prehistory of the battle: On the same summer, Ta- gai, Prince Ordinsky, who was already destroying the Ordinsky priide in Narachad, and there himself about the prince himself, in the Narachad country, and then vshote voyevat Rus (Nick., P. 5). The "scribe" is referring to a number of destructive campaigns Tagay, temporarily suspended by his approval in the Mordovian country Narov-chat and ended in defeat near Ryazan.

The Nikon and Simeon Chronicles clearly localize the battlefield under the Shishevsky Forest, in the War, the Rogozhsky chronicler (first half of the 15th century), reporting the incident in the context of a short chronicle story, instead of an exact geographical indication of the battle, contains a pass in the text, the same protograf, perhaps, the lost Ryazan chronicle. Most likely, the scribe did not understand what was written in the source and left a place for later to clarify, or he wrote from the eyewitness's words and did not remember the Ryazan names.

A.G. Kuzmin drew attention to the appearance in the series of chronicles of the name of Titus Kozelsky, who in fact was the prince of Karachev, and Kozelsky was his son Ivan, the son-in-law of Oleg Ivanovich, probably under his influence [1, p. 211-212]. Most likely, the author of the story, a Ryazan, knew his son well, because he also titled his father. Here is one more detail that indicates, perhaps, the Ryazan origin of the text: Tagay voshote voyevat Rus (Nik., P. 5), but goes directly to Ryazan land, which in the view of the scribe is perceived as an outpost of Russian lands. The idea of ​​"princely rule" of the prince in the state was extremely relevant for the literature of that time - for chronicles, and for historical documentaries, and for journalistic texts [6, p. 281-292; 7; 2, p. 68].

Nikonovskaya, and after her the Simeon chronicles abound with details, mostly of a psychological nature, emotionally expressive: The proud Ordinsky prince Tagay, the dragon in the country, and in fear and in trepidation, many were perplexed and wondering what to do when he saw all his Tatars beaten, and tacos weeping and weeping, and the face of the odira from a lot of grief, and as soon as in the little squad, I'll run away (Nick., p. 6). Only an empathic eyewitness could describe the flight of the Tatar khan from the battlefield in such detail. In the text of the Nikon Chronicle, the features of the emotionally expressive style appearing in the literature from the end of the fourteenth century, which confirms the conclusions of modern researchers [4, p. 37; 8; 9; 10, p. 71] on the style specificity of the vault that embodied the features of the "second monumentalism" of the 16th century: "The expressive style in literature is confronted with a style of restrained and pacified, not at all noisy and excited, but no less psychological, revealing the inner life of actors, full of emotion, but emotionality of restrained and deep" [11, p. 162].

In the text of Nikon's (and coinciding with it in this episode of Simeon's), as well as in the Sophia I and the Resurrection annals, the Rogozhsky chronicler, the description of the battle is saturated with military formulas: and there was a battle and a battle with fierce and evil evil (Nik., P. 5); and they were great with gpa (Sof., p. 436); and they were spreading evil between them (Voskr., p. 28); and be them battles, fight the fierce and the bruising of evil (R.T., p. 76). Note that in the "Tale of Bygone Years" and other chronicles

South Russian tradition epithets were used in a shortened version of the sweep of evil, be it brutal, fierce battle. N.V. Trofimova, analyzing the evolution and formation of the military formulas of the beginning of the battle and arguing about the expansion of the formula (the abuse is strong and evil of evil), notes: "The connection, with the strengthening of the epithet in the first version of the formula with the help of an adverb, certainly speaks of the chronicler's desire to strengthen expression" [12, p. 72].

In the case of the Nikon Chronicle (and there was the battle and abuse of the evil and the evil of evil) and the Rogozhsky chronicler (and they were battles, the war of brutality and evil sowing), we have an even more extended version of the formula typical of the all-Russian arches of the 15th-16th centuries. Expressiveness narrative, bordering on the emotional evaluation of what is happening and characteristic of the manner of the scribe of the style of the "second monumentalism" of the XVI century, makes it possible to assess him as an eyewitness, contemporary of the events described. In the case of the Rogozhsky chronicler, one can assume the use of a "scribe" as a protogram of the Simeonov or Nikon chronicles, which, in turn, were used by the Ryazan arch. This is confirmed by observations of Ya.S. Lurie [13, p. 154], A.N. Nasonov [10, p. 189].

Thus, the "Ryazan" text in the lengthy story of the battle of the Shi-Shevsky Forest on the Voin River, detailed edition of which is contained in the Sea-Meon and Nikon Chronicles, most likely belongs to the Ryazan. Chronicle interpretation of this event is interesting with style filling and artistic features. For the scribes of that time, the event is noteworthy with the suddenness of the attack and the behavior of the Ryazan prince and his allies, who were able to quickly return captive townspeople and lost lands. This is evidenced by the prehistory of Tagay's coming to Ryazan, the details of the battle description, the exact localization of the battle, the mistake in naming Karachev's prince Titas Kozelsky, the expressive expansion of the military formula. Other vaults with varying degrees of accuracy reproduced the text of the Ryazan chronicle on the all-Russian sources.

КиберЛенинка: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ryazanskie-bitvy-v-letopisnoy-traditsii-drevney-rusi