ГРУЗИНСКАЯ И РУССКАЯ СРЕДНЕВЕКОВАЯ ИСТОРИОГРАФИЯ О МОНГОЛАХ

Abstract

The article presents some observations on the most outstanding historical works of the era of Mongolian domination in Transcaucasia and Russia, which contain valuable information about the beginning and development of Georgian-Mongolian and Russian-Mongolian relations. Georgian sources of this period are represented by practically only one major monument of historiography that has survived to this day — the anonymous “Centennial Chronicle” or “Chronograph” (early 14th century), which is part of the “Kartlis Tskhovreba”. There are several editions and translations of this work; “Anonymous Georgian “Chronograph”” (2005) was used. Information about the Mongols is also contained in the works of late Georgian authors — Parsadan Gorgidzhanidze (1626 – ca. 1694) and Vakhushti Bagrationi (1696–1757), but due to the compilation nature of chapters devoted to the events of the 13th–14th centuries, they are practically not used by modern historians. Meanwhile, they can provide some assistance in reconstructing the policy of the Mongol rulers. Russian historiography has generated a relatively large number of chronicle vaults. Russian sources reflected a gradual change in the position of their authors in relation to the invaders. We do not consider this evolution here and limit ourselves to the earliest chronicle works — the Hypatian Codex, the Laurentian, and the Novgorod First, which are based on manuscripts of the 13th century. Even though all these works were created in a Christian cultural environment and emphasize the importance of God’s providence in the invasion of nomads, there are significant differences between them in assessment of the Mongolian power, stemming, among other things, from the peculiarities of position of the Georgian and Russian lands in relation to the Mongol Empire and later to its successors — the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde. The author of the “Chronograph” demonstrates great awareness of the prehistory of the empire, he cites legends about the divine investiture of Genghis Khan, gives the Mongols a rather positive assessment, condemning only those of their rulers who allowed wrong actions to Christians. On the contrary, Russian chroniclers are very stingy about information about the Mongols and demonstrate an extremely negative attitude towards them.