1564 m. Ulos kautynės: įvykio tikimybės
LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Grigalius Chodkevičius; Ivanskas; Literatūra, 16 a., lenkų k.; Literatūra, 16 a., lotynų k; Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė (LDK; Grand Duchy of Lithuania; GDL); Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė (LDK; Grand Duchy of Lithuania; GDL); 16 amžius; Livonija (Livonia); Maskvos valstybė (Maskvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė; Muscovite state; Grand Duchy of Moscow); Maskvos valstybė (Maskvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė; Muscovite state; Grand Duchy of Moscow); Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis; Mūšiai; Piotras Šuiskis; Ulos mūšis, 1564-01-26; Čašnikai; Battle of Ula, 26-01-1564; Battles; Grigalius Chodkevičius (Hrehory Chodkiewicz); Lithuanian XVI c. history; Lithuanian literature, 16th century, Latin; Lithuanian literature, 16th century, Polish; Livonian; Mikalojus Radvila the Red (Mikolaj Radziwill the Red); Muscovites; Muscovy; Piotr Shujski; The Great Duchy of Lithuania.
ENThe soldiers of the GDL managed to achieve an impressive victory against the Muscovites at the 1564 Battle of Ula. For a time the balance of power in the Livonian War shifted and the Union of Lublin was even staved off for 5 years. Thus there is no doubt about its significance. An attempt is made in the article to ascertain how the surviving sources of that time describe this battle and what versions they present. How do the positions differ and what limits of their portrayal improve our understanding of the principle moments of the real event. According to their importance in recreating the image of the battle, the surviving sources are grouped into two groups: 15 printed and manuscript sources of a narrative nature (letters from participants in the event, notices, accounts of sixteenth century chroniclers, newspapers, and occasional literature) and official state chancellery documents (lists of captured and dead Muscovites, privileges given to noted participants in the battle), individually completing the image of the battle. The single-sidedness is clear in the diversity of the sources. The explanations of the losing side are missing. The relations between the groups of sources are not diametrically opposed. Unique primary sources provide impressions that have been just experienced as well as not yet verified information. Newspapers that appeared abroad supplement it with new versions about the Muscovite participants. Occasional literature and chronicles present the events the most comprehensively. They contain new factographic data about the battle's participants, military trophies, and even details of a psychological nature as well as the more precise place and time of the event.The data from some of the first group of sources verify the official chancellery documents. Without any solid statistical knowledge about the losing Muscovites, it is impossible to unconditionally use the surviving lists of captured and dead Muscovites. The privileges for holdings, which were given to noted participants in the Battle of Ula and recorded in the Lithuanian Metrien further destroy the trust in official documents. There is a big likelihood that these sources provide information which is not so much accurate as it was useful for the contemporaries. The versions of the event described in the sources, although they do not contradict one another, are nevertheless not identical. The positions clash the most distinctly in presenting the military statistics for the battle, the tactics used by the Lithuanians, the reasons why the Muscovites lost, and the circumstances of the death of the enemy commander, Pyotr Shuiski. Not one account provides a detailed portrayal of the battle, which would allow the event and the contribution of the Lithuanian commanders to be more accurately evaluated. The main question of how they managed with minimal forces to defeat such a powerful enemy remains practically unanswered. Л subsequent search for new sources representing the adversaries is awaited. At this time the various versions of the 1564 Battle of Ula confirm the reality of the past and the paradoxes of the possibilities of its cognition. [From the publication]
