To get off the British-centric track back to the initial question,
battle of Kulikovo, 1380. Presumably, it
1. Put the end to the Tatar rule over Russia. It most definitely did not. Only Ivan III stopped paying tribute to the Khan.
2. Was a battle of the epic proportions. AFAIK, none of the archeological excavations produced an evidence of a significant encounter on the alleged battlefield. It seems that even location of that battlefield is a matter of disputation. Not to mention the clearly stated (in the Russian chronicle) fact that the Russian opponent, Emir Mamai, did not have a big army and had to hire the mercenaries.
3. Was an overwhelming victory that destroyed Tatar military power. To start with, Mamai was controlling only European part of the Golden Horde. The next year he was ready for a punishing expedition which did not happen because he had been overthrown by a ruler of the White (Siberian) Horde, Khan Tothamish, who as a Genghizid was considered a legitimate ruler (Mamai was abandoned by his subjects and forced to flee). And, without wasting too much time burned Moscow in 1382. It may sound strange (Moscow fighting against his enemy) but was falling with a framework of the Mongolian rules: Mamai was an usurper but he was, while in power, a Mongolian overlord of Russia and the subjects were not permitted to fight their overlords (Tamerlane ordered execution of the leaders of a city who in his absence organized resistance to an invading enemy). Needless to say that victorious Prince Dmitry fled the city without a fight.
4. While Prince Dmitry got all the credits and a nickname, his role in the battle was zero. The person in charge was boyarin Dmitry Bobrok-Wolynski, who went to the service of Moscow from the Great Duchy of Lithuania.
Then go the victories of the Great Russian hero, Alexander Nevski:
1. His 1st famous battle for which he presumably got his nickname allegedly happened in 1240 on Neva River. According to the Russian sources not only did he won with a tiny force against the Swedes but also personally wounded Jarl Birger on the face. Needless to say that there is no mentioning of that expedition in the Swedish chronicles but also seemingly no references to Birger having some “material proof” on his face. There are some recent researchers stating that nickname was actually given to one of Alexander’s descendants and attributed to Alexander retroactively as a part of his cult created by the Princes of Moscow.
2. His next famous battle, Battle on Ice of the Peipus Lake in 1242. Presumably it saved Rus from being conquered by the evil Teutonic Order (see the famous movie). Needless to say that Teutonic Order was ona wrong side of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and only it’s small branch, Livonian Order, had been involved in expedition led by Bishop Herman of Dorpat with a purpose of stopping the raids on his (Estonian) territories and that majority of his troops were not mysterious “crusaders” ( who declared crusade?) but the Estonians.The Livonian Chronicle says nothing about the “Germans” drowning and AFAIK even the Russian chronicles say nothing about the Russian cavalry counterattack; this part most probably comes from a pure artistic illiteracy: illustrated Russian chronicles had their pictures made according to the iconic tradition of showing the events as multistage processes and the part showing arriving troops had been mistook for the reserve on a battlefield. Needless to say that the huge losses of the defeated are plain fantasy.
Why the brouhaha? Because the Grand Princes of Moscow had been Alexander’s descendants and it is much more prestigious to descend from a great warrior and a saint than from a notorious Mongolian collaborator who reported on his own brother to get his throne ( and, as a Prince of Novgorod, not just collected tribute for the Mongols but helped himself to such a degree that the city revolted).