Golden Books/Conquest of America/Chapter 1

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scaligerian version of Battle of Marathon[edit | edit source]

Fig.1.1

Marathon battle allegedly 490 BC - one of the most famous and major events in the history of "Ancient" Greece. In this battle, the Athenians defeated a huge army of Persians, invading Greece. The main source of information about the Marathon battle is the "History" of Herodotus. This is what historians themselves say [988: 00], "Marathon"; [258], pp. 179-184. Therefore, the basis of our research, we put the story of Herodotus. Fig.1.1 shows the old image of Herodotus. It is not like his other "antique" busts, cited in our previous book << Christ and Russia through the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks >>.

Today we are assured that the grandiose Marathon battle took place on the territory of modern Greece. The Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron says the following.

Fig1.2
Fig1.3

"Marathon ... is a village in Attica, 30 miles northeast of Athens, on the Marathon plain, at the foot of Pentelica ... It was located on the site of the current village of Vrana, just south of the village of Marathona, which was first identified with the ancient Marathon, famous victory of the Athenians and Platoneys over the Persian hordes, September 12, 490 BC The battle took place, at least, on the Marathon Plain ... with the ends of the abutting Marathon Bay ... Ravine is divided into two parts by a stream of the same name .. The leaders of the Persians in this campaign were Datis and Artafern; the former Athenian tyrant Hippius, who was eager to take revenge on the Athenians and regain power. After the destruction of Eretria on Evbee, the Persians entered the Marathon Bay to go to Athens. Miltiad was among the Athenian commanders (Fig. 1.2 - Avt.), Aristide (see ris.1.3 - Auth.) And Stils, the main authorities belonged to the polemarch Callimachus.In addition to 9-10 thousand of the Athenians, the whole Plataean OBLIGATION participated in the battle, 1000 people. The number of enemies is not determined by the herodotus, the main source of ours; later historians calculate the powers of the Persians from 100 to 600 thousand ... Callimachus commanded the right wing; in the center was Miltiades; on the left were the Plateeans. The center of the enemy army consisted of natural Persians and Saki, the best part of the Persian troops. They were the first to be attacked by the Athenians, with a quick march on the enemy. On both flanks, the enemy was repulsed by the Athenians and Plateans, but in the center the advantage was on the side of the Persians and Saks; victorious flanks of the Hellenes who had turned against them finally decided victory over the barbarians. The Persians who had run to their fleets were pursued to the coast and destroyed mercilessly. The rich prey went to the winners ...

In the southern part of the plain, 800 meters from the sea, now stands Soro Hill, the common grave of the Athenians who fell in the battle, all of whose names were inscribed on 10 tombstones ... Not far from there are two smaller graves: the other is the slaves who fought at the Marathon. To the north of the big hill is the marble ruin of Pyrgo - either the tomb of Miltiades, or the victorious trophy "[988: 00]," Marathon ".

Fig.1.4

They even show “the tomb of Aristio, the warrior who died in the Marathon Battle” [304: 1], v.1, p.174. See fig.1.4.

Fig.1.5
Figs.1.5a
Fig.1.6
fig.1.7

So, we are told that the "ancient" Marathon battle took place where in the XIX century there were two small Greek villages - Vrana and Marathona, Fig. 1.5 , Fig. 1.5a . It is said that there were 10 tombstones with the names of the Athenians and two smaller graves, about which various hypotheses are being built today. Perhaps, they say, one was the grave of the Poneysa, the other - slaves. They also show some kind of marble ruin, about which they leisurely wonder whether it is the grave of Miltiades, the leader of the Greeks, or some kind of victorious trophy. It follows that there is no clear inscription on the wreck. Therefore, there is a pleasant scope for authoritative divination.

In general, few traces have been preserved from the great battle on the territory of two modest Greek settlements. It seems that in the era of inventing the Scaligerian version, they took into their hands the “History” of Herodotus and “painted on the ground” - that is, simply, on a paper map, not far from the Greek Athens, “the place of a great battle”. Then poured a small mound. So since then it has become a tradition. They bring here gullible tourists, convincingly retell Herodotus and point out some marble fragments. However, quite scarce. Tourists enthusiastically photographed and videotaped the beautiful Greek landscape.

All this is similar to the inspirational stories of Romanov historians that the Battle of Kulikovo took place not far from present-day Tula. There even a monument was erected in 1849, fig. 1.6 , although no trace of the battle can still be found, despite the passionate search. Today, they also carry gullible tourists here, convincingly retell guidebooks written in the 19th century, and point to the majestic 1849 monument. Tourists enthusiastically photograph and videotape a beautiful Tula landscape. Since the XIX century, folk festivals are held here, Fig. 1.7.

However, as we showed in the book “New Chronology of Rus,” Chapter 6, the Kulikovo battle actually took place on the territory of Moscow in 1380 AD.

By the way, in September 2005, in connection with the celebration of the 625th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo, large celebrations were held near the city of Tula. In particular, on September 21, 2005, on the central television in the NTV News program, beginning at 10 pm, it was reported that the local museum was given money to land at the “same grove” where the ambush regiment of Vladimir Andreevich was stationed. According to the chronicles, it was his sudden blow that largely decided the outcome of the Kulikovo battle. Historians have long been troubled by the fact that in the suburbs of Tula, on the former gardens of the landowner S.D.Nechaev, there is no “Kulikovo oak-woods” and, probably, not. Thus, finally, in 2005, the opportunity arose to correct Russian history and to plant young oaks on the “right place”. As the director of the Tula museum "Battle of Kulikovo" solemnly declared on television, in a few years a shady oak grove will rise here. After that, it will be possible, finally, to confidently show visitors "the very place of Kulikov Field", where Russian soldiers were in ambush. As the director of the museum continued authoritatively, scientists managed to find out - however, from what sources, for some reason he didn’t specify - which trees, except for oaks, grew in the “Kulikovo oak forest”. "Here" were, it turns out, wild plums and wild cherries. Scientists even figured out their approximate number. Then they showed in detail on television how exactly the museum staff and admirers of the “Tula version” planted young trees in the ground and carefully water them. Presumably, oaks, cherries and plums, and in the necessary, scientifically established, proportion.

Fig.1.8

I must say that this is not the first attempt to recreate a chronicle oak grove here. Fig.1.8 shows a photograph from about 1980 taken from the book On the Kulikovo Field, under the significant name New Landings at the Place of the Green Oak Forest. It turns out that around 1980 there was no noticeable oak forest here either. Historians planted. However, as we see, in twenty-five years, the "Kulikovo oakwood" has to be planted anew, already in 2005? It is possible that such a "making of the historical landscape" under Tula was undertaken before. After all, it was not for nothing that commentators complain that once "along the banks of these rivers and ravines stretched thick forests, WHICH ARE ALREADY NEVER BEFORE ..." [43: 0], p.44.

All this modern "activity" is called simply: the falsification of history. It is not excluded that, to a certain extent, it is a “scientific objection” to our research, which has become quite widely known. Moreover, it has been repeatedly on the same central television, including in September 2005, for example, on Saturday, September 17, in the NTV channel’s Today’s news program, beginning at 19.00, again and quite clearly, our works were mentioned on this topic. In particular, an interview with ATFomenko was shown. Our results prove that Kulikovo Field is located in Moscow. And the leadership of the Tula Museum, our research and related publications are well known. How, by the way, and repeated discussions on this topic on television, in the scientific and broad press. As we see, as a “scientific objection,” they decided, simply, to plant in themselves “that same oak grove” that the chronicle speaks of. So to say, recreate the chronicle landscape. In retrospect to fit the neighborhood under the chronicle description. So that later, making a reverse move, point to them already as an undoubted confirmation of the Romanov interpretation of the ancient chronicles.

It should be noted that the museum has another unsolved problem. In the gardens of the landowner S.D.Nechaev, who inspired everyone that a great battle took place on the territory of his estate, historians and archaeologists have long searched for the famous chronicle Red Hill, where the headquarters of Khan Mamai was located and from where the Khan personally commanded the troops. In the XIX century, after painstaking and unsuccessful searches, they gave up and finally decided to stop at a small elevation. For convincingness, a high tower-monument was erected here in honor of the Battle of Kulikovo, see fig. 1.6 . Since then, here and drive tourists. However, this nondescript mound clearly does not fit the description of the Russian chronicles. The fact is that this far knot can hardly be seen from this hill, where historians today unfoundedly attribute the "Tula" Kulikovo battle. How could Khan Mamai lead the battle from here, when the intended battlefield itself was barely visible?

So, in order to bring the Tula landscape "into conformity" with the Russian chronicles, after the ceremonial landing of "the same oak grove", it would be necessary to pour in the majestic "Mamayevsky hill". So that he proudly ascended above the Moscow Tagansky Hill - a real chronicle of Red Hill, where Khan Mamai stood, see "New Chronology of Russia", chapter 6. Maybe after a while this omission will be corrected by our historians. At the same time, under such a man-made hill, perhaps, they will bury the missing archaeological finds, for example, the remains of many thousands of fallen, who still can not find in the vicinity of Tula. But they constantly promise that "we are about to find."

By the way, this problem - the lack of mass military graves in the gardens of the landowner Nechaev near Tula - has long annoyed historians and archaeologists. We repeat once again that there are such old burials in Moscow, see "New Chronology of Rus", Chapter 6. Trying to solve the "Tula problem", historians come up with various explanations. One other graceful. For example, on Sunday, September 25, 2005, via the central channel of RTR in the program “Vesti-Week”, - beginning at 20.00, presenter Sergey Brilev, - a big program was devoted to the 625th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo. In this program, developing our repeated attempts to challenge our results, - although not referring to this program directly, - made a historian, academician V. L. Yanin. I must say that he has repeatedly publicly expressed in the press and on television his strong dissatisfaction with our research, and in a rather crude form, see the review of responses in the book “Reconstruction”, Appendix 4. So, answering the question of the TV presenter S. Brilev: why no military graves have been found under Tula, and indeed large graves? - VL Yanin unexpectedly began to argue with inspiration that the bodies of the fallen Russian soldiers were supposedly "taken home." Muscovites, they say, - to Moscow. Novgorodtsev was taken to distant Novgorod to be buried there. And so on ... Although, we will argue, it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR in the Russian annals that Dmitry Donskoy stood on the battlefield for several days and buried many dead.

The thought of V.L.Yanin is really new. We have not heard of such a "successful solution of the Tula problem" before. Unfortunately, S. Brilev, the host of the telecast, for some reason did not ask V. L. Yanin the elementary and self-evident question: And who, in that case, took the bodies of the fallen "Tatar-Mongols" from the battlefield? Which, according to the chronicles, was WHERE MORE than the dead soldiers of Dmitry Donskoy. After all, Mamai was utterly crushed, and the few surviving Mamayevs fled. According to VL Yanin, it turns out that the "Tatars" then slowly returned and, looking around, secretly submerged and taken tens and tens of thousands of corpses to distant Mongolia on hundreds of creaks. For many thousands of kilometers? Across the rivers, fields, forests, deserts and mountains. Or did the Russian soldiers decide to take tens of thousands of their enemies' corpses to distant eastern Mongolia? Get into trouble

By the way, on the territory of modern Mongolia, mass ancient graves of the 14th century have also not been discovered yet. So, in our opinion, Academician V. L. Yanin is mistaken here.

But back to the history of "Ancient" Greece. To understand the history of the Marathon battle, you should refer to the main source - Herodotus. What we will do. We will show that in fact Herodotus told here about the Kulikovo battle on the territory of Moscow, calling it "the Battle of Marathon". So, tourists, both domestic and foreign, should be shown the field of the famous "ancient" Marathon battle not at Tula, and certainly not in Greece, but in the center of modern Moscow, on Kulishki, on Solyanka, in the area of ​​Simonov monastery. By the way, there is something to photograph here. Including mass graves of the XIV century. As well as ancient churches, built by our ancestors in honor of the fallen.

A new dating of the Battle of Marathon based on the detected chronological shifts in the Scaligerian text book[edit | edit source]

Fig.1.9, fig.1.10, fig.1.11 joined
Fig.1.12

On ris.1.9., Ris.1.10 and ris.1.11 we give a general picture of the correspondences that we found between the "ancient" history, according to Herodotus, and medieval history. We have already analyzed some of these identifications in the previous book << Christ and Russia through the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks >>. This book will describe the remaining identities. Basically they are concentrated on ris.1.10 and ris.1.11. Fig.1.12 shows the Scaligerian dating of the following events:

Marathon battle allegedly 490 BC,

Sicilian battle allegedly 415-413 BC,

the era of the Persian king Darius I allegedly 522-486 BC. and

Athenian commander, leader Miltiad allegedly about 524-489 BC.

In this chapter, we will focus on the Marathon battle. In Chapter 3 it will be shown that the famous "ancient" Sicilian battle is also a reflection of the Kulikovo battle of 1380 AD.

The possible correspondence between the "ancient" Marathon battle and the Kulikovo battle is indicated by the system of chronological shifts, discovered by A.F. Fomenko on the basis of mathematical-statistical methods and described in detail in the books "Foundations of History" and "Methods". This is the so-called Global Chronological Map. Recall that the "deepest" is the shift of dates by about 1800 years, named by A.T. Fomenko as Greco-Biblical. This shift, invented by medieval chronologists of the XVI-XVII centuries, was rooted mostly in medieval events announced today as "ancient" Greek and "ancient" biblical. At the same time, we have repeatedly come across a 100-year date shift, which manifests itself both in the chronology of Russia and in the chronology of Western Europe of the XIV-XVII centuries. Therefore, some events of the Middle Ages could be thrown back into the past as a result of two consecutive shifts: first, approximately 1800, and then 100 years. In total - about 1900 years. To restore the correct chronology of the Greek and biblical stories, it is necessary, following A.T. Fomenko, to move their Scaligerian dating up at least by 1800 years.

The Kulikovo battle took place in 1380 AD. With a total shift down by 1800 + 100 = 1900 years, it turns out to be approximately in 520 BC. Turning to fig.1.12 , we immediately see that in the immediate vicinity of this date is the Scaligerian date of the Marathon battle: allegedly 490 BC. The difference of 520 years from 490 years is only 30 years, which is quite small compared to a very large amount of the shift itself for 1900 years - almost two thousand years!

Other major battles comparable in scale to the Marathon Battle in Greek history near 490 BC. not noted. Therefore, the thought arises that the famous Marathon battle may be another reflection of the Kulikovo battle. As will be shown in this chapter, this logical conclusion, based on the mathematical-statistical results, is well confirmed by the analysis of the ancient chronicles, including Herodot's "History".


27 reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo detected by us in ancient history[edit | edit source]

Fig.1.13

We now give a list of the reflections of the Kulikovo battle of 1380 discovered by us on the pages of various chronicles both in “antiquity” and in the Middle Ages. Some of these reflections have already been presented in our previous publications, and some will be described in this book.

- - - - - - -

1) Battle of Kulikovo, 1380. Great attention is paid to this battle in the Russian chronicles, see "The New Chronology of Russia", Chapter 6. It is considered almost the most important military event of medieval Russian history.

2) The attack of Khan Tokhtamysh = Dmitry Donskoy on Moscow, allegedly two years later, in 1382, see. "New Chronology of Russia," ch.6. See also fig.1.13.

3) The defeat of Khan Mamai Khan Tokhtamysh = Dmitry Donskoy in 1380.

4) The battle of Kalka allegedly in 1223, where the "Mongols" and the allied forces of the Polovtsy and Russians fought.


5) In the history of India: The Battle of Kulikovo was reflected under the name of the famous "Battle of Kuru". The battle took place as if in "ancient" India, allegedly of the 4th-3rd centuries BC. or even in an even more ancient era. This battle is the central event of the colossal "ancient" -Indian Epos "Mahabharata". See our book "Cossacks-arias: from Russia to India."

6) In the history of the East: The Battle of Kulikovo is described in the pages of the books of the Venetian traveler Marco Polo, who allegedly lived in 1254-1323. See. "New chronology of Rus," ch. 6:10, and "Empire", ch. 14: 12.8.


7) In the history of Western Europe: The Kulikovo battle was known to Western European chroniclers, such as the German ones, as the major battle of Sempach, allegedly in 1386 AD It happened as if in the territory of Western Europe. See Reconstruction, ch. 13:11.

8) In the history of the Balkans: the Battle of Kosovo supposedly in 1389; considered to be in Serbia. The story of the Sultan Amurat = Dmitry Donskoy. We will tell about this in our next publications.


9) In the history of Byzantium: the battle of the emperor Heraclius, who allegedly ruled in 610-641 AD, with the Persian shah of Khosroy or Khosrov. See Chapter 1 of our book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".


10) In the history of imperial Rome: the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 was also reflected in the pages of the "ancient" Roman sources. In particular, as the battle of the “ancient” emperor Constantine I the Great = Dmitry Donskoy with the emperor Maxentius or Maximin = Khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov allegedly in 312 AD See our book "The Baptism of Rus".

11) In the history of imperial Rome: as the battle of Emperor Constantine with Licinius, allegedly in 323 AD See our book "The Baptism of Rus". Here, Constantine I the Great is a reflection of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, and Licinius is a reflection of Khan Mamai = Ivan Veliyaminov.

12) In the history of republican Rome: The Battle of Kulikovo was reflected as the Gallic war, allegedly in the year 361 BC. The Romans fought the Gauls who invaded their country. The outcome of the battle was decided in a duel between the young military tribune Titus Manlius = Dmitry Donskoy and the giant Gall = Khan Mamai. See chapter 4 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

13) In the history of republican Rome: the following reflection of the Kulikovo battle is another Gallic war, allegedly in 348 BC, in which Marc Valery Korv defeated the mighty Gall. See Chapter 5 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

14) In the history of republican Rome: a duplicate of the Kulikovo battle is the Second Latin War, allegedly 341-340 BC, in which both Titus Manlius the father and Titus Manlius the son participate. See Chapter 6 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

15) In the history of republican Rome: as the First Latin War, allegedly in 499 BC. See Chapter 7 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

16) In the history of republican Rome: as the battle of a dictator-plowman, allegedly in the year 458 BC See Chapter 7 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

17) In the history of republican Rome: as the battle of the Romans under Clusia and Sentine allegedly in the year 295 BC See Chapter 6 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

- - - - - - -

18) In the Old Testament Bible: The Battle of Kulikovo was reflected as the famous battle of David with Goliath (1 Samuel 17), allegedly in the era of 1015-1055 BC. See our book "The Baptism of Rus". Here David is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy, and Goliath is a reflection of Khan Mamai.

19) In the Old Testament Bible: as the battle between King Saul and the Philistines, in which Saul was killed (1 Samuel 29-31), allegedly in the XI century BC See our book "The Baptism of Rus".

20) In the Old Testament Bible: as the story of David and Absalom. Absalom dies in battle (2 Kings 18), ostensibly in the middle of the XI century BC See Chapter 6 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

21) In the Old Testament Bible: the battle of David with the Philistines (2 Kings 5), allegedly in the XI century BC See Chapter 6 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga".

22) In the Old Testament Bible: the rebellion of Saba the Benjaminite against David (2 Samuel 20), allegedly in the XI century BC See Chapter 6 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga". Here David = Dmitry Donskoy, and Savey the Benjamin = Ivan Velyaminov or Venyaminov.

23) In the Old Testament Bible: Judge Gideon’s battle with the Midianites (Judges 6-8), ostensibly around 1245 BCE See Chapter 7 of the book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga". Here Gideon is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy.

- - - - - - -

24) In the history of "Ancient" Greece: as the famous Marathon Battle of supposedly 490 BC, see Chapter 1 of this book.

25) In the "ancient" mythology: as the famous "most ancient" legend of the victory of Zeus over the Titans with the help of the Cyclopes = Cyclops, see Chapter 2 of this book.

26) In the history of "Ancient" Greece: as the famous Sicilian battle allegedly 415-413 BC, see Chapter 3 of this book.

- - - - - - - -

27) In the history of the conquest - the conquest of America, allegedly at the beginning of the XVI century: as the battle of the Spaniards with the alleged Indian king Cotubanam, see chapter 9 of this book.

- - - - - - - -

Fic.1.14
fig.1.15

Clearly this list of duplicates of the Kulikov battle is presented in Figure 1.14. In Figure 1.15, we depicted it in a slightly different way. It is clearly seen here in which epoch exactly the Scaligerian version mistakenly placed one or another phantom reflection of the Kulikovo battle. Two most massive thickening are seen. The first is the 4th-5th centuries BC, where the Scaligerian version mistakenly placed phantom Rome and Greece. The second concentration is the 11th century BC, where many sections of the phantom biblical history were placed. To restore the correct history, it is necessary to “raise” all the duplicates found by us upwards along the time axis and identify them with the Kulikov battle of 1380. As a result, the number of different scenes in the written history will be significantly reduced, but the illumination of the remaining events will noticeably increase. After all, now we have the opportunity to look, for example, at the Kulikovo battle through the eyes of about TWENTY-SEVEN various chroniclers. Each of them reports something different, sometimes not noticed by others. Of course, not all of the TWENTY-SEVEN stories belong to contemporaries of events. Many of these narratives are merely distorted retellings of each other. Nevertheless, they are very valuable, because every chronicler could remember something that others did not know about. For example, he could rely on some LOCAL TRADITION, which goes back to the testimonies of genuine eyewitnesses. And, as we shall see, the various chroniclers who wrote about the Battle of Kulikovo really complement each other with interesting details. As a result, today the history of the battle of Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Mamai has become significantly richer.

"Antique" Darius king of the Persians, sent troops against Athens. Khan Mamai, the ruler of the Horde against Dmitry Donskoy[edit | edit source]

According to Herodotus, the Persian king Darius kindled with hostility towards Athens and << began to carry out his plans. After all, the servant constantly reminded the king not to forget about the Athenians, and the Pisistratids did not cease to slander the Athenians and excite Darius against them. At the same time, DARI set out to subjugate other Greeks, who did not give him land and water, under the pretext of going on the march ... He appointed two new commanders, namely Meat Dathis and Artafren, son of Artafren ... and then sent them against ERITREI and AFIN . The king sent them with orders to enslave the inhabitants of Athens and Eretria and bring his royal eyes before him.

These newly appointed military commanders, at the head of a MULTIPLE AND EXCELLENTLY EQUIPPED MILITARY, arrived in Alei in Cilicia. While they were standing there, the whole fleet approached ... Cargo ships for the transportation of horses also arrived ...

When the Erethrians learned that the Persian fleet was sailing against them, they turned to the Athenians for help. The Athenians, however, did not refuse support and sent 4,000 of their clerices to help ...

The Persians, on the other hand, landed at Tamin, Herey and Aegilia in the Eretria region. Having seized these places, the Persians immediately began to land their cavalry and prepared for battle ... For six days there was a fierce battle at the walls of the city and on both sides many soldiers fell ...

After submission of ERETREI, the Persians stood there for several days and then sailed on to Attica. They drove the Athenians into the gorge ... The most convenient place for the cavalry in Attica was MARATHON, which was also closest to Eretria. Hippius, the son of Peisistratus, led them there.

Learning about this, the Athenians also moved to the marathon. At the head of their troops were ten strategists. The tenth was MILTIAD. His father Cimon, the son of Stesagoras ... Cimon was buried in front of the city gates (Athens - Auth.) Behind the street called "Via KELU" ...

The eldest son of Cimon, Stesagoras, was then brought up by his uncle Miltiades in Chersonese, and the youngest lived with Cimon in Athens. He was named MILTIAD on behalf of the founder of the settlement on Chersonesus Miltiades.

So, this Miltiad after returning from Chersonesos was then STRATEG AFIHNYAN ... He was appointed by the Athenian strategist by popular vote >> [163], pp.299-302.

  • So, according to Herodot, the warlike PEOPLE are directed by the king DARIUS to the conquest of the city of Athens and the lands subject to it. In Russian history, the militant ORDA, led by Khan Mamai, opposes the Russian Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy.

Probably, the name ORDA was refracted by Herodotus in the form of the name of the king DARIA. After all, the words DARIUS and ORDA differ only in the direction of their reading. In addition, we have repeatedly encountered the fact that the name “DARI” among the “ancient classics” often meant ORDU, that is, RAH, the Russian army. The word ORDA, or ARTA, also sounds in the name of ARTA-FREN, one of the leaders of Darius’s troops, see above.

Herodotus calls DARIA the king of PERSOV. We have repeatedly come across the fact that the “ancient classics” were often called the PERSAMI of RUSSIAN, that is, P-RUSS or BELO-RUSS, Belorussians. As we now understand, in the history of Russia there was previously no division into "Tatars" and "Russians". The horde was simply a Russian regular army, RATYu, consisting of Cossacks, professional soldiers. Therefore, it should not be surprising that, for Herodot, DARI, that is, the Horde, rules PERSAM, that is, P-Rusami. So, everything is right here. There was a single kingdom of Rus-Orda, in which civil strife sometimes flared up. The largest was the Battle of Kulikovo. By the way, in the era of the XIV century there was no division into nations in the modern sense. Nations arose only in the Epoch of the Reformation, when the Great Empire split. Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI centuries united and merged into a single society many different peoples and tribes.

Fig.1.16
  • The "ancient" city of Athens in various ancient texts designated various cities of the Middle Ages. As we showed in the book << Christ and Russia through the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks >>, in some annals ATHENS was called Tsar-Grad, that is, Troy = Gospel Jerusalem. Recall that today historians attribute Homer's Troy to a completely different place, in Asia Minor, Fig.1.16.

In addition, as we will soon see, in the history of the "ancient" Marathon battle in the name of ATHENS, chroniclers called the city TANU, the city of DON, that is, the city standing on the DON. Recall that DON previously called the river in general - from the Russian word BOTTOM, BOTTOM. Most likely, in this place of the "History" of Herodotus, "the city of Tana" = Athens means Moscow, located on the Moscow River. In the book "New Chronology of Rus", chapter 6, we showed that at that time the River Moscow was called the DON. The words TANA and ATHENS are almost identical, since the letter Fita was also pronounced as F and as T. On the "ancient" maps, the region of the modern Don River in Russia was sometimes designated as "the country of TANA", see the book "Empire". In addition, the old name of the river Don - TANAIS. A slight distortion of these names is the "ancient" ATHENS. In particular, ATHENIANS are, at least in some old texts, DONTS, that is, residents of DON.

  • Herodotus reports that Darius’s troops first invaded Eretria. Apparently, the "ancient" ERETHREA, or RTR without oglosovok, is TARTARIA or TATARIA. Or, again, ORDA = ARTA = RAT, PATH country. So called Russia-Horde.
  • The army of Khan Mamai, speaking out against Dmitry Donskoy, WAS PROFESSIONAL [362], v.5. Similarly, Herodotus, reporting the beginning of the campaign of the Persians, emphasizes that the army of Darius was NUMEROUS AND EXCELLENTLY COOTED.
  • The main commander of the Athenians, see the details below, was AFYNYANIN MILTIAD. The leader of the Russian troops in the war with the Horde was Dmitry Dmitriy Donskaya. We have repeatedly seen that the sounds of L and R could go into each other, therefore the names of MILTIAD-MIRTIAD and DMITRY may be close. In fact, Dmitry = DMRTD ---> MRTD = Mirtiad = Miltiades. And the name DONSKOY could be broken by Herodotus as AFYNYANIN: Athens = Tana = Don.
  • In the "ancient" Greek version, the army of Darius and the army of Miltiades move towards each other. They will converge in the battle on Marathon field, near Athens. However, ON THE SAME FIELD or directly around it there is NO LARGE CITY. There is only a small settlement Marathon. According to the Russian chronicles, the army of the Horde, that is, the army of Mamai, and the army of Dmitry Donskoy also move towards each other in order to come together in a battle on the field of Kulikovo. As we showed in the book “New Chronology of Rus,” ch. 6, the Kulikovo field was located on the territory of modern Moscow. However, we must understand that in the era of the XIV century, there was no ANY LARGE CITY HERE. There was only a small settlement, which then in the XVI century turned into Moscow - the new capital of Russia-Horde.
  • It is interesting that in the story of Herodotus about the beginning of the campaign of Darius’s troops to Athens, the following names appear: KILIKIA and KELA. In the first case we are talking about the Kilikia region, and in the second about the Athens street “through KELU”. Commentators explain that KELA is the name of the district of the city of Athens where the hollow was - KELA [163], p.531, comment 93. But the two names, KILIKIYA and KELA, are very consonant with the name of the KULIKOVA field. Apparently, in this form, the famous Kulikovo Field was reflected in the pages of the "ancient" Herodotus.
  • Finally, the aggressor in this war, Herodotus, is Darius. By his order, the Persian troops march on Athens. Athenians FORCED TO PROTECT. Similarly, Russian chronicles believe that in 1380 the Horde Khan Mamai was the aggressor, moving with the war against Dmitry Donskoy. The Grand Duke was forced to protect and gather the people's militia.
  • The marathon battle took place on September 13, allegedly in 490 BC [258], p. 182. The Kulikovo battle also took place in September, in 1380: "And as the instructor at the sixth hour of the month of September at 14th day" [631], pp.286, 312. Commentators point out that such an indication by the chronicler does not correspond to reality. Today, following N.M. Karamzin, they call on September 8, 1380 [362], t.5, ch.1, column 38; [988: 00], "Battle of Kulikovo". But it is important for us here that the sources unanimously call SEPTEMBER both the time of the Kulikovo and the Marathon battle.
  • According to Herodotus, the battle of the Persians and the Athenians took place near the small settlement of Marathon, on the Marathon field. It is possible that the "ancient" Greek name MARATHON turned out to be a slight distortion of the combination MORE-DON, that is, DON RIVER. Probably, the river, which had a settlement, was considered quite large and some could even call it the sea. The Moscow River, named in the Russian chronicles as Don, of course, is far from the sea and is not considered to be a very big river by Russian standards. Volga, for example, much more. Nevertheless, in the vicinity of the city of Moscow, the Moscow River is the largest water artery and it is more significant than the Yauza and Neglinka rivers that flow into it, on the banks of which, in fact, the Kulikovo battle unfolded, see "New Chronology of Russia", chapter 6. So, our thought is simple: on the pages of Herodotus the Moscow River was named MARA-FONOM, that is, the name MORE-DON. The letter Fita read as F and T, and T and D easily transformed into each other. Consequently, the background could be a distortion of the word DON.

Then, when, in the era of the Reformation, the Scaligerian historians and geographers rewrote the history and geography of the Great Empire, they mistakenly attributed most of the descriptions of Herodotus to the territory of modern Greece, were forced to indicate here certain ancient chronicle names mentioned by Herodotus. Including the Marathon. They took a map of Greece and, without thinking twice, without a word, declared one of the local villages "the most famous Marathon." Then they themselves believed in their deception. Their followers, who, of course, have already forgotten the essence of the matter, are still so mechanically repeated. Carry tourists here. They reverently examine the scanty remnants of some medieval buildings, declared in the XVII-XVIII centuries "very antique".


The Athinian vibrations - is it worth to entry into a battle with Persia? The original vibrations of Dmitry Donsky - is it worth to fight with Khan Mamai?[edit | edit source]

When the news of the movement of the troops of Darius to Athens reached the Athenians, disagreements arose among them on whether to fight the Persian Medes. Herodotus says: “Meanwhile, the opinions of the Athenian strategists were divided: some expressed themselves against the battle with the Median army, because the Athenians were too few; others (including Miltiades), on the contrary, advised to take the fight” [163], p.303.

Thus, the "ancient" -Greek version clearly speaks of the oscillations and the unsureness of the Athenians before the marathon battle.

Before us is a well-known story from the prehistory of the Kulikovo battle. Dmitry Donskoy and some of his comrades also hesitated for a long time whether it was worth fighting with the troops of Khan Mamai. This option was discussed - to make peace with Mamai and agree to his terms. The horde was very strong, the troops of Mamai are numerous and staffed by professionals. On the side of Dmitry Donskoy was only the people's militia.

"The Life of St. Sergius" reports the following: "One of the proud Khans of the Tatar Mamai rose to Russia with all the LANDS. In vain the Grand Duke Dmitry Ioannovich tried to appease him with gifts and humbugs: Mothers didn’t want to hear about mercy. I did not want to hear about mercy again to prepare for war, and there was nothing to DO ”[278: 1], p.166.

Moreover, ALREADY DIRECTLY BEFORE THE KULIKOVY BATTLE, Sergius of Radonezh ALSO RECEIVES Dmytro Donskoy FROM THE BATTLE AT FIRST TIME, advising Mom to end the affair with peace and expression of humility In an attempt to AVOID BATTLES, Dmitry and Sergius were united.

<< Getting ready to go on a campaign, the Grand Duke Dmitry Ioannovich considered it his first duty to visit the monastery of the Life-giving Trinity ... and to receive the BLINDING OF BLESSING from St. Hegumen Sergius ... The Grand Duke said to the holy Hegumen: "You already know, father, what great sorrow overwhelms me ... Horde Prince Mamai moved the whole horde of godless Tatars ... Pray, Father, that God will deliver us from this misfortune! "... Speaking with the Grand Duke, the holy elder advised him to honor with the evil and malevolent Mother. “To you, Mr. Prince,” he said, “you should take care and stand firmly behind your subjects ... BUT BEFORE YOUR GOD, GO TO THEM WITH TRUTH AND HUMBLE, HOW YOU SHOULD SUBMIT YOUR ORDY NATIONAL MEETING” >> [23] ], pp.166-167.

Most likely, it was this initial deep insecurity of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, and at the same time of St. Sergius of Radonezh, that Herodotus described as the oscillations of the "ancient" Athenians before the Persian war with the Medes. True, Herodotus says that Miltiad himself, that is, Dmitri, spoke in favor of the battle, convincing the doubters. However, here, probably, Herodotus slightly simplified the true picture of the events of 1380. The fact is that after a while, Dmitry Donskoy decided to join the battle, and from that moment on radically changed his behavior - he began to actively gather troops and equip him for battle. Most likely, this courageous and final decision of Dmitry-Miltiades was reflected in the pages of Herodotus.

We note, by the way, that the Persian troops of Darius are also called MIDI in Herodotus, since the Persians were called MIDI. But in the book “Tsarist Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga”, see Chapter 7, we showed that the troops of Khan Mamai were called in the Old Testament Bible MADIAMTSAMI, Midian, and Midianites (Judges 6-7). This is one of the reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo on the pages of the Bible as a story about the battle of the Israelites, headed by Judge Gideon, with the Midianites. Later use of the MADIANITIANA name instead of the original MADIUMYAN in some versions of the Bible seems to be explained by the fact that the editors wanted to remove from the Bible the mention of Khan Mamai and his people - "MAMAEVS".

But after all, the Gerodoto name of the MIDIANs is quite close to the name of the MADIAMA. That is, MAMMANS. Thus, we see that on the pages of Herodot's History there is a trace of MAMAEVTSEV - warriors and supporters of Khan Mamai. Recall also that Herodotus repeatedly demonstrates his closeness to the Old Testament when describing the most diverse plots of “ancient” Greek history.

Miltiad appeals to Callimah, asking his help to win the Persov-Midyan. Dmitry Donskaya appeals to Sergey Radonezh with a request to help to win the Khan Mamai[edit | edit source]

After reporting the initial hesitations of the Athenians before the battle, Herodotus continues his story.

<< When opinions differed so much and began to take the worst offer (to avoid the battle with the Medes-Persians - Auth.), Miltiad appealed to the eleventh voting participant, chosen by the Athenians by polmarhar lot (since ancient times, the Polemarch had equal voting rights with the strategists). Polemarch then was Callimachus from Athens. TO HIM AND MILTIAD WENT AND SAID, THAT'S WHAT: "IN YOUR HANDS, KALIMAH, TO MAKE THE ATHINIANS SLAVES OR SAME, LIBERATING THEM, RELEASE THEIR MONUMENT OF NAVEKA, which didn’t make them even the most beautiful artists, didn’t even apply for the Arts and the Northeassthemeur, who didn’t even apply for the Arts and the Northeassthemeur, who didn’t even apply for the Shadow of the Prize for the Nine Prize never before they were threatened with such a terrible danger as now, if the Athenians submitted to the Medes and again fell under the power of Hippia, then their fate was resolved. If our city overcomes the Persians, it will become the most powerful of the Hellenic cities ... We are ten strategists disagreed: some advise to give battle, and others are not. If we don’t decide to fight now, then I’m afraid that great discord will sweep up and so shake the souls of the Athenians that they will submit to the Medes. If we fight the enemy before anyone [of the Athenians] vile plan [to change], then we will overcome ... ALL THIS IS NOW IN YOUR POWER AND DEPENDS ON YOU. Join my advice, and your hometown will be free and become the most powerful in Hellas. And if you take the side of the opponents of the battle, then of course we died. "

With these words MILTIAD ATTRACTED KALLIMAHA TO ITSELF. WHEN THE POLYMARCH CONNECTED YOUR VOICE TO THE SUPPORT OF THE MILTIAD, THAT WAS FINALLY DECIDED TO GIVE FIGHTING TO THE ENEMY. Then the strategists who voted for the battle, when their turn came to be commanders-in-chief, HAVE ASSESSED THE MAJORITY OF THE MILTIAD. And although he accepted the MAIN PRESENCE, he still did not start the battles until his turn to command reached him >> [163], pp.303-304.

In this story of Herodotus, we recognize the famous scene that preceded the Kulikovo battle. Dmitry Donskoy went to Sergius of Radonezh to ask blessings for the battle with Mom. Here is what N.M. Karamzin says.

"Dimitri, arranging his shelves for the performance, wished with his brother Vladimir Andreevich, with all the Princes and Voivods, to accept the blessing of Sergius, Hegumen of the secluded Trinity Monastery, already famous by the virtues of its founder ... The chroniclers say that he predicted the bloodshed to Dimitri, but victory is the death of many Heroes of the Orthodox, but the salvation of the Grand Duke; I asked him to dine at the monastery, he sprinkled holy water on all the commanders who were with him and gave him two Inoks in the associates named after Alexander Peresvet and Oslaby "[36 2], v.5, ch.1, column 36.

Russian primary sources pay much attention to this event. Not only the annals, but also numerous legends about the Battle of Kulikovo [631] speak about the meeting between Dmitry and Sergius. It is believed that it was the blessing of St. Sergius of Radonezh that allowed the people's militia Dmitry Donskoy to defeat the experienced and professional troops of Mamai. So, the backbone of conformity is as follows.

  • "Antique" Miltiades becomes commander-in-chief of Athenian troops. Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy heads the Russian troops.
  • Both versions speak of serious fluctuations - is it worth it to engage in battle with an experienced enemy.
  • In the end, Miltiad actively calls for a battle with the Medes. Similarly, Dmitry Donskoy, casting aside doubts, decides to fight with the Mamayevs.
  • Miltiad appeals for help to the polymarch Callimachus, saying that the success of a business depends on him. Callimachus takes the side of Miltiades. Similarly, Dmitry Donskoy goes to St. Sergius of Radonezh to ask blessings for the battle. He receives the blessing and direct support of Sergius. In particular, he sends two of his Inokov with the "Christ's weapon" to help Dmitry.
Fig.1.17

Russian sources report two Inoks, whom Sergius of Radonezh gave to help Prince Dmitry. Saint Sergius himself, as it is believed, did not directly participate in the Kulikovo battle. He remained in his Abode. Fig.1.17 shows an old image of Sergius.

The “ancient” Greek version says that the polyarch Kallimah, that is, Sergius of Radonezh, personally took part in the battle. “When the turn came to command Miltiades, the Athenians lined up for battle as follows: the head of the right wing was Polemarche Callimachus (the Athenians then had the custom of the Polemarch to be at the head of the right wing)” [163], p.304.

Most likely, here the "antique" Herodotus did not very clearly convey the story of Russian original sources of the XIV century. The certificate of participation in the Kulikovo battle of the two Inokov of St. Sergius of Radonezh Herodot presented as a personal participation of St. Sergius in the Marathon battle, calling him Polemarc Callimachus.

So, apparently, the “ancient” hero of Miltiades is the great Russian prince Dmitry Donskoy. Pausanias, for example, very highly evaluated the role of Miltiades in the history of Greece: “Miltiad, son of Cimon, who won the battle of Marathon, the barbarians who had flown here and held off the further military advance of the Medes, was the first benefactor of the entire ELLIN PEOPLE” [6: 0). , p. 164.

In addition, the Athenian polemarche Callimachus is probably a reflection of St. Sergius of Radonezh.

In the Battle of Marathon, God Pan helped Miltiada, in honor of those who "run with torches". In Battle of Kulikovo, Dmitry Don wasassisted by guns, handed over to him by Sergiy Radonezh[edit | edit source]

As we showed in our previous works, the victory of Dmitry Donskoy was achieved due to the fact that he used cannons on the battlefield for the first time on a large scale. The guns were invented by Sergius of Radonezh and handed to Dmitry directly before the battle. See the details in our book "The Baptism of Rus". Monks Oslyabya and Peresvet were probably the leading experts in the field of cannonry, and therefore it was them who were sent by St. Sergius to lead the gun batteries in the Kulikovo battle.

Fig.1.18
Fig.1.19

Further, in almost all reflections of the Kulikov battle, which we found on the pages of the “ancient” history, in one form or another, sometimes allegorically and sometimes frankly enough, tells about firearms widely used by Dmitry’s troops on the battlefield. New, unprecedented, weapons instilled panic in the enemy. In particular, in the book "The Baptism of Russia" we showed that the famous "ancient" god Pan, Fig.1.18, personified the gun itself. The “ancient” Greek myths spoke very expressively about Pan. His mother, the nymph Driopa, was AWARD when he saw her son. Pan "leads to causeless people, the so-called PANIC FEAR ... Pan is an assistant in battles, he fears enemies. He helped Zeus in the fight against the titans. There are legends about the appearance of Pan to the Greeks before the Marathon Battle of Salamina" [533] , v.2, pp.279-280.

fig.1.20

Here is more information about the god Pan, fig.1.19. “Pan was Zeus’s stepbrother ... [Pan] took revenge on all those who prevented him from sleeping. AT THIS, he gave such a cry from the depths of the cave or thunderstorm, which on the head of the overhearing hair blasted out” [196: 1], p.72.

The very name of PANA, commentators say, is derived from the PUS or PAS root, which is close to the Russian word PUSHKA. Recall that the sound of C often turned into Ш, and vice versa. Note that the awakened Pan rumbled terribly from the depth of the cave. That is, probably from the mouth of the gun, fig.1.20.

The statement of the “ancient” myth that Pan helped Zeus in the fight against the titans [196: 1], [533], v.2, probably corresponds to the fact that guns were invented in the XIV century, in the era of the adoption of Christianity, and used in the battle of Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoy with Maxentius = Khan Mamai. That is, in the battle that ended the old world of the former clan Christianity, which gave way to the new - the apostolic. Then the battle was presented as the battle of ZEUS, that is, Jesus Christ, with the TITANS, that is, with the first kings of the Great Empire before the adoption of Apostolic Christianity. Subsequently, tribal Christianity was called paganism, and therefore the "panes" cannons really turned out to be in some texts a symbol of the outgoing "ancient" world. By the way, a very respectful attitude towards the guns was maintained for a very long time. In the 20th century, artillery was also called the “god of war”.

Fig.1.21-23
Fig.1.24
Fig.1.25
Fig.1.26
Fig.1.27
Fig.1.28-29
Fig.1.30
Fig.1.31-32
Fig.1.33

On fig.1.21-23, fig.1.24, fig.1.25, fig.1.26, fig.1.27, fig.1.28-29, fig.1.30, fig.1.31-32, fig.1.33 we show several medieval cannons of small and medium caliber stored today in the Hungarian fortress Eger (Eger). They belong to the XVI century, when the Ottoman army, moving through modern Hungary, was besieged by the fortress of Eger in 1522 [1259: 1], pp.23-24. According to our results, it was the era of the Ottoman-Ataman conquest of Europe by the "Mongolian" troops of Joshua, see the book "Biblical Russia". The guns stored today in the town of Eger are, of course, incomparable to the huge large-caliber Russian-Horde guns and Cossack mortars of the 15th-16th centuries, which we described in detail in the books Biblical Rus, chapter 4, and Reconstruction. Apparently, in the vicinities of Eger, the battles were not particularly large, therefore a large caliber was not required here. Nevertheless, the medieval Eger cannons are of particular interest. By the way, today we are convinced that all of them are Western European, that "there are no Turkish cannons here." So say the official guides Eger. However, it is noteworthy that a strange fact that small caliber guns of the caliber carry Latin and other inscriptions, but for some reason, medium-caliber guns do not have any inscriptions at all. More precisely, once the inscriptions on the trunks, most likely, were, but then they were knocked down or poured, brewed with metal. In any case, in those places where the inscriptions could have been expected, today we see strange metal “patches” firmly welded in ancient trunks, fig.1.24, fig.1.28-29, fig.1.30, fig.1.31-32, rice .1.33. Are these medium guns, but a little larger caliber, Ottoman? Inscriptions on which then for some reason destroyed. According to our reconstruction, the Ottoman-Ataman conquest was, in a sense, a civil war within the Great = "Mongol" Empire of the XVI century. In this sense, ALL THE GUNS OF THE PORES WERE ORDYNSKO- "MONGOL". Just one shot on the one hand, and the other - on the other. Horde fired in the same Horde. But then, in the era of the Reformation, Western reformers declared some of these tools "theirs", and others - "enemy". On the "enemy" guns inscriptions destroyed. But then, on reflection, they even said that now all the surviving ancient cannons are “ours”. Including a larger caliber. And proudly exhibited in the museum. As a result, the Ottomans "left no trace."

Fig.1.34

Fig.1.34 shows the old image of the cannon arsenal of Emperor Maximilian I. Recall that, according to our results, the Habsburg "Maximilian I" is a reflection in the pages of the Western European chronicles of the Russian-Horde emperor Khan Vasily III. See Reconstruction, ch. 13:19. Consequently, in ris.1.34 we see the "Mongol", they are Israeli, they are also the Horde tools of Tsar Khan Vasily III.

But back to the "ancient" battle of Marathon. If the "ancient" god Pan was the personification of the guns, then we should expect that he should appear in the history of the Marathon battle, somehow participate in it. Our logical conclusion is fully justified. Indeed, GOD PAN DECLARED THE GREEKS BEFORE THE MARATHON BATTLE.

That's what the "ancient" Herodotus says. Before the start of the Marathon battle, "while still on the march, the strategists (Athenians - Auth.) First sent the Athenian Fidippid to Sparta, who was a fast traveler and made himself even a craft from it. As later, Fidippid himself told and assured the Athenians, on the mountain Parthenius, that above Tegea, HE HAS BEEN DONE TO HIM PAN. Fidippida when n For them, the best times for them are again the best of times, they erected the sanctuary of Pan at the foot of the acropolis. AND THOSE ARE AGAINALLY KILLING HER VICTIMS AND MAKING THE FLASHLIGHT RUN "[163], p.302.

All clear. The god Pan really appeared before the Marathon battle, moreover, ON THE PARTY OF GREEK, AFYNYAN, as it should be due to their identification with the Horde warriors Dmitry Donskoy = Miltiades. Moreover, the god Pan stressed that he is BLASKLONEN TO THE ATHENS, OFTEN HELPED HIM AND HELPED AHEAD. It fits perfectly with the fact that Sergius of Radonezh favorably handed the firearm to Prince Dmitry, in order to help him defeat Mamai Khan.

Finally, it is impossible not to draw attention to the fact that since then the Athenians worshiped Pan, that is, as we now understand, the “cannon god”, and it is in his honor that the TIE WITH TORCHES is arranged.Most likely, "running with fire" symbolized gun fire, shots, flight - this is the "run" of hot cores and grapeshot. People admiringly remembered the battle, and theatrical actors conditionally portrayed in front of the spectators the brightest event of the war - “run of the flame”, “shooting by fire”, to the death that struck the enemy.

Fig.1.35

Further, in the book "The Baptism of Russia" we showed that the famous VISION OF THE CROSS TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT before the battle with Maxentius is also associated with firearms. The guns were previously called the "Christian tree", since the first tools were made of wood. In addition, this weapon was first commissioned by supporters of Apostolic Christianity and was associated with the name of Christ. The guns of Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great helped him establish Christianity as the state religion of the whole Great Empire. In this sense, the guns were the "weapon of Christ." Later authors symbolically described them as a phenomenon of a fiery Christian Cross in the sky, which provided Dmitry = Constantine with a great victory, Fig.1.35.

We see that the "ancient" Greek Herodotus speaks of the Phenomenon of the god Pan to the Athenians before the decisive battle at Marathon. Most likely, this is a refracted reflection of the phenomenon of the fiery cross - the Christian Tree - in the sky to the emperor Constantine, that is, the appearance of a cannon. Recall that the early guns were wooden.

Moreover, some ancient sources claim that the "gun god" Pan did not just appear before the Marathon battle and promised support to the Athenians, but PERSONALLY, HAVE ANYONE ON THE FIELD OF FIGHTING. For example, the "antique" Pausanias says the following. “And Fidippid said that Pan met him at Mount Parthenon and said that he favored the Athenians and that HE WILL COME TO IT TO MARATHON TO HELP THEM. So this god is honored for this good news. Here it is called the Areopagus (ARESA Hill) "[625: 0], v.1, p.74.

Fig.1.36

So, repeat, "the cannon god" Pan promised to come to the Marathon field to help the Athenian troops win. As we now understand, the "gunshot god" kept his promise and "came." It is curious that in this connection the Hill of Ares is mentioned. But then, ARES is the god of war. The connection of the violent Pan with the war is underlined once more.

Let's return for a minute to the old wooden cannons. It turns out that guns occasionally manufactured from wood up to the beginning of the 20th century, see fig.1.36. And from them successfully shot. For example, during the war of Macedonia with Turkey. We repeat that this was at the beginning of the 20th century.



Dmitry Donskoy's guns on the Kulik = Marafonsky field are described in the "antique" literature also as "hero Ekhtley", which was killed during the Battle of many Midyans[edit | edit source]

CERTIFICATE OF PAUSANIA[edit | edit source]

On the signs that accompanied the Marathon, that is, the Kulikov battle, many said. About the great battle in which the gods participated, there were legends. "The Athenians sing in their songs that the gods were participants in their battles in the Marathon and Salamis case" [625: 0], v.2, p.90.

Talking about the Marathon, the "antique" Pausanias informs: "EVERY NIGHT CAN BE HEARD HORNING HORSES HERE AND REMEMBER BATTLING WARRIORS. ​​It does not happen that it was a gift to someone who deliberately looks at this phenomenon, but if someone doesn’t know how or or accidentally <will have to see it>, the wrath of the gods does not happen. Marathonians honor those who fell in this battle, calling them heroes, they also honor the Marathon, from which the name of this DeMouy, and HERACLES, saying that THE FIRST OF ELLINS RECOGNIZED HERACLES BY GOD. According to their stories, DURING THIS BATTLE, THERE WERE APPEARED SEEING PEOPLE BY PEOPLE'S TYPE, CLOTHES; KILLED MANY OF BARBARS BY PLOW, HE AFTER THIS EXPLORATION HAS DECLINED. 625: 0], v.1, p.84.

So, Pausanias reports that the Athenians FIRST OF THE ELLINES RECOGNIZED HERACLES BY GOD. But in the book "Tsar Slavs" we showed that Hercules is one of the "ancient" names of the emperor Andronicus-Christ. The myths about Hercules included some important events in the life of Christ. It turns out that the Athenians were the first Hellenes to recognize Christ as GOD. That is, they are the first, or one of the first, to baptize. This is perfectly in line with our reconstruction, according to which, after the victory in the Kulikovo battle of 1380, Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great BAPTILED the entire Great Empire. The first baptism was given by Andronicus-Christ himself in the XII century. The second baptism - already of the whole huge "Mongolian" Kingdom - was given at the end of the XIV century as a result of the victory on the Kulikovo field over the adherents of royal, tribal Christianity. From that moment on, apostolic, popular Christianity became dominant in the Empire. So the "antique" Pausanias is absolutely right, reporting in connection with the Marathon = Kulikovo battle about the recognition of Hercules = Christ - the "antique" GOD. Here the Afinyans are the “DONTSY”, residents of the Don Region, located around the DON = Moscow River.

CHRIST - FARMER[edit | edit source]

Further, Pausanias says that on the field of the Marathon battle there appeared "a man of a kind, dressed as a peasant," who miraculously helped the Athenians to conquer the Medes. Since it was just about Hercules = Christ, it is natural to assume that here Pausanias reaffirmed that the victory at Marathon was achieved "under the banner of Christ" and in the name of Christ. But in that case an interesting question arises - why did the Athenians represent Christ in the clothing of the PEASANT? In the New Testament there is no mention of the fact that Christ was dressed in the clothes of a peasant. However, in the book “The Beginning of the Horde Russia” we already noted that, for example, in Titian’s painting “Don't Touch Me”, fig.1.37, Christ is indeed represented in the form of a GROWNER - in his hands Motyga. And this is not the only example of this kind. In some other Western European ancient paintings, Christ is also depicted IN THE FORM OF THE PEASANT, see, for example, fig.1.38. Here Christ is shown in PEASANT'S CLOTHING, in a wide-brimmed hat and with a SHOVEL IN HAND. On fig.1.39 the picture of Bronzino "Leave Me Not" is shown, on which Christ holds in his hand the SHOVEL.

Fig.1.37
Fig.1.38
Fig.1.39

Commentators note this fact, but do not explain. We repeat that in the Gospels we find nothing about the "peasant appearance" of Christ. Nevertheless, ancient European artists clearly followed some kind of tradition, perhaps already forgotten. And we can say that this tradition did not arise by chance. In our book "Tsar Slavs" we found that Christ is represented in the Byzantine history as the emperor Andronicus Comnenus. In particular, Nikita Choniat reports that King Andronik ordered to portray himself not in royal robes, but in the form of a CRAWNER, which he greatly offended to know. We quote.

"From the outside, near the northern gates of the temple, overlooking the square, he (Andronicus - Avt.) In the huge picture depicted himself not in royal vestments, and not in golden imperial vestment, but in the form of a poor young man, in blue clothes, descending to the lower back, and in white boots, reaching to the knees. IN THIS MANMAN'S HAND WAS A HEAVY AND BIG CURVE KOSA "[933: 1], p.340.

Thus, some Western European painters, depicting Christ as a farmer, still remembered, albeit vaguely, some facts that were not included in the Gospels, but reflected in Byzantine sources. As we now see, some "ancient" Greek historians, for example, Pausanias, adhered to a similar tradition.

It is worth noting that Pausanias uses the expression here: "Some are by the appearance of a man, by clothes - a peasant." That is, it hints that it was not about an ordinary person, but, most likely, about a god who accepted the TYPE OF A PERSON in peasant clothes. It is in good agreement with the Christian point of view that God Christ was temporarily embodied in the form of a person, and then ascended again to heaven.

How wonderful "plow" hero Ehetley punished the Medians? Most likely, with guns[edit | edit source]

Pausanias says that "a man of some kind" killed many of the barbarians of the Medes by the PLUG, after which he disappeared. A literal understanding of these words is most likely absurd. It is hardly possible to use a heavy and inconvenient arable plow to kill MANY Persian warriors. By the way, well armed and professionally trained. Perhaps they could easily dodge the "peasant", clumsily swinging a bulky plow on the battlefield.

Apparently, the old original had in mind something completely different. What exactly? It is difficult to answer unequivocally, however, in our opinion, it was a question here of KUSHERNY KERNES, WHICH DROP UP THE FIELD, FALLING THE EARTH, DRAW INTO THE BARRUS AND GROW DOWN THEY, WHEN FALLING. Especially, if explosive shells of one type or another were used. Until now, when describing wars, the writers say that the cores or shells PAIN ALL FIELDS, loosened the earth, piled up heaps of debris, covered the field with craters from ruptures and heavy clods of earth scattered in all directions.

The late "antique classic" or the editor of the Reformation era, trying to wipe out the obvious "gunshot fragments" from the pages of Pausanias, craftily replaced the cannonballs or the canister with the PLUG that plowed the ground. It turned out slightly ridiculous, but not literary image dangerous for the Scaligerian history. The editor grinned contentedly and moved on.

Not excluded here and linguistic distortion. If the texts written in Slavonic were the basis of the books of Pausanias, then when describing the Marathon = Kulikovo battle there should have been mentioned PORIH. It was the invention of gunpowder that immediately gave rise to firearms, including cannons. But the Russian words of POROCH and PLOW when they were read by foreigners could be confused for the reason that, as we have repeatedly said, the sounds of L and R sometimes turned into each other. So the POWDER could turn into FALL or PLOG or into "PLOW". Sounds H and X are generally very close. In this case, the remark of Pausanias is also understandable, that after the accomplished feat, the “peasant” and his “plow” disappeared. Gunpowder really burns when fired and "disappears." However, the cores and the canister also disappear on the battlefield. It is difficult to search for them on the torn-up land, and it is unlikely that the gunners wandered among the corpses and then picked up the scattered kernels and bullets. It is much easier to re-prepare new bags of rubble and stones, then to fill them with mortars and continue fire if necessary. Old mortars were made in the form of large "jugs", where they laid a powder charge, and on top poured stones, gravel, etc., that is, striking elements. On ris.1.40 and ris.1.41 shows an ancient mortar of the XVI century. It is strikingly similar to a jug, "vessel". Exhibited in the museum of the city of Eger.

Fig.1.40
Fig.1.41

Finally, PLUG, in Greek, is ALETRIOS [758: 0]. But the word ALETRI could appear in Pausanius as a distortion of the Slavic word YEARS, FLIGHT, or YEARS + TORYu, that is, "I heal and point the way." That is, again, the term describing the flight of a cannonball or canister.

By the way, now you can make a consideration about the name of Ehetley of the hero who killed so many Persian Medes. The name EKHETLEY could have been the result of a slightly distorted chronicler reading of the Slavic combination of ECHO + GLUE. But indeed, with cannon cannonade, echo shots are spread far and wide in the vicinity. And the word TLEU, SHAKE could indicate a glowing gun wick, which is set on fire and run off to the side, waiting for the fire on the glowing wick to get to the powder charge in the gun barrel. The combination of the words ECHO and GLUE corresponds quite well to the sound and visual images that were born in the minds of the later chroniclers when describing the battlefield where guns roar.

As always, we do not consider such linguistic observations as evidence of something, but they are useful for demonstrating the possible distortions that have arisen during the rewriting of the chronicles.

The participation of the "cannon god" of Pan in the Marathon = Kulikovo battle, apparently, made a strong impression on eyewitnesses and contemporaries. Then they began to tell that near the Marathon, “a little away from the plain, there is Pan’s mountain and a cave deserving inspection: the entrance to it is narrow, but whoever passes it will meet entire structures, baths and the so-called“ Pan flock ”- rocks , very similar to goats >> [625: 0], v.1, p.85. It is not very clear what this is about. However, about the "goats Pan" and "goat legs" of the god Pan, we expressed our thoughts in the book "The Baptism of Russia". Probably Pan’s goat-footed feet are the wheels or wheels on which guns were mounted. But now we will not return to this in order not to be distracted.

In the pages of Herodot's History there are scattered and more vague references to the perun guns. For example, we give one of them.

"The barbarians, meanwhile, were already close ... Then a soothsayer named Akerat noticed that the HOLY ARMOR THAT NO ONE SHOULD HAPPENED was taken out of the megaron and lay on the ground. The soothsayer went to report this miracle to people left in Delphi. And when The Persians hastily reached the temple of Athena Pronea, an even greater miracle happened. Of course, it is very surprising that the MILITARY WEAPON HAS APPEARED ITSELF AND Lying BEFORE THE TEMPLE. However, what followed it was the MOST AMAZING SIGN OF ALL FROM. when the barbarians appeared wreck at the sanctuary of Athena Pronei, PERUNA FELL FROM THE SKY, and FROM THE PARNAS WITH A TERRIBLE RATHERE THERE WITHOUT TWO PERMINED PEOPLES AND HAVE DECLINED A LOT OF PERSONS.

All these miraculous signs have horrified the barbarians "[163], p.386-387.

The sacred weapon, the peruns "falling from the sky," are most likely guns. It is said that the guns are lying on the ground, that it is a dangerous weapon: "no one should touch him." Then a terrible roar is heard, rocks are falling, many Persians are killed. All this is accompanied by a battle cry from the temple of Athena, the goddess of war. Apparently, this is a cannonade. Mention is also made of the heavenly sign, the vision of Emperor Constantine before the Kulikovo battle. That is, again about the guns, see above.

Prophetic dream of Hippo, the leader of the Persians. It revealed the defeat of the Athenians[edit | edit source]

Story of Herodota[edit | edit source]

Herodotus tells about an interesting vision given to Hippia, the leader of the Persians. It is about prophetic dream. Before the start of the Marathon Battle << Hippias, son of Peisistratus ... led the barbarians (that is, the Persians - Auth.) To the Marathon. FOR THE MINIMUM NIGHT OF HIPPIES SEEN SUCH A SLEEP. IT HAS DECLARED, BUDTO HE DREAMED WITH HIS OWN MOTHER. He interpreted this dream so that he would return to Athens, win power over himself and then end his days in old age in his native land. So he explained his vision. Then Gippiy ordered ... to drop anchor at Marathon, and after disembarking he set up an army in battle formation. Meanwhile, Hippia was attacked by sneezing and a coughing fit stronger than usual. And since he, like a person already old, had most of his teeth reeling, one tooth even fell out of a strong cough. The tooth fell on the sand and Hippia was worth a lot of effort to look for him, but the tooth was not. Then Gippiy, with a sigh, said to his companions: "No! This is not our land, and we will not conquer it, that part of it that belonged to me by right has now taken my tooth."

Gippiy believed that his dream was thus fulfilled >> [163], pp.302-303. But soon the Persians, led by Hippias, were defeated by the Athenians.

What did Herodot say here? The story itself is hazy. If we didn’t know anything about the phantom reflections in the Scaligerian “history textbook”, we could hardly have understood it. However, much work has already been done by us. And now we can use the information about the events preceding the Kulikovo battle? In this case, we can already use several of its duplicates, which we found in previous publications. This greatly expands our ability to better understand the story of Herodotus. Therefore, before analyzing the story of Herodotus, we recall some of the previously obtained results.

Prophetic dream and heavenly signs, data before the battle Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoy and Madiams - Enemies of biblical judge Gideon[edit | edit source]

In the book The Baptism of Rus, we discussed in detail the heavenly vision given to Constantine the Great before the battle with Maxentius. "The Sign of the Cross" appeared to Constantine at night, in a dream. Then the sign appeared already during the battle and he was seen by both the soldiers of Constantine and their enemies - the soldiers of Maxentius. It is believed that the "Sign of the Cross" was a symbol of victorious Christianity, which gave victory to Constantine the Great. We have shown that the Roman emperor Constantine the Great is a reflection of Tsar Khan Dmitry Donskoy, and his opponent Maxentius, aka Licinius, is a reflection of Khan Mamai. The heavenly omen of Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoy is described in Russian chronicles. The night sign in the sky was seen by the warrior Dmitry Donskoy - Thomas Katsibey or Katsey on the night before the battle. He stood on patrol on the river Chure, that on Mikhailov. The sign predicted the victory of Dmitry Donskoy. In the sky came two glittering young men with swords in their hands, attacking the enemies and defeating them. In the morning, Thomas reported this to Prince Dmitry. He asked Thomas not to tell anyone about it yet.

Interestingly, literally in a few paragraphs "The Legend ..." connects the night vision given to the Russian prince Dmitry Donskoy with the heavenly sign given to the Roman emperor Constantine the Great before the battle with Maxentius [631], pp.174-175.

Thus, the ancient Russian authors, who talked about the Kulikovo battle, actually compared the night celestial sign given to Dmitry Donskoy to the heavenly Christian "Sign of the Cross", which appeared to Emperor Constantine the Great. No wonder. Both old stories describe the same event.

Further, as we showed in the book “Tsar's Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga”, the Kulikovo battle is described in the Old Testament as the battle of Judge Gideon with the Midianites. Interestingly, Gideon’s enemies were also given a vision that predicted their doom from the hand of the Israelites.

The Bible says: "That same night the Lord told him (Gideon - Auth.) Lord: stand up, go down to the camp (Midianity - Auth.) ... go to the camp and you, Fura, your servant; and hear what they say ... the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the people of the east lay along in the valley as numerous as locusts ... Gideon was come, behold, the one that told a dream and says. I have dreamed, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian and came to the tent, HIT IT IN HIM AS IT DIED, HIS OBSERVED HIM, AND THE TENT CLEARED OTHER. Another answered him: this is nothing more than GEDON'S SWORD ... God gave the Midianites into his hands and the whole camp. Gideon, hearing the story of the dream and its interpretation, bowed [to the Lord] and returned to the camp of Israel and said, “Stand up! God gave the camp of Midian into your hands” (Judges 7: 9-22).

So, Gideon penetrated the camp of the enemy and heard a story about THING AREA, who predicted victory for him, Gideon. The vision appeared to Gideon's enemies, but “it happened by chance” that Gideon overheard their story (Judges 7: 13-15).

According to our research, this is a story describing the vision of the emperor Constantine. In a dream, he saw the "Sign of the Cross", foreshadowing his victory.

In the Roman version, then the heavenly vision - the Sign of the Cross - appeared during the battle, and everyone noticed him: the soldiers of Constantine and the enemy. Thus, the message of the Bible that the sign was given to the opponents of Gideon and became known also to Gideon himself is in good agreement with the Roman testimonies.

We have already spoken in detail about the fact that in the Roman version, the “Sign of the Cross” symbolized cannons, firearms. It is not for nothing that the Old Testament says that the miraculous vision was regarded by the soldiers as “THE SWORD OF GEDEON” (Judges 7:14).

The very content of the vision-omen before the battle of the Old Testament Gideon indicates the guns that were in his army. The soldier of Midian says that he dreamed of him as a ROUND "BARLEY BREAD" rolls along the camp in Midian. He reaches the tent and hits it. The tent falls, overturns and “breaks” (Judges 7:13). Iosif Flavy specifies: "Barley bread, so spoiled, that it was no longer good for food, WALKED THROUGHOUT ALL THE CAMP AND BROWN NOT ONLY THE TSAR TENT, BUT AND TENTS OF ALL WARRIORS" [878], p.241.

Apparently, the flight of round cannonballs or grapeshot, called "round barley bread", was written. The Israeli, that is, the Russian-Horde ones, struck the cores of Midian, that is, as we now understand, the Mamay's tents and completely destroyed them, smashed them into pieces. Including the tent of the king of Midian. According to Josephus, the Midian soldier says that "the Israelites ... were like barley" [878], p.241. It says, rather, not about baked barley bread, but about the placer of many barley grains. Probably, Joseph Flavius ​​broke the cannon canister, that is, small stones that hit the Midianites.

Now we can again return to the narration of Herodotus about the prophetic dream of Hippius, that is, Khan Mamai, who spoke out against Miltiades, that is, Dmitry Donskoy.

Why Hippo, i.e. Khan Mamai, dreamed that he was sleeping with his mother?[edit | edit source]

If we had no suspicion that the Marathon battle is a reflection of the Kulikovo, then, of course, the Gerodoto story of the prophetic Hippius dream, as if he were sleeping with his own mother, would remain incomprehensible. It could be attributed to the fantastic speculation of later chroniclers. However, considering the “dream of Hippia” as an integral part of the story of the Kulikovo battle, we find that the picture immediately clears up. It becomes more prosaic and understandable. It is enough to refer to the Russian chronicles and the ancient Tales of the Kulikovo battle, for example, to those collected in [631]. We are already beginning to understand that the “ancient” Hippies are a reflection of Khan Mamai. Russian authors report about the betrayal of Prince Oleg of Ryazan and that he, together with Yagailo of Lithuania, joined the khan of Mamai. This is how the old Russian text sounds: <<In the second hour, the day was given to the Most Reverend Metropolitan Cyprian, and told him the great Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich, that "Prince Yagail of Litovsk and Prince Olg Rezansky sovokomplis St Tsar MOMAEM on me" >> [631], sec. Moreover, the plot of the “mating of several princes with Khan Mamai” against Dmitry Donskoy is one of the central ones in the history of the Battle of Kulikovo and is present in almost all of its Old Russian descriptions.against Dmitry Donskoy is one of the central in the history of the Battle of Kulikovo and is present in almost all of its old-Russian descriptions.against Dmitry Donskoy is one of the central in the history of the Battle of Kulikovo and is present in almost all of its old-Russian descriptions.

But after all, in Russian, the word COMPOUND is ambiguous. On the one hand, as we see, it is the union of several allies with Mom. On the other hand, sex is called sexual intercourse. Further, the name MAMA in Russian practically coincides with the word MAMA, mother, mother. It is therefore very similar to the fact that the late Western European chronicler, who had already begun to forget the Slavic language, that is, the state language of the Great Empire of the XIV-XVI centuries, did not quite understand the phrase from the Russian chronicle. And he decided that the allies of Khan Mamai "COME TO MOM", that is, transferred to MOTHER. This confusion led to the appearance of Herodot's story as if Hippius, that is, Khan Mamai, DREAMED WITH OWN MOTHER. So the theme of night vision, prophetic dream before the Marathon = Kulikov battle intricately intertwined with the refracted phrase o "copulating with mom. "The result was a weird Gerodoto plot.

Thus, we conclude that, on the pages of Herodotus, in general, the name of the Khan MAMAY is named in plain text. In a slightly strange form, but still named. More precisely, happily survived after the captious editorial editing of the old original source. It is possible, of course, that the late editor of the Reformation epoch deliberately redid "mating with Mamai" into "mating with mom" As a result, the trail of the Kulikovo battle became very vague. The editor grinned contentedly and moved on. Instead of the characteristic military episode, a sexual plot was recorded on the pages of the “antique” story. The reformers had fun with impunity.


Why a tooth fell on the earth from a strong cough?[edit | edit source]

In a prophetic dream, Hippia, that is, Khan Mamai, further states that a strong COUGH AND DOWNHEAD fell on Gippia, and as a result of that, tooth and bone fell out. This event struck Hippia and he understood that the land to which he came would not belong to him, that he would not be able to conquer the Athenians.

What did Herodot say here? Again, not realizing that we are dealing with the description of the Kulikovo battle, it makes no sense to discuss the “plot about a tooth dropped out”. However, when the overall picture of events has become more or less clear, it is worth considering - isn't there something meaningful behind this vague plot? And then immediately comes to mind the already familiar to us Old Testament story about the battle of Gideon with the Midianites, that is, the Mamawians. There, too, there sounded a strange, at first glance, story about "barley bread or grains" that rolled along the ground in the Midian camp and destroyed the Tsarist tent and tents of warriors. As we have said, this is the refracted memory of the Old Testament chronicler of cannonballs and canister that attacked the troops and the camp of Maan of Khan, that is, the Midianites, during the Kulikovo battle.

But after all, Herodotus, we see something similar! A certain tooth from a strong cough and sneezing falls on the ground, after which it becomes clear that it will not be possible to defeat the Athenians. Apparently, a "tooth" or "teeth" are the same cannonballs and canister. Moreover, it is said that Hippia, that is, Khan Mamaia, was attacked by a STRONG COUGH AND SUCKLING, OTHER WHETHER THE TOOTH OR TOOTH DEPARTED. Apparently, this is a distorted description of cannon shots. Strong sound during an artillery cannonade, Herodotus, or his editor, evasively called "strong coughing and sneezing." In addition, this "strong cough" fell on Hippia. Indeed, the guns of Dmitry Donskoy and the “teeth” thrown by them “attacked” the army of Khan Mamai. Again, in Russian, the word NAPAL is ambiguous. On the one hand, attacking the enemy. On the other hand, a person is attacked by coughing and sneezing. The later editor got confused and turned the cannonade into "coughing and sneezing."

Herodotus called cannonballs and canister "teeth", most likely because they "bite" the enemy, inflict wounds, sting the body. No wonder the guns, muskets and canister were called in the old chronicles serpents, hairmen, stinging bees, etc. See the details in the book "Biblical Rus," ch.4.

Finally, it is worth recalling that, from ancient cannons, they sometimes fired not only with stone cores and stone grapeshot — crushed stone, fragments of stones, but also BONES and fragments of bones. In the book "The Baptism of Russia" we have already spoken about the Russian wooden cannons. Let us recall briefly what PI Rychkov, a member of the Imperial Free Economic Society, wrote in the XVIII century, about the history of the Yaik Cossacks:

"When Temir-Aksak, and Tamerlane, according to the European name, ruined various areas with many Tatar troops, the Cossacks repeatedly sieged from them, but always fought back, DOING WOODEN GUNS AND INSTEAD OF KERNES USING THE STONES, BONES, and LIKE SIMILAR. ], p.

But the teeth are bones. Therefore, the “teeth falling to the ground” could appear in the description of Herodot also because some of Dmitry Donskoy’s firearms could shoot towards Mamay the canister, mixed with fragments of bones. Probably, such fragments severely wounded the enemy. After all, bone fragments can be very sharp. Therefore, they could be used in combat intentionally, trying to inflict as much damage to the Mamayev.

So, we see a good correspondence of the story of Herodotus to the ancient descriptions of Russian chronicles.

By the way, if the “ancient” -Greek Hippies are a reflection of Khan Mamai, then where did the name “Hippias” come from and what did it mean? Here you can remember that in the pages of the Bible the Battle of Kulikovo is also described as the famous battle between David and Goliath. As we showed in the book Baptism of Rus, the biography of the biblical King David absorbed the information about the Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, and the giant Goliath is a reflection of Khan Mamai. But then the thought arises that the name of the HIPTI was obtained as a distortion of the name GOLIAF during the transition of the FP. In addition, Cyrillic, Russian letters L and P are written very similarly. Therefore: GOLIAF = GLF ---> GLP = HYPI.

Khan Mamai was killed shortly after the battle of Kulikovo, ON THE SEA BEACH [631], pp. 294-295. What is known about the "ancient" reflection of Mamai, that is, about the commander Hippia? It turns out that he, too, died shortly after the Marathon battle, and on the island, that is, also ON THE SEA [56: 1], part 2, p.41. So here the match is preserved.

"Ancient" greek Episel and the giant, biblical David and Goliath, Russian Hordes Oslabya and Chelyubey[edit | edit source]

Speaking of the Marathon battle, Herodotus quotes the following vivid episode: "An amazing incident also happened in this battle. One Athenian, named EPIZEL, son of Kufagor, valiantly fought in the battle, LOST OF VIEW, not being hit by any sword or arrow. From this moment on HE IS A SLIPPED AND REMAINED BLIND IN ALL OTHER LIFE. As I heard, he himself told about this something like this: IT WAS MISSING THE ARMED WARRIOR OF HUGE GROWTH, whose beard covered the whole shield. This ghost passed, however, him, as a campaign, he went for the campaign. M WITH HIM WARRIOR. So, tell me, tell Epizel "[163], s.305.

We repeat that, according to our results, the Old Testament duel between David and the giant Goliath is a reflection of the battle of Dmitry Donskoy = David and Khan Mamai = Goliath. At the same time, this story is closely intertwined in the pages of the chronicles with the famous duel of Peresvet and the monk Chelubey. The fight took place just before the start of the Kulikovo battle. In a duel, both warriors died, having pierced each other’s arms. Therefore, the image of the biblical David absorbed the information about the monk Peresvet. And the image of the biblical Goliath is also based on the story of the Pecheneg Horde Chelubey. It is very interesting that Russian chroniclers directly compared the Horde of Cheluubei with the biblical Goliath. They wrote, for example, like this: “Already half of the unclean they walk around the Russian regiments, and leaving the regiment of the Tatar Pechenegs TELEPHES, in the Hellenic language, they are always showing courage like the ancient GOLIAH. regiment against "[631], p.244.

Probably, in the old Russian original it was explicitly stated that Telebay = Chelubey was also called Goliath. But the late Romanov editor craftily inserted an explanation: “was like,” that is, they say, was just like the ancient biblical Goliath. As we have already noted, the name of the PEOPLE or the TELEBI most likely originated from the combination of CHELO + BEI = body + beat, because, according to the Bible, David killed Goliath with a stone blow right on LOB, HUMAN.

So, the biblical image of David is the "sum", the "gluing together" of Dmitry Donskoy and the monk Peresvet, and the biblical image of Goliath is the "sum" of Khan Mamai and Pecheneg Chelubey.

Now let us recall that the monk Peresvet was sent by Saint Sergius to the army of Dmitry Donskoy not one, but together with the monk Oslyabya. Both of them, as we said, led the cannons handed over to Sergius by Prince Dmitry. And in the Russian annals, the monks Peresvet and Oslabya ​​are almost constantly mentioned next to each other. Nearby they were buried in the Staro-Simonov Monastery of Moscow. According to one version, the monk Oslyabya died in the battle of Kulikovo, but AFTER Peresvet. According to another version, Oslyabya and Peresvet both simultaneously engaged in battle with Chelubey = Goliath and as a result, both died. In "The Tale of Mamayev's Battle", in the editorial office of the Chronicler Prince I.F. Khvorostinin, it is said: "And the elder Peresvet let up at the Pecheneg vdrug ... And Oslebya also made a Peblock at the Pecheneg and Peresvet ... And Peresvet and Oslyabya hit the Pecheneg together ... and Spadeosh fell from the horses to the ground - all three are dead. And Peresvetova covered Pecheneg, and Peresvet, yes, Oslebya, and Pecheneg, "631], .285.

Commentators point out in this regard: << In the Khvorostininskaya edition of "Tales" in a duel with the Horde bogatyr takes part not only Peresvet, but Oslyabya. Such a literary version of the duel episode ... is inspired, perhaps, by the reworking of the common version of the monument, where not one duel was told, but two - Peresvet and Oslyab each with his opponent >> [631], p.312.

However, according to the most common version, although the monks Peresvet and Oslyabya both enter the battle, but Oslyabya perishes later Peresvet. Relight killed almost immediately, before the start of the general battle, in a duel with Chelubey. Oslyabya was still alive at that moment.

Now back to Herodotus. He says that some heavily armed warrior of HUGE GROWTH went against the Athenian Epizel, walked past him and hit the second Athenian, who was standing next to Epizel. Although the name of this other Athenian is not named, but a thought arises that Herodot here recounted the Horde story already familiar to us. GIANO ordynian Chelubey = Goliath goes against Oslyab and Peresvet, but kills Peresvet alone, without touching Oslyabyu. By the way, the Old Testament also emphasizes that Goliath was HUGE GROWTH and heavily armed: "Goliath, from Gath; he is six cubits and an inch tall. He has a copper helmet on his head; he was wearing scaly armor and his weight was five thousands of shekels of copper; brass kneecaps on his feet, and a copper shield on his shoulders; and the shaft of his spear, like the weaver’s weavers; and his spear, six hundred shekels of iron "(1 Samuel 17: 4-7).

Now it becomes clear and the name EPIZEL of the Athenian, faced with a giant enemy in the field of the Marathon battle. Probably, EPISEL is a slightly distorted Russian word OSLYABYA. Chronists simply rearranged the consonants: Oslabya ​​= SLB ---> PSL = PZL = Epizel. Moreover, as Herodotus says, the EPISEL is DEPLAST and has remained BLIND all his life. The picture is clear. The Western European Herodotus or his editor read in the Russian Chronicle the name of Osilya or Oslebya, since this is the way the monk sometimes wrote this, see above. Herodotus confused the name of the FADER with the Russian word OSPLEP. And he mistakenly declared that the famous hero of the Marathon Battle was the OSTLEP, and for the rest of his life. By the way, it is clear why "for life". Because the monk was called OSLEBEY or Oslaby his whole life. His name was not changed.

Fig.1.42

Fig.1.42 shows one of the many old images of the duel between David and Goliath.

In the Kulikovo battle POGIB monk Peresvet sent by Sergius of Radonezh. Reverend Sergius himself did not participate in the battle. As we have already seen, the reflection of Sergius of Radonezh in the pages of Herodotus is the polemarche Callimachus. He participates in the Marathon Battle and KILLS [163], p.305. Apparently, here Herodotus got a little confusion. The death of the monk Peresvet, he interpreted as if the death of the Reverend Sergius = "ancient" Callimachus.

A huge professional military aggressor and inferior in numbers compared to the people's militia. However, people's militia won professionals brilliantly[edit | edit source]

As we have already noted, the army of Khan Mamai, speaking out against Dmitry Donskoy, was GREAT and PROFESSIONAL [362], v.5. Similarly, when reporting on the beginning of the Persian campaign, Herodot repeatedly emphasizes that the army of Darius was NUMEROUS AND EXCELLENTLY ARMED.

On the contrary, the army of Dmitry Donskoy was mainly a national militia. Grand Duke Dmitry "sent messengers to all areas of the Grand Duchy to gather troops and lead them to Moscow. His command was fulfilled with rare diligence: whole cities armed themselves in several days" [362], v.5, ch.1, column 35 .

Thus, the large and professional army of the aggressor Mamai opposes the smaller and defending militia of Dmitry Donskoy.

Similarly, in the "ancient" Greek version, according to Herodotus, the army of the aggressor, that is, the Persian Medes, was very large, professional and well armed. << On the size of the land forces of the Persians, Herodotus reports that it was "huge and well-armed". Figures cited by later writers - from 200 to 300 thousand infantry, 10 thousand cavalry - are clearly implausible >> [258], p.180.

The army of the defending Athenians was not so professional and is described as small. The Athenian army was formed shortly before the Marathon battle, the Athenians were joined by the People's Obsession of the Plateans [163], p.303. "Herodot has no data on the number of the Athenian army, but later writers report that the number of Athenian warriors was 9-10 thousand ... To them should be added a number of lightly armed and Slaves. Pausanias ... tells us that in the Marathon battle SLAVES FIRSTLY BATTLE TOGETHER WITH ELLINES "[258], p.181. Thus, the Athenian militia was quite variegated, heterogeneous. Pausanias adds that "all came to the Marathon of the Athenians, including even those whose age was unsuitable for military service, and slaves" [625: 0], v.2, p.282.

However, in both versions, the people's militia completely crushed the professional army of the aggressor. Khan Mamai was defeated and the "ancient" tyrant Hippie, his phantom reflection, defeated. As we now understand, the success of the Athenians = Donians was achieved through the use of firearms.

Further, note that the Athenians appear at Herodotus as supporters of the people's democracy. Athens is considered a democratic republic. Its leaders are elected by the people at a general meeting, they report to the people, they can be convicted and expelled according to a popular decision in the event of a crime.

On the contrary, the Medes Persians are described by Herodotus as supporters of the centralized royal power. King Darius personally rules the country, appoints and dismisses warlords, is the sole ruler of the monarchical kingdom.

Summing up the results of the “ancient” Marathon battle, commentators say the following: “The marathon defeat was dealt an irreparable blow to the initially well-developing operations of the Persians. meaning, as it dispelled the aura of invincibility of the Persian army in the eyes of the Greeks and proved the possibility of successful struggle with the powerful Persian mona hiey "[258], p.184.

Returning to the Russian-Horde version, we see in general the same thing. According to our research, presented in the book "The Baptism of Russia", the Battle of Kulikovo was religious. It was confronted by supporters of folk apostolic Christianity under the command of Prince Dmitry Donskoy = Emperor Constantine the Great and supporters of royal, clan Christianity under the command of Khan Mamai = Maxentius = Ivan Veliyaminov or Venyaminov.

Having won the Kulikovo field, Dmitry Donskoy baptized the whole Great = "Mongol" Empire, making the national apostolic Christianity the state religion. Losing supporters of royal, clan Christianity were declared "pagans", "unclean." And they were pushed aside from the political arena.

Again, we emphasize that in the distant era of the XIV century, the division into nations in the modern sense was not even a trace. Greeks called Christians in general. Recall that Christ was called Horus or Choir. Persians called the P-Rusov or White-Rusov, that is, the inhabitants of White Russia. Where many different nations lived. The Horde people were residents of Russia-Horde and, in particular, warriors, military people, Cossacks = Tatars.



The battle was grand and very cruel[edit | edit source]

Both Marathon and Kulikov battles are described by primary sources as exceptionally stubborn and violent. Thousands and thousands of warriors fell.

According to Russian chronicles, about 10,000 people were killed in the army of Dmitry Donskoy, including 300 princes. The governor and the boyars remained 40 people, and the total of the surviving soldiers was 400,000 [631], pp. 293-294. In another place, it is said that "the king Momai rejected at that time the Ruskov troops 600000" [631], p.286, 312. Moreover, it was alleged only about the first phase of the Kulikovo battle. In addition, we find the following message: “And the great prince Dmitrii Ivanovich of the Christian teles disassembled and ordered to dig up 300 wells in Kulikovo field to Tsarev Kurgan. And the funeral of the great prince Dmitrii Ivanovich of his peasants honestly from the priests and from the deacon 10,000 into the pit and 20000 ... "[631], p. 294. Commentators say that << if you believe the testimony of the "Legends" given, it turns out that the Russian army lost at least 3,000,000 people in a battle - the figure is clearly fantastic >> [631], p.313.

N.M. Karamzin reports: "Dimitri, accompanied by the Princes and Boyars, traveled around the Kulikovo field, where many Russians lay down, BUT FOUR-FOUR MORE ADVENTURES, so according to some Historians, the number of all those killed stretched to two hundred thousand" [362], t .5, ch.1, column 41.

We omit the information about the dead and surviving shelves, given the various options "Tales of the Mamai's Battle" [631].

Some historians dispute these figures, saying that they are exaggerated. We do not need to delve into this discussion. It is clear that the battle was huge, and the specific numbers of the participants and the dead could, of course, vary greatly from source to source. In addition, the Battle of Kulikovo was religious. Therefore, in calculating the fallen warriors, the chroniclers could symbolically take into account the total number of Apostolic Christians who perished, for example in Russia, during the persecution of them by royal, tribal Christianity of the 12th-14th centuries. Therefore, at burial and funeral on the field, Kulikov could commemorate other Christians who had previously suffered for the faith and now, finally, the revenged.

Herodot believes that “about 6,400 barbarians fell in this battle of Marathon, but the Athenians lost 192 people. Such were the losses on both sides” [163], p.305. At the same time, there were allegedly 11,000 people in the Greek army, and more than 100,000 people in the Persian-Medes army [56: 1], part 2, p.41. Pausanias cites several other figures: "They recalled the feat of the Athenians at Marathon, how there three hundred thousand Medes were defeated by the Athenian army, whose number was less than ten thousand" [625: 0], v.1, p.305.

As we have said, the “ancient classics” regard the Marathon battle as one of the most important events in the history of Greece. "The Battle of Marathon lasted a long time ... AFTER THE VICTORY, THE ATHENS did not begin to hunt down the replayed enemies, but, having joined both wings, they fought against the enemies who had broken through the center. And here also the Athenians defeated. Then they began to chase and chop the Persians who had broken through the center. reached the sea. Here they tried to attack the ships and set them on fire ... Seven ships were captured in this way by the Athenians. The rest of the barbarians again went to sea "[163], p.305.

The descriptions of the Kulikov battle also emphasize that Dmitry Donskoy did not pursue Mamai’s running troops. Karamzin was even struck by this circumstance: “Why did Dimitri not want to take advantage of the victory, drive Mamai to the banks of the Akhtuba and destroy the nest of tyranny? Let's not blame the Grand Duke for an oversight” [362], vol.5, ch.1, column 42.

Further, in both versions it is said that the defeated aggressor fled to the sea or was saved by the sea. Recall that Khan Mamai reached the sea, where he was soon killed allegedly by his allies and thrown into the water. "And the godless king Momai having reached the sea shelter, the same degree is Kofa (Kafa - Avt.) ... And in that city King Momai was killed and thrown into the sea, and the evil belly of his concha" [631], p. 294.

So, the Russian-Horde and the "ancient" Greek versions agree quite well here.

Pausanias assesses the role of Miltiades in the Marathon battle: "There were many wars among the Greeks and barbarians among themselves, but it is easy to list the ones with which the valor of one person gave the greatest glory; thus, Achilles glorified the war under Ilion, and MILTIAD - the Marathon battle" [625: 0], v.1, p.200.

Talking about the Marathon battle, Pausanias says: "It seems to me that the Athenians are most proud of this victory" [625: 0], v.1, p.47. Thus, Pausanias, most likely, was the author of the epoch of the XV-XVI centuries, that is, when the Kulikovo battle of 1380 was considered the most important in the history of the Great Empire. After all, the battle led to the Baptism of the Empire.

Treason of participants did not prevent the victory of the Athenians = Donets[edit | edit source]

“Ancient” Greek sources report that the Athenians had to endure treacherous betrayal during the Marathon battle. And even the "two treason." The first is called "treason Alkmeonidov." We talked about it in detail in the book << Christ and Russia through the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks >>. There we showed that this plot is a reflection on the pages of Herodotus of the famous betrayal of Judas Iscariot. In the description of the Greek = Christian Marathon battle, this Gospel story came about because the chroniclers confused "two baptisms". The first is given by Andronicus Christ himself in the XII century. The second baptism was given by Dmitry Donskoy at the end of the XIV century, after the victory in the Battle of Kulikovo. Therefore, some events of the XII century were in the annals, talking about the XIV century (as sometimes vice versa). Therefore, here we will not discuss in more detail the "treason of the Alkmeonides." But about another treason is worth talking in more detail. It is about this.

Before the Marathon battle, the Athenians sent Phidippid, a messenger, to Sparta, asking them to support them. Herodotus says: “There he appeared before the authorities and said:“ The Lacedaemonians! The Athenians ask you to help them and not allow the barbarians to enslave the oldest city in Hellas. After all, Eretria (Horde, Tartaria - Auth.) Already has a yoke of slavery ... ". So Fidippid fulfilled the assignment given to him; the Lacedaemonians decided to help the Athenians. AT THE SAME THEY, HOWEVER, CAN'T DO IT, not wanting to break the law. It was the ninth day of the first half of the month, and on the ninth day, they said, one cannot march if the moon is incomplete. So, the Lacedaemonians waited for the full moon, and Hippius (Goliath = Mamai - Auth.), The son of Peisistratus, meanwhile led the barbarians to the Marathon >> [163], p.302.

So, we see that the Lacedaemonians actually avoided participation in the Marathon battle, cunningly referring to their laws. Say, on the ninth day, it is no good to speak, the moon is incomplete ... That is how, as soon as the moon is full, we will arrive right there. Be patient, dear Athenians.

The Athenians had nothing to do but to fight without the Lacedaemonians. And they won! It was here that, immediately after the end of the battle, the Lacedaemonians appeared, sternly rattling their weapons. Herodot informs the following: “After the full moon, the 2000 Lacedaemonians arrived in Athens. They were moving so fast, OLDING TO COME IN TIME, that they were already on the third day after a speech from Sparta on the Attic land. Despite the fact that the Spartans had been backed by the battle, they still wanted look at the fallen Medes. They arrived at Marathon, examined the battlefield and then, after praising the Athenians for the victory, returned home "[163], p.306.

So, the Lacedaemonians competently "depicted help," rushing right after the bloody battle. They were in a hurry, but only on the day after the battle was over. Happily asked the survivors - how did they fight here? Slowly walked through a bloody field littered with thousands of cooling corpses. They praised the Athenians for their valor. A stingy male tears wept over the fallen. After that, being stingy with words, they said that it was time for them to go home. Urgent, they say things. The moon began to decline after the full moon and in general ...

All this is called short and simple: betrayal.

We now turn to the Battle of Kulikovo. Was there a similar betrayal of the Allies? Yes, it was, and it is well known and thoroughly discussed by Russian chroniclers. This is a betrayal of Prince Oleg of Ryazan.

Formally, Oleg Ryazansky was an ally of Dmitry Donskoy. N.M.Karamzin summarizes the Russian chronicles in the following way: << Mamai entered into close alliance with Jagiel Lithuanian ... For this two main oppressors and enemies of our fatherland, AN INTERNAL CHANGER, less dangerous by power, BUT THE MORRINGLY CARRIER joined: Oleg Ryazansky educated, Oleg Ryazan educated educated Oleg Ryazansky educated, but the HARVESTRED CARBIAN HEARD: Oleg Ryazansky educated by Oleg Ryazansky educated by Oleg Ryazan educated by Oleg Ryazan, educated by Oleg Ryazansky hatred of the Moscow Princes, hardhearted in his youth, and the mature mind of man's years taught slyness. Having experienced the excellent strength of Dimitri in the field, he began to seek his favor; being cunning, intelligent, eloquent, became his friend, an adviser in the general affairs of state ...

Thinking that Mamaevo’s formidable militia, reinforced by Yagailov, should have to crush Russia - fearing to be the first victim of Onago and hoping with cunning betrayal not only to save his Principality, but also to spread his possessions with the fall of Moscow, Oleg entered into negotiations with the Moguls and with Lithuania ... made an alliance with them and secretly agreed to wait for them at the beginning of September on the banks of the Oka ...

In the end of the summer, Dmitriy made out about the campaign of Mamayev, and Oleg himself, wanting to hide his treason, let him know that he needed to prepare for war ...

Dimitri reduced then the CHANGE of Oleg Ryazan and his secret relations with the Mughals and with Lithuania; I DIDN'T AWAY, but with a look of sorrow, said: "Oleg wants to be a new Svyatopolk" ...

Hearing about the forces of Dimitri, equally afraid of him and Mamaia, the Prince of Ryazan did not know what to do; galloping from place to place; sent messengers to Tatars, to Yagailu ... he trembled in the future and repented of his treason >> [362], v.5, ch.1, columns 34-35, 37-38.

Prince Oleg Ryazansky did not appear on the battlefield of Kulikovo battle, did not support either side. Prudently stood aside, watching from afar and waiting - who will win. Clearly, then he was going to sincerely join the winner. By the way, Yagailo did not show up to Mamai Khan. On the day of the battle, Jagiello sat quietly thirty to forty miles from the battlefield, see ibid., Column 42.

"Already knowing the whole blackness of Olegova’s soul, and even realizing that this traitor tried to harm the Moscow regiments on their return journey through the Ryazan region ... Dimitri was preparing to punish him. THEN THE REPRESENTATIVE BOYARES OF RYAZAN HAVE COME TO MOSCOW to declare that ... Ryazan is amenable to Hero Donskoy and prays to him for mercy ... Oleg’s cunning Oleg, having been an exile for several months, knew how to touch his sensitivity with signs of repentance, promising to abandon Yagaylova friendship, to consider the Grand Duke to be his elder brother and be with him in the event of war or peace with Lithuania and the Tartars "(ibid, column 43).

We see here in general the same events of betrayal as in the "History" of Herodotus.

  • Lacedaemonians are considered allies of the Athenians and promise their help. In the Russian version, Oleg Ryazansky is considered an ally of Dmitry Donskoy and promises him support.
  • However, when it comes to war, the Lacedaemonians stay at home under a false pretext and shy away from participating in the Marathon battle. In the Russian version, when Mamai goes on a campaign against Moscow, Prince Oleg Ryazansky does not appear on the Kulikovo field, sitting aside and waiting for the outcome of the battle. In both versions, such an act actually meant betrayal of an ally.
  • After the Marathon Battle, the Lacedaemonians appear in Athens, posing as best friends. Then go home, being considered allies of the Athenians. Similarly, after the Kulikovo battle, the famous boyars of Ryazan arrive in Moscow, repent of their indecision, assure Dmitry Donskoy of friendship and ask them to forgive. Then, having received forgiveness, they return to Ryazan with satisfaction.
  • In both versions, after the battle, the Athenian Donians continue to treat the traitors as their friends. Maybe not very true, but still friends.

A little river on the Marathon field and the little Yauza river in Moscow. Marsh near the field Marathon and swamps in Moscow[edit | edit source]

In the history of the Marathon battle, it is believed that a small river flowed across the battlefield, which flowed "into the sea." They write like this: “Between the battlefield and the Persian camp there was a natural obstacle in the form of a small river; it is possible that the Persians put up a barrier here. In any case, some time passed before the Greeks who were upset by the battle could overcome this obstacle” [258], p. 183.

Thus, they fought on this small river as well.

In the history of the Kulikovo battle, this river is well known. Chronicles call her Neprivva. The warriors Dmitry and Mamaia also fought on its banks and even right in the river. According to our results, the chronicled Nepravdy was called either the Moscow River Naprudnaya-Samoteku, or the Yauza River located not far from it. Both rivers flow into the Moscow River, which Herodotus called the "sea". The Kulikovo battle unfolded, including on the banks of both rivers.

Pausanias reports that there is also a source in the Marathon field, called the Blessed Macarius [625: 0], v.1, p.85. It is difficult to say anything definite here, since there have always been many sources in Moscow.

Pausanias continues: "There is a SWAG at the Marathon, VERY TOP,; The river flows out of this swamp; at the very swamp its water is quite suitable for the watering of the herds, and at its confluence into the sea it becomes already salty and full of sea fish "[625: 0], v.1, p.85.

The swamps and ponds in Moscow really were, like the rivers flowing out of them, see "The New Chronology of Rus," ch. 6. A sufficiently swampy place was the modern Kuzminki, named in the annals of the Kulikovo cycle "Kuzmina Gatia". Here were the troops of Khan Mamai. Pausanius’s statement that one of the rivers flowed into the salty sea is most likely the result of the mistake of the late editor, who already considered the Moscow River to be a sea, that is, a large body of water. Maybe because other Moscow rivers flow there.

The burial of the fallen is done directly on the battlefield[edit | edit source]

After the victory, Prince Dmitry ordered to collect all the bodies of his fallen soldiers and bury them right on the battlefield. Dmitri's troops stood on the field until all the dead were buried. The chronicle says: "The prince is great standing on a step-rate, dacole dismantling the Christian body and the funeral, e. And the wicked Agarin cast a beast to the rapture" [631], p.292.

Thus, on the Kulikovo field there should be a massive military burial of the XIV century. There is nothing like this in the vicinity of modern Tula, in the gardens of the former manor of the landowner S.D.Nechaev, to which historians refer to the Kulikovo battle, is not in sight. Despite many years of unsuccessful excavation. Archaeologists know this and are nervous, inventing every time more and more new “explanations”. Loudly assure the public that "we will soon find." These oath promises have been made since the nineteenth century.

And in Moscow there are such burials.

As we showed in the book "New Chronology of Rus," Chapter 6, on the Kulikovo Field in Moscow, on Kulishki, in the immediate vicinity of this place, there are mass graves of the heroes of the Kulikovo battle. In particular, in the Staro-Simonov monastery, near the church of all the Saints on Kulishki, in the Kremlin and in the Andronik monastery. In particular, this is why on the territory of the Kulikovo Field in Moscow people did not settle for long and did not live. It was considered worthless to settle on the bones and on the blood. There were mostly only military institutions. For example, today, here, on the Kulikovo field, there is a military academy named after Peter the Great, in whose territory there is an old mass burial. See "New Chronology of Rus", Chapter 6.

Now we turn to "antiquity". What is known about the burial place of the heroes of the Marathon battle? Telling about the burial of those who fell in the first year of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides says: "The soldiers are buried in a state-owned company located in the beautiful suburbs of the city. Here the Athenians always bury those who died in battle, OTHER EXCLUSION OF THE FAR OUT MARRAHONA OUR COUNTRY CHILE YOUR YOUR WOMEN YOUR OUT YOUR CHILE YOUR WOMEN YOUR OUT YOUR CHILE YOUR WOMEN YOUR YOUR WOMEN YOUR COLLE YOUR YOUR WOMEN YOUR OUT YOUR COLLE YOUR YOUR COLLE YOUNDS YOUR OUT YOUR COLLE YOUR YOUR COLLE YOUNDS YOUR OUT YOUR YOUR COLLE YOUNDS YOUR OUT YOUR YOUR COLLE YOUNDS YOUR OUT YOUR YOUR COLLE YOUNDS YOUR WOMEN YOUR COLLE YOUNDS YOUR WOMEN YOUR WOMEN YOUR PEOPLE IN THE SINGLE OTHER EXCHANGE OF THE MOTHER MARTHON IT'S COURSE OF YOUR PEOPLE OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR BATTLES AS A DANCE OF THEIR GREATEST VEGETATION "[924], p.78.

Pausanias says the same thing about the state tomb of Athens: "There are grave monuments here to all the Athenians, who fell to death in sea battles and in land battles, EXCLUDING THOSE THEM, WHICH BATTLE AT THE MARATHON: IT WAS MOST WELLING ON THE PATH HONOR OF THEIR OUTSTANDING BRANDLESS "[625: 0], v.1, p.77.

Thus, we were informed that the "ancient" Marathon field is unique in the sense that the soldiers who fell in the battle were buried on it. This is in excellent agreement with our result, that the Marathon field is the Kulikovo field in Moscow. On which, indeed, both in chronicles and in fact, there are mass graves of fallen heroes of the great battle.

"Antique" Pausanias adds that "a white marble trophy was immediately put on. The Athenians said that they buried here (on the Marathon field, Auth.) And the Medes, since it is the sacred and immutable duty of every pious man to bury the corpse of the deceased , but I couldn’t find any grave here (Medes - Auth.); there wasn’t any embankment or any other sign that could be seen; they РО probably ’THROUGH HAVE DROUGHT, DROPING IN THE PIT" [625: 0], t .1, pp.84-85.

All this is very reminiscent of the situation in the Staro-Simonov monastery. As we described in detail in the book “New Chronology of Rus,” ch. 6, during our visit to this monastery, its servants told us a lot about the mass graves of the 14th century, which they discovered here. In particular, they reported that in the mass graves of the corpses of people lay in disarray. Some skeletons were located upside down. It was clear that they were dumped into the pits chaotically. Maybe at least some graves on the site of the Staro-Simonov Monastery are the “not found” by Pausanias graves of the Horde Mamayans, that is, the “ancient Medes-Persians”.


Seriously wounded Dmitry Donskoy and seriously wounded Miltiades[edit | edit source]

It is known that during the Battle of Kulikovo Dmitry Donskoy was wounded. << The courageous Prince Vladimir ... ordered to blow the military pipes: Princes and Generals came to him from all sides, but Dimitri was not ... Nobody could give information about him. In anxiety, in horror, the Governors dispersed to look for him, either alive or dead; they did not find it for a long time: finally two warriors saw the Grand Duke lying beneath a felled tree. Stunned in the battle with a strong blow, he fell off his horse, departed and seemed dead; but soon opened his eyes >> [362], v.5, ch.1, column 41.

Concerning the injury of Miltiades during the Marathon battle, Herodot reports nothing. However, it is believed that Miltiad was seriously wounded shortly after the Marathon battle, namely, during a trip to the island of Paros. Miltiad undertook "a campaign on the island of Paros under the pretext of punishing paroians for helping the Persians. The expedition ended in failure, the MILTIAD WERE HEAVY Wounded" [258], p.184.

Probably, we have before us - a reflection of the stories about the wound of Grand Duke Dmitry on the Kulikovo field.

The circumstances of the death. Traces of the evangelical story[edit | edit source]

The circumstances of the death of Dmitry Donskoy and his "ancient" reflection - Miltiades - are different. Prince Dmitry died in 1389, surrounded by the great veneration of princes and all the people.

"Antique" Miltiad died supposedly in 489 BC, and before that he was brought to court. The following is reported: “Upon returning to Athens, he was brought to trial by the Alkmeonides who demanded the death penalty for deceiving the Athenian people. Outstanding service saved Miltiades from execution,” she was replaced by a huge fine that he did not have to pay: he died shortly after the trial ( in 489) from the wound received during the Parossky expedition "[258], p.184.

Fig.1.12

Most likely, we have before us - the interweaving of two "biographies" on the pages of "ancient classics". The first biography is a story about Tsar Khan Dmitry Donskoy from the XIV century. The second is a story about the emperor Andronicus-Christ from the 12th century. We have repeatedly encountered the fact that chroniclers confused events of the XII and XIV centuries due to the fact that Russia-Horde baptized TWICE. The first time is under Christ, the second time is under Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great. Therefore, fragments from the Gospels, which speak of the last days of Christ, appeared in the "biography" of Miltiades = Dmitry Donskoy. No wonder the "ancient" authors confused the "two Miltiads", calling one the Elder and the other the Younger, ris.1.12. This bifurcation - on paper - Miltiad = Dmitry Donskoy on two characters is explained by the confusion between the events of the XII and XIV centuries.

  • Indeed, Miltiades, like Christ, was tried and condemned.
  • Miltiades was accused of deceiving the Athenian people. A certain Xanthippus, the son of Arifron, "blamed Miltiades before the people for the deception of the Athenians" [163], p.310.

Similarly, the high priests accused Christ of deceiving the Jewish people, in sowing unrest in Judea. The charges were also public, before the whole people.

  • Miltiad could not defend himself in court. He was protected by friends. Here is what Herodotus reports: “Although Miltiad was present at the trial, he himself could not defend himself, since his thigh was struck with inflammation. He lay on the bed before the people's assembly, and friends defended him” [163], p.310 -311.

We learn in this description of the Gospel events. Indeed. Christ is brought to judgment. He is beaten and silent, does not respond to the charges that befell him. He is trying to protect the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, although unsuccessfully.

  • Miltiades died shortly after the trial. Similarly, Christ was executed shortly after the trial of Pilate and King Herod.
  • Miltiades died from a wound. Similarly, Christ before execution was subjected to brutal torture and soon died. He suffered many wounds.
  • Miltiades was awarded a huge fine, which, however, he did not have to pay. Herodot informs: “When voting, the people supported Miltiades by rejecting the death penalty, but found guilty and imposed a penalty of 50 talents. After that, Miltiades died of purulent inflammation of the hip. And 50 talents were paid by his son Cimon” [163], p.311.

Likewise, in the history of Christ, a “large money affair” is well known, directly connected with his arrest and execution. These are thirty pieces of silver received by Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus. Indeed, "Christ did not pay this money," because they were paid by other people, his enemies. The Gospels speak of thirty pieces of silver paid to Judah under the Jewish high priests Caiaphas and Anna, and the “ancient” Herodot reports about fifty talents paid to judges Kimon. Perhaps the name KIMON is somehow connected with the gospel names of CAIF and ANNA.

Dying messenger of Marathon and the messenger to Sergey Radonezh, who brought the bodies of fallen heroes[edit | edit source]

Today, everyone knows the competition in the marathon. It is believed that this sport was established in honor of the "ancient" messenger who brought the good news to Athens about the great victory of the Greeks at the Marathon.

Fig.1.43.

<< Never before had a victorious army experienced such joy as the Athenian at Marathon. While it was pursuing the Persians who had fled, one soldier hurriedly rushed to Athens, choking with fatigue, shouting in the streets and square: "Rejoice, we have won!" and then fell dead. A long time later, the Athenians celebrated this brilliant day, made processions on the battlefield and made sacrifices there >> [56: 1], part 2, p.41. In later times, even created a romantic image in honor of the deceased marathon messenger, ris.1.43.

Does the history of the Kulikovo Battle have a similar episode with the "antique" messenger? Yes, there is, and now we will tell about it. This is what the old Russian "Legend of Mamayev Massacre" says.

Dmitry Donskoy toured the battlefield and inspected the fallen. Then he sends a messenger with the message of victory to Sergius of Radonezh. The chronicle says: << And when the great prince Dmitrei Ivanovich arrived at a different place, and saw the two brothers of the cherts Peresvet and Oslebya, and their body of light rested. And taking their body, the great prince Dmitrii Ivanovich, and sending them to the venerable hegumen Sergius to the living Trinity with his son Boyar Ivan Sinitsyn, and with him sending the military of 2000. And bringing Ivan Sinitsyn to their teles to the living Trinity to the venerable hegumen Sergy. The venerable hegumen of Sergius, taking their body from Ivan Sinitsyn, is honestly a month of September, on the 23rd day and buried them in the ground. And to the Reverend Hegumen Sergie Ivan Sinitsyn: "Have you, Sir, already defeated your enemies?" And Ivan Sinitsin to Reverend Abbot Sergius: "By your prayers, holy rulers, are our enemies." And the venerable hegumen Sergey let go of the boyars boy to Moscow. And the blisko of two cherts brothers, the deliberate two heroes, Stepan Ogurtsov and Grigorei Kapustin, murdered the essence >> [631], pp.292-293.

It was probably this very episode that was reflected in the pages of the “antique classics”. However, somewhat distorted. Judge for yourself.

  • The winner Dmitry Donskoy sends a special messenger to Sergius of Radonezh with news of the victory. Similarly, immediately after the “ancient” battle of Marathon, a special messenger with good news is sent to Athens.
  • Ordynsky messenger safely arrives at St. Sergius and announces the victory of Dmitry Donskoy. Similarly, the "antique" messenger safely gets to Athens and reports about the victory of Miltiades. Everyone is happy.
  • "Antique" marathon messenger, having reported about the victory, immediately dies, right in the square, allegedly unable to bear the incredible tension from a long run. Russian chronicles, on the contrary, say that messenger Ivan Sinitsin arrived to Sergius alive and healthy, after which he was allowed to go home after some time. It seems that, at first glance, compliance with the "antiquity" is violated here. However, it is worth noting that Ivan Sinitsyn brought to Sergius of Radonezh the DEAD BODIES OF THE TWO HIS ALONGS - SURVIVAL AND OBSLAB, who fell on the battlefield. Probably, this fact was reflected in the "antiquity". However, the “antique” writer of the Reformation epoch did not understand that the speech in the Russian original was about two BODIES OF FALLED Russian-Horde warriors brought by a messenger to Saint Sergius. And he decided that Dying himself a messenger, that is, Ivan Sinitsyn. After this mistake, the “classics” had to come up with an explanation - why the messenger died. The "ancient" author pondered and decided that the messenger had died of exhaustion and fatigue: what else? Say, he ran for a long time, that he died immediately after the joyful news reported. Not earlier and not later. Literally the next minute after I managed to shout out the joyful news. This romantic fantasy born in the head of the writer was immediately recorded in the “ancient chronicle”. Since then, so behaved. Sculpt marble statues, paint pictures, make feature films. In which the half-naked marathon runner, exhausted and covered with dust, dies at the hands of the noble "ancient" Athenians. The eyes of some viewers are moistened. They even set up a special kind of sport - marathon long-distance running. Erroneously thinking that they recreate the "ancient Greek" event. Maybe some fans of the sports marathon will be surprised to learn that in fact this sport was established in honor of the Russian-Horde messenger Ivan Sinitsyn. Who brought the news of the victory on the Kulikovo Field to the monastery of St. Sergius, that is, where the modern Trinity-Sergius Lavra is located near Moscow. By the way, it shows from here how great the most varied authors attached to all the details of the great battle and the events connected with it.

By the way, one must assume that the Horde Cossack Ivan Sinitsyn did not run without stopping, half-naked and with a laurel twig, as authoritatively shown in Figure 1.13 , from Moscow Kulishka to the monastery of St. Sergius. Still quite far away. Recall that the "Trinity-Sergius Lavra - the famous Russian monastery, Moscow province, Dmitrov district, 68 miles from Moscow. Founded by St. Sergius about 1335." [988: 00]

So, most likely, Ivan Sinitsyn leisurely drove sixty-eight miles on a horse, accompanied by a two thousand Horde squad, carrying with him the bodies of fallen heroes. It was an honorary military escort, and not at all a hectic run. Then, after the respective rites in the monastery of St. Sergius, the bodies of the monks of Peresvet and Oslyabi were solemnly buried on the territory of the Staro-Simonov monastery in Moscow, in the vicinity of the Kulikovo field, where they died, firing guns.

The famous "Painted Gallery" in ancient Athens - is probably the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, painted with frescoes from top to bottom[edit | edit source]

In honor of the Battle of Marathon = Kulikovo in the "antique" Athens, a great picture was created[edit | edit source]

Probably, it was one of the famous murals of the Arkhangelsk congregation in the Moscow Kremlin.

In the “ancient” history of the Kulikovo battle, the Greek city of Athens, that is, the Christian city of Don = Tana, is most likely identified here with Moscow. When describing other "ancient" Greek events, as we have seen, Athens could be called Tsar-Grad = Troy = Jerusalem. Then, in the XVII-XVIII centuries, the name Athens was transferred to the Greek city, known today under this name. But in the history of the war of the Greeks = Christians with the troops of Darius, supposedly of the era of 490 BC, this is definitely Moscow of the XIV century AD.

It turns out that a gallery was built in Athens, on the walls of which they placed a large picture dedicated to the Marathon = Kulikovo battle. In fact, there were several historical paintings here. The first - the Athenians from the Argive Enoy, ready for battle with the Lacedaemonians. "On the middle wall are depicted the Athenians and Theseus fighting the Amazons ... For the battle with the Amazons are the Hellenes who took Ilion ... THE LAST PICTURE IMAGED DOWN THE MARATHON ... Here you can see the unraveled fight. PUSHING A FRIEND OF A BROTHER FRIEND. On the edge of the picture are Phoenician ships, barbarians are trying to climb on them, and the Hellenes are beating them. Right there, the hero Marathon (Sea + Tan = Sea + Don - Auth.), From which this whole plain got its name and also theseus pictured as if he rises from the ground, in addition, Athena and Hercules. At the marathon residents, as they themselves say, for the first time Hercules (here - Christ - Auth.) began to be worshiped by God. Of the fighting particularly stand out in the painting Callimachus, who was chosen by the Athenians as a polemarch , and of the strategists, Miltiad and the so-called hero Ehetl (about whom we have already spoken above — Avt.) ... There are also copper shields and on some of them there is an inscription that they are from Scyonians and their allies, while others are smeared with tar so that time and dampness do not destroy them "[625: 0], v.1, p.48.

Let's start with the fact that in today's Athens in the territory of Greece there is nothing else and in the past. There is not only the listed "ancient" paintings, but historians and archaeologists even find it difficult to at least approximately indicate the place where the "ancient" gallery supposedly stood, see The Foundations of History, ch.7: 5. As we now understand, there is nothing surprising here. This famous "antique" building was most likely in a completely different place. We can even express the idea - where. From our results it follows that you need to look for the famous gallery in Moscow. That is, in the "ancient Athens" era Marathon = Kulikovo battle.

At first glance, our thought hangs in the air. Today there seems to be nothing of the kind in Moscow. Only some Russian icons have survived, where the Battle of Kulikovo is shown. The most famous is dedicated to the Life of Sergius of Radonezh. It is kept in the museum of Yaroslavl, was discussed in detail by us and is given in the book "New Chronology of Russia", Chapter 6. Perhaps the "Athenian gallery", about which the Greek Pausanias speaks, was a kind of special room in the Moscow Kremlin. Apparently, in the XVI century, already after the transformation of Moscow into the capital, the tsarist gallery, a repository, was created, where memorable items from Russian history were collected. The repository could be the prototype of the future famous Armory. Of course, there should have been, in particular, images of the Kulikovo battle. After all, this battle was not only one of the most important events in Russian history, but also occurred on the territory of Moscow. However, after the coup of the 17th century and the seizure of power by the Romanovs, many monuments of Russian antiquity were mercilessly destroyed, since they began to contradict the Romanov "reformed" version of history.

Most likely, the "antique picture of the Marathon," that is, of the Kulikovo Battle, was a large fresco in one of the palaces or cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin. No wonder Pausanias reports WALLS, which were depicted this and other paintings. On the middle wall - such and such a picture, on another wall - such and such, see above. As we already said in the book “New Chronology of Rus,” in the 17th-18th centuries, on the orders of the Romanovs, most Kremlin frescoes were barbarously brought down, and with plaster. After this, the walls were plastered and painted again. Today, the frescoes dedicated to the Kulikovo battle in the Kremlin are not considered to be. More precisely, there are no frescoes where the main characters of the battle would be depicted with the corresponding old-Russian signatures, for example, "Prince Dmitry", "Khan Mamai", etc. We are assured that the monumental vintage images of this battle did not reach us at all. Only small miniatures on paper and parchment in the old Russian annals have survived, they say. Today, only VERY LATE wide-format, cheap popular-fairy-tale paintings on the "Kulikovo theme", created in the XIX-XX centuries, are advertised. For example, works by V.M. Vasnetsov, A.P. Bubnov, M.I. Avilov, N.P. Khristenko, I.S. Glazunov and others. But these talented artists, being far from historical studies, just carefully followed the Romanov textbook, obediently creating illustrations for a biased text, that is, they painted “visual aids”. Humbly portrayed the struggle of the Russian knights with the "terribly bad Tatars."

However, in a striking way in the Moscow Kremlin, at least one monumental image of the Kulikovo battle survived, albeit in an edited form. Only modern historians have no idea about this. We mean the famous fresco "Gideon cuts the army of the Midianites", located on the southern wall of the Archangel Cathedral, Fig.1.44. The name of the fresco is written right on it, above the image of Gideon's troops.

Fig.1.44
Fig.1.45

According to our results, the battle of the Old Testament Judge Gideon against the Midianites is one of the reflections of the Kulikovo battle in the pages of the Bible. The biblical Gideon is the Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, he is also the Roman emperor Constantine I, he is the biblical King David. See our book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga". The Old Testament Judge Gideon is depicted in the center of the fresco and looks just like other Russian princes, depicted on other numerous old Russian frescoes and miniatures, fig.1.45. Around the head of Gideon we see a halo, that is, he is shown as a Christian saint.

I must say that some vague memories of the connection of this fresco with the events of Russian history are preserved in the Romanov version. Regarding this image, commentators write like this: "The idea of ​​the mural was formed during the victorious wars of Ivan the Terrible, which contemporaries compared them with an old-fashioned military officer GEDEON, who defeated the infidels, AND THE IMPERATOR CONSTANTINE, who did a lot to recognize Christianity. with Gideon over the troops of Midian. This biblical scene was associated with the victories of Ivan IV over the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms, since IN THE RUSSIAN TATARS HAVE BEEN BIBE LEI MADIANITIAN "[552], pp. 12-13.

Thus, even the Romanov story recognizes that the fresco "Victory of Gideon" in the Cathedral of the Archangel in the XVI century was directly associated with Russian history. Moreover, here is called the emperor Constantine the Great. Of course, the Romanov historians and their followers declare that, say, such a rapprochement between Gideon and Constantine I is only an "association", nothing more. That the "Tatars" were considered descendants of the biblical Midiants was only due to a misunderstanding. They say that in the 16th century, the Russian people mistakenly tried to connect their "young" history with the "oldest" history of Israel. And that is why they ingenuously covered the walls of the main cathedrals of the Kremlin with numerous biblical scenes. Trying to even touch the glorious biblical story of a distant desert Palestine.

In fact, the 16th century Russian people understood everything correctly. According to our reconstruction, Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI centuries AND WAS A BIBLICAL ISRAEL. And not in a figurative sense, but in the most direct. And Judea was called Osmania-Atamania of that time.

It is possible that the Kremlin fresco "Victory of Gideon" - this is the same "antique" painting edited by the Romanovs, which was described by the "ancient" Pausanias. True, according to Pausanius, the Phoenician ships were shown in the "Athenian picture", to which the defeated Persian Medes were trying to scramble. On today's mural "Victory of Gideon" nothing like this. But here we must remember that today we see on the wall of the Archangel Cathedral not the original fresco of the XVI century, but its “restoration”, made in 1652-1666. We quote: << The existing painting of the Archangel Cathedral was completed in 1652-1666 during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who stated: "... write the Church of Michael the Archangel with a WAN LETTER, AND OLD ZIBIT", as the mural of the 16th century, time of Tsar Ivan IV, by the middle of the 17th century, it became very dilapidated (ostensibly - Auth.). Before starting work, a description of the original compositions was made, indicating their location, which helped to preserve the ideological concept and composition scheme of the 16th century mural >> [552], p.8.

Thus, what we see here today, in general, more or less reproduces the painting of the XVI century. So we are assured by historians. But we already well understand that such "restorations", and with the knocking down of all the plaster with all the old paintings, are simply not done. Romanov's explanations that the Kremlin's frescoes for a hundred years have "greatly deteriorated" sound extremely suspicious. As we have already noted on this occasion in the book New Chronology of Rus, a hundred years for frescoes is not a time limit. Most likely, the matter is quite different. The winners decided to rewrite history. Old paintings shot down, new ones painted. Perhaps, indeed, the composition and plots of the former frescoes were generally preserved so as not to invent new ones. After all, it is always more difficult to invent a story "from the head" than to tendentiously edit the old original. With such a "directed straightening of sources," much can be achieved by small means. Apparently, the “dangerous” inscriptions were removed in the first place, replaced them with other, more neutral or completely new ones. The mural of the Kulikovo battle was probably rewritten so that it was impossible at first glance to recognize in it the true realities of the fourteenth century. They left only a general idea, shrouded in "biblical flavor", which, just in the era of the first Romanovs, was strongly "pushed into the past", tearing the Bible away from Russian history of the XIV-XVI centuries. As a result, the biblical past of Russia-Horde = Israel of the XVII-XVIII centuries began to be forgotten and few people already remembered that the Israelite Gideon and Prince Dmitry Ivanovich was largely one and the same real historical character.

So, today it is difficult to say - like the fresco "Victory of Gideon" originally looked in the XVI century. It is possible that several monumental images of the Kulikovo battle were created in the Moscow Kremlin. As we can see, only one of them has come down to us, and even then it must have been edited.

But it is still too early for us to leave the Archangel Cathedral. The fact is that on its walls there are other frescoes dedicated to the emperor Constantine the Great, that is, again, Dmitry Donskoy = the biblical Gideon.

"On the north side of the central vault is depicted the First Ecumenical Council, convened in (supposedly by Avt.) 325 in Nicea on the initiative of Emperor Constantine. At this Council, the Symbol of Faith was approved and the alliance of imperial power with Christianity was concluded" [552], p.8 . See fresco on ris.1.46. In the very center on the throne sits Emperor Constantine and the royal petal crown. For the history of this crown, see Reconstruction, ch. 15: 2.

Fig.1.46
Fig.1.47

Further, << on the north wall presents "The vision of the starry cross to the emperor Constantine", foreshadowing victory over Maxentius, the last emperor, who sought to revive the former greatness of pagan Rome. It was this victory that determined the beginning of the formation of Christianity as the state religion >> [552], p.13. This fresco is presented in ris.1.47.

Thus, among the remaining, albeit edited, frescoes of the Archangel Cathedral, three frescoes tell about Constantine = Gideon = Dmitry Donskoy. This shows how important the Kulikovskoy = Marathon battle was.

Having found in the Moscow Kremlin a monumental image of the Marathon = Kulikovo battle, we can now express the thought of the whereabouts of the "Athenian" Painted Gallery, about which Pausanias spoke.

Painted gallery in "antique" Athens and the Archangel Cathedral in the Kremlin[edit | edit source]

This is what the "ancient" Pausanias says about Athens: "Those who go towards the stand that is called Motley from the paintings in it meet the copper Hermes, the so-called Agoraia, the Patron of the markets, and near the gate. They have a trophy, delivered after the Athenians defeated the equestrian battle of Pleistarch, brother of Cassander, and the commander of his cavalry and mercenary troops.

In this gallery, first of all, the picture draws attention to itself: the Athenians from the Argive Enoy, built against the Lacedaemonians; not depicted the height of battle, not a battle that has already unfolded ... but only the beginning of the battle, when they only converge for melee combat.

AT THE MIDDLE WALL depicts the Athenians and Theseus fighting the Amazons. Only in some of these women the lesions did not take away the determination to be in danger again; despite the fact that Themiscira (the city) was taken by Hercules and that then they lost the army that they sent against Athens, they nevertheless came under Troy to fight against the Athenians and all Hellenes.

During the battle with the Amazons depicted the Greeks, who took Ilion, and the kings who gathered (for the meeting) about the bold act of Ajax towards Cassandra; the picture shows Ajax himself, the captives, and among them Cassandra "[625: 0], v.1, p.47-48.

Next, Pausanias goes on to describe the picture of the Marathon battle. We already spoke about it.

Many "ancient" authors wrote about this Painted Gallery. Commentators report the following. “PESTRAITING STANDING, which is also called the SCHEDULE GALLERY, was probably built in 457. Three artists worked on her paintings. Polygnot - which gave a cycle of Trojan paintings, Micon - who wrote the war with the Amazons, and the same Micon and Panen - who wrote the Marathon Battle ... It’s hard to say if these pictures were painted DIRECTLY ON THE WALL OR ON BOARDS. We find mention of this gallery among various writers, it was a favorite place for the Athenians to stroll.

The battle of Enoe, where the Athenians defeated the Spartans, is unknown to us. Does Pausanias Enoy of Argassia not mix with MARATHON ...

How these pictures were arranged is a very complex and still unresolved question. It is assumed that THREE MAIN PAINTINGS: the battle with the Amazons, the capture of Ilion and the Battle of Marathon occupied a long WALL; the two sides remained free, and only afterwards was one of them engaged in the battle of Enoe [625: 0], pp.457-458.

Thus, the Painted Gallery in Athens was some kind of large covered structure, on the walls of which large-scale images of the most famous battles of “ancient Athenian” history were placed. It is believed that the paintings were painted either directly on the walls or on the boards. In the light of what we have learned, it follows from this that either the Athenian paintings were, most likely, WALL FRANCES or ICONS. Icons draw on the boards. In this case, it was probably a question of some large temple, inside which were murals or icons with these images.

Fig.1.48
Fig.1.49

Our thought has already been formulated above: "Old Athenian" Painted = The motley gallery is the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, fig.1.48, fig.1.49. It was built in the XVI century and is really from top to bottom painted with frescoes. It has a large iconostasis - many icons written on the boards.

It is curious that Pausanias apparently sounds like a distorted memory of the Christian ICONS of the Archangel Cathedral. Let us recall his words: "Copper shields are right there and on some of them there is an inscription that they are from Skionians and their allies, and others are PLAINED WITH RESIN, so that time and dampness do not destroy them" [625: 0], v.1, s .48.

"Shields plastered with resin" are probably ICONS COATED WITH OLYTHE. Pausanias called the linseed oil resin. Most likely, only the late edition of Pausanias primary text has reached us. The editors of the Reformation era have evasively called Christian icons on the tree “resin-covered shields”.

The Pavsanievsky "copper shields" are, perhaps, the same Christian icons, covered with COPPER or GOLDEN WAY. In addition, Pausanias speaks of the inscriptions on the "copper shields." In fact, icons usually contain inscriptions telling the names of the characters and explaining the events depicted.

It is interesting that commentators call the Archangel Cathedral GALLERY, that is, they use the same term as the "ancient" Pausanias, which tells about the Painted GALLERY. Today they write like this: “The idea of ​​glorifying the grand-ducal and royal ancestry is deployed in the Archangel Cathedral brightly and consistently. More than sixty conventional portraits of Russian princes are located on the pillars and in the first tier of the wall painting. The images of Princess Olga are opened ...” p.15,18.

In this sense, the Archangel Cathedral really stands out among the rest of the cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin. Only he could rightfully be called the SCHEDULE GALLERY. The painting of other Kremlin cathedrals, which is also undoubtedly rich, most likely carried a different meaning.

So, in the pages of Pausanias, we are likely to be confronted with the description of the kind of Archangel Cathedral that it had in the 16th century. That is, shortly before the barbarian Romanov's “restoration” of the 17th century, when old paintings were knocked down and the walls were painted anew, retaining, as we are told, the composition and content of the frescoes. The following is reported: << For the first time the church was painted under Ivan the Terrible, but by the middle of the 17th century. painting, as in the Assumption Cathedral, has already decayed. In 1652, Jacob Kazantsu "with his comrades" was ordered to KILL AN OLD LIST, PROMOTING TRANSFERRING IT TO THE PAPER, and to make a new ... 55 icon painters set to work, but the plague and the new war with Poland forced to postpone the godly thing >> [107 ], p.102.

Only a few years the task was completed. Thus, in the time gap between the old paintings and what we see today, there turned out to be some PAPER SHEETS TO WHICH THE APPEARED TO COPIED THE PREVIOUS, DESTRUCTED FRANCES. Most likely, both the ancient inscriptions and the images themselves were subject to biased editing. And it is clear why. As Pausanias informed us, "ancient" battles were depicted on the walls of the cathedral. But all such early Christian images of the era of the XII-XVI centuries were declared “pagan” in the era of the Reformation and relegated to the deepest past. Therefore, it took them to "redraw" in the light of new trends. Some suffered more, some less. Something decided not to recover.

The names of the three masters who painted the "ancient Athenian" Gallery have been preserved. These are Polygnot, Micon and Panen. About Panane Pausanias adds that he was the brother of the famous "Phidias, and in Athens in the Painted Gallery he painted a picture of the Marathon Battle" [625: 0], v.1, p.354. It would be interesting to find out - who of the ancient Russian or invited to Moscow from afar painters of the XVI century was reflected in the pages of the "ancient" Pausanias under the names Polygnot, Micon and Panen? Today we know only some of the names of the Romanov artists, who in the XVII century, after the pogrom, arranged in the Archangel Cathedral, re-painted its exposed walls. Artists were ninety-two. They were selected by the famous royal icon painter Simon Ushakov. A huge area of ​​the cathedral walls painted in just one summer. In addition to 92 masters themselves, I supposethere were many more apprentices. Worked a big team. At the same time, the Romanovs were telling loudly the tales that before they knocked down the old paintings, the masters neatly sketched them, and then restored them more carefully, retaining the “composition and style” [107], pp.102-103.

But back to the description of Pausanias. I must say that the "ancient" Phidias, brother of the artist Panen, is considered the creator of the famous "statue of Olympian Zeus" - one of the so-called seven wonders of the world. Here it is appropriate to recall that, according to our research, see “Biblical Rus,” ch. 18: 21.4, in fact, this “statue of Zeus” was most likely not a marble monument at all, but a huge iconostasis in the capital’s temple of Rus- Horde. Maybe in Yaroslavl = Novgorod, maybe already in Moscow of the XVI century, after the transfer of the capital of the Empire there.

We repeat that the icons were known to be covered with a layer of linseed oil to protect the paint from exposure to air and moisture. This was mentioned by "ancient" authors, who described the "statue of Olympian Zeus". The following was reported: “In Olympia, where the terrain was swampy and damp, it was necessary to lubricate the statue of Zeus with olive oil to protect it from moisture. Those parts of the statue that were wrapped in a raincoat were covered with a thin layer of chased gold” [572], p.69. Here, apparently, the covering of Christian icons with linseed oil - "olive oil" is described. It is correctly noted that parts of the icons where clothes were depicted were usually hidden under chased gold vestments.

Thus, both the works of Phidias and the works of Panén naturally emerge in the history of the Horde- "Mongolian" churches of Russia of the XIV-XVI centuries.

It would be interesting to understand - which of the medieval chroniclers we know of is hidden under the "ancient" name of PAUSANIA. Skaligerovskaya history says that practically nothing is known about the “ancient Pausania”: “We do not know either the time or the place of Pausanias' birth. Only by his random instructions do we conclude that he was born in Asia Minor, near Mount Sipila, approximately in the 2nd century AD, and the era of the Anthony. He spent his whole life traveling ... He took for himself the model of the "father of history" of Herodot ... This imitation of the ancient model was as much an essence and fashion ... as the "affinity of the souls" of these two great travelers >> [625 : 0], v.1, p.13. Consequently, the "ancient" Pausanias lived in the era of the XVI-XVII centuries.

In conclusion, let us see what images of the 17th century cover the walls of the Archangel Cathedral today [107].

On the main dome placed "Fatherland" - the image of the Holy Trinity.

On the eastern domes there is the winged John the Baptist and the Virgin and Child with the image of the Sign.

On the western domes are the archangels Michael and Gabriel. On the arch - thirteen scenes, mainly from the Gospels.

The southern and northern walls of the cathedral are reserved for the story of the acts of Michael the Archangel. He takes the righteous Enoch alive to heaven - depicted above the upper window of the southern wall, near the iconostasis. Then Michael holds the hand of Abraham, who wanted to sacrifice his son to God. Finally, the fight against Jacob is shown — an image on both sides of the same window.

Michael destroys the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and sulfur, but brings out the righteous Lot and his daughters from there - a fresco above the upper window of the western division of the southern wall.

Michael helps the Israeli commander Joshua take Jericho, whose walls are crumbling at the sound of pipes.

Michael appears over the army of Judge Gideon, helping him defeat the Midianites.

Michael is the prophet Daniel in the den of a lion, and to three youths - in the fiery pesche. This is a fresco between the upper western windows of the north wall.

This is followed by the story "On the youth who found gold." The young man found a treasure, the wicked monks wanted to take possession of gold, but Michael saved the young man and denounced the guilty.

In the same tier, on the opposite wall, closer to the iconostasis, the action of the “Miracle in Honech” is developing. The pagans wanted to destroy the temple of the Archangel Michael in Phrygia, sending a mountain stream to it. However, Michael came, hit the rod with a rod, and the water went into the open cleft.

Further: "Archangel Michael delivers Prince Moses" - a picture between the upper western windows of the southern wall.

On the northern wall, above the “Miracle in Khonekh”, is depicted the “Vision of Tsar Constantine” - the miraculous appearance of the Cross before the battle with Maxentius.

On the western wall is the Last Judgment, the beginning of the human race, Adam and Eve in paradise, their expulsion after the fall from paradise - a fresco under the very arches of the cathedral. Below are scenes illustrating one of the main Christian prayers - "Symbol of Faith".

In the loggia of the western facade, inaccessible to the audience, the story of the Baptism of Rus is shown, starting with the choice of faith by Prince Vladimir. Showing Russian ambassadors in the temple of St. Sofia Tsar-Gradskaya. Further, the capture by Vladimir Korsun of Byzantine Chersonesos, thanks to the advice of a Chersonese traitor, cut off the besieged water. Byzantine Princess Anna persuades blind Vladimir to be baptized. In the next composition, Vladimir plunges into the font and sees the light. Next - the scene of the baptism of Kiev, including the children of Vladimir.

Fig.1.50
Fig.1.51

A large number of images covers the iconostasis of the Archangel Cathedral. In particular, here << there stands a really ancient icon - "Archangel Michael with deeds" of the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. (see the fragment of the icon in fig. 1.50 - Auth.) ... The painter embodied the idea of ​​the ideal of military prowess ... which was formed in the era of Kulikovo battles. In the past century, this monument was associated with the name of the princes Evdokia - Witnesses of Dmitri Donsky. According to the legend, before the death, the archangel Michael appeared to her and commanded to write his image ... In the last century (in the XIX century - Auth.) 30 silver lamps hung on special rods burned in front of the icon >> [107], p.108-109 .

Thus, the theme of the Battle of Kulikovo and Dmitry Donskoy was long preserved in the decoration of the Archangel's Council. Moreover, the Archangel Cathedral was tied with Dmitry Donskoy and other Russian primary sources. For example, in Figure 1.51 there is a miniature from the Facial Chronicle of the alleged XVI century. "Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, before marching against Mamaia, prays at the coffins of the ancestors in the Archangel Cathedral ... 1508, easily recognizable by pentaglades and shells in zakomara "[107], p.113.

We will omit the enumeration of the icons placed on the iconostasis of the Archangel’s Cathedral, since there are so many of them [107], pp.105-112.

The surface of the lower part of the walls of the Archangel Cathedral is occupied by images of Russian princes. All of them are represented in prayer positions, mostly addressed to the altar. These images - more than sixty.

Thus, the Archangel Cathedral really represents a unique Painted gallery, as the "ancient classics" spoke about it. One of the main themes reflected in the cathedral is the theme of the Kulikovo battle.

Fig.1.52

An image of Prince Dmitry Donskoy was also placed on the walls of the Archangel's Cathedral. Attention is drawn to the fact that something was done to him in the XVIII-XIX centuries. That is, after a century, at least, after the old 16th century frescoes were boldly knocked down and the walls were painted anew. Regarding Dmitry Donskoy, the following is reported: "Among others (images - Auth.) Stand out stand facing Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan Kalita ... as well as Dmitry Donskoy - he suddenly turned against the movement, BACK TO ALTARU. Such a strange placement of this prince is the result of a thoughtless (! - Auth.) update of the XVIII-XIX centuries. Plaster crumbled at this place, and the figure had to be almost completely finished (fig. 1.52 - Auth.). At the same time, the painter did not pay attention,that the prince’s chosen prince conflicts with the whole system of painting the lower tier of the cathedral "[107], pp. 133-134.

Such "explanations" sound strange. It turns out that in one of the central cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin, some supposedly ignorant painter allegedly casually "restored" the image of the famous Prince Dmitry Donskoy, turning his back to the altar. And nobody corrected? Most likely, we come up here on some further "editing of history" that continued in the Kremlin in the XVIII-XIX centuries. Its essence today is unclear. Apparently, the masters of the XVII century, who shot down the old frescoes and immediately "restored" them, thoughtlessly preserved some details that were "dangerous" for the Scaligerian-Romanov history. Then they noticed. Or some of the plots became dangerous only later, after further, regular correction of the story "according to the Romanovs", which lasted for many decades. It was then that they realizedpeering more attentively at the recent painting of the XVII century. They ordered us to knock down again, rewrite and inspire once again to tell the tale of "crumbling plaster".

Fig.1.53

It is not excluded, by the way, that the cathedral itself was renamed under the Romanovs, called the Archangel. The first tsar-usurper, Mikhail Romanov, could well have given the name of Michael the archangel to a famous Kremlin temple. The fact is that Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, apparently, considered the archangel Michael to be his guardian angel. In any case, on the arrow of the luxurious helmet, the so-called "yerichon cap", made for Mikhail Romanov, there is an image of the archangel Michael, made with colored enamels, fig.1.53.

So, we repeat once again that the authentic look of the old Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin of the 16th century is brought to us by the “antique” book of Pausanias. In it, the cathedral is named Motley or Painted Gallery, "cost", erected in the "ancient" Athens = in the city of Don Tan. Pausanias spoke briefly about what murals were placed on the walls of the cathedral in the 16th century, that is, prior to its barbarous “restoration” by the first Romanovs.

In general, the theme of the Kulikovo battle in the "biblical design" sounded in the old Moscow Kremlin not only in the murals of the Archangel Cathedral. I.Ye. Zabelin, a thoughtful researcher of Russian history, telling, for example, about the Kremlin's Golden Chamber, gives the following facts.

"On the walls of Polata ... starting from the Gosudarev place ... and turning to the very doors of Polata, in four paintings the history of the Israeli Judge GEDEON was depicted ... The first image ... represented ... GEDEON sacrificing a ram to the Lord ... The images represented GEDEON, carrying the fleece, and GEDEON, standing in the church at the throne, on which stood the crucifixion of gold and the Gospel (the events of the Old Testament and the New Testament - Auth.) Were combined in time ... represented GEDEON on a mountain praying on its knees, and then GEDEON on d the mountain collecting the army ... The third picture ... depicted GEDEON among the regiment armed in armor, beating 150,000 Madiamlyan ... The fourth picture ... depicts GEDEON beating, cutting Ammalikov "[282: 1], h. 1, p.

Further, in the Senyáh of the Faceted Chamber "IN THE SAME PLACE of the Spotlight was written the parable of King Constantine, the vision of the cross" [282: 1], part 1, p. 179. The signature said that the Lord appeared to the emperor Constantine before the battle with the life-giving cross in his hands and "spoke to King Constantine: Create a similar sign and lead him to show his soldiers — win all your enemies" [282: 1], part 1, p.179 .

We repeat that the "antique" story about the battle of Emperor Constantine I is a phantom reflection of the Kulikovo battle of 1380, in which Dmitry Donskoy won = Constantine the Great. This fresco was painted in the Faceted Chamber in 1678, that is, when the true history of Russia-Horde quickly began to be forgotten and distorted, as a result of which Dmitry Donskoy “multiplied” on the pages of the later chronicles into several characters, one of which was the “ancient” Roman Emperor Constantine.

As we already know, another reflection of the Battle of Kulikovo is the biblical story about the victory of David over Goliath. So it is not surprising that in the Faceted Chamber on the short wall of the Red Porch there was written << Battle of King David with Goliath with the inscription: "Davyd defeated prigordago Goliad, helping Almighty God" >> [282: 1], Part 1, p. 180.

Thereby, Dmitry Donskoy, that is, the biblical Gideon and the biblical David, told not only the frescoes of the Archangel's Cathedral.


Chapter 2