Golden Books/Conquest of America/Chapter 3

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scaligerian version of the Battle of Sicily[edit | edit source]

Fig.1.12
Fig.3.1


The Sicilian War allegedly 415-413 BC. and the decisive battle of Syracuse, allegedly in 413 BC. - also one of the most famous events in the history of "Ancient" Greece. The description of this campaign is inserted by Thucydides inside the Peloponnesian War, approximately in its middle, see fig. 1.1. In the Sicilian battle, the Siracusans-Sicilians defeated a huge army of the Athenians, invading Sicily. The main source of information about the Sicilian battle are the works of Thucydides and Plutarch. Therefore, we base our study on their narration.

Today we are assured that the grandiose Sicilian battle took place on the island of Sicily, in the Mediterranean. Even fabulous pictures are drawn, like the ones shown in Figure 3.1. However, we will show that the Sicilian battle is another phantom reflection of the Kulikovo battle of 1380 on the territory of Moscow, the future capital of the Great = "Mongol" Empire.

Fig.3.2

In this case, it turns out, in the "ancient" description of the Sicilian War, two layers are closely intertwined. The first comes from the XII century and consists of events related to the emperor Andronicus-Christ. The second layer is the battle of 1380 by Prince Dmitry Donskoy with Khan Mamai. The first group of events from the XII century, we have already highlighted in the previous book << Christ and Russia through the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks >>. We will now proceed to the analysis of the second group of information. The reason for this confusion between the XII and XIV centuries is clear. As we have already noted, the chroniclers mixed two baptisms of Russia. The first is given by Andronicus-Christ himself at the end of the XII century. The second Baptism was carried out at the end of the XIV century by Prince Dmitry Donskoy = Emperor Constantine the Great = by the biblical judge Gideon = by the biblical King David. Some chroniclers confused these two baptisms, and therefore the events connected with them. That is why the biblical image of David absorbed information about the emperor Andronicus-Christ, see our book "The King of Slavs". By the way, in fig.3.2 the ancient anointing "The Confirmation of David" is shown. However, in the light of the results obtained by us, it becomes clear that the baptism of David the Christ is most likely shown here in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. This image is almost identical to those that we see on numerous Christian icons, where John the Baptist lays his hand on the head of Christ and baptizes him with water. Or here the baptism of Prince Dmitry Donskoy = Emperor Constantine I.

As we show, on the "Sicilian stage" of the Peloponnesian War, under the name of "ancient Athens (Athenians)", the troops of Khan Mamaia stand out, under the name of "ancient SYRACUZ" here are Moscow and the Tsarist Cossacks, led by Prince Dmitry Donsky, settled in Moscow.

First, we use the work "Ancient Greece" for a brief presentation of the Scaligerian version of the Sicilian War - as part of the Peloponnesian War. Commentators report the following.

"After the congress of the sicilian NEW INTERVENTION IN SICILIAN AFFAIRS.

GREATER TRENDS SYRAKUZ intertwined with social and political struggle. In the Ionian policies of Sicily, DEMOCRATIC BUILDING was usually LOCATED. Despite the fact that in the very hands of the authorities, the authorities were also in the hands of the democrats, Syracuse usually supported the Ionian oligarchs ...

The question of Sicily acquired exceptional urgency for Athens "[258], p.312-313, 314.

In Athens, put forward a plan to conquer Sicily and the creation of the Athenian state there. The plan received widespread support from the Athenians. It is curious, by the way, that, as commentators note, from the reports of Plutarch it can be seen that the location of Sicily was at that time largely unclear. They write like this: << Testimony of Plutarch ("Alcibiades", 17, "Nikiy", 12) that "a lot of people sat on palestras and on semicircular benches, drawing a map of Sicily and the location of Libya and Carthage," shows only SCHOL WERE A PRESENTATION OF THE SERIAL ATHENIAN OF THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN >> [258], p.314. This shows that the question of the geographical location of "Sicily" in this narrative of Plutarch and Thucydides is not as simple as it may seem today. Of course, in the Scaligerian version, it is customary to think that the Sicilian war of the Athenians against the Syracusans was unfolding on the modern island of Sicily in the Mediterranean. However, it may very well be that the war was transferred there — on paper — much later, when the reforming editors began to distort the true history of the XII-XVI centuries and move the events on the map like chess pieces on the board.

Athenian troops led Nicias as chief commander, as well as Alcibiades and Lamahs. It is believed that a large Athenian fleet transported to Sicily a huge land army of the Athenians. Nikiya's army was professional and perfectly equipped. << Over this huge navy followed more than 130 cargo ships. On this occasion, Thucydides remarks with pride: "Here was the MOST EXPENSIVE AND MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY OF ALL EQUIPPED BEFORE THE TIME" (VI, 31, 1) >> [258], p.315.

The Athenian army invades Sicily. Begins a gradual advance towards Syracuse. At this time, an event occurs, regarded by the Athenians as a bad omen for the expedition as a whole. At night in Athens, many herms were damaged. This event caused a lot of rumors and rumors.

Sparta sends its troops led by the Lacedaemonian Ghilippe to help Sicily. Thus, three forces converge under Syracuse:

the Athenians, led by Nikias,

Spartans led by Gilippe and

syracuse sicilians

In this case, the Syracusans and the Spartans in this war together are on the same side against the Athenians. The Spartan Gilipp heads both his Spartans and the Syracusans.

In the summer of supposedly 414 BC. after a one-year stay in Sicily, the Athenians began to besiege the city of Syracuse, the capital of Sicily. The Athenian Lamah, one of the main commanders, is killed in a duel at the very beginning of the siege. After that, the Athenian troops passed into complete subordination to Nikiya alone.

The position of the Athenians becomes difficult. Syracuse is being opposed by the People's Obsession, which successfully resists the PROFESSIONALS of Nikias. An experienced warlord Demosthenes arrives to help Nikia with additional troops and allies. Again, the professionalism of this additional Athenian corps is emphasized. As Plutarch says in his work "Nikiy," 21, "he (Demosthenes - Auth.) Sailed, driving 5,000 hoplites on 73 ships and no less than 3,000 spearmen, archers and sopers with decorated weapons, emblems on triremes, many commanders over rowers and flutists to impress enemies and amaze them "[258], p.318.

And here comes another sign, this time a heavenly one, regarded as bad for the Athenians. Namely, "the lunar eclipse, which Nicias considered unfavorable augury for sailing" [258], p.318.

Immediately after this, IN SEPTEMBER, a fierce decisive battle takes place, allegedly 413 BC. The Athenian fleet was defeated, the Athenian army was surrounded and suffered huge losses. Athenian commanders Nikias and Demosthenes tried to retreat, but failed. They were captured and soon executed.

Commentators sum up the following words: << So the HUGE ATHENA ARMY and the powerful fleet died. Thucydides defines SICILIAN CATASTROPHE AS A "MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY ENTERPRISE ... IN ALL ELLIN HISTORY ... The Athenians were completely destroyed everywhere ... Everything was lost, as they say, and the land forces and the navy. -6)

THE SICILIAN EXPEDITION WAS A FACTORY MOMENT OF THE WHOLE PELOPONNESS WAR ... It ended in a catastrophe, which subsequently led to the downfall of the Athenian maritime power ...

SICILIAN CATASTROPHE led to a sharp change in the ratio of forces of the warring parties ... Athens lost up to 50 thousand people, including more than 10 thousand hoplites and over 200 ships, not to mention the money spent ...

No less important factor than the enormous material losses, was the factor of moral and political. Under Syracuse, the Athenians were defeated not only on land, but also on the sea ...

Finally, perhaps the most important consequence of the Sicilian catastrophe was a significant weakening of the strength of the Athenian rear >> [258], p.320.

At first glance, the description of the Sicilian war "does not look like" to the struggle of Dmitry Donskoy with Khan Mamai and the Kulikovo battle. However, only at first glance. We already have enough information to show the correspondence between the "ancient" war and the events of 1380. This match does not belong to the category of very bright, but quite recognizable.

We note the following curious circumstance. The correspondence between the Kulikovo battle and the Sicilian war is especially good in the description of Plutarch. The fact is that Plutarch, probably Petrarch, see the book The Foundations of History, ch. 7: 4, on this subject, besides the backbone of events, he also gives many legends and everyday details important for restoring the multi-color picture of the past life. The mention of details that sometimes seem insignificant is often helpful in reconstructing the whole picture.

The books of Thucydides are more dry, rationalistic. He prefers to quote on many pages "the speech of ancient heroes." In the "fukididovskom performance" these speeches are mostly quite empty and verbose. Probably, we have before us - the work of the late editor of the Reformation era, when the vysprenny style that appeared to be the "direct speeches" of ancient characters came into fashion. They allegedly became in a beautiful position, took an important look and began to talk long and flowery in front of the audience. And the chroniclers, as if standing right there in the crowd, neatly and literally all stenographed. Including punctuation marks in a speaker's speech. If we remove these numerous and rather empty "direct speeches of heroes", leaving only the essence of the matter, then the "History" of Fukidid will be significantly reduced.

Plutarch gives about twelve pages to the Sicilian War [660], v.2, pp. 224-236. Thucydides, on the other hand, dedicates two separate books to this war in his History, the sixth and seventh [924], pp. 262-352. Only about ninety pages, that is, about seven times more than Plutarch

Skeleton of the events[edit | edit source]

We will briefly discuss the backbone of the "ancient" Sicilian war in comparison with the Kulikovo battle of 1380.


  • Two powerful forces collide in the war - the Sicilian Syracusans and the Athenians. Athens acts as an aggressor. It is the Athenians who attack Sicily, fearing the growth of the influence of Syracuse. Numerous allies are involved in the war on both sides. And this is not just a battle of the troops of the two cities, but a war of two unions, two camps, which possessed enormous capabilities. In this case, the Sicilians first defend, then win.

Similarly, in the Kulikovo Battle of 1380 two powerful forces converge - the army of Prince Dmitry Donskoy and the army of Khan Mamai. Behind both are numerous allies. This is also the battle of the nations. Moreover, according to our results, the war was religious. On the Kulikovo Field, apostolic Christians, led by Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great, met with representatives of "royal", clan, "pagan" Christianity, headed by Khan Mamai = Maxentius = Ivan Velyaminov. Khan Mamai and his Horde appear here as aggressors. They are the first to attack Dmitry Donskoy and his allies. Dmitry first defends, then wins.

  • Immediately before the Sicilian battle, a heavenly sign occurred - a lunar eclipse, observed both in the camp of the Athenians and in the camp of the Sicilians. The sign was regarded as unfavorable to the Athenians. And indeed, the Athenians lost the battle.

Similarly, directly before the Kulikov battle, there was a heavenly sign, which announced the defeat of Khan Mamai and the victory of Prince Dmitry Donskoy. In the "ancient" Roman version we are talking about the famous Apparition of the Cross to Emperor Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoy. It is thanks to the "Sign of the Cross" that the emperor defeated the enemies. See our book "The Baptism of Rus".

  • Before both battles there is a duel, considered by contemporaries as very important. Both fighters died after hitting each other.
  • "Antique" Sicilian battle is considered a turning point in the history of "Ancient" Greece. The defeat of Athens was so severe that the Athenians lost their former dominant significance.

Similarly, in the Kulikovo battle, "royal" Christianity, later called "paganism", suffered a crushing defeat. The apostolic Christians won. It is this trend in Christianity that took as a result the dominant position in the Empire. Weakened "royal" Christianity was pushed into the background. Dmitry Donskoy made Apostolic Christianity the state religion of the Great Empire.

  • The Sicilian battle was exceptionally fierce, with a mass of casualties.

Similarly, the Kulikovo battle was incredibly cruel and uncompromising. On both sides, many thousands of warriors were killed.

  • Both comparable battles are characterized by the fact that the people's militia confidently defeated the superior forces of professionals.
  • "Antique" Nikiy - the main commander of the Athenians - dies immediately after the battle. He is executed by the victors.

Similarly, Khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov dies soon after the Kulikovo battle. Khan Mamai is artfully murdered by his own supporters, wishing to please the winner, Dmitry Donskoy, see the details in our book The Baptism of Russia. Ivan Veliyaminov, a duplicate of Khan Mamai, is executed by order of Dmitry Donskoy: his head is cut off.

  • The Sicilian Battle takes place near the walls of the city of Syracuse, the capital of Sicily.

According to our reconstruction, the Kulikov battle unfolded on the territory of Moscow, the future capital of the Great = "Mongol" Empire. In another reflection of the Kulikovo battle, which today dates back to 1382, - it is about the capture of Moscow by Khan Tokhtamysh, - the battle takes place under the walls of Moscow. Recall that, according to our results, Khan Tokhtamysh is Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great.


So, the "backbones" of both battles are quite similar. Consequently, the "gluing" of medieval and "ancient" events and characters presumably look like this.

  • The Sicilian Battle is the Kulikovo Battle.
  • "Antique" Athens is, in this story, the camp of Khan Mamai. Athenian commander Nikiy is Khan Mamai, aka Ivan Velyaminov or Venyaminov.
  • "Antique" Syracusans Sicilians - this, in this story, the Moscow Donsky end of the XIV century, that is, the camp of Dmitry Donskoy. Taking into account all the facts we have discovered, in the future we will sometimes call SICILIANS - KULIKOVTS.

Thus, the “ancient biography” of Nikiya is, as it were, glued together from two layers. The first comes from the XII century and consists of information about the emperor Andronicus-Christ. See our book << Christ and Russia through the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks >>. The second layer comes from the XIV century. These are fragments of the biography of Khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov = Maxentius.

fig.3.3
  • Recall that in the pages of the Bible the Battle of Kulikovo was reflected as a battle between David and Goliath, Fig.3.3. In the Greek version we are currently considering, the biblical name GOLIAF was broken, apparently in the form of the name of the Spartan GILIPPA. At the same time, Ghilippe is on the side of the Sicilians, the enemies of Nikias, that is, the enemies of Khan Mamaia = the biblical Goliath. Probably, the "ancient Greek classics" slightly confused the names of the characters here. As a result, "rearranged" enemies and friends.

Note that in the "ancient" Greek version of the Sicilian = Kulikovo battle is described mainly from the camp of the Athenians, that is, through the eyes of the comrades of Khan Mamaia. Written evidence originating from the camp of the Sicilians, came much less. In any case, both Plutarch and Thucydides pay much more attention to the events in the Athenian camp than in the Sicilian one. This circumstance is extremely interesting. The fact is that in all the other twenty-four phantom reflections of the Kulikovo battle that we found — see Chapter 1 — it is described from the victor’s camp, that is, by the chroniclers of Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great = David. Which is understandable. History is written, as a rule, the winners. Their confident voice sounds louder than the complaints of the vanquished. Thus, for the first time, we can hear testimonies from supporters of Khan Mamai = Nikiya, in this plot. Probably, some Mamaevsky chronicles survived until the epoch of the XVI-XVII centuries, when their fragments fell into the hands of Plutarch - Petrarch? - and Thucydides. And they are reflected in the pages of their works.

By the way, this circumstance noticeably complicates for us the study of conformity: commander Nikiy = Khan Mamai. The fact is that in the Russian sources of evidence from the camp of the defeated Khan Mamai = Ivan Veliyaminov = there is very little Goliath. Therefore, we will have to be content with the meager data on the events in the Mamai camp that have survived Russian history.

True, as we showed in the book "Cossacks-arias: from Russia to India", some of the testimonies of the Mamayevian chroniclers survived on the pages of the huge "ancient" -Indian Epic "Mahabharata".In particular, there are detailed lists of the dead noble Mamayev Horde, which is not in the Russian chronicles. However, the comparison of the “ancient” Greek version of Plutarch and Thucydides with the “Mahabharata” has not yet been completed by us, and we hope to return to this topic in further publications.

We now turn to a detailed analysis of the stories of Plutarch and Thucydides.

A chronological shift on 1800 years combines the dates of the Battles of Kulikovo and Sicily[edit | edit source]

Recall the results of the chronology of "Ancient" Greece, obtained using astronomical and mathematical methods. Many of them are collected and systematized on the Global Chronological Map compiled by A.T. Fomenko in 1975-1979. This “map” is a conditional depiction of the Scaligerian “history textbook,” in which A.T. Fomenko discovered three main chronological shifts: by 330-360 years, by 1000-1050 years and by 1750-1800 years. The Scaliger date system is given, for example, in J. Blair's Tables [76]. It turns out that the chronologists of the XVI-XVII centuries artificially extended the history of antiquity, "sending events to the distant past" that actually took place in the XI-XVII centuries. In this case, four copies of the same "short"The chronicles of the XI-XVII centuries were shifted by the values ​​indicated above, Fig.3.4. After that, the chronologists "pasted" them to each other, as a result of which a "long Scaligerian textbook" of history arose, underlying the modern view of antiquity.

fig.3.4
fig.3.5

The third, most "deep" shift of approximately 1750-1800 years was called A.T. Fomenko "Greco-Biblical", since it mainly refers to the events of Greek and biblical history. Consequently, it can be assumed that the traces of this particular shift, the "Kulikovo battle" sent to the past, should be sought in the "ancient" Greek history. Our assumption is brilliantly justified. With a shift of about 1800 years, the Kulikovo battle "turns out" around the beginning of the 4th century BC. But it is here that the Scaligerian chronologists place the Sicilian battle! More precisely: the difference between the date of the Sicilian battle is supposedly 413 BC. - and the date of the Battle of Kulikovo - about 1380 AD - is 1793, because 413 + 1380 = 1793.That is, it almost coincides with the value of the Greco-Biblical shift by about 1800 years, Fig.3.5.

Consequently, there is reason to expect that the famous Sicilian battle is another phantom reflection of the epic Kulikovo battle.

In the Sicily war commander Nikius – it is khan Mamay[edit | edit source]

The Athenian invading army was led by the Athenian Nicias. At first, the Athenian Alcibiades played a prominent role, but he was soon summoned to court in Athens and, as Plutarch points out, “Nicias, who was considered the second commander, AT THE SAME IS THE MAIN COMMANDER,” he continued preparations for the invasion [660], v.2, p.225 . And then Plutarch once again clarifies: "Soon after the departure of Alkibiades from Sicily, the HIGH COMMANDING WHO WAS COMFORTED TO NIKI" [660], v.2, p.225.

So it is absolutely clearly stated that Nicias was the chief commander of the Athenians on the Sicilian expedition.

In order to avoid confusion, we repeat once again that "ANY Era of the Sicilian War" is a reflection of Khan Mamai from the XIV century, and "ANY Era of the first phase of the Peloponnesian War" is a reflection of the Emperor Andronicus-Christ from the XII century. On the pages of Plutarch and Thucydides, the “two halves of Nikiya” mistakenly became close in time and merged, glued together in one literary image. So now, by “cutting Nikiya’s biography” in two and pushing the “two halves” along the time axis by about two hundred years, we are probably restoring the real story. "The first half of Nikiya" refers to the XII century, and the "second part" - to the XIV century.

It is possible that in this case the name NIKI was obtained as a result of a reverse reading of the word KHAN. So from the Horde Khan Mamaia could "get" the Athenian NIKI.

Horde Khan Mamai was defeated and killed by enemies. Similarly, the Athenian commander Nicias was defeated and killed by enemies.

Chronicle Sicily, Cyclops and Kulikovo field[edit | edit source]

A tale of Thucydides[edit | edit source]

What is known about LETROPISNAYA Sicily? That is, not about the modern island of Sicily, but about that country or region, which in ancient sources is called "Sicily"? As we already understand, these can be different things.

Thucydides reports interesting information about the chronicles of Sicily.

"The majority of Sicily and the number of its Hellenic and barbarian population MOST OF ATHENS did not have any representation, and did not even suspect that they were undertaking a war almost as serious as the Peloponnesian ...

Already in antiquity, the entire island was inhabited by various nations. According to legend, the most ancient inhabitants of Sicily were KIKLOPY and lestrigons living in one part of it. Who they came from, where they came from and where they left later, I can’t tell you anything ... After them, the SIKANS were the first to settle on the island. According to their own statements, the Sikans lived on the island even before KIKLOPOV and lestrigonov as indigenous people ... By their name, the island was then called SIKANIA, and even earlier Trinacria. However, the Sikans still live in the western part of the island. AFTER ILION IS TAKEN, TRIUNES, WHICH HAVE REMOVED FROM AHEIS, ARRIVED BY SHIPS TO SICILY. There they settled next door to the Sykans ... As for the SIKULS, they ... crossed over to Sicily from Italy (where they used to live) ... Siculae still live in Italy, and on behalf of one of their king, Ital the country became known as Italy. SICULAS arrived in SICILIA with a large army and, having won the battle of the Sikans, pushed them aside to the south and west of the island, and today the island instead of SIKANIA received a new name SICILY

Syracuse founded ... Corinthian Archean from the Heraklides clan, first dropping the SICULS from the island of Ortigia, where the inner city is now no longer washed by the sea. Later, the outer city was also surrounded by a wall AND BECAME A MULTIPLE "[924], pp. 262-263.

By the way, it is possible that the name SICILY in this “ancient” Greek plot turned out to be a slight distortion of the name KULIK - maybe KULAK - and comes from KULIKOVA field. Indeed, in Greek, SICILY is written as SIKELIA [988: 00], "Sicily". In addition, the "ancient" authors claim that three different tribes originally inhabited Sicily: the Sikans, the Sikels-Sikuly and the Edyma, "of which FIRST TWO gave the name to the island" [988: 00], "Sicily".

In addition, in Latin the letter C can be read as both C and K, and therefore "Sicily" could sometimes sound like "Kikiliya", although they wrote S instead of C in front, which also brings this name closer to KULIK, KULAK, KULIKOVO field . In addition, the Russian letter C coincides with the Latin letter C.

Thus, it is possible that the name "Sicilian Battle" originally meant "Battle of Kulikovo".

Further, the capital of Sicily is the city of Syracuse. It is not excluded that the ancient chronicles of Syracuse were located not at all in modern Italy, but in the territory of the Horde Moscow. And originally the name SYRACUSE could mean something like KING-KAZA, that is, the Royal Cossacks, that is, the Royal Horde. When the “ancient” Rome, that is, Russia-Horde of the XIII-XVI centuries, was transferred - on paper and on maps - from Russia to the territory of modern Italy, the CAROSKAKAHs also “moved” in the same direction, turning into the name SYRACUZA.

As we always emphasize, such linguistic considerations in themselves do not prove anything and acquire meaning only when the correspondence between the “ancient” and medieval events has already been established by other objective methods.

Cyclops and Sicily in gigantomachy. Cyclops and Sicily in the history of the Sicily war of Athens against Syracuse[edit | edit source]

In the previous chapter, we showed that the famous Olympic Myth of Creation is a reflection of the Kulikovo battle. The main heroes of the battle between the gods and the Titans were the Cyclopes, who symbolized both the guns and the soldiers of the Kulikovo Field, see above. In addition, the "ancient" mythology connects the Cyclopes precisely with Sicily. As Thucydides points out, the Cyclopes and the lestrigons were the ANCIENT population of the chronicle of Sicily. They lived here before the Trojans from the burned Troy arrived here after the Trojan War, see above.

Here Thucydides understands everything correctly. The Russian-Horde population of the central part of Russia - the "Cyclopes", including the future Muscovy, existed in these places even before the arrival of the Trojan King Aeneas, along with his companions. That is, even before the creation by the king Aeneas in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia of the new Kingdom, which inherited the deceased Tsar-Gradsky kingdom of the 11th-12th centuries. Recall that the Trojan War occurred at the end of the XII - the beginning of the XIII century. Fig. 3.6 and Fig. 3.7 are images of several climaxes of the Trojan War, that is, the events of the Crusade of 1204. The Trojan Aeneas, whose ancestors were originally from Russia, was reflected in the Russian annals as Prince Rurik, who created a single state in the place of a large number of separate principalities. Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show frescoes depicting Aeneas’s flight from Troy with the “father” in her arms. Another old image of this story is presented in Figure 3.10, Figure 3.11. It also shows the "white pig with piglets." See the details in our book "The Beginning of the Horde Russia".

fig.3.6
fig.3.7
fig.3.8
fig.3.9
fig.3.10
fig.3.11
fig.3.12
fig.3.13
fig.3.14
fig.3.15

So, since in the prehistory of the Sicilian war, the Cyclops giants from the chronicle of Sicily reappear, we can immediately express the idea that the "ancient" Sicilian war is another reflection of the Kulikovo battle. The war was religious, was a turning point in the history of the Great Empire. Hence the great importance attached in the "ancient" chronicles of both the "oldest" gigantomachy and the Sicilian battle, allegedly in the 5th century BC. Because it was the same thing. In the era of the XVI-XVIII centuries, the topic of gigantomachia was one of the most popular in art. Some examples we have shown in the previous chapter. Here are the fragments of another great work devoted to the war of the Cyclopes and the Titans. The famous Giulio Romano and his workshop painted a large hall with frescoes in one of the palaces of Mantua, in Italy, called the “Hall of the Giants”.

Fig.3.12 shows the wall of the hall, which, in particular, shows Cyplop Polyphemus. He is described in the Homeric story of Odyssey. See also fig.3.13. Later artists, forgetting that the basis of this mythological plot are stories about cannons, neatly painted a large eye in the forehead of Polyphemus, that is, as we understand it, the mouth of the gun, also depicted as the head of Medusa-Gorgon, Fig.3.14. Then, probably, the artists pondered and added two more eyes - already human ones. They did it in vain, because the myth clearly states that the Cyclopes were one-eyed, not three-eyed. In Figure 3.15, we present another image of the head of the Medusa-Gorgon, which symbolized the barrel of a cannon.

fig.3.16

In the hand of Polyphemus - a monstrous club. In his other hand he holds a pipe. As we showed in the book "The Baptism of Rus", firearms are described in old books as well as "flute", "harp", "zither" and "harp", that is, as "musical instruments." For example, in the history of the biblical David. Later editors worked here, carefully scrubbing descriptions of cannons, muskets, musketons, as well as high-speed machine-gun batteries, such as the late Nartov battery, from "antiquity". Replaced the thunder of artillery with the sounds of harps or art. Figure 3.16 shows another image of Cyplop Polyphemus asleep. In his forehead - his eye, next to him is a huge "pipe".

fig.3.17
fig.3.18
fig.3.19
fig.3.20
fig.3.21
fig.3.22
fig.3.23
fig.3.24
fig.3.25
fig.3.26
fig.3.27

Fig.3.17, fig.3.18, fig.3.19, fig.3.20, fig.3.21, fig.3.22, fig.3.23, fig.3.24, fig.3.25, fig.3.26 show fragments of frescoes from the Hall of Giants in the Palazzo del Te, city ​​of Mantua, Italy. Depicted the battle of Zeus and the Cyclopes against Crohn, Atlanta and the Titans. The Titans are down. It can be seen that in Western Europe in the XV-XVI centuries, the Kulikovo battle was greatly respected. In the hands of Zeus - fiery Perun, whom he defeats enemies, Fig.3.27. So the artist Giulio Romano and his colleagues portrayed firearms. The true story is already forgotten and its place was replaced by beautiful fantasies. Fairy-tale illustrations to ancient books, talking about events of about a century or two centuries ago. In general, it would seem that not so much time has passed. But it is clear how quickly real events were forgotten under the pressure of Scaligerian editors of the Reformation era.

So, the chain of our reasoning is as follows.

  • Sources report that the Sicilian war was supposedly in the 5th century BC. occurred in the chronicles of Sicily, where the Trojan Aeneas once arrived with satellites after the fall of Troy.
  • As we showed earlier, King Aeneas came from Troy = Tsar-Grada to Russia in the 13th century, where he founded the New Kingdom - Russia-Orda, the heir to the Tsar-Gradsky Kingdom.
  • Consequently, the chronicle Sicily was in Russia. Moreover, in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia.
  • Cyclopes lived in the chronicle of Sicily.
  • Cyclopes participated in gigantomachy, that is, in the Kulikovo battle of 1380.
  • Consequently, Kulikovo Field was located on the chronicle of Sicily. Since Kulikovo Field is, according to our results, the territory of Moscow, it turns out that the center of the chronicle of Sicily was precisely the Moscow Region.
  • Chronicled Etna is Tana = Athens, that is, Don. That was the name of, in particular, the Moscow River.
  • Then, during the second wave of the great = "Mongol" conquest, the troops of Russia-Horde and Osmania-Atamania colonized modern Italy and Sicily. Here were transferred - on paper - some place names from Russia-Horde. In particular: Sicily, Etna, Cyclops.
  • Thucydides reports that the ancient Sicily was inhabited by such ancient peoples as SICULAS and SICANY. Probably, the word SICULAS, like SICILY, comes from the word CAM, cams, fights on cams. Hence the name KULIKOVA field. The name SIKANA is close to the word SCANIA, which was called ancient Russia = Scythia, see "Empire", ch.21-22. From here also went another famous name - SCANDI-Navia. By the way, the third most ancient people who lived in the chronicle of Sicily, were edyms. Probably, their name comes from the Russian word HOME. Thus, we understood the names of ALMOST ALL PEOPLE, since the very beginning, according to Fukidid, who inhabited Sicily. By the way, here, according to Thucydides, there was both the city GELA, and the river GELA [924], p.263.

The question is, why did the “classics” call the chronicle Sicily ISLAND? After all, the Moscow region and Russia-Horde in general is not an island at all. We have already put forward the explanation, see. "The New Chronology of Rus," ch. 18: 5. In Latin the word ISLAND is written as INSULA. But after all "insula" is, most likely, the Slavic word POPULATION, POPULATION, POPULATION. That is, INSULA is a place populated by people where the POPULATION lives. Hence the name UNIVERSE. Then, when the Latin insula also acquired the meaning of a geographic island, confusion sometimes arose. And so it was that, for example, in the English old chronicles of RUS, they often called the ISLAND, see “New Chronology of Rus,” ch. 18. And later commentators, no longer understanding the reasons for the confusion, began to articulate thoughtfully - in which sense, can huge Russia be considered an island? By the way, the English ISLAND = island could also come from the combination of ISA-LAND, that is, "Jesus-Country", the country of Jesus. Hence, on behalf of ISY = JESUS, the name ASIA could have come into being.

Perhaps another quite logical explanation for why some Western European chroniclers mistakenly thought of Russia as an "island." In the era of Russia-Horde XIV-XVI centuries, Western travelers, merchants, embassies, couriers, etc., arriving in Russia, mainly sought to its central metropolitan areas. That is, in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, and later to Moscow. On the Volga there was a huge Yaroslavl = Novgorod Fair. Here was an active bargaining with overseas lands, there were the stakes of the Horde king-khan. It is clear that these lands attracted the increased attention of Western Europeans. Interest was also fueled by the fact that the Horde jealously watched its state secrets and allowed foreigners far from everywhere. Movement on the territory of the Great Metropolis = "Mongolian" Empire for the majority of visitors from distant provinces was very limited. Therefore, on the one hand, they tried to learn more about Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. On the other hand, real data, including geographic data, leaked out a little. Let us ask ourselves - how could foreign immigrants imagine the geography of an imperial metropolis?

fig.3.28
fig.3.29
fig.3.30

Take a look at the map of Central Russia, fig.3.28. Arriving here, mainly by sea and river routes, travelers, merchants and diplomats sooner or later found themselves on the Volga River. In the distance, Yaroslavl showed = Veliky Novgorod. The huge Russian river hit many. They did not see anything like it in Western Europe. This river was "like the sea", especially at the time of the spills. Other large rivers, for example, the Oka, flow into the Volga. Together, they, in particular, the Volga, the Oka and the Moskva River, outline a rather large region, within which the main cities of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia are located, as well as Moscow, Fig.3.29, Fig.3.30. It turns out like a big island surrounded by water. By the way, today this area has indeed become even more similar to the island, since the later, a canal was dug through which connected the Moscow River with the Volga. By the way, the channel is not very long. On the above map, it is marked with a short jagged line. But even when there was no canal, a large area was, with the exception of a small isthmus, surrounded by water from almost all sides. In the view of foreigners who were vaguely guided in the geographical realities of the time and under the restrictions imposed by the Horde authorities, Vladimir-Suzdal Russia could well be perceived as an island. On which supposedly "Russia is located." Moreover, overseas merchants and travelers moved mainly along rivers. Therefore, having passed the Volga and then climbing up the Oka, and then along the Moskva River, the sailors, watching the position of the sun, of course, quickly realized that their ship was moving around some large land, rounding it around, as it were, on the "strait".

Thus, an erroneous idea of ​​Russia surrounded by a large body of water, the “sea,” could come into use. Then they forgot about the root causes of such geographical distortions. And the word "island" in the chronicles remains.

But back to Thucydides, to the description of the Sicilian War.

In general, Thucydides lists many peoples who appeared later in the chronicle of Sicily. According to him, this country was densely populated, there were many cities [924], pp.263-264. Not bad meets our ideas about Vladimir-Suzdal Russia - the metropolis of Russia-Horde. There really were many cities, many nations, there were rich fertile lands.

Due to the confusion between the "HUMAN SETTLEMENT" and "ISLAND (insula)" late chroniclers, in particular, Thucydides, began to write a lot about SWIMMING in Sicily, about the big FLEET. Of course, in reality, the troops of Khan Mamai and Dmitry Donskoy used the Moskva River and other nearby rivers for movement, but the Kulikovo battle was mostly land. Although at some moments they also fought on the water, for example, on the Yauza River, see “New Chronology of Rus,” ch. 6.

In addition, in the story of Thucydides on the Sicilian campaign merged, as we have said, two events. The first is the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. The second is the colonization and settlement of modern Italy, including the islands of Sicily, in the XIV century. There, in the Mediterranean, the Horde Cossack troops sailed, of course, on large ships-struga.

The army of aggressor Nikius – it is a huge army of professionals. The same is told about the army of aggressor khan Mamay[edit | edit source]

In the Sicilian War allegedly V century BC.the aggressor was the Athenians, led by Nikias. They attacked Sicily. Thucydides says: "So many Hellenic and barbaric nationalities lived in Sicily, and against such a large island (insula = population - Auth.) 924], p.

Further, Thucydides gives a great speech by Nikiya, that is, here Khan Mamai, in which he talks about the future war. Nikiyas hesitates, realizing how dangerous this military campaign will be. However, the pressure of the “party of war” is so strong that in the end Nikki agrees to launch an invasion [924], pp. 271-272. By the way, Nicias again emphasizes that Sicily is a country "with a large population" [924], p. 266.

"Antique classics" constantly say that the army of the Athenians was very large and equipped with professional fighters, see above. Plutarch adds that Niki "spent the winter, spending a lot on maintaining the HUGE MILITARY" [660], v.2, p.226.

Thucydides notes: “ALL THE ATHENS HAVE BEEN EQUALLY SEIZED by the desire of the people to leave for the rest of the people to be left. Others hoped to conquer the cities there, believing that SO STRONG FIGHTING FORCES IN ANY WAY CANNOT HAVE TO LEFT THE DAMAGE ... Most of the simple people in any way CANNOT HAVE TO LIVE the same spread the dominion of the Athenian power ... the passionate attraction of the majority of the people by the Sicilian campaign was so strong that even those whom this idea was not to their liking, were silent for fear of passing through the inappropriate gracious Zhdaninom "[924], p.273.

The late rationalist editor Thucydides assures us that the main motive of the Sicilian war was simply the desire for large-scale plunder and the spread of Athens' influence on new lands. But we already understand that the essence of the matter is most likely another. The inevitably impending conflict was RELIGIOUS. Khan Mamai, that is, here Nicke, led the royal, tribal Christians, who fiercely resisted the growth of influence of the apostolic Christians. Who relied on all the growing state support of Tsar Khan Dmitry Donskoy. Hence the "passion" of the majority of the Athenian people = Mameyans to attack Sicily-Kilikia. In this case, people were attracted to the campaign, rather, not thoughts of robbery, but religious feelings - to defend their faith, to defeat the apostolic trend in which they hated Christianity.Hence the intransigence and exceptional brutality of the Sicilian campaign = of the Kulikovo battle. They fought not for money, but for faith. Robbery faded into the background.

So, "in mid-summer, the squadron sailed to Sicily ...

The contemplation of all the POWERFUL PREPARATIONS that were before their eyes inspired some vigor to the citizens. The strangers and the rest of the people gathered for the sake of this GREAT PROCESS (the speeches of the army of Nikia on the march - Auth.), Realizing that this is about the ENTERPRISE SIGNIFICANT AND EXCELLENT ANY IMAGINATION. Indeed, so far a expensive and magnificent fleet has never before equipped or launched a Hellenistic state ... It was a long-term expedition, and therefore it was supplied with people, ships and equipment for all cases - AS FOR MARINE, SO AND FOR THE LAND WAR ...

All ships (Nikiya - Auth.) Were equipped with the best teams of rowers ...

The ground army consisted of selected people who tried their best to surpass each other with their equipment and armor ... However, the rest of the Hellenes all this seemed more like a demonstration of the power and wealth of the Athenians than the charges for the campaign against the enemy ...

THIS TRIP BECAME FAMOUS and excited no less surprise with the boldness of the enterprise and the magnificence of the spectacle, than with the superiority of combat power over the enemy, against which he went. After all, the Athenians had never had to send such a huge fleet to such a long voyage "[924], p.276.

Most likely, here we were told that a part of Mamai’s troops was preparing to sail along the DON, that is, along the Moscow River.

Thucydides continues: "After the ships were manned and took all the necessary cargo on board, the trumpeter sounded the silence signal. Then they all said the usual before sending the prayer ... repeating the words of the prayer for the herald. On all the ships the chiefs and soldiers mixed in bowls wine, made libations from gold and silver cups. Together with them the rest of the citizens and friends of the Athenians also prayed on the shore ... According to the performance of the pean and after making libations, the ships went out to sea "[924], p.276.

After such preparations, a huge flotilla was removed from the anchor and moved to Sicily. Thucydides long lists the composition of the fleet and ground forces [924], p.282. This is clearly about the upcoming battle of the peoples. In the army of the Athenians - many allies. In particular, there were "134 triremes and 2 fifty-seat Rhodian ships. Of these, there were 100 Athenian triremes, including 60 fast, and the rest were transport ships for the transport of soldiers. Other ships belonged to the Chios and other allies. The total number of hoplites was 5,100. there were 1,500 Athenian citizens listed as servicemen, 700 fets serving in the marines, the rest of the hoplites were set up by allies ... 500 of the hoplites were sent by Argos and Mantineas and, in addition, 250 more were recruited. Archers were only 480 .. kind sskih slingers - 120lightly armed megar exiles - 120 ...

Such were the military forces with which the FIRST expedition crossed over for military operations in Sicily (then considerable additional Athenian troops approached - Auth.). In addition, warships were followed by 30 transports with foodstuffs, with bakers, masons, and carpenters with the necessary tools for building siege structures on board. The squadron was also accompanied by 100 small vessels ... In addition, a large number of merchant ships and other vessels voluntarily joined the military flotilla "[924], p.282.

We repeat that in this plot the "ancient" name of ATHENA most likely indicates DON = TANU. That is, the area around Moscow is the DON area. Previously, the word DON was called the river in general, see the book "New Chronology of Rus".

So, the invasion has begun. The aggressor is strong, his troops are numerous and professional.


Sicilians learn about the beginning of invasion of Athenians. Initial doubts in the camp of Sicilians = Kulikovians. Then a national levy was collected[edit | edit source]

Recall that in the history of the Kulikovo battle, all Russian sources note the deep hesitations of Prince Dmitry Donskoy - is it worth it to get involved in a war with Mamai and is it not better to end the cause with peace, agreeing with Horde. Moreover, at first St. Sergius of Radonezh was inclined towards such a strategy. The idea of ​​paying Mom a big tribute and avoiding a direct military confrontation was discussed. The Russian chronicles pay much attention to these oscillations before the battle. Similarly, in one of the vivid reflections of the Kulikov battle, namely, on the pages of the ancient Indian Epic Mahabharata, a whole book called “Bhagavadgita” is dedicated to these profound reflections and hesitations before the grandiose religious battle on Kuru = Kulu field. See the details in our book "Cossacks-arias: from Russia to India".

Literally the same thing we see in the history of the Sicilian War. The Sicilian-Kulikovs at first do not believe the rumors of an invasion at all, and then at first they want to avoid the battle.

This is what it looks like in the presentation of Thucydides.

<< Meanwhile in Syracuse came from different places news about the expedition of the Athenians. HOWEVER, LONG TIME NO ONE WANT TO BELIEVE THIS. Even in the national assembly, opinions were divided: some considered the news of the Athenian campaign to be true, while others claimed the opposite. Then Hermocrates the son of Hermon spoke at the meeting ... He made the following speech ...

"When danger threatens the city, the fear of being foolish will not keep me silent ... the Athenians ... really come at us with a large fleet and numerous land forces ... striving to conquer Sicily and especially our city ... THERE IS A HUGE POWER THERE: it can have a beneficial effect on the behavior of the other Sicilians ...

So, we will courageously prepare for war "...

After such a speech of Hermokrat, AMONG SIRAKUZYAN, STORMED PREPARATIONS BEGIN. Some argued that the Athenians would not come under any circumstances, and all Hermocrates' claims were false. Others asked: "What harm can they do to us, without having suffered even more?" There were those who scornfully mocked the speech of Hermocrates. Only a few believed Hermocratic and looked at the future with fear. Then the LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ATHINAGOR, A MAN THERE TIME MOST RESPECTED IN THE PEOPLE, made a speech >> [924], p.278-279.

Read More Thucydides sets out the long speech of Athenagoras. By the way, the arguments of Hermocrates were also supposedly quite verbose. Athenagoras declares that the rumors about the Athenian military campaign are false, invented by different people to achieve their low goals, etc.

Then one of the military leaders rose and proposed to the people's assembly of the Syracusans — the royal Cossacks? - Consider Athenagoras' final speech. In addition, - said the commander, whose name Thucydides for some reason does not name, - it is now unwise for us to make mutual accusations. If we really have to fight, then we should start preparing for war. Spies, ambassadors should be sent in all directions and commence the collection of troops and equipment.

We set out this story very briefly. In fact, for Thucydides these disputes take up several pages. This shows that the Sicilians = Kulikovites were very excited and tried to figure out what was going on.

So, the opinion of the WARRIOR, who, in spite of stormy discussions, announced the beginning of the preparation for the war, prevailed.

Probably here Thucydides told us about the hesitations of Dmitry Donskoy, Sergius of Radonezh and their advisers - is it worth it to go to war with Mom. Probably, the "ancient" Hermocrates, Athenagoras and the Syracuse military leader are reflections of Sergius of Radonezh and Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine I.

As in the Russian chronicles, in the end, it is the WARPERSON REPRESENTS THE DEBATE AND ANNOUNCES THE COLLECTION OF A WAR FOR WAR. It is, apparently, about Prince Dmitry Donskoy, who announced the gathering of the national militia to repel Mamai.

Thucydides coverage of events in the Sicilian camp = Kulikovans is more foggy than in the Athenians' camp = Don Mamayevs. We have already said that the history of the Sicilian War is described mainly from the camp of Khan Mamai. Therefore, information about Dmitry Donskoy from Fukidid and Plutarch was less. Even the name of the Sicilian commander was not mentioned.

However, under the name of the Sicilian = Kulikova HERMOKRATA, it is likely that Prince Dmitry Donskoy was described. Already after the start of the Sicilian War, Thucydides reports the following about him.

“Here Germocrat, son of Germon, a man of outstanding intellect, distinguished by the poker experience and blessed with achievement, spoke out. He began to encourage citizens, urging them not to lose heart because of military failure. And the defeat of the Syracusans is not so great, all the more so since they, IN AN EXPERIENCED FIGHTER, CAN BE SAID, TO THE STUDENTS IN MILITARY AFFAIRS, HAPPENED TO FIGHT AGAINST THE WARRIORS IN THE ELLADA ...

After listening to Germokrat, the Syracusans decided to accept all his proposals and chose only three commanders: Hermokrat himself, Heraklides, the son of Lysimachus, and Sikan, the son of Exekstes. Syracusans also sent ambassadors to Corinth and Lacedaemon to ask for help "[924], p. 294.

It must be said that at first the Athenians scornfully regarded the Sicilians as soldiers. For example, the Athenian Alkibiades, addressing his fellow citizens before the start of the Sicilian War, with the following skeptical words describes the state of the Sicilian army.

"Do not change your decision to go to Sicily, for fear of meeting there a mighty enemy. Indeed, the large population of Sicilian cities is the TEAM CROWD: these cities easily change their citizens and accept new ones. Therefore, no one has weapons to defend their homeland or themselves and in the cities there are no necessary facilities for defense ... Therefore, it is unbelievable that a similar SWEDL, unable even to listen unanimously at a meeting of the speaker, could together take on an important matter ...

We can count on the help of many barbarians who, out of hate for the Syracusans, will attack them with us ...

We will beat the arrogance of the Peloponnesians when they see that we, ignoring the calm that has now been reached, have decided to sail to Sicily "[924], pp.270-271.

So, after invading PROFESSIONALS, Nikiya = Mamaia, the Sicilians, after long hesitations, were opposed by an insufficiently experienced PEOPLE'S OFFENSION Hermokrat = Dmitry. Exactly the same picture is observed before the Kulikovo battle: Prince Dmitry gathers people's militia, and Khan Mamai, on the contrary, leads most of the regular Horde troops into battle.

Signs before the Battle of Sicily = Kulikovo, advantageous for the intruding troops of Nikius = Mamay[edit | edit source]

Before the Battle of Kulikovo, Prince Dmitry = Emperor Constantine had a heavenly vision. A Fire Cross appeared, thanks to which Dmitry-Konstantin managed to defeat the enemy. In the biblical version, the same plot is described as a night vision given to the enemies of Dmitry-Gideon and predicted to them, the Midianites, defeat.

A similar event is described in the history of the Sicilian War. First, it is said about the lunar eclipse, see above. It was regarded in the camp of the Athenians as unfavorable. And further: "It is said ... that the priests also reported many augurs unfavorable to the campaign" [660], v.2, p.223. In addition, as we have already discussed, Plutarch and Thucydides report the mysterious "destruction of the divine germs" about what happened at this time, which caused a lot of rumors and interpretations. The event was considered a very bad sign in Athens.

On the lunar eclipse that occurred before the Sicilian battle, we have already spoken in Chapter 1. On the one hand, there is a reference to the solar eclipse that occurred in 1185, that is, in the year of the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ. The eclipse is spoken of in the Gospels. On the other hand, the description of the eclipse of Plutarch and Thucydides absorbed the story of the heavenly sign to the emperor Constantine the Great = Dmitry before the Kulikovo battle of 1380. As we said, the chroniclers confused the events of the end of the XII and the end of the XIV century because of the "double" Baptism of Russia-Horde. Plutarch gives this sign-eclipse exceptional importance. He devotes a whole page to his discussion [660], v.2, pp. 231-232. He says that the eclipse inspired great fear to Nikia and all the Athenians as a bad omen before the march on Sicily.

Thus, we see here a good correspondence with the history of the Kulikovo battle and the heavenly omens to Konstantin = Dmitry.

A parade of the troops of Dmitry Donskoy before the Battle of Kulikovo and a parade of Sicilian troops of Hermocrates before the Battle of Sicily[edit | edit source]

As we discussed in detail in the book “New Chronology of Rus,” chapter 6, before the Kulikovo battle, Dmitry Donskoy gave an overview of his forces on the Maiden Field. “More than 150 thousand horsemen and footmen joined the ranks, and Dmitri, having gone to the VERY WONDERFUL FIELD, with spiritual joy, saw the militia so numerous” [362], v.5, ch.1, art.37; [635], pp. 154-155. Moreover, the "Legend of Mamai Massacre" direct text says the following: "In the morning, the great prince commanded all soldiers to go to the FIELD TO THE VIRGIN MONASTERY" [635], p.155, "on the field to Divich".

As part of our reconstruction, we indicated the Maiden's Field and the Maiden Monastery in Moscow. The first option is the famous field in the bend of the Moscow River, on the left bank, where today stands the Novodevichy Monastery. This huge field was called the NATIONAL FIELD [554], p.246. Until now, the names have remained here: “The Driveway of the Maiden's Field”, previously simply “the Maiden Field”, then - the Novodevichy Embankment, the Novodevichy Lane.

The second option is the Maiden Monastery, Babiy Gorodok and Polyanka on the right bank of the Moscow River. I must say that the place near Babiy Gorod was really well suited for the review of the troops. Today here is October Square, Polyanka, Bolshaya Polyanka streets. These names themselves indicate that once there was a BIG FIELD in this place.

Note that in both cases, the Moscow River flows nearby.

It is interesting that the Sicilian Hermocrates is Dmitry? - also arranges for his troops to review before the battle. "The Syracusans decided to occupy the approaches to Epipolas so that the enemy could not rise to the height unnoticed ... The descent goes INCLINE TO THE CITY in such a way that the whole city is visible from the hill ... Hermocrates and their comrades have now taken up the post of commanders. AT DAWN IT WENT TO THE MEADOW AT THE ANAPA RIVER, WHERE THE MILITARY STATES HAVE BEGINNED THE VIEW OF THE FIGHTING FORCES ...

At night, preceding the watching of the Syracuse army, the Athenians arrived from the Katana with the entire fleet and early in the morning, unnoticed by the Syracusans, landed with the land forces near the place called Leonte "[924], pp.305-306.

So, both the Russians and the “ancient” Greek records report on the review of the people's militia on a large meadow on the bank of the river.

By the way, the sources do not say anything about the inspection of the Athenian troops before the start of the Sicilian battle and the review of the troops of Khan Mamai before the Kulikovo battle. It is a question only of reviewing the troops of their opponents, that is, of Germokrat-Dmitry.

A duel before the Battle of Kulikovo and a duel before the Battle of Sicily. Both warriors die in the fight[edit | edit source]

fig.3.31

As we know, before the start of the Kulikov battle there was a famous duel between the monk Peresvet and the Horde Chelubey. Both riders pierced each other with spears and died on the spot [631], p.285. In the Bible, this fight is described as the battle of David = Dmitry, Peresvet with the giant Goliath = Mamai, Chelubey, fig.3.31.

It should be expected that something similar should appear in the history of the Sicilian = Kulikovo battle. The wait is justified. This is what Plutarch tells. The second commander in the army of the Athenians after Nikias was Lamah.

"Once the disease especially tormented him (Nikiya - Avt.), He could not get up and stayed in the camp with a small number of servants. Lamah took command and engaged in battle with the Syracusans, who erected a wall from the city’s side, which the Athenians were building; in this way the Syracusans should have prevented the enemy from closing the ring around the city.

Feeling like winners, the Athenians upset the ranks and rushed to pursue the enemy, and LAMAHA HAD NOT A LITTLE WITHOUT ONE HAS TO MEET THE NATIS OF THE NON-GIFT HEAD. HAS BEEN HER CALICRATE, MANLY AND HOT HOT. CALLED FOR HIS COMBATS, LAMAH HAD A DECLINATION WITH HIM, THE FIRST GOT A SHOCK, THEN HIT THE CAM, DROPED AND DIED TOGETHER WITH CALLICRATE. Having seized his body and weapons, the Syracusans rushed to the Athenian wall "[660], v.2, p.227.

Before us is an almost literal description of Peresvet's fight with Chelubey. Indeed.

  • In both versions, the duel precedes the main battle. The fight takes place in front of both troops.
  • Both players are horsemen. They send horses towards each other and almost simultaneously pierce each other.
  • Both players are killed on the spot by the opponent’s strike.
  • In this "ancient" Greek version, the name of one of the conquerors is CALLICRAT, and his opponent is LAMAX. Perhaps in the name LAMAH the biblical GOLIAF sounds remotely. That is, Chelubey Russian chronicles, Chelubey = Chelo + Bey. Recall that Goliath was struck by a stone in the forehead, in the brow. In addition, in the reflection of the Kulikovo battle, called the "ancient" Greek chroniclers Marathon battle, see Chapter 1, we also saw the duel before the battle. In addition, the polemarch CALIMAX dies in the Marathon battle. Both the "ancient" Greek names CALLIMAH and CALLICRAT probably correspond to each other. And besides, in combination CALLY, the name GOLIATH also probably sounds. Later chroniclers were confused - who among the conquerors was called Goliath = Chelo + Bey. As a result, this biblical name "walked" from one

single to another.

By the way, Thucydides mentions the death of Lamaha very sparingly, without details. Here are his words: “Lamah hurried to the left wing to help with a small detachment of archers and argostsy. However, crossing some ditch, he was cut off by several enemies with the enemy and died along with five or six others. Syracuse quickly picked up the fallen and moved out of the river to a safe place "[924], p.308.

This shows that the battle was developing, in particular, on the river bank. In the Kulikovo battle, the warriors actually fought on the Moscow River, the Naprudnaya River and on the banks of the Yauza River.

Biblical Goliath, laughing at Israelites and laugh of Athenians at Gyllipos before the final Battle of Sicily[edit | edit source]

In the Bible, the Kulikovo battle is described as the battle of David with the giant Goliath. At the same time, Goliath enters the battlefield and loudly calls out one of the Israelis to a fight, mocking and mocking them. David accepts the challenge and goes to battle with Goliath, very simply dressed, without heavy weapons, having in his hands only a "stick" and "sling with stones." Goliath mocks David and his "weapon." However, David aptly throws a stone from a sling and kills the giant outright. See the details in our book "The Baptism of Rus".

It is this version of the Kulikovo battle that is included, it turns out, in the "ancient" book of Plutarch. That's what he says.

"At this decisive moment, Gongil arrived on a trier from Corinth, and the Syracusans who had run to him learned that they WILL COME TO GILIPP (Spartan commander - Auth.) HELP THEM ... Gongil was not yet determined to believe how the messenger from Gilippe already appeared the Syracusans took up arms, and Gillip, right from the road, set up the warriors in battle order, and led them to Athenianus. BEAUTIFUL SLIPPING FROM SICILY. Nicias did not bother to answer him. Some of the soldiers with a laugh ask, do one of the Spartan COAT sticks and so strengthened the Syracusans that they are no longer afraid of the Athenians, who were kept in chains, and brought back the Lacedaemonians three hundred feasible Gylippus And wearing longer hair THAN HE. Timaeus reports that the Sicilians did not respect Gilippe ... at the very first acquaintance BAD ON HIS HAIR AND WRAPPED CREAM. The same writer further reports that to Gilypp, as a sudden owl, many people came and willingly got up od his team ... It came to him because they were looking on a stick and a cloak, as a symbol of the Spartan ADVANTAGES. That all the subsequent developments in Sicily was the merit of Gilippe, was considered not only by Thucydides, but also by the Syracusans Philist, an eyewitness of these events "[660], v.2, p.228.

Thucydides also talks about this event, but more sparingly. And even somehow faceless and abstract. Plutarch's narrative is much more saturated and contains more important details. Nevertheless, we quote and Thucydides to complete the picture.

"Suddenly, the attack of Ghilippe and the Siracusans first led the Athenians to confusion, but then they nevertheless lined up in battle order around their walls. will leave Sicily. The Athenians, however, dismissively rejected the proposal, TOGETHER HEARING AT ALL WITHOUT ANSWER. After that, both sides began to prepare for battle "[924], p.312.

Here, in the stories of Plutarch and Thucydides, in a slightly confused form are presented many of the highlights of the biblical story of David and Goliath, that is, the Kulikovo battle. Judge for yourself.

  • According to the Bible, the giant Goliath, a great warrior, appears in front of the army of Israel.

According to Plutarch, before the army of the Athenians, the Spartan Ghilippe appears, an outstanding commander who had a great influence on the development of the entire Sicilian war. The names GOLIAF and GILIPP are close, since P and F could go into each other.

  • According to the Bible, Goliath goes out in front of the Israelites and loudly calls them to a duel, mocking them. Israelis are afraid, no one dares to accept the challenge. Thus, at first they leave Goliath’s cries unanswered, remain silent, like the Athenians.

According to Plutarch, Ghilippe stopped right in front of his enemies, the Athenians, and sent a herald to them, in a loud cry to convey to them their permission to leave the country. In both versions, a LOUD CREAM or a LOUD VOICE is mentioned, sounding on the field before the battle. Further, both versions speak of mockery on the part of Goliath-Gilipp. The words of Ghilippe, that he allows the Athenians who invaded Sicily, to leave the country without hindrance and immediately, can only be regarded as a frank mockery. Two troops lined up against each other and the commander of one of them suddenly shouts out through the herald that, they say, "you can leave, I will not touch you." Clearly, this is a slap in the face of the enemy.

  • The Bible says about the "stick, sling, and stones" in the hands of David, who went into battle. As we have previously shown, here it was actually talking about guns - "stick" and "stones" - and gunpowder - "sling." The Bible says: "And he took (David - Avt.) REDUCED into his hand, and chose five smooth stones from the brook for himself, and put them in a shepherd's bag ... and with a bag and with GRAIN in his hand he spoke out against the Philistine (Goliath - Auth.) ... And the Philistine looked, and seeing David, looked at him with contempt, for he was young, BELOKUR and handsome face. And the Philistine said: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ME WITH A STICK [and with stones]? Am I a dog ? ... And David put his hand into his bag and took out a stone from there, and threw it out of the campaign and struck the Philistine in the forehead "(1 Samuel 17:40, 17:43, 17:49).

We repeat that the STICK in the hands of David is probably the WOODEN GUN, the shot of which hit the enemy. The first guns, made of wood trunks, could well be called sticks. From them was fired, from the barrel burst fire.

At Plutarch we see something similar. He speaks of the PALK AND GROUNDING of the Spartan Hylipp. True, he relates these subjects to Gilippe-Goliath, instead of attributing them to the Athenian commander. As it should be with accurate presentation of the Kulikov battle. However, both important subjects are mentioned here. Probably, the “stick of Gilippe” is the “stick of David”, and the “cloak of Gilippe” is the “sling of David”. Maybe the words CROWN and CREAM were tangled for the reason that when switching to Р-Л the Russian word CROWN, that is, in this case, PORI, turns into CREAM. And the old imperial chronicles were probably written in Slavonic.

Biblical Goliath smirked contemptuously: do you really, David, want to defeat me with the help of "stick" and "stones"? Likewise, in the version of Plutarch, the Athenians, with LAUGHTER, asked Gileppus: can a Spartan cloak and a stick win the battle?

  • Plutarch emphasizes that Gilypp's cloak was Faded, that is, old. Spartan Gillippe, they say, was very simply dressed, without decorations. He was supposedly stingy, he pitied money for clothes. But here the words of the Bible with reference to David immediately come to mind. It is reported that, unlike Goliath, David went out to fight very JUST DRESSY, without luxurious weapons. We see that Plutarch confused just dressed David with just dressed Gillippe (here - Goliath). According to the Bible, Goliath, by contrast, was superbly armed and luxuriously dressed. Thus, in the "ancient" Greek version, the motif of EMPHASIZED SIMPLE GARRETTING was transferred from David to Gilipp-Goliath.
  • It is very curious that Plutarch mentions the THREE STAGES of the Lacedaemonians, stronger than Ghilippe = Goliath, returned by the Athenians to the Spartans. Here it is appropriate to recall the biblical description of the Kulikovo battle in the form of the battle of Gideon with the Midianites. Recall that Gideon kept himself only TRISTS of warriors who successfully defeated the enemy with the help of "jugs of fire" (Judges 7: 9-22). That is, with the help of cannons, see our book "Royal Rome in the Interfluve of the Oka and Volga". Probably, the vague trace of this plot was reflected in the pages of Plutarch. It is not by chance that he noted that the TRISTS of the warriors were MORE THAN A GILIP = Goliath. That's right.Three hundred Kulik soldiers, armed with guns, utterly routed the enemy - the Midiants, that is, the giant Goliath defeated. So, in any case, the Bible states, namely, the Book of Judges.

Conclusion. We see a good correspondence between the story of Plutarch and the history of the Kulikovo battle.


Guns on the field of the Battle of Sicily and guns on the Kulikovo field[edit | edit source]

Logs, wooden machines and huge flame[edit | edit source]

We have talked many times about the use of firearms in the Kulikovo battle, thanks to which Donskoy won. The question is whether the guns were reflected in the "ancient" descriptions of the Sicilian battle? The answer is yes. Reflected, and quite clearly.

But we will not start with the brightest mention of this kind. We do this because this reference immediately follows the match of Lamah with Callicrate just described by us.

Plutarch says: “Understanding the danger, Nicias ordered the servants who were with him PODZHECHE NEAR THE WALLS ALL THE BARS intended for the construction of machines, YES AND THE MACHINES TOO. Also it stopped the Syracusans (who went on the attack - Auth.) And saved Nikiya, both the wall and the property Athenians: Seeing the huge flames that separated them from the enemy camp, the Syracusans retreated "[660], v.2, p.227.

Out of context, in itself, such a mention, of course, with the guns could not be connected. However, the strange speed with which it was possible to “set fire to the logs” attracts attention. Try to quickly, in sight of the rapidly approaching enemy, to ignite the log. And the more a lot of logs. Yes, even so that it immediately turned out a HUGE FLAME. Nothing happens. We'll have to try for a long time. Unless, of course, you have at your disposal, there is no inflammable gasoline, which, most likely, the "ancient" did not have at that time. But that's not the point. The main thing here is that we have already begun to understand the correspondence with the Battle of Kulikovo. The main event of which was the unexpected introduction of Dmitry Donskoy's guns into battle. Understanding this, we have other eyes can look at the evidence of the "classics", such as just quoted. Some "logs" were quickly and unexpectedly set on fire, and everyone saw a HUGE FLAME. And the enemies immediately retreated. Most likely, in such foggy form on the pages of Plutarch the wooden cannons of Donskoy - “Christian Tree”, “Fire Cross” were reflected. Curiously, Plutarch called the guns WOODEN MACHINES. That's right. We have repeatedly said that the first guns were wooden. In addition, the gun really - MACHINE. Intended to kill.

True, here Plutarch was slightly confused and decided that the logs, spewing flames, were in the army of the Athenians, not the Syracusans. But, apparently, a certain role was played here by the fact that, in fact, the name of ATHENA belonged here to Dmitry DON. Here Athens = Tana = Don. Then the correspondence is immediately restored and the apparent contradiction turns into confirmation of our reconstruction.

"Antique" hollow log, covered with iron and effusing huge flame[edit | edit source]

But Thucydides has much more explicit references to guns. Before the story of the Sicilian = Kulikovo War, Thucydides puts the next episode.

"The Boeotians immediately summoned darts and slingers from the Meli Gulf ... With these forces, the Boeotians marched on Delia and attacked the fortress. At the same time, among other SECONDARY MACHINES, they also used the INVOLVEMENT (through which they were able to take the fortress) DREAMING IN HALF A HUGE LONG TIME, THEY DROPPED IT, AND THEN AGAIN DETERMINEDLY BOTH THE PARTS LIKE A TUBE. At one end of the log they hung on the chains a boiler, where they carried from the log an iron nozzle to blacksmiths ( Evna was also studded with iron.) This device was brought from afar in carriages to those places that were mainly made of wood and grape vines. Then, putting the device close to the wall, the Boeotians put huge blacksmith sashes to their end of the log and began to inflate them AIR THROUGH A BOILER WITH LIQUIDING COALS, SULFUR AND RESIN, THROUGH A TIGHTLY CLOSED PIPE BURNED A HUGE FLAME. The fire engulfed the fortification, and none of the defenders could not remain there. The garrison fled, and the fortress was thus taken. Some people were slaughtered, and 200 people were taken prisoner "[924], p.204-205.

Here is quite frankly described wooden cannon. Of course, Thucydides or his editor are trying to obscure the description of the weapon, but the picture is quite obvious. The core is extracted from the tree trunk, after which the trunk is upholstered with iron for additional strength. Then, at the lower end of the barrel, "fire arises" - as if burning coals, sulfur and tar. A huge flame is ejected from the trunk. It affects people and sets fire to fortifications. Most likely, a cannon shot is described. Attempts by Thucydides to bring the whole thing down to a simple boiler with blacksmiths are not convincing. Just the editor of the era of the Reformation was assigned the task of cleaning out all the explicit references to firearms from the pages of the "classics". He cleaned out. To the best of strength and understanding. In this case, it turned out badly. Description of the shot from a wooden gun survived almost completely.

A siege machine, darting fire, and accompanying it superhuman force[edit | edit source]

Here is another "gunshot story" by Thucydides.

"The next day, the enemies brought the SECONDARY MACHINE to SHOWING FIRE into the wooden wall of the fortification. When the Lacedaemonian army approached the fortress, the Athenians put the walls on the top of the house, WOODEN TOWER (where they thought , the enemy, in all likelihood, WILL PRESET THE MACHINE.) They raised a lot of amphoras, clay barrels with water and large stones to this tower ... Suddenly, however, this structure, too overloaded, with a terrible trap collapsed ... Those who stood further (and especially at large m distance from the tower), I imagine that this is already part of the fortress is captured by the enemy, and ran to the sea and to their ships.

Noticing that the Athenians were leaving the parape ... Brasid rushed to the assault. The fortress was taken and all the defenders were killed ... Having decided that the fortress was taken by the intervention of some kind of superhuman force, he ordered ... 30 minutes (silver - Auth.) To give a gift to the goddess Athena "[924], p.210.

Probably, the action of guns is also described here in a slightly distorted form. The gun is named the SEDIMENT MACHINE FLOWING FIRE. The structure standing against it suddenly and with a terrible tremor collapsed. Probably from hitting the nuclei and incendiary projectiles fired from the gun. Killed many defenders of the fortress. At the same time in the ranks of the besieged began to panic, the soldiers rushed scatter. Finally, it is emphasized that all this was the result of the intervention of some kind of superhuman force. It is difficult to doubt that before us is a description of the action of a gun. No wonder the guns were called “the god Pan”, that is, they attributed their action to the divine origin.

A stockade of cut holy woods and fire before the stockade, which stopped enemies[edit | edit source]

Thucydides has other, more muffled mentions of guns. Before turning to them, we recall that in the book "Tsarist Rome in the Interfluve of Oka and Volga" we found in the Bible one more vivid reflection of the Kulikovo battle in the form of the battle of Judge Gideon with the Midians. Next, we presented several descriptions of the Kulikovo Battle of Titus Libya. Unexpectedly, it turned out that the guns were also described here as a "palisade". That is, as many "pointed logs." Of course, in some other cases, a common fence could be called a common barrier from sticks driven into the ground. However, in Titus Libya in several places, as it turned out, it was firearms that were called "palisade". Yes, and in Russian the word "picket fence" could also be understood in the sense of "often stabbing", "often pricking", which could be used to describe the canister and the nuclei attacking the enemy. Here we will not repeat the details of this study, referring the reader to our book.

It turns out that "LOG CASTLEWOLDS" WITH ACCOMPANYING FIRE is also mentioned by Thucydides. In general, he says quite a lot about the "fence". Here is one of these fragments.

"The Syracusans left the city and began to build a transverse wall ... for this THEY DESTROYED THE OLIVE TREES OF THE SACRED LAND OF APOLLO and built wooden towers ... When the Syracusans decided that the transverse wall and the PARTY are reliable enough, they left a detachment to guard the building ... Nikiy ordered the servants of the hoplites to BURN SEDIMENT MACHINES and forest materials piled in front of the wall (from the "picket fence" - Auth.) ... His plan was a success. 308.

Again, here the "palisade" is made of SACRED TREES, dedicated to the god Apollo. But Apollo-Sun is one of the reflections of Andronicus-Christ. And the first wooden cannons were called the "Christ Tree-Cross", the "Christian Tree" and at first were revered as sacred objects associated with Christ. Further, it is again spoken about the fire flashing in front of the "picket fence" - the wall. Enemies, met with "part-fire", retreat in panic.

We will omit other Thucydid scenes related to the "fire in front of the paling", since the nature of these references is more or less similar to the one just described.

Summing up this section, we can say that FUKIDIDA HAS AN AFFECTIVE FIRE WEAPON, used by Dmitry Donskoy in the battle with Khan Mamai, in sufficiently bright form. Here is Nikiem.


Destruction of Nikius-Mamay. The victory of Sicilians = Kulikovians[edit | edit source]

Evidence of Plutarch[edit | edit source]

This is how Plutarch describes the complete defeat of Nikias = Mamaia.

A part of Nikiya's army was headed by the commander Demosthenes. She was the first to fail.

"In the whole army of Demosthenes, fear and dismay immediately arose. Those who had fled mixed with those who still oppressed the enemy, those who rushed forward, blocked their way, horrified by their own, and they knocked each other down and fell on each other , and took running for the pursuing and friends for the enemies. ”All mixed up, all possessed by fear and uncertainty, the night was shimmeringly shimmering, not dark, but not light enough ... all this, taken together, led the Athenians to a terrible, disastrous outcome. HAPPENED SO, THAT THE MOON HAS LIGHTED HIM AND O NEVER ALL THE TIME HAVE LEFT HIDDEN OWN SHADOW ... THE BOARDS OF THE ENEMIES were the Syndrome, the REFLECTED LIGHT OF THE MOON, BRIGHTED Brighter, and it seemed that they were more than what was really ... When the forces of the Athenians were outnumbered, MORE THAN WERE IN LIFE ... When the forces of the Athenians were outnumbered, THERE WERE MORE THAN THEY WERE ... When the forces of the Athenians turned out to be MORE THAN THERE WERE IN THE WORK ... , others - with their own, still others died, having broken off from the steep ...

THE DISCUSSION WAS COMPLETE AND FINAL, the sea’s escape route was closed ... A detachment of Demosthenes was surrounded, detached from his own during a fight with the enemy ... this message was brought to Nikiya by jumping syracuse ... He found it necessary to offer Ghilippe a truce ... But the Syracusans rejected these conditions, with fierce abuse, harassment and threats, they continued to throw spears and shoot arrows at the Athenians, already left without water and food. Nevertheless, Nicias lasted all night, and the next day, pressed by the enemy, approached the Asinar River. AND HERE THE ONE HAVE PUSHED THE ENEMIES INTO THE FLOW, OTHERS MADE HAVE A LITTLE TRIP. BEGINNING IN THEIR CRUELNESS BEGINNING BEGINNED when a sip of water turned out to be the last in life "[660], v.2, pp.230-231, 233-235.

Athenian army completely defeated. The Sicilian war was finally lost. Nikiya captured and executed after some time. As we already noted in Chapter 1, two themes are closely intertwined in this last story: the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ = Nikia from the 12th century and the rout of Mamaia = Nikia at the end of the 14th century.

Evidence of Thucydides[edit | edit source]

Thucydides speaks of the defeat of the Athenians in more detail Plutarch.

"Demosthenes (Athenian - Auth.) Decided to seize the transverse wall with the help of siege machines. However, the machines, when he led them to the wall, were burned by the defenders of the walls ... This night attack by the Athenians was completely unexpected for the Syracuseans ... But the Boetians were the first to have resistance to the Athenians and attacking them, they fled.

Now the Athenians were confused and found themselves in a very cramped position ... How could one imagine a clear picture of THIS NIGHT BATTLE (AND THE ONLY IN THIS WAR IS BETWEEN THE BIG ARMY)? True, the moon lit up brightly and it was possible to see each other, but only the general outlines of man ... The Athenian avant-garde, as soon as the flight began, became dismayed and confused, because of loud cries it was difficult to know anything about his situation. .. especially the Athenians harmed PIE'S PIANA. Since the pean was approximately the same on both sides, this created confusion. Every time, when the Argoths, Kerkirians and other Dorians (Horde? - Auth.) In the Athenian army sang pean, THEY HAVE BEEN FIRING AFFINIAN, as if his enemies were singing. Finally, when CONNECTION SUDDENLY HAPPENED MANY PARTS OF THE ATHENIAN FORCES, friends with friends and citizens with citizens not only were horrified at mutual clashes, but even entered into a hand-to-hand fight, so that only with difficulty did they disagree ...

With the onset of the day, the Syracuse horsemen, who were driving around this area, interrupted them ...

For them (Syracusans - Auth.) It was a struggle of great importance. After all, the point was not only in the victory over the Athenians, BUT AND OVER THE SET OF THEIR ALLIES, and the Syracusans themselves fought not alone, but along with the allies who came to the aid, the Lacedaemonians and the Corinthians ... BEFORE THE WALLS OF THIS CITY ONE WRENCHES THE GREEN MEMBER. TALKING ALREADY ABOUT THAT HOW MANY ALL PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN THIS WAR AS ON THE PARTY OF THE ATHENS, SO AND ON THE PART OF LAKEEDEMONIAN.

Here are how many nationalities fought with Syracuse on both sides for and against Sicily "[924], p.330-332, 336.

Further Thucydides lists in detail the peoples participating in the Sicilian battle. The list takes up as many as two pages [924], p.336-338.

Thucydides cites two large final speeches by Nikiya and Gilippe [924], pp.339-342, 347-348. These are the last performances of the commanders before their soldiers in the Sicilian battle. Then comes the final, bloodiest, episode of the battle.

"At the bridge over the river Anap, the Athenians found a detachment of Syracusans and allies built into battle formation on the river bank ... The Syracusans ... did not give peace to the Athenians: the cavalry were pushing them from the flanks all the time, and the light-armed ones struck with darts ...

The detachments of the Syracusans and allies, consisting of numerous cavalrymen and darts throwers, tried to hinder the movement by cramping the Athenians from the flanks and hitting the darts ...

Showered from a steep hill with arrows ... they (the Athenians - Auth.) Could not break through by force and therefore retreated ... Accidentally at this moment DROPPED SEVERAL ROLLS OF THUNDER with a rain ... From this the Athenians were even more depressed, thinking that this too all at the behest of the gods happens to them to perdition ...

The position of the Athenian army was extremely disastrous ...

Therefore, Nicias and Demosthenes DECIDED THE LUMIN AS ANY MORE POSSIBLE MORE FIRES (? - Auth.) And lead the army away ...

So, LIGHTING A LOT OF LIGHTS, ATHENIANS AT NIGHT HAVE STARTED FROM THE CAMP. In the meantime ... AFFINES SUDDENLY AND OWNED OURSELVES, especially since they were walking at night in an enemy country and DIRECTLY NEAR THE INFECTOR (then why self-destructively lit a lot of lights, revealing their location? - Auto.) ...

The whole day lasted from all sides. ATHLATED the Athenians and their allies ...

They (the Syracusans - Auth.) Attacked the Athenians and, surrounding them and here from all sides, FIRED TO NIGHT ...

With the onset of the day, Nicias set out with his detachment. The Syracusans and the Allies continued to oppress the Athenians, BOWLING ARROWS AND DROPS. The Athenians were in a hurry to reach the Assinar River partly in the hope that the cavalry and the rest of the enemy’s army would be less disturbing to them from all sides if they crossed the river ... When they reached the river, they rushed into it in disorder, and everyone wanted to go first. The enemies, oppressing the Athenians from the rear, made it difficult to cross. As the Athenians were forced to move forward in a thick crowd, they fell under each other’s feet and trampled on the fallen; bumping into darts and items of equipment, some immediately died, while others entangled in them and, picked up by the course of the river, sank. Meanwhile, the Syracusans, lining up on the opposite steep bank of the river, FIRED the Athenians from above, while most of them eagerly drank water from ALMOST THE RIVER RIVER and already in itself, apart from the enemy attacks, it became disarray. The Peloponnesian allies of the Syracusans DOWN DOWN TO THE RIVER AND BECAME TO KILL WARRIORS, MOSTLY LOCATED IN THE RIVER ...

Finally, when piles of corpses piled on top of each other, were already lying in the river, and the warriors were partly wrecked in the water, and partly, if anyone managed to escape, was cut down by cavalry ...

The number of warriors captured as captives of the state, however, was not particularly significant ...

Quite a few warriors were killed in THIS LAST BATTLE. THERE WERE NO ONE BATTLE ALL OVER THE SICILIAN WAR, THERE WERE THERE WELL IN THE BLOODY PROLINGER AS IT "[924], p. 348-351.

Thus ended the Sicilian Battle of the Nations, allegedly in the 5th century BC. Athens and their allies utterly defeated. Thousands fell on the battlefield.

This is what Thucydides summarizes: “This was the most important military event of all Hellenic enterprises, not only during the war, but, as it seems to me, the most glorious event for the winners and the unfortunate for the vanquished to have ever happened during ALL ELLINSKAYA HISTORY. Indeed, the Athenians were everywhere completely defeated, and their ground forces and fleets suffered the most terrible losses, we can say, to the last man. Only a few of the numerous troops that went on the march, managed to escape and return home. lsya Sicilian campaign "[924], p.352.

Comparison of the "ancient"-Greek, Russian and Biblical versions[edit | edit source]

Combining the stories of Thucydides and Plutarch, we find the following picture.

  • The main battle of the Sicilian War is described as very cruel and merciless. Killed many warriors. Numerous nations participated in the battle, from both sides. Professional troops of the aggressor, who attacked Sicily, suffered a crushing defeat from the militia. All this perfectly fits the picture of the Kulikovo battle. Which was religious and therefore many nations were involved in it.
  • The correspondence with the biblical description of the Kulikovo battle under the name of "the battle of Gideon with the Midiamians" looks through, see our book "Royal Rome between the Oka and the Volga", chapter 7. But first, let's think about Fukidid and Plutarch told us. At first glance, nothing special in describing the bloody massacre, we do not find. However, with more careful re-reading of the material, puzzled questions arise. For example, such.

Judging by the description, the Athenians lost the battle due to the fact that:

  • "the moon was shining brightly",
  • "sparkling shields, reflecting bright moonlight",
  • "The sounds of pean sounded loud, causing panic among the Athenians."

In general, that's all! But it looks strange. Of course, it cannot be denied that such a thing could happen, and that one army lost to another because of the "shining shields" and "loud singing." However, we already understand that here we are talking about the Kulikovo battle. Therefore, it is very natural to turn to him. And then everything falls into place. Apparently, here again, it is told about the GROUNDING OF GUNS, who dispersed the army of Khan Mamai. Moreover, this correspondence appears especially vividly when compared with the biblical story about commander Gideon. Indeed.

  • In both versions, the battle takes place at night. The Israelites, led by Gideon, attacked the Midianites' camp at night.
  • In both versions, special importance is attached to the "sparkling of the light reflected in the shields" and the loud sounds of the pean. Moreover, it is specially emphasized that the Athenians at night LITTERED A LOT OF LIGHTS, although they counted on secretly hiding from the enemy who was in close proximity to them. A literal understanding of this plot is, of course, ridiculous. If you are weak and want to quietly escape under the cover of the night, then why turn on the lights, and even in a lot !? After all, the enemies will immediately notice the movement and rush in pursuit.

In the biblical story of the Old Testament Judges, it is said that Gideon gave some warriors with jugs inside to all the soldiers, and when they approached the enemy, the warriors broke the jars with a loud sound. The lamps flashed bright light and the Midianites = Mama people were defeated. As we discussed earlier, we have before us a literary description of cannon firing, the roar of shots, the glitter of a flame erupted from mortars “jugs”. In general, the same thing is being told to us now by Plutarch and Thucydides. True, it is more foggy and obviously trying to “belittle the pathos,” thoughtfully thinking about the "shining of the moon", "the shining of the shields", about the "ignition of a multitude of lights", etc. Say, nothing special was. Professional Athenian soldiers, they say, startled, frightened by the loud noises and flashes of moonlight, blazing in their faces on the metal shields of the enemy. It happens to everyone. Nerves, they say, let down.

  • Speaking of the formidable "singing of the pean". We are assured that the rolling sounds of a militant song or anthem shook the hardened Athenian fighters so much that they began to panic. You would think that they had never heard hymns and songs in their professional careers before! In our opinion, the matter is quite different. In this case, the word PEAN is probably a slight distortion of the name PAN. That is the name of the god PANA. As we already know, so was called FLUSHES before. So, PENAN'S DRINKING is, most likely, PAN'S DRINK, or rather PAN'S Roar, the roar of gunfire batteries on the battlefield. Now it becomes clear why PANIKA began. Because the warriors Mamaia for the first time faced such a terrible weapon. And it was not only and not so much in the roar and in the "flashes of lamps." And the fact that the clouds of red-hot canister from mortars, "jugs" on the spot mowed down the ranks of the Athenian Mamaites hundreds and thousands. Naturally, people rushed scatter. No wonder, by the way, Thucydides adds that the SPARRING OF THUNDER was suddenly heard and the Athenians decided that the gods themselves had fought on the side of the enemy.
  • Next, you should pay attention to one small, but very interesting detail. Which, as it turns out, is not at all petty. Thucydides constantly emphasizes that in the last battle the enemies in general did not even approach the unfortunate Athenians. The Syracusans and their allies CONSTANTLY SHORED the Athenians from afar. Ostensibly just arrows and darts. However, we now understand that we were bombarded with cores and canister. It is clear that in this case it was not necessary to approach the Athenians. They were shot from afar, not allowing the Athenians to engage in close combat, in which they could use their skill in mastering cold weapons.
fig.3.32
fig.3.33
  • Plutarch and Thucydides placed special emphasis on the final episode of the battle, when the Athenians were driven into a shallow, almost dry river and killed there in whole crowds, piling on mountains of corpses. But this is a famous episode from the Kulikovo battle, when soldiers fought right in the waters of the rather shallow Yauza River. For example, on the famous Russian icon, which depicts the Battle of Kulikovo, shows Yauza, in which warriors are floating and fighting, Fig.3.32. Two separate fragments of the icon are shown in Fig.3.33. Especially well the river Yauza or the Moscow river Naprudnaya, referred to in the later Russian chronicles as Nepryadva, is visible in Fig.3.34. For more information about this important icon dedicated to St. Sergius of Radonezh, see. "New Chronology of Russia", Chapter 6.

By the way, the "ancient" name of the river Assinar probably meant something like ASSIRYSKY river. That is the Russian river, ASS-RONA. Concerning the name ASSIRIA see the book "Biblical Rus".

Recall that in Moscow there used to be quite a few rivers, ponds and marshes, see. "New Chronology of Russia", ch.6. It is curious that a similar circumstance is noted by Thucydides, speaking of the places where the Sicilian battle unfolded. Here, for example, he says: "The Athenians, before dawn, descended from Epipolus to the plain. Then, passing through the BALT through the doors and wide boards laid in those places where the soil was clay and denser ..." [924], p.308 .

By the way, it is not excluded that the name SYRACUSE includes the phrase RIVER YAUZA.

A treason of "antique" Kamarinians in "Ancient" Greece and treason of prince Oleg of Ryazan[edit | edit source]

As we already said in chapter 1, in the history of the Kulikovo battle, the bright fact of the betrayal of Prince Oleg of Ryazan to Prince Dmitry Donskoy is known.

Recall that Oleg Ryazansky did not appear on the field Kulikovo battles. He did not support either side. Prudently stood aside, watching from afar and waiting - who will win. "Kept neutrality." By the way, Prince Yagailo didn’t show up to Mamai Khan. As we have already noted, on the day of the battle, Jagiello sat quietly 30-40 versts from the battlefield, see Chapter 1. Then, after the victory of Donskoy, Prince Oleg again immediately "depicted a sincere friendship" with the winner.

A similar plot of betrayal tells and Thucydides in the history of the Sicilian War. Here the traitors were "kamarintsy". Here is the narration of Thucydides.

"The mood of the Kamarinians was ambivalent. They were located towards the Athenians, but feared their desire to conquer Sicily; with the Syracusans, their closest neighbors, they were forever enmity. In addition, they were afraid that Syracusans could win without them. Therefore, they At first, only a small detachment of horsemen was sent to the aid of the Syracusans and decided to continue to assist them, but only the most moderate, but under the circumstances, not wanting to create the impression that they were neglected by the Athenians, (especially after their recent troubles), DECIDING IN WORDS TO GIVE EQUAL RESPONSE TO BOTH PARTIES. For these reasons, they replied: since both cities allied with them are at war with each other, they decided that under the circumstances, without breaking the oath, have the right to remain neutral "[924 ], p.301.

Moreover, it turns out that "there was a party in Syracuse themselves that wanted to ISSUE A CITY TO THE ATHENS, which, addressing Nikiya through messengers, did not advise him to lift the siege" [924], p.332-333.

Thus, the correspondence between the Kulikovsky and Sicilian battles is confirmed by minor episodes.

One more reflection of the Battle of Kulikovo in the "antiquity" under the name of "Dekeleia war"[edit | edit source]

As we showed in the book “New Chronology of Rus,” chapter 6, the Kulikovo battle was reflected in Russian chronicles twice. The first time is like a 1380 battle on the Kulikovo field. The second time is like the capture of Moscow in two years, namely, in 1382, by Khan Tokhtamysh, that is, Dmitry Donskoy. A natural question arises: will not we find, in the history of "Ancient" Greece, the second duplicate of the Kulikovo battle "next door" to the Sicilian war?So it should be, if the "ancient" Greek records were created in the Western European provinces of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI centuries. The erroneous "split" - on paper - of the Kulikovo battle in the main Russian chronicles of that time could well have produced the reflected split of the Kulikovo battle in the "ancient" Greeks. The answer to our question turns out to be positive. Yes, the second "antique" duplicate, located next to the Sicilian battle, is really present.

This is the Decale war of allegedly the end of 413 BC. It is believed that it occurred immediately after the Sicilian Battle [258], pp.320-321. It is covered by the "classics" in much less detail than the war in Sicily and is considered a "petty war." The city of Dekeleia is described as being located near Athens. The Decalea was conquered by the Spartans as soon as Sparta saw Athens being defeated in Sicily.

The Spartans decided to “renew military operations on a large scale AGAINST AFIN and, in particular, to occupy Dekeleus ... The geographical position of Dekeley was very beneficial, since it dominated the road to Oropa” [258], p.320.

Thucydides reports the following.

“At the very beginning of next spring, the Lacedaemonians and their allies invaded Attica, led by the king of the Lacedaemonians Agis, son of Archidum. Athens for about 120 stages ... They laid up this fortification (IT WAS SEEN EVEN FROM ATHENS) in order to devastate the plain and the most fertile parts of the country from there "[924], p.318.

The name of DECELS as a city located on a plain hints at the KULIKOVO field. Although a detailed description of the hostilities under the walls of Dekeleia did not reach us, the mere fact that this war is closely “tied” to the Sicilian battle and in time in space indicates another possible duplicate of the Kulikovo battle.

"Considering the enormous losses of the Athenians in Sicily, the IMPACT applied by them from the Decalea should have completely destroyed the entire economy of the country" [258], p.321.

We will no longer linger on the Decale of the war, limiting what was said.

Here the Peloponnesian War ends. Athens crushed. “So, after 27 years of tense struggle, Athenian slave-owning democracy was crushed and arche was destroyed. In all Hellas, the reactionary oligarchy triumphed” [258], p.343.

These words modern commentators sum up the war. Now we understand that in fact we are talking about the outcome of the Kulikovo battle. Supporters of the royal, clan Christianity, led by Mamai = Goliath defeated. Power in the whole Empire is concentrated in the hands of Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great = David, who makes apostolic Christianity the state religion.

In conclusion, we will show a few more Horde light and medium guns stored today in the fortress-museum of the Hungarian city of Eger. See fig.3.35, fig.3.36-37, fig.3.38, fig.3.39, fig.3.40, fig.3.41, fig.3.42, fig.3.43, fig.3.44, fig.3.45.

fig.3.35
fig.3.36-37
fig.3.38
fig.3.39
fig.3.40
fig.3.41
fig.3.42
fig.3.43
fig.3.44
fig.3.45

The idea of ​​the Horde guns of large caliber gives the famous mortar called "Tsar-Cannon", exhibited in the Moscow Kremlin.

Why do we call the tools presented in these photos Horde? After all, today they are considered Western European, in particular, Italian, German, Hungarian, etc. In the sense that they, they say, belonged to the armies not connected with Russia in any way. The answer is as follows. If these guns really originate from the XVI - the beginning of the XVII century, then in that era there were no armies other than the Horde and Ottoman-Ataman armies at all. Because there was a single Great = "Mongol" Empire. And all that was part of it, should, of course, be called Horde or "Mongol." Belonging to the king-khan of the Empire. Including Horde was and artillery. By the way, the inscriptions on the guns of the XV-XVII centuries could well have already been made not only in Slavic or "Arabic script", but also, for example, in Latin, in German,since at the end of the 16th century, both Latin and other Western European languages ​​had already begun to emerge, moreover on the basis of the Slavic language.

If the guns of the museum of the town of Eger were actually made later, in the XVII-XVIII centuries, then, of course, they should already be called Hungarian, Italian, German, etc., since at that time the rebellious provinces of the Empire broke away from it and became independent . When the "Mongolia" split, the weapons that turned out to be in the territories of the separated regions, most likely, did not always manage to take them to the metropolis, that is, to Russia. Much has been left, thrown on the ground. In particular, artillery also passed into the hands of the rebels and immediately began to be used in internecine wars in the turbulent territories of Western Europe. Then they set up their own gun production.

However, about the Eger cannons, they assure us that they were made no later than the beginning of the 17th century. Because they, as the local chronicles say, participated in the battles of 1552 and 1596 [1259: 1], pp.24-25. Moreover, some of them were installed inside the fortress, fig.3.45. Consequently, we repeat, all these guns were Horde or Ottoman-Ataman. Others at that time simply did not exist. The conflicts of the second half of the XVI century gradually became already internecine wars for the Great Empire. The emboldened Horde "Mongol" governors began to lead them, both among themselves and with the metropolis.