History - Fiction or Science/Western myth/Foreword

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1. A MUCH OF TODAY'S VERSION OF THE WORLD HISTORY IS ESTABLISHED COMPARATELY RECENTLY, ONLY IN THE XVII CENTURY. Apparently, this version is incorrect.[edit | edit source]

This publication is being revised by A.T. Fomenko. It differs markedly from the previous ones. In particular, color drawings are reproduced as color (in contrast to previous editions, where they were reproduced as black and white). Here is the first book of the 7th volume of the seven-volume "Chronology":

Volume 1. NUMBERS AGAINST LIES. - A.T. Fomenko.

Volume 2. ANTIQUITY - THIS IS A MEDIEVAL (in two books). - A.T. Fomenko.

Volume 3. Book 1: STARS TESTIMONIAL. - V.V. Kalashnikov, G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko. Book 2: CELESTIAL CALENDAR OF ANCIENT - G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko, T.N. Fomenko.

Volume 4. SECRET OF RUSSIAN HISTORY (in two books). - G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko.

Volume 5. EMPIRE (in two books). - G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko.

Volume 6. BIBLICAL RUSSIA (in three books). - G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko.

Volume 7. Book 1: WESTERN MYTH. - G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko. Book 2: RUSSIAN ROOTS OF "ANCIENT" Latin. - G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko, T.N. Fomenko.

In this book, we rely on a new chronology established on the basis of mathematical methods and empirical and statistical results set forth in the first three books of the seven-volume book "Chronology", as well as in the book "Seven Wonders of the World", Chap. 2. The main chronological changes discovered by A.T. Fomenko in the "ancient" and medieval history are presented on the global chronological map (GHK) created by A.T. Fomenko in 1975-1979.

This volume is intended for readers who are already familiar with the problem of substantiating the chronology of "antiquity" and with a modern natural-scientific approach to this issue. The reader is supposed to get acquainted with the book of A.T. Fomenko "Numbers against Lies."

In this book, we, as a rule, do not substantiate our point of view. This would lead to an actual repetition of all that has been said before. We formulate here only our reconstruction in the form of a short "textbook". FOR EVIDENCE, WE SEND TO PREVIOUS OUR BOOKS. Much of what is said in this book is still a hypothesis.

When summarizing the reconstruction, we sometimes omit references to the source. Full references can be found in previous books of the seven-volume Chronology. Immediately make a reservation that we do not claim to be highly accurate of the proposed dating. It will take even more work to clarify a new short chronology and some of our hypotheses. Therefore, we reconstruct history so far only “by centuries,” that is, indicating the century of an event, but usually without specifying a date within the century.

We call the history of the 17th century “old”, and the history of the 17th – 20th centuries “new”. This division corresponds to the essence of the matter. We show that today there is no reliable justification for the Scaligerian chronology. There was no such justification, as we affirm with full responsibility, not and never is. Therefore, the history of antiquity will still have to be rewritten.

Before proceeding to the reconstruction, which is very different from the current Scaliger-Petavius ​​version [1387], [1337], it makes sense to clearly repeat what Scaliger’s history and chronology are and how they came about. I must say that the general picture of the situation in which the historical-chronological version of Scaliger-Petavius ​​was created and implemented was finally clarified only in the course of our research on the new chronology. A clear understanding of the picture puts a lot into place.

Most likely, the historical primary sources available today - published, available in open access bookstores, etc. - ARE A PART OF THE SCALIGER VERSION AND CREATED TOGETHER WITH IT. Moreover, by distorting and purposefully editing really old documents. The very old texts, correctly setting out the story, were ruthlessly destroyed. All this happened in the XVII-XVIII centuries during the international European program for rewriting ancient and medieval history. Why and to whom it was needed, see "Mastering America by Russia-Horde", chap. 1. The program had strong state support both in Europe and in Romanov’s Russia. Then, in the 18th-19th centuries, the Scaligerian version of history was introduced in Asia and China. Proceeding from it, the Asian and Chinese "ancient" chronologies were built.

In the era of the XVII-XVIII centuries, to support the introduced Scaligerian version, almost all editions of the works of "antique" Greek and Roman authors, medieval chronicles, and memoirs published today were deliberately created.

Sources that accidentally failed to censor the creators of the Scaligerian version were carefully searched and destroyed for nearly two hundred years. At least they were withdrawn from circulation. Such activity continued even in the 19th century. A vivid example is the purposeful ruin of the Sulakadzev library, see "The Secret of Russian History," ch. 2: 9. In the XIX century, and even more so today, such old, surviving, genuine texts were already perceived as something curious, unworthy of serious study. They immediately fall into suspicion of gross falsification or, at best, of the complete ignorance of the author of the text.

Such documents, as a rule, are not published, are not studied by the historical and academic community. Although from time to time they even pop up. Each of them gives only a small piece of an already forgotten story, therefore it is not able to change anything in our minds. By itself, outside the big picture, he is already simply incomprehensible. And none of the qualified historians is engaged in comparing and studying such "oddities."

It is important to understand that today, when publishing primary sources, consciously or unconsciously, strict censorship is made on their compliance with the Scaligerian version. Only primary sources that fit into the usual Scaligerian picture are recognized as "worthy of attention". As a result, only texts that underwent deliberate editing of the 17th-18th centuries are introduced into circulation.

We are forced to judge antiquity and the Middle Ages only by the sources offered to us by the Scaligerian historical school. It is them that the printing press propagates. Therefore, it gives the wrong impression that only such sources existed.

It turned out that in history there is a clear border - the first half of the 17th century. What happened after it, that is, closer to us, we know quite well. In any case, starting from the end of the 18th century. And what happened before her, we know very poorly. This border - the first half of the 17th century - arose artificially. It is not the result of a natural forgetting of information. Its trace in the Scaligerian version is the border between the "dark Middle Ages" and the "new time". It separates the right story from the wrong.

The historians of the Scaligerian school — and there simply is no other school of the history of antiquity and the Middle Ages today — are, as a rule, experts in the fake Scaligerian version and only in it. Today it is accepted as an axiom that the Scaligerian version and the real story are one and the same. As we now understand, this is not true. Historians, who think that they are studying "ancient" and medieval history, do not actually analyze reality (through documents that have come to us from antiquity), but an artificial world, a fabulous phantom-mirage created by historians and editors of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Today, historians use distorted and edited texts in the XVII-XVIII centuries, mistakenly believing them to be "genuine ancient primary sources." Historians are immersed in the artificial world and spend their entire professional lives in it. Unaware that "virtual reality" was invented by their recent predecessors, Scaligerian historians, in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Modern historians are specialists, but - in a fabulous, invented world.

The artificial world of the Scaligerian version turned out to be rather complex, ramified and, at first glance, gives the impression of something very solid, reliable and consistent. But this is not so. An unbiased view from the side, based on objective dating methods, quite quickly finds in a fabulous structure all the signs of a sand castle. Further analysis leads to the destruction of this building.

And why do historians today ultimately work only with those texts and their derivatives that were edited in the 17th-18th centuries when creating the Scaligerian version? This is the pressure of a particular school, established in the historical and academic environment of representations. At one time they were introduced by force, but today they already have the character of "generally accepted evidence." It is believed that there is a set of "reliable", "correct" primary sources. And this is precisely the Scaligerian editions of the old texts. Only they, they say, are worthy of a serious attitude. All other sources are declared "ignorant", "fabulous", "composed by someone" texts. Studying them is not a matter for a serious scientist.

Of course, it was impossible to destroy all pre-Scaligerian documents. Some of them must exist today. But imagine that a modern historian, a specialist in the "Scaligerian mirage," fell into the hands of an authentic ancient document describing, say, the era of the XV-XVI centuries. As we now understand, the difference between the true history of this era and its Scaligerian image is so great that it will be difficult to even compare the document with the usual Scaligerian picture. Or at least understand what is at stake. Not to mention that if this is really the original of the XV-XVI centuries, then it will most likely be written in unusual letters, "obscure badges." After all, the “ancient handwritings” familiar to the specialist on the Scaligerian version are in fact the handwritings of falsified editors of the 17th century. But with real handwritings and fonts of the XV-XVI centuries - not to mention earlier eras - as a rule, the researcher, as a rule, does not have to meet.

Therefore, historians who are likely to accidentally come across an old authentic text will most likely declare it “unreadable”. Which, incidentally, is happening. If it can be read, then they declare it "strange," "fabulous," "the fruit of medieval ignorance."

Our research has convinced us that historians do not and do not want to seriously engage in deciphering numerous "unreadable" old texts.

About the prints of the XV-XVI centuries, we say the following. Books on which there are years of publication of the XV-XVI centuries, often turn out to be fakes of the XVII-XVIII centuries with the retroactive year put down. Allegedly, "earlier." The mass publication of such books allegedly of the XV-XVI centuries in the XVII-XVIII centuries was an important part of the activity to "justify" the Scaligerian history. The original books of the XV-XVI centuries were persecuted and destroyed along with manuscript documents. Therefore, printed books do not differ from manuscripts in their reliability when we want to extract from them the true history of the XV-XVI centuries. Among the printed books there are also many fakes of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

Many genuine official documents of Western Europe of the 16th century, emanating from the imperial Horde chancellery, were written, as we now understand, in Slavic. Many books printed then in Western Europe, were also Slavic, see the book "Biblical Russia", ch.2. However, the fact of widespread printing of Slavic books in Western Europe of the 16th century is known to specialists. The language of international communication in Western Europe at that time was Slavic. Then, based on it, “ancient” Latin was created.

The transition from the Slavic language to Latin, as the language of international communication in Western Europe, occurred only after the collapse of the Great Empire, that is, at the end of the XVI - XVII century. Most likely, the Latin language in its developed "antique" form appeared only in the XVI-XVII centuries. Therefore, all the "antique" Latin texts are, at best, translations made in the 16th-17th centuries to the Latin language designated as the "antique" language. Scaligerian chronology was immediately introduced into such translations.

The same can be said of the "ancient" Greek language. It was also created together with all the "ancient" Greek literature in the era of the XVI-XVII centuries. It was immediately written, translated, edited on it "antique Greek primary sources." The real ancient language is probably Middle Greek, Byzantine. No wonder it does not at all look like modern Greek, unlike the "ancient" Greek, which is close to modern Greek. All the "antique Greek" literature is also a strongly edited in the XVI-XVII centuries translations of old texts into the newly invented "antique" language.

The creation of the Scaligerian version of history was the result of the largest political reorganization of the world at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. After the collapse of the "Mongol" Empire, new, independent, small states arose on its fragments. Former imperial governors became independent masters. At first they were afraid of the return of the old "Mongolian" order. Therefore, they sought to create in the historical past "long-standing strong roots" of their power. The main goal of the new historical version of Scaliger was to distort in the right direction the history of the immediate past of that era. That is the history of the XIV-XVI centuries. She was distorted intentionally. As for earlier eras, their phantom content in the Scaligerian version is the result of chronological errors.

By the way, the name, or surname, SCALIGER, most likely, is not at all a name in the modern sense. This is a nickname meaning SCALE, i.e., ordering in time. The person who created the SCALE of chronology and the SCALE of history was called the SCALIGER. The original name is probably forgotten. And the word SCALE comes, apparently, from the Russian word HOW MUCH. That is, "how many years." The word SCALIGER meant - MUCH.

The scope of the global program of the XVII century to create a fictitious history of the past, we begin to understand only now. One should not be surprised at the coordination of actions to fake history in different countries. Until the end of the XVI century, almost all European and Asian countries were part of a single Empire. Therefore, all the governors were from the same circle of imperial officials. Relations between the former provinces of the Empire were at first, after its split, still strong.

At the same time, at the end of the sixteenth century, only the beginning of "historical reform." The main work on falsification of history, including the creation of a corps of "ancient sources", was carried out in the XVII-XVIII centuries, when the Empire had already completely collapsed. That is, after the Time of Troubles in Russia and the victory of the Romanovs over Stepan Razin. Much has been done in this direction in the 18th century, especially after the victory of the Romanovs over Emelyan “Pugachev” in the war of 1773-1775. ONLY FROM THE XIX CENTURY THE SCALIGER VERSION OF HISTORY HAS RECEIVED FINAL MODERN FORMS.

We proceed to the reconstruction. We will move upward along the time axis, listing the main events of universal history by centuries.

First of all, let’s explain what kind of chronology we use when speaking about the dates of events. We use today’s usual chronology of “a new era”. However, we emphasize that it should be treated as a PURE CONDITIONAL SCALE. One of many possible. As it turns out, at the “beginning of a new era,” that is, about 2000 years ago, there was no significant event that could have reached us. Moreover, from that distant era, apparently, there was no information at all. In particular, it is wrong to call an era an era from the Nativity of Christ, as is done today. Since the Nativity of Christ, according to our results, happened about a thousand one hundred years later. Namely, in the XII century according to the conditional "new era".

2. PSYCHOLOGICAL NOTES. =[edit | edit source]

In the view of modern man, the word "antiquity" is usually associated with events earlier, for example, the fifth century of a new era or with events BC. "Deep antiquity" is earlier, say, the tenth century BC. "The deepest antiquity" is already beyond the limits of the second millennium BC. The habitual prevalence today of precisely such temporal scales is one of the serious psychological obstacles to the perception of a new short chronology. But this, which has become familiar today, the psychological filling of the word "antiquity" for many centuries or even millennia, did not arise by itself. And not so long ago. This is the result of the artificial introduction into our consciousness over the past 300 years of a Scaligerian, very long chronology. Apparently, the very idea of ​​a "very long written history" lay on the prepared ground of natural human respect for the memory of the family, for its genealogical tree. You can understand the feelings of a person seeking to look into the distant past of his ancestors. The further he sees, the higher the level of his personal self-affirmation.

The new chronology dictates a different psychological picture of the perception of antiquity. Now the word "antiquity" should be associated with the XV-XVII centuries, that is, with events that are 300-400 years away from us. The expression "deep antiquity" should now refer to the XIII-XIV centuries. And the words "deepest antiquity" are already the XI-XII centuries. BEFORE X-XI CENTURIES, THE EPOCH OF SILENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS IS COMING. Apparently, from those times any written evidence - on paper, on parchment, on papyrus, on stones - did not reach us. Thus, the words “antiquity”, “deep antiquity” and “deep antiquity” remain in our vocabulary. However, they are filled with different content.These epochs are approaching much closer to us, and the temporal scale is greatly reduced. We must come to terms with the fact that, based on written sources, we can look into the past not as far as we thought yesterday. But everything that we saw yesterday is visible today. Only closer.

An analysis of chronology and history revealed a striking circumstance. Based on our mathematical and astronomical methods, it is shown that the Scaligerian chronology, and hence the Scaligerian history of "antiquity" and the Middle Ages, is fundamentally wrong. Moreover, it turned out that history up to the end of the XVI century was deliberately falsified in the era of the XVII-XVIII centuries. The falsification of history in the XVII-XVIII centuries was accompanied by the search and destruction of documents that truthfully told about the past. First of all, this concerned the recent XV-XVI centuries, the memory of which was destroyed especially carefully. Such activity continued with unflagging force for almost two hundred years. This is a sufficient period for the destruction of all large texts that could tell the truth. And therefore today you can’t hopethat any detailed chronicle written by an eyewitness to the events of the 16th century will fall into our hands. And truthfully telling what and how it really was. Consequently, those "trifles", those unchallenged remnants of truth that are accidentally preserved, acquire special significance. It turns out that there are a lot of such trifles. And in their totality they allow us to restore the truth. The study of the Scaligerian history can be compared to the work of an investigator, convicting a criminal who came up with a believable legend, took care of his alibi. Therefore, the true picture must first be sought out in the little things that have escaped the attention of the criminal who has swept the tracks. After all, creating a fake version, it is very difficult to take into account all the little things. And an experienced investigator “digs them out”. Clinging to evidence, gradually "unwinds"all circumstances of the crime.