How It Really Was/Reconstruction of genuine history/14th century

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The creation of the Russian state = Russia-Horde under the military, namely the Hordian rule[edit | edit source]

We will reiterate some elements of our reconstruction. At the end of the XIII beginning of the XIV cc. a final unification of the diverse peoples of Russia, instigated by Aeneas-Ryurik, took place. Partly peacefully, partly through military means, the people of Povolzhye (Volga Region) and Severnoye Prichernomorye (The Northern Black Sea Area) merged into a centralized state under the military = Hordian rule. It was fully realised under the Grand prince - khan, Khagan (Kagan) Georgiy Danilovich, aka Genghis Khan or Gurkhan in the foreign sources. A vast and powerful state falls under his power. At the head of the state was a czar, an 'autocrat', who had absolute power. Vladimir and Suzdal Rus' (Russia) was the capital region, which at that time was called VELIKII NOVGOROD (Great Novgorod). It has entered the chronicles under this name. Yaroslavl became the centre of the administrative governance. It was reflected in the chronicles as 'Yaroslavovo Dvorishe (Yaroslav's Court) of Velikii Novgorod'. The fortified czarist headquarters were situated at different times in different cities: in Rostov Velikii, in Kostroma, in Vladimir, in Suzdal (= 'ancient' Suzy) and in some other centres of Vladimir and Suzdal Rus' (Russia).

In the chronicles the term LORD NOVGOROD THE GREAT (Gospodin Velikiy Novgorod) defined not just one particular city, Yaroslavl, for example, but an entire region, which was a property bestowed upon the Grand-Prince in the epoch which spanned Ivan Kalita=Khalif to Ivan III. This was a capital district up until the XVI century when the capital was transferred to Moscow.

Lord Novgorod the Great, the Grand-Prince capital region comprised of the following cities: Yaroslavl, Rostov, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Mologa, Vladimir and Suzdal [362], v.4; v.5, column 21. It is known that the Scandinavian sources called Velikiy Novgorod a LAND OF CITIES [523], p.47. It means that they clearly considered it to be a COMMUNITY OF THE CITIES [5v2], ch.9. The Russian sources also tell us about the INDEPENDENT ENDS OF NOVGOROD, which occasionally would even fight against each other. These ENDS (KONTSI boroughs) were independent of each other, and each of them had its own chief and its own seal. Each 'konets' ('end') owned particular regions in the Novgorodian land. The entire Novgorodian land was divided between them. Besides, SEVERAL SEALS FROM EACH END (KONETS) were SIMULTANEOUSLY attached to the Novgorodian state charter. For example, one of the oldest Novgorodian charters has EIGHT such seals [5v2]. When deciding on the matters of great importance the representatives of the ENDS would meet at one of the public assemblies called Veche (the highest legislature and judicial authority in the Republic of Novgorod Tr.). There were at least two Veche: one 'at Yaroslav's Court' as they wrote in the charters, and the other - 'Sofiiskoye veche' (which took place in front of the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom).

The Veche 'AT YAROSLAV'S COURT' was considered to be the main one. Presumably, the representatives of the cities from the entire Grand-Princedom would gather in Yaroslavl and from there would give out the charters in the name of the 'Lord Novgorod the Great' at the Yaroslav's Court.

Based on the new empirical/statistical dating techniques, we have discovered 'authentication' of the ancient and mediaeval dynasties. A certain chain emerges, 'at the head' of which, i.e. the closest to us in time, happens to be a dynasty of the RussianHordian czars-khans of the years 1273-1600. All the rest of the main ancient dynasties turn out to be its phantom reflections, dated back into the past [1v], [2v].

It means that the main ancient and mediaeval kingdoms reflected in the ancient chronicles to some extent are the descriptions generally speaking of the same Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. In particular all three famous 'ancient' Roman Empires: the Royal Rome of Titus Livy (or the First Roman Empire) allegedly of the VIII-VI cc. BC, then the Second Roman Empire allegedly of the I-III cc., then the Third Roman Empire allegedly of the III-VI cc ., then the mediaeval Holy Roman Empire allegedly of the X-XIII cc. they are all the phantom reflections of the same Habsburg Empire = of the Novgorodians of the XIV-XVII cc., i.e. the reflection of the Great Empire. In other words, the 'ancient' Royal Rome founded by Romulus, perceived as the City and as the Kingdom is the 'Mongolian' Empire [1v], [2v],[7v1].

The famous 'ancient' historian Titus Livy, the author of the definitive 'Books from the foundation of the city' was in fact a chronicler of the 'Mongolian' Empire of the XIII-XVI cc. Most likely he lived in Western Europe in the XVI-XVII cc. As it happens in many places in his book Titus Livy displays a view point which today is called Judaic. However, at the same time, he most likely is Christian. But not in the modern sense of this word, but in the sense of the epoch of the XV-XVII cc.

The invasion of the 'Mongols' into Western and Southern Europe, Asia and Africa. The rise of the Hordian Empire[edit | edit source]

MongolianHordesInvadeEurope.jpg

By the end of the first half of the XIV century the restoration of the Empire commences under the rule of Ivan Danilovich Kalita = Caliph = Khalif. The Russian cavalry = 'Mongolian' hordes invade Europe, Africa and India, (see picture) in a wide reaching offensive. The 'Mongol' = great invasion begins.

As a result a considerable part of Eurasia was colonized. The rest were forced to accept - to varying degrees - their vassal dependency from Russia-Horde, possibly only in the form of paying the tax. The conquests of the Prince Georgiy Danilovich (Genghis Khan) followed by his brother Ivan Danilovich Kalita (Batu-Khan) resulted in the rise in the first half of the XIV century of the Great = 'Mongol' Empire with its centre in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia.

A new political force began its supreme reign in the historical arena. You can call it the Russian-Horde Empire as its centre was situated in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia = Velikiy Novgorod, and its military forces were called the Horde = Rat' (Russian for 'army') = Rodom (Russian for 'by birth'). The Empire was also called Israel.

MongolianHordesColonizeWorld.jpg

In the XIV-XVI cc. the Russian-Horde Empire spread its power over Eurasia, Northern Africa and a significant part of America. Generally it was not a conquest, but a colonization, as the local population, which consisted of separate small ethnic groups, could not raise any significant military resistance to the Imperial army = Cossacks = Israelites. The new large colonies emerged on the colonized lands with the advent of the 'Mongolian' administration. Among them were the regions of Western Europe, the Great Mogul in India, the 'Mongolian' state in China, samurais (i.e. Samarians - natives of Samaria), Samarians (from Samara), natives of Samara) in Japan, Mamelukes in Egypt, the Maya and Inca state in America, see picture [7v1],ch.1.

In the Russian sources the world Empire was called ALL RUS' (ALL RUSSIA) or the Russian Kingdom. In the foreign sources - the 'Mongol', i.e. the 'Great' Empire. According to S.Herberstein the word RUSSIA was then understood as 'Diaspora', 'proliferation' and the name 'ALL RUS' (ALL RUSSIA) meant simply 'all the proliferation' [161], p.58.

In the Western European sources Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. was reflected as the Habsburg Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. In the name Habsburg the second part - BURG means CITY. The first part is possibly a Latinized reading of a Slavonic word HAB (pronounced NAV) written in Cyrillic. It means NEW. In Latin H is spelled like a Slavonic N = H. And Latin B = Slavonic V=B. In this case HABSBURG is simply NEW CITY, NOVGOROD. Such a name carried a reminiscence of the capital of Russia-Horde Velikiy Novgorod = Yaroslavl. Incidentally the name of the capital of the later Habsburgs of the XVII-XVIII cc. itself VIENNA in Austria, possibly originates from the Russian word VENETS meaning wreath or crown, i.e. CROWNED, or ROYAL city. Further down the line the Hordian origin of the Habsburgs was forgotten. After the split of the Empire in the XVI-XVII cc. the Western Europeans started composing their 'correct history' anew, where there was no longer a place for Russia-Horde. The name VIENNA is close to VENETI, i.e the name of Slavic people, See a book by Orbini [617] and [5v].

About the Czarist Headquarters. In the Great Empire starting with Ryurik-Aeneas and ending with the middle of the XVI century the Imperial headquarters was always separate from the capital. The capital remained an open city where there were situated the state offices and embassies, and international trade took place.

The Imperial headquarters was a completely closed city. No outsiders were admitted. Starting with Ryurik-Aeneas and up to the middle of the XVI century the city of Yaroslavl on Volga (the chronicles' Velikiy Novgorod) was the Russian capital. The Imperial headquarters changed its location several times.

At first it was situated in Rostov Velikiy (Rostov the Great), then later in Vladimir, Suzdal, Aleksandrova Sloboda, etc. Something similar was taking place in Italy, when the Russian (Etruscan) invaders came there. They turned Florence into the capital of Italy. The Imperial headquarters was established by them in a different place in the future Italian Rome.

The emperors of the Great Empire = The Russian Tsars-Khans of the 14th century[edit | edit source]

Little is known about the history of the czars-khans of the Great Empire up until the XIV century. On the whole the XIII century is a dark and deep antiquity. Only since the 'Mongol' conquest the picture becomes clearer. With the emergence of a vast Empire the chronicle writing became more orderly and detailed. There appeared the imperial libraries which survived until the XVI century. After the schism of the Empire in the XVII century they were destroyed by the rebel reformists. Nevertheless a large amount of information has survived, although it is quite distorted and edited. The great conquest, which led to the emergence of the Horde Empire, was started by Georgiy Danilovich Moskovskii (Grand Prince of Moscow), aka Genghis Khan.

GEORGIY = YURY (YURIY)= GIURGII DANILOVICH 'MOSKOVSKII' (OF MOSCOW) = GENGHIS KHAN.[edit | edit source]

He reigned in 1319-1325. Aka Holy Georgiy Pobedonosets (St.George the Victorious). In the Western European chronicles he was reflected as Habsburg, i.e. Novgorodets meaning 'of Novgorod' (of the New City), 'Henry VII of Luxembourg' 1309-1314 according to [76] or 1308-1313 according to [304], v.2, p.406. We all know of the Tomb of Henry VII which in present day is situated in Pisa. It is very recent; it is a part of the 'material proof' specially created in the XVIII-XIX cc. to substantiate the Scaligerian history. However, there still remains the identity traces between 'Henry VII' and Georgiy of Moscow on the tomb-newly made.

Oskar Jäger informs us that 'the inscription... says... that the emperor's remains are preserved in the tomb incorruptible' [304], v.2, p.411. The Incoraptable remains or relics are a sign of holiness. Indeed, Georgiy Pobedonosets (George the Victorious) is consecrated a saint. So into the West-European 'Henry's tomb' the relics of some other saint were placed. But of course they were not George's.

According to our results czar-khan Georgiy Danilovich, like the other khans of the Great Empire, was buried in the old imperial cemetery in Egypt [5v2], ch.7:5.

Georgiy united the Russian lands under the rule of the 'Lord Novgorod the Great', as in that time Vladimir and Suzdal Russia was called. He started the great conquest the aim of which was subjecting the entire known world under the rule of the Great princes-khans of Vladimir and Suzdal.

At first the capital was situated in Rostov Velikii (Rostov the Great). Georgiy founded a new capital for the Grand Princes the city of Vladimir, which means: one who rules the world, the capital of the world. He also founded Nizhny Novgorod. He was killed at an early age. The circumstances of his death are not clear. According to some reports he was murdered by the conspirators.

He was consecrated a saint and canonised under several names several times: 1) as Holy Great-Martyr George (April 23, O.S); 2) as the Martyr Holy Blessed Grand Prince Georgy Vsevolodovich the miracle worker of Vladimir is commemorated on February 17 (February 4, O.S.)

Due to the mistakes of the recent chroniclers, the Grand Prince-Khan Georgiy is described in the Russian and 'Mongolian' history (which is one and the same thing) several times under different names. Specifying them we indicate the century into which the historians erroneously dated the original. So: a) Ryurik the founder of the Russian dynasty of Grand Princes, erroneously dated to the IX century. The figure of Ryurik is multi-layered. His first layer is the Trojan King, 'variag' Aeneas ('Varangian') who came to Rus' in the XIII century. b) Mstislav Vladimirovich 'The Brave', erroneously was dated to the XI century; c) Georgiy Vsevolodovich, erroneously dated to the XIII century; d) Genghis Khan, or in the other more correct variant of this name, Caesar-Khan, erroneously dated to the XIII century.

So in 1318 Georgiy Danilovich = Genghis Khan begins the conquest. The details of the colonization - unification are not known well. The historians extended this period over several decades. In reality it is shorter. We learned it at school as 'the beginning of Tatar-Mongol invasion from the EAST'. For the Western-Russian chroniclers that was what did happen. The ancient Ukrainian or Polish chronicles laid the foundation of some of the Russian chronicles which came down to us. It is not a coincidence that the Radzivilovskaya letopis (Radzivilovsky chronicle) was found in Kenigsberg.

The Old Russian coat of arms was Georgiy Pobedonosets (George the Victorious). It is not surprising. Georgiy = Genghis Khan was in fact the founder of the Russian 'Mongol' Empire.

The Radzivilovskaya letopis (Radzivilovsky chronicle) begins the story of the 'epoch of Ryurik from the Great strife, the war between the different regions of the state. This is the strife of the late XIII - early XIV cc. in Russia, already familiar to us. It concludes with the unification under the rule of the 'house of Kalita', Genghis Khan = Yuriy = Ryurik (king Aeneas). This is the result of the famous plea 'Come and reign and have authority over us!'. The chronicle rightfully informs us of the emergence of a new state.

The name Georgiy = Giurgii or Yuriy is the name of the famous annalistic Ryurik. Ryurik is just a different form of an Old Russian name Giurgii, i.e. Georgiy = Yuriy. There is no separate name Ryurik in Russia today. It does not exist in the church calendar either. But not because this famous name is forgotten. It's just it is being used in a different form Yuriy or Georgiy. The names Yuriy or Georgiy are considered to be different names only in present day. In the Old Russian language they were the same.

So the annalistic 'The Calling On the Princes (Varangians)' is the unification of Russia by Yuriy = Genghis Khan, started by the king Aeneas Noah - Ryurik.

IVAN DANILOVICH KALITA = KHALIF = BATU KHAN[edit | edit source]

Ivan Danilovich Kalita 1328-1340 according to [362]. Two versions of the beginning of his reign are indicated in [145], which are year 1322 or year 1328. The beginning of the Prince's reign is indicated for the second time under the year 1328.

In the Western European sources Ivan Kalita = Khalif was reflected as Habsburg 'Ludwig der Bayer' 1314-1347 according to [76] or 1313-1347 according to [304], v.2, p.414. 'Ludwig der Bayer' is a reflection of the following three Russian czars-khans: Ivan I Danilovich Kalita 1328-1340 according to [362] + his son Simeon Gordyi (Simeon the Proud) 1340-1353 + his son Ivan II Krotkii Krasnyi (Ivan II the Meek, the Fair of Moscow) 1353-1359 according to [36], [362].

Ivan Kalita continued uniting the lands under the rule of the Lord Novgorod the Great, which was started by his brother Georgiy = Genghis Khan. During his time the 'Mongol' conquest spread far to the West and to the South. He finally has subjected the Western Europe, in the XIV century he FOUNDED THE VATICAN AND ROME IN ITALY as a centre of the social and religious power in the West. The word VATICAN itself probably originated from the name of khan Batu. To be exact VATI-KAN is BATU KHAN or BATYA KHAN. In the Western sources he is reflected as 'Pope' Innocent III. He simultaneously was both a social and a spiritual ruler = khalif. He founded the institution of the Popes in Italy [4v2], ch.2:22.

Kalita=Khalif expanded the city of Yaroslavl or, as they used to call it, 'Yaroslavov Dvorishe of Velikiy Novgorod (Yaroslav's Court of Novgorod the Great) at the intersection of the Volga and Northern Dvina rivers' trade routes.

Ivan Kalita was the czar and the pontiff simultaneously. In the West his memory lived on long after him, which in time became the stuff of myth and legend: of an 'ancient' god or king Cron, of a mediaeval king-priest John the Presbyter, etc. [4v].

He died in the West, probably in Italy. He left behind two branches of government: the czarist in Russia and the pope's in Italy, which was also claiming the social power. These two branches were locked in battle long after his death.

Due to the mistakes of the recent chronologists, the Grand Prince-Khan Ivan Kalita is described in World History several times under various names: a) Cronus, a legendary king of Assyria. The Chronographia by John Malalas tells us about it. In various 'ancient' Greek myths Cronos is a progenitor of the Olympian gods. b) Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, was erroneously dated to the XIII century. c) Batu Khan, was erroneously dated to the XIII century.

He died of a sudden illness. It is quite possible that he was poisoned. He was buried, most likely, in Egypt [4v2], ch.2:22.

SIMEON GORDYI (SIMEON THE PROUD), AKA ALEKSANDR NEVSKY.[edit | edit source]

Simeon Gordyi 1340-1353 according to [362], [36], [145], aka Aleksandr Nevsky. In the Western European sources he was reflected as the Habsburg 'Ludwig der Bayer'. i.e. the 'Novgorodians Barbaric People'. Also the biography of 'Ludwig der Bayer' was contributed by the Grand Prince-Khan Simeon the Proud along with Ivan Kalita.

He reigned over the Empire from Veliky Novgorod. In Yaroslavl he established a centre of the international trade between the East and the West. He created a court of governors of Veliky Novgorod as a centre of the administrative control of the Empire. Under his rule and his successors' rule such remote regions as Egypt and China were assimilated into the Great Empire [5v].

On account of mistakes made by the recent chroniclers, the Grand Prince-Khan Simeon the Proud is described in World history a number of times under various names: a) Aleksandr Yaroslavich Nevsky, erroneously was dated to the XIII century; b) Menke Khan, erroneously dated to the XIII century; c) Berke or Birkai Khan, erroneously dated to the XIII century; d) Khan Chanikbek.

IVAN THE MEEK (THE FAIR)[edit | edit source]

Ivan the Meek (the Fair) 1353-1359 according to [36], [362] or 1354-1359 according to [145]. In Western European sources he was reflected as the very same 'Habsburg (Habsburger) Ludwig der Bayer'. I.e. the 'Novgorodians Barbaric People'. He ruled the Empire from Veliky Novgorod and continued to build the Empire: transport routs, the monetary system, the international trade between the East and the West in Yaroslavl. After his death his son, Dmitry Ivanovich, who was still a minor, remained to become the future Donskoi.

Ivan the Meek is also known in history under the name of Yaroslav Tverskoi, who erroneously was dated to the XIII century. The distant travels became possible only with the appearance of the vast Empire and its safeguarded caravan trails. Before then nothing of the kind existed. Travelling over the long distances was extremely dangerous. Even at such close proximity to one's home, one could find oneself in an alien environment with a different language and customs, falling easy prey to highwaymen or rogues. Only a powerful Empire was able to provide relatively secure transport routes, along which immediately set forth not only the military forces and merchants, but travellers too.

DMITRY OF SUZDAL[edit | edit source]

Dmitry of Suzdal 1359-1363 according to [362], or 1360-1362 according to [36], [145]. In the Western European chronicles he was reflected as 'Karol IV Habsburg' 1347-1378 according to [76]. We would like to point out that "Karol IV" means just the 'Fourth King'. He is the reflection of a 'sum' of the following two Russian czars-khans: Dmitry of Suzdal and Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi 1363-1389.

Very little is known of Dmitry of Suzdal. After the death of Ivan Ivanovich the Fair an uprising begins within the state and a struggle for power with Prince Dmitry, the minor, the future 'Donskoi'. Dmitry of Suzdal is also known in history under the name of Vassily of Kostroma and erroneously dated to the XIII century.

DMITRY DONSKOI[edit | edit source]

Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi 1363-1389 according to [362] or 1362-1389 according to [36], [145]. In the Western European chronicles he is reflected as 'Karol IV Habsburg'. Some facts of Dmitry Donskoi's biography also found their way into the history of Habsburg Venceslav following Karol IV.

Dmitry Donskoi is also known in history under the names of a) Svyatoslav Igorevich, erroneously dated to the X century; b) Dmitry of Pereyaslavl, erroneously dated to the XIII century; c) Tokhta Khan, erroneously dated to the XIII century; d) Khan Tokhtamysh; e) the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, erroneously dated to the IV century.

At the end of the XIV century the Great Strife begins in Russia-Horde. In 1380 a bloody religious battle takes place between the army of Dmitry Donskoi and Velyaminov-Mamai the temnik (Russian for the rank of army commander, and translates as "leader of thousands". The Battle of Kulikovo is considered to be major in the history of mediaeval Russia. According to our results, the battle took place in the territory of modern Moscow, where the Yauza River enters the Moscow River [4v1], ch.6. At that time there was no city of Moscow there. The place of the battle up until now is called in Moscow the KULISHKI FIELD, i.e. the Kulikovo field. The mass burials of the soldiers fallen in the Battle of Kulikovo, survive in Moscow in the Old Simonov Monastery and in the Andronikov Monastery. Today the historians are either reluctant to speak of them or are simply ignorant about them.

Dmitriy Donskoi laid down the foundation of the city of Moscow in the place of the Battle of Kulikovo. The capital, the czarist headquarters of Dmitriy Donskoi was the city of Kostroma. In Western European sources the battle is reflected as a famous battle allegedly of the year 1386 near the Lucerne city of Sempach [304], v.2, p.446. As we have shown in [\u041a\Uffffffff\u0417] the Battle of Kulikovo also forms the backbone to the main plot of the great 'ancient' Indian epic Sanskrit poem 'Mahabharata'. Here it is described as a famous battle in the field of the Kurus (Kurukshetra). It is also reflected in Titus Livy's 'The History of Rome' and in the Old Testament (in particular, as the battle between David and Goliath).

The Battle of Kulikovo's significant role can be explained by the fact that it was a religious battle for the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity as an official religion over the entire 'Mongol' Empire. The very same battle is described on the pages of the 'ancient' sources as a battle of the Emperor Constantine with Maxentius [\u041a\u0420] Thus Dmitriy Donskoi=Constantine the Great has baptised all of the Horde Empire by the end of the XIV century.

It turns out that the 'ancient' Roman sources described in detail the situation preceding the Battle of Kulikovo of 1380. The opposition between the former HEREDITARY, ROYAL Christianity and PEOPLE'S APOSTLES' Christianity becomes acute. A religious war approaches. Dmitriy Donskoi stands at the head of the Apostles' Christians, and Khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov leads the supporters of the Royal Christianity. The religious antagonism discrepancies become insuperable. The dispute escalates towards military conflict. At stake which religion will be adopted as the state religion in this vast Empire? It becomes clear that reconciliation is impossible. No one is willing to yield.

Following the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity by the Empire the defeated Royal Christianity was declared by the victors as 'foul paganism'. At that time such a stigma reflected irreconcilable differences between the two branches of the old Christianity. Later this conflict subsided. The Apostles' Christianity prevailed, and the Hereditary Christianity was consigned to history. But the pernicious stigma on the pages of the original sources remained. Subsequent historians naively interpreted it all too literally. They concluded that 'the foul pagans' didn't believe in Christ at all. The historians were mistaken. The 'pagans' did believe, but in a different way. They called Him not only Christ, but also the other names, which are forgotten today. For example: Hors, Thor, Kolyada, Rod, Zeus, Dionysus, Osiris, Theseus, Heracles, etc.


The expansion of the Empire[edit | edit source]

So, in the beginning of the XIV century the two brothers Ivan (Batu Khan) and Georgiy (Genghis Khan) Danilovichi were the czars-khans of the Great Empire. The creation of the empire was reflected in various 'ancient' documents of the 'antiquity'. In particular, it contributed to the legend of the foundation of the famous 'ancient' Rome, allegedly in the VIII century BC by the brothers Romulus and Remus, descendants of king Aeneas.

The most important political aim for the czars-khans of Russia-Horde of the XIII-XIV cc. - aka the 'ancient' Roman Empire - becomes the reinstatement and the significant expansion of the Czar-Grad Empire of the XI-XII cc. Russia-Horde was naturally considered by the people as the successor to Ancient Romea, because it was Russia, where king Aeneas-John = Ryurik, the representative of the former Czar-Grad = Trojan = Jerusalem dynasty, arrived to. The other parts of the former Romaic Kingdom in the XIII century were engulfed in the strife.

As we already said, at the end of the XIII - beginning of the XIV cc. the conquest of the world instigates from Russia-Horde. We call it the 'first wave'. It was not so much a question of military occupation of distant realms, populated mainly by isolated tribes or entirely undeveloped, but more akin to the reclaiming and absorbing of them into the Empire. Various ancient authors - for example, John Malalas or Mauro Orbini inform us that the MAJORITY OF THE REGIONS OF EURASIA AND AFRICA DURING THAT EPOCH WERE STILL SCARCELY POPULATED. That is why the armies of the Russia-Horde, which were irrevocably spreading out in different directions from the Volga River, would settle in as yet undeveloped territories and establish new cities and new civilisations there. We would like to repeat that it was a rather peaceful colonization, including that of the vacant territories of Western Europe. A large part of the settlers-Cossacks was sent to Africa and Asia, including India and China. The Horde reclamation of India of that epoch is known to us from the ancient sources as the appearance of the famous 'Aryans' and the creation of the Aryan-Indian civilization in Hindustan. The Cossacks (i.e. the Israelites), who came to Egypt, here established the Mamelukes dynasty, described later in the history of 'Ancient' Egypt under the name of the 'ancient' Hyksos. This migration from the centre of the Horde Empire in all different directions was later described in various chronicles as DIASPORA or THE GREAT TRANSMIGRATION OF PEOPLES, as the great Slavic conquest, as the rise of Babylon, etc. In the Bible Russia-Horde (Israel) is also described as militant Assyria. Titus Livy and the other 'ancient' authors describe the same events as the rise of Royal Rome and the conquest of the world.

In the epoch of the XIV century the firearms were invented, which provided the armies of Russia-Horde with an overwhelming military advantage for a long time. Sergiy Radonezhskii (Sergey Radonezhsky) (aka Berthold Schwarz) was the inventor of the canon. For the first time canons were used on a large scale in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 [\u041a\u0420]

The Empire encompassed practically the entire Eurasia and a great part of Africa, including South Africa, African Egypt, and the Nile Valley, where traditionally the Empire's ancestral Royal cemetery was situated. As we have said earlier, the choice of location, among other things was also due to the unique conditions in Egypt. A dry and hot climate facilitated a good preservation of the remains. Here - the embalmed Hordian czars-khans, their relatives, court nobility, governors, etc.- were transported post-mortem on the Hordian ships (called strugi)- across the Mediterranean Sea = the 'ancient river Styx'.

The embalming itself was invented to preserve the bodies of the deceased during a lengthy transportation from the locations situated far from the African Egypt. Those who died in Egypt did not necessarily have to be embalmed. There, in the white-hot sands, the mummification takes place without any embalmment.

In other words, various famous Egyptian burials of pharaohs and other burials in Egypt (in Luxor for example) which are known today, are the graves of the eminent and distinguished people of the Horde Empire.

By contrast, the burials of the 'Russian czars and czaritsas', allegedly of the pre-Romanovs epoch, which today are on display in Arkhangelsky Monastery of Moscow Kremlin, are forged, created by order of the Romanovs in the course of them re-score the Russian history in the 'correct' key [4v.2)].

Scythia was called Scotia, i.e. Scotland[edit | edit source]

The spelling of SCYTHIA was also used for SCOTLAND, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us [4v2], ch.3, ch.6:11. The words SCYTHIA and SCOTIA are almost identical.

We attribute the origin of the name SCOTLAND from SCYTHIA by the fact that the 'Mongol' conquest also swept through the insular England. Here arrived the Scythians and founded the cities and the state. This is the genesis of the name Scotland.

Let's address the mediaeval ENGLISH sources. What did they call Scotland? It turns out - SCOTIA and GUTLONDE, i.e. a COUNTRY OF GOTHS = GUT-LONDE [517], [4v2], ch.3:1.5. It corresponds wonderfully with our reconstruction.

We have to add almost nothing ourselves. It is enough simply to quote the source materials accurately. We suggest taking a look at the mediaeval records from the perspective of the common sense and the new chronology.

A wonderful consistency in the locations of the old capitals[edit | edit source]

If the Horde = 'Roman' colonization of Europe, Asia and Africa took place so recently and systematically enough, then some consistency in the location of the imperial colonial centres = the future capitals, should have manifested itself. Let us imagine ourselves in the place of a khan-czar who has to swiftly and sensibly organize the effective ruling over recently conquered vast territories. Many of them, according to Mauro Orbini [617], 'WERE YET TO BE DEVELOPED AT THAT TIME [5v1], ch.9. There were a few locals there.

For example, Orbini claims that when the Slavic army arrived to Holland for the first time IT WAS STILL A DESOLATE UNDEVELOPED COUNTRY [617].

MoscowCommandPostLocal.jpg

Most likely the command outposts vicariates - were set up along the trade routes of the empire. Not randomly, but in the same specific distances. Naturally, the location didn't always allow for this, but something like it was aimed for. What was the benefit of that? At the very least such system would introduce some logical order for trading, postal and courier services. The Khan was able to approximately know how long it would take the couriers to deliver an order from the capital of the Empire to any given region. Long distances were measured by, let's say, thousands of versts (versta - a Russian unit of distance equal to 1.067 kilometres (0.6629 mile)). It was, for example, one thousand versts to the 'closest' colonial centres. To the next ones two thousand. And so on. It is a simple and naturally-occurring idea for the Empire which was rapidly extending its boundaries towards little developed territories. Thus acted 'ancient Rome' in the Scaligerian history. Meaning, that was the way the "Mongol' Empire acted. It would cast something like a web over the geographical map, in the intersections of which, along the rays emanating from the centre, would appear the local command outposts (see picture) [4v2], ch.2. Of course over time some of them would make way for other outposts, which would appear later and for other reasons. Besides, this pattern was also affected by geography seas, mountains, rivers and wetlands.

It would be interesting to see if any, even vague traces of such a regular pattern still remain. If our hypothesis is correct, then many of the present day capitals should be broadly situated on a number of peripheries with the same centre, in picture. The location of the centre would point us to where the capital of the Empire, which at some point colonized and developed Eurasia, was situated. Could it happen to be the Italian Rome? It is difficult to foresee. Only the calculations can provide us with the answer.

Let us take a modern globe. Specifically, a globe and not a flat map, which distorts the actual distances.

Let us mark the present day European and Asian capitals on the globe: Amman, Amsterdam, Ankara, Athens, Baghdad, Beirut, Belgrade, Berlin, Bern, Bratislava, Brussels, Budapest, Bucharest, Warsaw, Vienna, Damascus, Dublin, Geneva, Jerusalem, Kabul, Copenhagen, Lisbon, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Moscow, Nicosia, Oslo, Paris, Prague, Rome, Sofia, Istanbul, Stockholm, Tehran, Tirana, Helsinki. Let us choose on a map an arbitrary point, which we will be changing later, and calculate the distance between this point and all the 37 capitals. We will get 37 numbers. We would like to stress that the distances are being measured on the globe, i.e. the earth surface, and not the flat distorting map.

Let us see, if the set point could be the centre of a number of circumferences, along which all, or nearly all the specified cities are situated. If not, let us set a different point. This way we can try to search through different points on the globe. It is clear that if the capitals are scattered randomly, i.e. they were emerging independently from each other, then there will be no central point. But if the capital were emerging the way we have described it, then the central point might occur. It is interesting to see where it might be. Could it be the Italian Rome? That would be natural for the Scaligerian history. Or could it be Istanbul? Which would mean that it was the Romaic Kingdom which at some point developed and populated Europe. Or maybe the centre was situated in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia? This is what our reconstruction claims. The only thing which remains to be done is to conduct technically uncomplicated, though cumbersome calculations.

MoscowCommandPostGlobal.jpg

The answer is as follows. Indeed, there exists a centre, respective of which nearly all the indicated capitals line-up around two peripheries of circles in the best possible way. This point is the city of Vladimir in Russia, (see picture). Incidentally, isn't it the reason why it is called Vladimir, meaning The Master of the World? This work was conducted by A.U. Ryabtsev - a professional cartographer (city of Moscow).

So, the result demonstrates that THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EUROPEAN AND ASIAN CAPITAL BARES TRACES OF A CERTAIN ANCIENT ORDER. It manifests itself in the concentric pattern of most of the capitals around a single centre the Russian city of Vladimir. Of course, such a pattern could have occurred accidentally. Nevertheless, our findings provide a perfect justification of the location of the capitals. The vast territories of Eurasia were developed and populated during the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century. Vladimir and Suzdal Russia was at its centre. The civilization encompassed the vast territories while creating the Eurasian Empire with transport routs, central government and strong administration. The future local capitals began to emerge in the intersections of the system of transport routs created according to a strict scheme, along the concentric circles around the centre - at approximately equal distance from it [4v2], ch.2:18.

The structure of the Horde Empire[edit | edit source]

In the XIV-XVI cc. all the regions of the Empire - including areas at a considerable distance from the Russia-Horde - were ruled by the governors subjected to the supreme Hordian czar-khan. The Western European chronicles called him the Emperor, deeming him to be the only one in the world. They are quite correct about that. The attitude of the Empire's provinces towards Russia-Horde and its czars was very respectful and sometimes would verge on idolatry. For instance, in the Mediterranean resorts there would appear some myths and legends about the mighty and ubiquitous gods, feasting on the distant and unreachable Olympus. Some of these legends found their way onto the pages of the chronicles. Later they were declared by the historians to be 'very ancient'.

The reasons for Russia-Horde becoming the metropolitan country of the Great Empire are clear. A significant portion of the wealth and natural resources of the entire planet are concentrated there. Being well aware of it, the khans-czars of Russian-Horde created a powerful army not so much as to guard the wealth, but to build a large and well organized Kingdom based on it. Since then it was the military power that became the most important characteristic of Russia-Horde = the biblical Assyria (Syria) = Israel.

Given that, in the provinces of the Empire in Western Europe for example, a particular attention was paid to the production of 'consumer goods'. The products of this labour were distributed throughout the entire Empire. Something or other was supplied to Russia-Horde.

In that distant epoch there were no nations or ethnic groups that exist in our time. They formed only in the XVII-XVIII cc. after the schism of the Empire. During its existence the Empire created a number of 'sacred' languages for both writing down Holy Scripture and for the national documentation. They were - the Egyptian hieroglyphs = ancient 'Jewish' hieratical language of priests; then Arabic; Mediaeval Greek; the Church Slavonic. The 'ancient' Latin and 'ancient' Greek languages were created later, in the epoch of the dissolution of the Empire, based mainly on the Church Slavonic language. The spoken languages in Russia were Russian (i.e. the simplified Church Slavonic language) and the Turkic (Tatar) languages. In the presence of a strong autocratic power the fundamental idea of the 'Mongol' Kingdom was the unity of the countries and nations which were a part of it.

In the vast territories of the Empire - in Egypt, Northern Africa, Europe, America, Asia - in the XIII-XVI cc. there spread a megalithic style of gigantic structures, made of synthetic stone. In particular - geopolymer concrete, imitating natural granite, diorite and other igneous rocks. This includes the colossal pyramids and temples of Egypt, the enormous American Maya pyramids, grandiose constructions and castles of the Middle East, imposing structures like Stonehenge in England, France, etc. The rapturous speculations of the historians about the supposedly many thousands of slaves, who allegedly for decades toiled at the erection of the Egyptian pyramids, for example these are the fantasies of the XVII-XX cc.

The pyramids and many other enormous structures of 'antiquity' were made of concrete. Building them was certainly not a simple matter, but it was carried out by a comparatively small amount of qualified labourers in a fairly short amount of time.

After the Trojan War of the XIII century, in the epoch of the 'first wave' of the great conquest the 'Mongols' = the great ones create powerful fortification systems all over the Empire. For example, a network of the famous castles of 'Qatar' = Scythian castles in Western Europe. In particular a great number of them survive in France: fortress of Montsegur, Carcassonne and many more. Similar fortresses-castles were erected in the Middle East, in particular on the territory of modern Syria. The historians consider them to be the work of the Crusaders. On the whole they are right. But it is necessary to clarify that they are referring to the Horde-crusaders of the XIII-XIV cc., who came from Russia-Horde and who were spreading the Christian faith in all directions. Among the Crusaders' castles of the Middle East you can see some really enormous constructions, like the famous castles Krak (des Chevaliers) and Macabre, the might and the ingenious engineering solution of which still impress today, despite the fact, that in the epoch of the Ataman (Ottoman) conquest, i.e. the 'second wave', many of these fortresses were badly damaged. However, their main disintegration fell in the times of the Reformation of the XVI-XVII cc, when the raging rioters were wrecking crushing the Horde-'Mongolian' castles in the provinces of the Empire which had broken away from the metropolitan country.

In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. the network of fortifications built throughout the entire Empire provided strict order. The Cossack-Horde military camps (including cavalry) were stationed within the castles, they controlled the vast territories and collected taxes.

Many of the castles were built on the top of the hills, mountains, rocky ridge for the visibility range and control over the transport routs. The soldiers, who served in these fortresses all over the Great Empire, began to be known as the Greben Cossacks, which meant: those sitting on the 'edge of the mountain'.

In the metropolitan country of the Empire, i.e. in Russia-Horde, a czar and the princes usually resided in the centre of the city, among their fellow citizens. For themselves personally the rulers would build a kremlin, surrounded with a motte-and-bailey. Moscow is such an example. There were no separate military castles built outside of the Russian-Horde cities.

An entirely different story unfolded in various lands colonized by the Horde. There the arriving Cossacks found themselves among the local foreign population. To control the vast territories the remote castles-fortresses were built, i.e. situated outside of the settlements and cities. In these mighty fortifications, usually on top of hills and mountains, the Hordian military camps were situated with their cavalry, ammunition, weaponry, etc. Hence the Hordian governors ruled the occupied regions. Thus the 'Mongol' elite and military would initially settle, on the whole, separately from the locals, not mixing with them. Of course in the future they would integrate and the original customs would be forgotten. So it was the necessity of the control over the Imperial provinces which would explain the presence of the considerable amount of the remote castles in Western Europe, in Syria, etc. and the absence of them in Russia, where the surrounding population was native.

In the XIII-XIV cc. the ruling establishment of the Empire professed the Royal, Hereditary Christianity. The regime of the czars-khans was indisputable and absolute. There were no rivals or competitors. The ruling class did not fear anybody. Alongside the military style of the castles-fortresses an opulent architectural style blossomed, known as the 'classical'. The massive circus-amphitheatres, temples with tall colonnades, gigantic palatial complexes, such as the legendary Palmyra and Apameia on the territory of Syria. There public worship took place, to here both the 'Mongol' czars-khans themselves and their numerous governors with their courts would arrive for celebrations.

In the XV century the Great Empire enveloped practically the entire populated world of that time. This empire is known to us from the Scaligerian history as the worldwide Empire of Karol V, i.e. the Fifth King. For a reason it was said in the old chronicles that 'the sun never sets on' his Empire. The chroniclers were not mistaken here. Having set on Asia and Europe, the sun would rise in America.

Some chronicles called the metropolitan country of the Empire, i.e. Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. - Israel. A czar-khan ruled over the kingdom from Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. The other part of the Empire allied to Russia, which appeared as a result of the conquest of the XV century, was The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania.

Czar-Grad became its capital in 1453. The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania was called Judaea. It was under these names - Israel and Judaea - that the two main parts of the 'Mongol' Empire are reflected in the pages of the Bible. The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania was called Judaea also because Czar-Grad = Biblical Jerusalem was its capital. According to the Bible, Jerusalem was situated in Judaea and was its capital.

Despite its vast territories, the 'Mongol' Empire for a long time existed as a single state. Since the XIII century Christianity was the doctrine of the Empire. However, Christianity in its modern sense, i.e. - the Apostles' Christianity was adopted as a state religion only after the dramatic Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. In this battle the Russian-Hordian prince Dmitriy Donskoy the Roman Emperor Constantine I the Great defeated the followers of the other Christian branch with khan Mamai, aka Ivan Velyaminov of the Russian chronicles, at the head of it.

In the Apostles' monasteries in Russia gunpowder and cannons were invented. The first cannons were wooden and were made of the oak trunks. The inventor of cannons is Holy Sergii Radonezhsky (the Western chroniclers called him Berthold Schwarz). The invention of this new incredible weapon was used intelligently by the Apostles' Christians in their fight against the emperors-'heretics'. In a critical moment the Battle of Kulikovo, the canons were put at the disposal of Dmitriy Donskoy = Constantine the Great, who acted in support of the Apostles' Christianity. His opponents, the believers in the 'Royal' Christianity united under the banners of khan Mamai = Ivan Veliaminov. The main military forces of the Empire were on their side. They didn't have a slightest doubt in their victory. On Dmitriy's = Constantine the Great's side only the militia assembled. But at the same time they had fire arms cannons, which the enemy did not know about. It was those cannons = the 'Christian weapon' which decided the battle. They possibly not so much defeated as inspired terror in the enemy. Dmitriy's victory was perceived by his contemporaries as a miracle. Having won, he made the Apostles' Christianity the state religion of the entire Empire [4v1], ch.6.

As we have said earlier, the Battle of Kulikovo by no means took place in the suburbs of the city of Tula, as think the historians, but in the location of present day Moscow, the future capital of the great Empire. In 1380 Moscow was still a small settlement. The field of Kulikovo was situated near the Moscow River, between the rivers Yauza and Neglinka, close to the present day Slavyanskaya square. See our reconstruction of Dmitriy Donskoy's (Constantine the Great) and Khan Mamai's (Maxentius = Licinius = Ivan Velyaminov) troops' movement in fig.26, fig.27. The structure of the Christian Great Empire was very flexible due to the lack of an efficient communications infrastructure. The Hordian governors ruled in the provinces. In particular their responsibilities included the tax collection and prompt shipment of it to the metropolitan country. The Hordian Cossack military camps were stationed in the main cities and settlements and ensured order and the smooth collection of tax. The steady trade was running smoothly between various regions of the Empire.

That is why in the provinces there evolved different areas of specialism some countries had better developed agriculture (for example Southern and Central Europe), some were good at ship building (for example, England and Spain), in some - blossomed medicine, literature and the arts on the whole (for example, in Italy), and in other there emerged 'resort' leisure zone (for example, in the South of France), etc. However, the accomplishments of all the regions of the Empire steadily contributed to the common 'Imperial piggy bank'.

The Czar-khan Dmitriy Donskoy = the Emperor Constantine the Great in the end of the XIV century moves the capital of the Empire from Russia to the Bosporus, to the suburbs of Czar-Grad = Biblical Jerusalem, where Andronicus-Christ was crucified. A new city - Constantinople - is being built here, and thus emerges the second capital of the Great Russian Mediaeval Empire. A part of the Royal court and a great number of people left for the new place with the czar. This event is known from the history text books as Constantine the Great moving the capital from the 'Old Rome' in the IV century (i.e. from Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, as we understand it now) to the 'New Rome' in the Bosporus, to the city of Byzantium. In Russia, in the first capital, there remained its own rulers. In the beginning the relations between those who stayed and those who left were peaceful. The main military forces of the Empire as before were situated in Russia, known as Israel. Czar-Grad became a new religious centre of the Empire. The area around it was referred to as Judaea. This prevailed for approximately 50-70 years. However, soon a new occurrence presented itself, without precedent. We will talk about it later.

Florence, Rome, Vatican[edit | edit source]

In the end of the great Slavic conquest of the XIV century, the Russian czars-khans established their domination over Western Europe. In particular, Horde has occupied and populated Italy. The Russians make Florence their capital in Italy. Thus in the first half of the XIV century in Italy there appear the Etruscan (the Russians). Among other things, they laid a foundation of a small town in Italian Lazio, which will later be called by the great name of Rome. Incidentally, it is deemed that 'the name of the new city itself 'Roma' is Etruscan in its origin [106], p.46. I.e. Russian.

In the XIV century there were no popes in Italy yet. They appeared there much later, in the middle of the XV century [\u0412\Uffffffff\u0422] Possibly, Ivan Kalita had his field headquarters at the site of the future Italian Rome.

As the Slavic conquest of the XIV century took place as early as in the epoch of the Royal Christianity, the rulers of the Empire were deified. In particular, Ivan Kalita (Khalif), aka the legendary Pop Ivan or Prester John, was a czar-god. The czars-gods of that time were the supreme rulers of the state and the church simultaneously. I.E. THEY WERE KHALIFS or POPES. That is why the royal headquarters were, among other things, of utmost ecclesiastical importance. But when the czar was leaving it, the quarters would lose its significance. Nevertheless, in the place of the Royal quarters, as a rule, there would emerge the significant cities, proud of their history. Thus it was with the Italian Rome.

At first after the conquest of the early XIV century there could be no dispute between Florence and future Italian Rome. A small town left by the czar could not compete with a large and wealthy capital Florence. The situation took a twist in the middle of the XV century, when after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 the Italian Rome became a refuge for a part of the Constantinople's nobility fleeing the Ottoman conquest.

The boyars from the immediate Royal entourage brought with them great wealth and kept their heads down for a while waiting for a right moment to begin their fight for the lost world domination. Since they needed to have some kind of plausible facade under which they could have existed for the time being, they seized the Vatican episcopal see and called their leaders popes. Though, up till the middle of the XVI century those popes were purely military people. They called the city where they settled Rome, as their old homeland was The New Rome Constantinople. However, the fortification which they built for themselves, they called by the city's old name - Vatican.

Thus in the middle of the XV century a new history of the Italian Rome and Vatican began. In the XVI-XVII cc. the popes overcame the opposition of the rest of the Italian cities, including Florence. Rome became Italy's main city.

With the ascent of the popes in the XVI century in Italy there ended the Etruscan epoch and commenced a New-Roman epoch. Later all of this was deliberately dated (on paper) to deep antiquity. It was in the XVI-XVII cc. at the popes' court that the false version of history started to be created [\u0412\Uffffffff\u0422]

So, there were several 'foundations of Rome', and they were all in different locations. As a reminder, the first is the founding of the Old Rome circa X century in the African Egypt in the Nile Delta. The second Rome was founded in the Bosporus circa the XI century. The third kingdom of Rome of Romulus and Remus (i.e. the famous 'ancient' Royal Rome, described by Titus Livy) was founded by Aeneas and his descendants in Russia-Horde of the XIII century [\Uffffffff\u041e\u0420] The Italian Rome was founded circa 1380.

Tin, copper, bronze[edit | edit source]

It is well known that the manufacture of tin is more complex than that of copper. That is why bronze, as alloy of copper and tin, must have appeared LATER than the invention of tin. In the Scaligerian history the situation is a completely the reverse. At first, allegedly, there was the invention of bronze. That is how the Bronze Age 'came about'. And supposedly only later tin, which is much more complex to produce, was invented. A contradiction occurred in the Scaligerian history. As a result, the 'ancient' Greek heroes strike each other with bronze swords, the production of which would require the 'yet to be invented' tin.

The present day chemists are certainly surprised by such Scaligerian fantasies and are sincerely trying to guess the reasons for such oddities. In fact, the bronze century falls within the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc., when the production of tin was already invented. Certainly, after copper [1v], ch.1.

Why the recurring names appeared on the maps of the 14th-16th centuries[edit | edit source]

The 'Mongol' conquest of Eurasia transferred many Russian-Turkic and Ataman (Ottoman) names of the cities, rivers and regions in all kinds of directions. The conquerors would arrive to the undeveloped lands, settle there and often call the new places with the traditional names, in memory of the homeland that they have left. For example, the name Horde, which appeared in England, in Spain and in many locations in Western Europe, Asia and America, multiplied a number of times. The name of COSSACKS also multiplied, turning into the names of various regions, separated from each other by thousands of kilometres. For example - in Spain and in Japan [4v]. The same thing happened to a name RUS' (RUSSIA): there appeared P-Russia or Prussia, Persia, Paris, etc. The names of TATARS and TIRKOMEN (TURKI) also spread and gave birth to the name of the Francs in the West, the Turks in Asia, and also such names as Thrace, Africa, etc. [\u0421\u0422\u041a\u0420]

The natural transfer of the names along the routes of conquest in the XIV-XVI cc. overlapped later, in the XVII-XVIII cc. with another effect, which also led to the proliferation of the geographical names. One of the main results that we achieved is that the majority of the surviving ancient chronicles are LAYERED, as in their final form they were created or edited in the XVII-XVIII cc. The original chronicle would be overlaid with its duplicates, moreover, sometimes - with a chronological shift. It resulted with an elongated layered chronicle. This could recur several times. As a result, the events were doubled, the geography shifted, the dates were changed.

Something similar was happening in the XVII-XVIII cc. with the geographical descriptions.

  1. The first such descriptions were not the maps in the modern sense of this word, but just brief LISTS OF COUNTRIES AND NATIONS.
  2. Later the maps were depicted in the form of a circle divided into three sectors Europe, Asia and Africa. These sections were defined by the form of a Christian T-shaped cross. Inside each sector the corresponding countries and nations were listed. This is exactly what the old Scandinavian maps look like in the geographical tracts [5v1], ch.11.
  3. With the development of the coastwise navigation, i.e. along the coasts, the maps with the rough contours of the countries appeared. The first navigators, constrained to keep to the shore, represented the seas as long rivers. It was as yet difficult for them to appreciate the scope of the seas and the oceans due to lack of a mariner's compass [1v], ch.5:11.
  4. Only later, with the beginning of the epoch of the Great geographical discoveries of the XV-XVI cc, with the invention of the compass, we see, that the countries and the seas on the maps of the XVI-XVIII cc. started to acquire much more credible contours and the geographical descriptions became more detailed. In the XIV-XVI cc. many geographical names multiplied, being transferred by the Hordian conquerors to the various regions of the world colonized by them.
  5. In the XVII-XVIII cc. a new Scaligerian history and a 'new geography' started being created and adopted. As the original geographical maps had an appearance of texts and lists of names, they unavoidably were subjected to the 'Scaligerian duplication', in a similar way to the chronicles.

In the XVII-XVIII cc. the historians began to wipe out the Great Empire from the chronicles. Besides, many imperial names were removed from the maps and replaced with different ones. They could also be relocated. A number of the geographical shifts-relocations were made. For example, it was declared that the Biblical Jerusalem 'was always situated' in present day Palestine, but it 'was never situated' in the Bosporus. The Romanovs' historians began to claim, that the chronicle history of Velikii Novgorod unfolded on the swampy desolate banks of the Volkhov River, but not at all on the banks of the Volga River, in the famous Yaroslavl and around it. And so on and so forth.

All the activities on the remaking of the geographical maps were purely office work i.e. was carried out on paper. Some famous 'Mongol' names were given to 'still vacant' spots on Earth. Then, the imperial names, which were transferred over there, were 'stuck' to the real nations, who lived there, and embedded into their conscience, writing system, geography and science along with the bits of the former history of Russia-Horde and The Atamania (Ottoman Empire), which were confiscated by force and replanted into the new places. The events which took place, for example, in Russia, were transferred - on paper - to the territory of modern China.

The missionaries, already with the Scaligerian maps in their hands, arrived, for instance, to Africa or China and announced to the natives what their country and they themselves were called in the 'ancient times'. And also what deeds their ancestors committed. At first the natives were baffled and shrugged their shoulders, but then agreed contentedly.

Thus, the geographical names of the various regions of the 'Mongol' Empire began to wander at first on paper, and later across the world. This process concluded only in the XVIII-XIX cc.


The riddle of the Etruscans[edit | edit source]

Let us look at the history of the Etruscans in more detail. To recap, in the XIII century the Trojan War takes place, as the result of which the GOTHS TATARS TARQUINII 'MONGOLS' RUSSIANS seize Czar-Grad. After a while the 'MONGOLS'= THE GREAT ONES, aka the Tarquinii = the Tatar Khans invade the West. This is at the very beginning of the XIV century.

Specifically they colonize Italy and are firmly established in Florence. At the end of the XIV century the Etruscans (the Russians) lay the foundation of a small fortification, calling it Rome. The word ROME could have originated from a Russian word RAMO = a shoulder, an arm, a part of an arm up to an elbow. The plural - is RAMENA, in Russian. This is an old form. Hence the word RAMA (meaning a 'frame' in Russian), as a space restricted by something. The Russian word ARMIYA (meaning ARMY) and the English ARMOUR, also originate from here. The Greek ROMEA could have also come from here. The current belief that ROME is an 'ancient', purely Latin word is a consequence of inaccurate chronology.

The name Rome was also considered to be a reference to THE ENTIRE STATE (denomination of the state as the whole). The Latini used the word Urbis = City for Rome, and Orbis world, universe. A corresponding Russian word is MIR (meaning WORLD in Russian). Many times we came across the backwards reading of names in the multilingual chronicles. For example, the Arabs and the Jews read from the right to the left; the Europeans read from the left to the right. That is why the words MIR (WORLD in Russian) and RIM (ROME in Russian) could have turned into each other when read by the peoples of different nationalities. Thus the MONGOLIAN WORLD would turn into the GREAT ROME and vice versa.

There is as yet an unsolved puzzle in Scaligerian history. Namely THE ETRUSCANS. The people, who allegedly, even before the founding of Rome in the VIII century BC, appeared in Italy, created a wonderful culture there and then mysteriously vanished leaving behind numerous artefacts covered with incomprehensible writings, which are indecipherable to many generations of the scientists despite their strenuous efforts.

In our concept the 'riddle of the Etruscans' is resolved. It turns out that in the XIX century the scientists A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky proposed their solution. They discovered the method of decoding and reading the Etruscan inscriptions. According to them THESE INSCRIPTIONS WERE SLAVONIC. THEREFORE THE ETRUSCANS WERE SLAVS. It became clear why the Etruscans called themselves 'Rasenna', i.e. the Rasens, the Russians [106], p.72.

However, the solution of the Etruscan riddle, put forward by these scientists, despite the indisputable interpretation of at least several Etruscan texts, conflicted with the spirit of Scaligerian history entirely. This was enough TO UNDERMINE BELIEF in A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky, despite the fact that nobody could contest their theory. It seems there was nothing to object to as A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky in fact had successfully read many Etruscan inscriptions. Until today, for over a hundred years, the Etruscologists kept quiet about the findings of these scientists.

Furthermore, probably not being able to find other ways to oppose A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky, some people began to deliberately mock them by earnestly publishing the 'research' with supposedly similar, but obviously meaningless 'decoding' (for example S.Grinevich, V.A.Chudinov). Substituting the opponents' arguments with other meaningless arguments is a dishonest, but, unfortunately, prevailing method of 'scientific warfare'.

This position is understandable. On one hand, what retort can one have if many Etruscan inscriptions indeed as A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky show us can be read and understood based on use of Slavonic languages. You cannot really say that 'it is a coincidence'. On the other hand it is impossible to concur with it. If the Et-ruscans were Slavs, than it immediately follows, that they must have been Russian!

So what does it mean then? Can it be that it was the Russians who founded the Italian Etruria? - the 'centre of the most ancient civilization in Italy and the eternal patroness and protector of religions' - according to the cardinal Egidio da Viterbo [106], p.4.

So what then? - The Russians lived in Italy before the founding of Rome. In Scaligerian history this would be inconceivable. But in the new chronology all obstacles to the acceptance of A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky's results are removed. Furthermore, it would be extremely odd if the Russian-Turk conquest left no traces in the Italy of the XIV-XVI cc. As it was Et-ruscan 'Mongols' = the Mighty who arrived there in the XIII-XIV cc., prior to the founding of Italian Rome in the XIV-XV cc.

Some scientists are trying to comprehend the obvious traces of the wide spreading of the old Slavic objects and inscriptions found all over Eurasia, and are doing their best to find a place in Scaligerian chronology, where they could insert all of this prolific Slavic material. But as all of the Middle Ages 'was full up', they have to go into a distant past and come up with theories of certain 'most ancient' Proto-Slavic people. In our view all such findings relate not to the Protoslavs (who, indeed existed at some point, but about whom we know nothing of today), but to the Mediaeval Slavs. It was they who in the XIV century conquered Eurasia and North Africa, and in the XV century America too.

For the first time the theory of the Etruscan language being Slavonic was expressed not by Chertkov, but by the Italian scientist Etruscan scholar Sebastiano Ciampi with whom Chertkov was personally acquainted. It was Ciampi who we can credit with the idea that the Etruscans were Slavic. However, not meeting with any approval in the scientific community, he did not follow through with his research. Chertkov developed Ciampi's theory, scientifically tested it and gave a definitive proof that the language of the Etruscans is indeed Slavonic [5v2].

I would like to draw your attention to an interesting fact. Here, for example, one of the Et-ruscan inscriptions, cited by Volansky [5v2], ch.3. How did the 'Etruscan specialists' manage to avoid reading this inscription?! IT WAS WRITTEN WITH REGULAR SLAVONIC LETTERS. And, moreover from left to right. What difficulties could prevent them from reading this text? We think, that the explanation is as follows. They consciously didn't want to. But why? Here is the answer.

In the West all the traces of the fact, that the great conquest of the XIV century and the conquest of the XV-XVI cc. were in fact Slavic and Russian-Turkic, were being destroyed. After the Reformation, in the XVII-XVIII cc., there arose an UNSPOKEN BAN ON ANY REFERENCE TO THE FORMER RUSSIAN PRESENCE IN THE WESTERN EUROPE. It found its expression in, particularly, a virtual ban on even trying to use any Slavonic languages to read so called 'illegible' inscriptions from Western Europe.

A new perception of the Et-ruscan history leads to a new approach to ancient Russian history of the XIV-XVI cc. Since the XVI century it was persistently impressed upon us that the Russian culture prior to the XVII century was of a very low level compared to the Western-European culture. And after the XVII century even more so. So, without trying to touch upon all the aspects of Et-ruscan life, i.e. a life of the Russians and Turks in Western Europe, let us see what the Et-ruscans achieved in the arts, medicine, etc. and how they did it. It becomes clear that they were able to do quite a lot. Here, for instance, are the words of the 'ancient' Diodorus Siculus (most likely a XVI-XVII cc. author), informing us of the high achievements of the Etruscans in science, culture and military arts. Many 'ancient' authors tell us about it.

The 'Etruscans', notable for their energy from time immemorial, conquered a vast territory and founded a great many cities. They created a mighty fleet and were the masters of the seas for a very long time\u2026 improved on the regulation of the army\u2026 They introduced writing, zealously studied the science of the Deities and mastered the observation of lightening. That is why until now they inspire awe in us \u2026' Diodorus Siculus. XIV, 113. Quote according to [574], the back cover.

Ancient Egypt[edit | edit source]

We have decoded a number of dates recorded on the zodiacs of ancient Egypt. It was achieved by means of a radically new method of a complete decoding of the zodiacs developed by A.T.Fomenko and G.V.Nosovskiy [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415] [3v2].

Thanks to the resources available to us for the first time and vast computer-generated astronomical calculations it has become possible to determine dozens of dates recorded on the ancient zodiacs. All of these dates fell into the same epoch - not earlier than the XI century. The newly discovered astronomical findings proved to be unique for the vast majority of the Egyptian zodiacs. The complete decoding of the horoscopes on the Egyptian zodiacs determined by A.T.Fomenko and G.V.Nosovsky included some partial decoding by N.A.Morozov and T.N.Fomenko suggested earlier. However it differs from them in some details.

Based on the received dater we can claim that the 'pharaohic' history of Egypt by no means unfolded over hundreds and thousands of years BC, as it is commonly thought, but in the epoch of the XI-XVI cc. AD. The dates on the Egyptian wooden coffin-sarcophagi are interesting. They can be found in the illustrated books on Ancient Egypt and are considered to be 'very ancient'. But now it has become possible to establish precisely their true age in some instances. The fact is that on coffin lids there are sometimes depicted zodiacs with the date of death encoded in them. For example, the decoding of one of them - the Brugsch zodiac - gave us the middle of the XIX century! In other words, the 'ancient' Egyptians (aka, possibly, mamelukes) even 150 years ago were making such coffins and buried their dead in them. And now they are exhibited in many museums as alleged artifacts of the 'most ancient' history. Let us turn our attention to the history of Egypt in more detail.

  1. The history if Egypt gradually steps out of obscurity only from the XI-XII cc.
  2. The Egyptian history from the XI to the XIII cc. is very poorly covered in the documents which survive today.
  3. The history of Ancient Russia and the history of African Egypt are closely intertwined. The written and archaeological history of African 'Ancient' Egypt known to us today is, essentially, its history as a part of the Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. We certainly shouldn't think, that the 'mongols'= the mighty, who invaded Egypt in the XIV century, left the Russian-Turkic people unaltered over subsequent centuries. They settled in the lands of Central and North-African, mixed with the local population and soon forgot their origins. But they made a notable contribution to the history and culture of Egypt.
  4. The famous 30 dynasties of the Egyptian pharaohs are on the whole the phantom reflections of the dynasties of the czar-khans of the XIII-XVI cc.
  5. The 'ancient' pharaohs of Egypt were the Russian-Turkic czars-khans of Russia-Horde and The Atamania (Ottoman Empire). They ruled the Empire. During their life time they appeared in African Egypt very rarely. However after their death they were undoubtedly brought here for their burial in the Central 'Mongolian' cemetery. In particular, to Giza and Luxor.
  6. The country of Egypt described in the Bible, is Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. [6v1], ch.4.
  7. The period from the first half of the XIV century to the end of the XVI century contributed the most into the history of 'Ancient' Egypt. Here many of the famous Egyptian events were focused. In this respect the Egyptian history is not an exception. In documents that survive today the history of the other regions of the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. weighs heavily the history of the preceding epochs.

This is the epoch of the Great Empire. The conquest of the XIV century is reflected in the history of 'Ancient' Egypt as the so called the 14th dynasty of pharaohs - the Hyksos (the Mamelukes). The Egyptologists erroneously dated them to the years 1786-1570 BC. Incidentally, with remarkable accuracy - accurate, purportedly, to within one year!

The Mamelukes formed an exclusive ruling military caste in Egypt, similar to the samurai in Japan, for example. They hardly ever mixed with the rest of the population and were the Cossack-Hordian rulers of the Empire. They guarded the central imperial cemetery and oversaw the construction of the burial complexes.

The social class of the Mamelukes was annihilated in the XIX century, after Napoleon. Later on the reign in Egypt was passed on to the Europeans. The local population was indoctrinated with the belief that their former rulers, the Mamelukes were evil.

The events following the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century date to the 18th dynasty of the pharaohs. The Egyptologists erroneously date it to the years 1570-1342 BC.

  1. The period of time from the end of the XVI century to year 1798. At first - the ruling of the Atamans (Ottomans) until 1585, followed by the second dynasty of the Mamelukes. It concludes with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798.
  2. Egypt was the religious and cultural centre of Romea of the XI-XIII centuries, and then of the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. Here were written the chronicles including those on the stone monuments, describing not African Egypt itself as such, but the entire Great Empire, widespread over the vast territories. All the way to the Far East and America. By no means are all the hieroglyphic texts of 'Ancient' Egypt read and translated today [4v2], ch.8:3.

The African-Egyptian priests recorded the deeds of the distant Hordian czars-khans and Ottoman sultans. Later after the creation of Scaligerian history it was cunningly declared that the Egyptian chronicles exclusively describe African Egypt and its surroundings. In doing so the historians of the XVII-XIX cc.

severely diminished the true scale of the 'Egyptian' events. The history of the entire vast 'Mongol' Empire was squeezed into small territorial size, 'replanted' to Africa and sent back into the remote past.

So that it didn't interfere with the manufacture of the Scaligerian myth. There are many riddles in the history of Egypt. Now they disappear. It becomes clear that Ancient Egypt, as in fact the other ancient civilizations, is just a few hundred years before us. In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. Egypt was only a small part of the Great Empire, although it is possible that it was Egypt which was the motherland of its czarist dynasty. Here the necropolis of the royal family was situated.

That is precisely why nearly all the 'ancient' Egyptian inscriptions describe exclusively the burial rites. The Egyptian population was assigned the role of labourers and guardians of this cemetery. The czars-pharaohs didn't live themselves in Egypt. They were brought here posthumously.

The Egyptians built and decorated the royal tombs, temples and other burial constructions. All of this was carried out not by local means, but based on the resources of the entire Empire. According to some scientists, the imposing Great Sphinx, which is situated close to the pyramids, 'represented four elements, in the form of a bull, an eagle, a lion and a human'. See [5v2], ch.6. The Great Sphinx is considered to be the most ancient structure in Egypt. The builders constructed an enormous rock and covered it\u2026 with stone blocks in order to give it the form of a Sphinx. But the symbols of a Bull, an Eagle, a Lion and a Man are considered to be the symbols of the evangelists [936], v.1, p.513.

It turns out that the Great Sphinx of Giza simply combines these Christian symbols into one monumental sculpture. So what is this symbol? It is a very familiar Christian Cherubim. It is he who has the four faces of a lion, a man, an eagle and a bull. That is what the ecclesiastical legends tell us [5v2], ch.6.

Therefore it is A CHRISTIAN SYMBOL A CHERUBIM which overlooks the field of the pyramids in Giza. Not far from it are situated numerous other cherub-sphinxes. They form the Valley of the Sphinxes. The Circassians, i.e. the Cossacks, the Mamelukes, who assumed power in Egypt purportedly in the middle of the XIII century are those famous Hyksos of 'Ancient' Egyptian history. The Hyksos invasion is one of the reflections of the 'Mongol' invasion of the XIV century. It was at that time when the Great Sphinx was erected by the Hyksos-Cossacks in Christian Giza, i.e. Cossack pyramid field in Giza as a Cherubic symbol. Here emerged the central burial complex of the entire 'Mongol' Empire.

The pyramids and the burial mounds[edit | edit source]

The Great Pyramid was erected not earlier than the XIV century, in the epoch of the Great Empire. There survive some information about only one of the rulers, who built the Great Pyramid. It is Khufu or Kun-Aten.

Herodotus tells us that while constructing the Great Pyramid IRON TOOLS were used [163], p.119, book II Euterpe, paragraph 125. For the XIV-XV cc. it is not only unsurprising, but absolutely typical. It is clear why also a STEEL chisel was found set within the masonry of the Khufu Pyramid [1v], ch.1.

The Egyptian pyramids are just one form of the Scythian mounds. In the modern Egyptology 'a question about the origins of the word 'pyramid' remains unsolved. Many people think\u2026that the word 'PYRAMID' originates from the Greek PYRAMIS (from PYROS) meaning 'A SWEET CAKE MADE FROM HONEY AND WHEAT'. This cake had a shape of a cone, and Greek pilgrims compared it with a pyramid' [464], p.49.

Still in existence today is a well-known Christian Orthodox symbol called PASKHA (meaning Easter cake). It has the shape of a PYRAMID on the sides of which are usually depicted an egg and some steps, Cyrillic letters XB = Christ is Risen, i.e. the symbols of Christ's Resurrection. Today the Easter cake is made out of curd, but earlier it could have possibly been made as a cake, i.e. baked.

It is possible, that the Egyptian pyramid-mounds are the depiction of the Christian Easter cake. And today on the edges of the 'Easter' cake-pyramid there are depicted Christian symbols. So what was carved out on the gigantic stone edges of the Egyptian pyramids? Weren't they those very symbols? Following the religious schism of the XVII century all such Christian imagery was obliterated.

Our idea is directly supported by the 'ancient' Egyptian customs and images. In 'Ancient' Egypt there were wide spread pyramidia (plural form of pyramidion) small pyramids varying in size from several centimetres to several dozens of centimetres. They were used to decorate buildings with. They prepared festive food for holidays in the shape of small pyramids. The pyramidions 'were often painted WHITE' [1360], p.44 And furthermore: 'The pyramidions made of stone were regarded as the objects in which the 'SUN GOD' lived [1360], p.45. But it was Christ who was called the Sun! So here it is said practically directly, that 'the 'ancient' Egyptians were making the pyramid shaped Easter cakes (Easter pyramidions) in honour of Christ.

The Great Pyramids naturally fit in the epoch of the monumental constructions, which blossomed in the XIV-XVI cc. all over the Empire. They are: 1) The Great Wall of China, 2) the magnificent cathedrals of Western Europe, 3) the indomitable Kremlins and fortifications in Russia-Horde, 4) the massive Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, aka (according to our reconstruction) The Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem = Czar-Grad, 5) the Great Sphinx, 6) the Great Pyramids and temples of Egypt 7) the great pyramids and temples of Central America, in particular Mexico, 8) gigantic constructions of Baalbeck (Lebanon). Fig. 28 shows an interesting image (from an old Japanese book) of the pyramids with crosses on the top and statues of angels on the side.

It is plausible that the three Egyptian pyramids depicted the Christian Holy Trinity. It is possible that is exactly why one of the three pyramids - Khufu Pyramid = Got is noticeably bigger than the other two. It represented the Father. Pharaoh Khufu = Got in 'ancient times' was called SAOFIS [5v2], ch.7. Could it be a distortion of ZEBAOTH = The Father? The Great Pyramid and the Great Sphinx in front of it were built probably as a symbol of God 'bestriding' the Cherubim.

Alternatively there could also be another explanation. The Great Pyramid symbolized The Holy Sepulchre, i.e. Christ's coffin. The colossal scale of the monument emphasized the might of the Horde Empire which created it. This could only be within the power of a rich state. Only a wealthy state could afford to make something like that.

The three large pyramids were hardly used for the burials. There are no inscriptions or images on the sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid of Cheops. It more likely resembles a treasure chest. There could have been a lot of such 'chests' there before. Here a part of the Empire's treasury was kept, as an 'emergency reserve stock'. A passage inside the chamber was covered with an enormous stone slab, which was propped up from underneath. After the attendants left the chamber, the prop was kicked out, the stone slab came crushing down the stone runners and walled up the chamber. Sometime later it was opened and the treasures were taken. The old texts say quite justly that allegedly inside the pyramid a reservoir of embossed gold coins was discovered; there were about 1000 denarii, each weighing an ounce. Al Mamoun admired the purity of this gold. Al Mamoun ordered to transfer it (the pool, - Author\u2019s note) into his treasury [464], p.39. It is generally thought that the Egyptian pyramids are something unique. Purporting that at the very least there are no pyramids and there never were any, neither in Europe nor in Asia. But it is not so! Pyramids are well known in Eurasia, particularly in Russia. THEY ARE KURGANS. Besides it is evident that it is not the pyramids that preceded the mounds, but the other way round. The Great Egyptian Pyramids are in a certain sense the pinnacle of the 'mound architecture'.

It is wrong to think that the mounds should always automatically be burial mounds. The mounds were also used as the civic buildings. For example they were used as churches. An enormous 'Tsarsky Kurgan' (Royal Mound) not far from the city of Kerch in Crimea, IN THE MIDDLE AGES WAS A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. It is a well-known fact, the explanation of which is given on the sign at the entrance to the mound [5v2], ch.7.

Tsarsky Kurgan is built as a Christian church. There is an altar with wonderful acoustics, Holy doors and a prayer area for the congregation. Three steps lead up to the amvon, to the altar, as befits a Christian church.

Moreover, the Kurgan structure was laid out in the form of a church FROM THE OUTSET. It is impossible to rebuild it without destroying the entire kurgan. Which means that we are dealing here not with a burial site, which was robbed and later adapted as a church, but with an original Christian church. Kurgan or a pyramid is a stone structure built without any binding solution. To protect from the rain penetrating such a house-kurgan, it was covered up with soil. The main difference between the Egyptian pyramids and the kurgans is only in the fact that they are not covered with soil. But this can be explained by the particular qualities of the climate in Egypt. It hardly ever rains there.

Egypt - The land of crosses[edit | edit source]

Gods Re-Herakhte
Colossi of Memnon statue cross
Egyptian sculpture of pharaoh, with cross backside

The idea that the religion of 'Ancient' Egypt is not connected with Christianity has been instilled in us. However, when liberated from the trappings of Scaligerian chronology, a different picture emerges. For example, 'Ancient' Egypt is considered to be a classic 'land of crosses'. Many Egyptian deities featured on the drawings and the bass-reliefs hold in their hands a mediaeval symbol (anagram) for Christ a cross with a loop (the Ankh Cross). For example, the gods Re-Herakhte, see picture, the goddess of moisture Tefnut, the sacred lions of Shu and Tefnut, etc. [2v1], ch.1. On the backs of the thrones of both Egyptian statues, known today as the Colossi of Memnon, there survive enormous wide Orthodox crosses, see picture [5v2], ch.7. Here is another example of an impressive 'ancient' Egyptian sculpture of a pharaoh, on the back of the throne of which an Orthodox Christian cross is carved out, fig.31. It could not have been otherwise, as Egypt of the Pharaohs was a Christian country of the epoch of the XIII-XVI cc.

Similar Christian crosses often can be seen in 'ancient' India, Mesopotamia and Persia. There is a simple explanation to this. All over the 'Mongol' Empire in the XIII-XVI cc. Christianity was the state religion. At first - Royal Christianity, and then - the Apostles' Christianity. That is why people worshiped Christ and used a cross and the other Christian symbols in the religious symbolism.

The sarcophagi and the Russian dolls[edit | edit source]

We know that the Egyptian sarcophagi with mummies are arranged in a remarkable manner. The coffins are enclosed within each other in order of decreasing size. Only the last one contained a mummy itself. Each coffin represented a HOLLOW FIGURE OF A PERSON - with a face, wearing the robes and a head-dress, and displaying the symbols of authority. For example, the scheme of the sarcophagus of Tutankhamun, see picture.

Does it remind you of anything familiar? Well, of course, the famous Russian dolls (matryoshka)! Several interleaved hollow figurines, resembling each other, becoming progressively smaller, only the last of which is solid. Each one of them is painted and represents a person. As far as we know this symbol - a doll - existed only in Russia. And, as we can see, in 'Ancient' Egypt as well!

It is probable that in the Russian folk art there survives a memory of the ANCIENT RUSSIAN-HORDIAN CUSTOM to bury the czars in coffins - matryoshka. The Hordian czars and sultans atamans (ottomans) of the XIV-XVI cc. were buried in the Imperial cemetery in African Egypt according to the Russian tradition.

Earlier, before the Romanovs, Christian burial methods were prevalent in Russia, which was unusual from a modern perspective. In particular, the ANTHROPOMORPHIC SARCOPHAGI, i.e. tombs made in the form of a human body [5v2], ch.7. Just like in 'Ancient' Egypt! These customs were especially significant in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia.

Some scientists point out the correlation between these Russian tombs, Byzantian and the 'ancient' Egyptian tombs, but presume that the RUSSIAN ANTHROPOMORPHIC SARCOPHAGI were adopted from the Egyptian ones. However, most likely it was the other way round, such a type of sarcophagus came to 'Ancient' Egypt from Vladimir and Suzdal Russia together with the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century.

The anthropomorphic sarcophagi are constantly being found in Moscow during excavations. For instance, in a former Bogoyavlensky Monastery (Epiphany Monastery) close to the Kremlin [62], p.79. These Russian sarcophagi are made in the form of the human body, with a head and shoulders.

In the Kremlin's Arckhangelsky Cathedral at least some of the tombs of the Russian princes (most likely symbolic) were made in the following way: a wooden coffin was enclosed inside a stone sarcophagus. Thus the 'matryoska-like' burials were indubitably made in Russia. Today's Russian doll souvenirs are reminiscent of this custom from our ancient past. In [4v2], ch.2:6, we have shown that between 1632 and 1636 the Romanovs reformed the Church, in particular they dramatically changed the burial customs in Russia. Then a wave of the Romanov 'pogroms' swept through the Russian cemeteries.

In the new chronology the history of ancient Egypt of the XI-XVI cc. as before occupies the place of the most ancient ones. But some of the 'most ancient' customs survived until the middle of the XIX century.

Tutankhamun and Czarevich Dmitry[edit | edit source]

By calling a young pharaoh Tutankhamun, we rely on the reading of the hieroglyphs with which he is so named in his tomb and, possibly, in some texts. In reality most likely, he had a different name. As the royal cemetery of the Horde Empire was situated in Egypt. Consequently Tutankhamun was one of the czareviches (princes) of the Empire. You will recall that HE DIED VERY YOUNG [1366], p.24, 117.

It is hard to say who Tutankhamun actually was. However, the fact that he was a CHILD, and there were DAGGERS attached to the belt of his mummy (most likely there was a particular importance placed on them), suggests that Tutankhamun is czarevich Dmitry. Dmitry died in the end of the XVI century in Uglich, allegedly by accidentally stabbing himself with a dagger whilst playing a game. This is one version of the story.

In this context the following fact acquires a particular tone. On the left side of Tutankhamun's mummy there was discovered a cut in an unusual place. Experts believe it to be an embalming incision whilst acknowledging its 'unusual' location [1366], p.117. However, it is quite possible that a cut in such an unusual place appeared not during the embalming process, but whilst the czar was still alive. Could it be the deadly cut of a knife with which Czarevich Dmitry 'stabbed' himself? Therefore this wound could have been used during the embalming. Furthermore, a splinter was embedded in Tutankhamun's skull, which is said to be a possible cause of his death [1366], p.118. Here is the medical professionals' opinion: 'The fact, that the czar (Tutankhamun - author's note) was murdered, however, appears increasingly plausible' [1366], p.118. See [5v2], ch.7.

There were two daggers discovered on Tutankhamun's mummy - one iron, the other - made of gold. It is possible that the grieving relatives put them there as a sign of czarevich Dmitry having been murdered by the blows of several knives or daggers. The 'classical authors' Suetonius and Flavius write about several swords, when telling us about Caligula = Czarevich Dmitry [\u0420\u0418]. A first-hand account survives to this today, that the relatives of murdered czarevich Dmitry in fact did put the assassin's' knife on him: 'There (in the church author\u2019s note) still rested Dmitry's body stained with blood, and ON TOP OF THE BODY - THE ASSASSINS' KNIFE\u2026 having seen this angelic peaceful face, blood and the KNIFE, he shuddered' [362], v.10, ch.2, column 80. So, it was like this - with a dagger (or two) on his body Dmitry-Tutankhamun-Caligula was buried.

To conclude, it is plausible, that from the remote XVI century the original mummy of czarevich Dmitry, aka the 'ancient' emperor Gaius Caligula, aka young pharaoh Tutankhamun survives to this day. But 'czarevich Dmitry's tomb', which today is situated in the Cathedral of the Archangel in Moscow's Kremlin, is merely symbolic.

Pharaohs' boatsstrugi[edit | edit source]

The 'Pharaohs of Egypt' were the czars-khans of the Great Empire. They by no means lived on the territory of modern Egypt, but far from Africa. After they died their bodies were embalmed and transported to Africa by large boats-strugi.

Cheobs underground chamger boat

By such oared boats (strugi) it was possibly to travel both on rivers and by sea along the shore. According to chronicles, the Russians went to sea by strugi as far as Constantinople. Cossacks' strugi went to sea as early as in the XVII century. The longer such boats were, the easier they endured sea waves. It is possible that this particular fact explains the large dimension of the two 'ancient' Egyptian pharaohs' boats approximately 40 metres long, found in the underground chambers close to the Pyramid of Cheops in Egypt. Picture shows the front part of the pharaoh's shop in an assembled state. Below you can see displayed the layout of the boat-strug's parts in the underground storage chamber. The images of the Russian strugi [5v2], ch.7 bear a close resemblance to the pharaohs' boats, fig.2.

The 'Mongolian' burial strugi-boats transporting the body of a czar-khan would arrive to the sea port of Alexandria at the mouth of Nile, go up the Nile and reach Cairo with its royal cemetery in Giza. After this the strugi-boats were buried close to the pharaohs.

The pharaohs' boats were made of the long wooden planks. The edges of the planks were very smooth and fitted together very well. The boards of the ship's body curved and were also very well adjusted. The technology of curving the boards is quite complex and indicates an advanced level of ship building expertise. The 'ancient' craftsmen evidently used saws. It would be difficult to build such a boat with a common axe. Provided, that the saws should be made of iron or steel. Most likely, in front of us are the strugi-boats of the XIV-XVII cc. They can hardly be four thousand six hundred years old. As we are lead to believe that allegedly Ancient Egypt had no knowledge of iron or steel saws. This is the exact reason why the iron objects occasionally found in the pharaohs' tombs are declared to be rare and unique, or 'by chance' placed there during the later epochs.

LifeInAncientEgypt.jpg

Picture presents the scenes from life in 'Ancient' Egypt on the Rekhmire tomb's frescos in the Valley of the Kings in Luxor. At the top on the right and at the bottom on the left we can see the builders sawing wooden joists and planks with hack saws. You can see the teeth of the blades very well. Therefore steel was used in 'Ancient' Egypt. It is impossible to make a hack saw out of copper or bronze. Copper is too soft, and bronze is too fragile. The teeth of the bronze hack saw would break straight away.

Concrete and the Philosopher's Stone[edit | edit source]

In [5v2], ch.7, we are, among other things, trying to deal with the issue of the pyramids' construction. The Egyptologists paint beautiful, but fantastical pictures on this subject for us. And it is not just about the pyramids, but also about other colossal constructions of Ancient Egypt. We are told about vast crowds of 'ancient Egyptian slaves' who allegedly cut blocks of stone weighting up to 200-500 tons in the mountains, moreover, supposedly with copper hack saws (?!). Then these monstrous blocks were allegedly dragged across the sand, in some mysterious way ferried across the Nile, and eventually from them, like from some little blocks, allegedly the pyramids were assembled. This being said, the height of the Great Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu) is approximately 140 metres.

Up until now they have come up with some fairy tale notions - how the enormous blocks were transported and supposedly lifted. On paper they draw some ingenious elevating machinery or gigantic sand ramps by which allegedly large-tonnage blocks were dragged up to the height of tens of metres. And to think that some of these blocks weigh several hundred tons! See - [464], p.189.

In fact there are no puzzles there. There is only one puzzle: how could the Egyptologists 'not see', that the great majority of the blocks of the big pyramids, apart from the veneer and some internal constructions, WERE MADE OF CONCRETE.

The problem of rock and ore fragmentation in antiquity was solved after a sort of shattering of grain - mortars, attrition mills, grindstones. In the region of the gold Gebeit minefield in the Red Sea mountains, Doctor of Geological Science A.V.Razvaliaev examined dozens of grindstones with a diameter of up to 50-60 cm for splitting gold ore. The primary rock was ground with millstones and carried to the river bank for tossing (the washing process). There are smaller breaking devices known to us - grating machines, discovered in the Egyptian desert [5v2], ch.7. This simple technology quickly resulted in the invention of concrete. What is concrete? In order to make it you need to grind down primary rocks into a dust-like powder. It's easiest to use soft formations. For example limestone, the sources of which are situated in the pyramids field in Egypt. In order for the powder to turn into dry cement it is necessary to thoroughly dry it or bake it in a fire for the moisture to evaporate. But in Egypt's arid and hot conditions, where rain falls sometimes only every five years [5v2], ch.7, the special dehumidifying of the powder was unnecessary. The thin dry powder is then sifted into a kind of mould and then into an encasement. This is then filled with water and mixed together. The solution solidifies and turns into stone. I.e. into concrete. Sometimes powder was mixed up with small finely broken stones. In this case there were fine little stones embedded in the final block.

After some time it becomes difficult to distinguish such concrete blocks apart from those carved out of the same rock, as they disintegrate and take the form of the 'natural stones'. Many years ago a French chemistry professor of the University of Bern Joseph Davidovits put forward an interesting hypothesis [1092]. Analysing the chemical make-up of the 'monoliths' of which the pyramids are made of, he suggested that they were comprised of concrete and determined 13 components of which it could have been made. Just several crews of the 'ancient' Egyptian concrete stone layers could have easily erected a pyramid 100-150 metres high. And moreover, in a rather short amount of time. In any case not dozens of years.

J.Davidovits founded a new branch of applied chemistry called geopolymer chemistry. 'Any rock can be used in a finely fragmented state, and geopolymer cement made of it is practically indistinguishable from the natural stone. Geologists who are unfamiliar with the possibilities of geopolymer chemistry\u2026 mistake geopolymer cement for natural stone\u2026 Neither high temperatures, nor high pressure are required to produce such artificial stone. Geopolymer concrete quickly sets under the room temperature and turns into a beautiful artificial stone' [1092], p.69.

To invent geopolymer cement the only thing necessary was many years of observations and experiments. The alchemists could have done this perfectly well. The geopolymer cement of the pyramids, statues and obelisks of Egypt was in fact invented by the alchemists, however not 'ancient' alchemists, but mediaeval ones. In the Middle Ages alchemy was one of the principal sciences.

So now the multiple riddles of the 'ancient' Egyptian stone masonry can be explained. The puzzles appeared from not understanding that in the majority of cases it was geopolymer cement. The statues, mysterious vessels-amphoras, and also the pyramids' blocks were made of it. In each case the master-builders selected a special artificial stone. In some cases they made artificial limestone, in other artificial granite, synthetic basalt or synthetic diorite.

Here for example are numerous stone amphoras. They are made of the hard type of stone, diorite. Some of them are harder than iron. 'Diorite is considered to be one of the hardest stones. Modern sculptors don't even try using these types of stone.' [1092], p.8. So what do we see in 'Ancient' Egypt? THE DIORITE AMPHORAS HAVE NARROW HIGH NECKS AND BECOME WIDER TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. AT THAT THE WIDTH OF VASE'S WALL IS PRACTICALLY THE SAME EVERYWHERE. Archaeologists are trying to convince us that the amphoras are supposedly carved out. The question is how is it possible to carve out an amphora from exceptionally hard diorite via a narrow neck so that the width of its wall is the same all around? So that on the inside surface of the wall no carving marks remained! Egyptologists cannot explain this. [1092], p.119. In fact the vessels are made of the artificial stone on a regular potter's wheel. Still unset geopolymer cement was processed like soft clay. The walls were made to be the same width. It is easy to do on the potter's wheel. After the setting the amphoras of the hardest diorite or quartzite were produced as a result.

After the collapse of the Great Empire and the wars of the XVII century some of the significant mediaeval technologies were forgotten. As usual they were kept secret. The secrets of the production of damask steel, golden filigree work, granulation and the geopolymer cement were not divulged. These were secrets of state importance. In the atmosphere of chaos many things were lost. It was extremely difficult to recover them. It would have been necessary to conduct numerous experiments all over again. After the arrival of the conquerors, in Egypt for example, after the invasion of Napoleon, scientists and artisans were either killed or didn't want to reveal their secrets to the enemy. Today they try to reconstruct some of these secrets with the aid of modern technology. Sometimes successfully, sometime not very. As it becomes clear now, the geopolymer cement is among those lost secrets.

The main aim of alchemy, which by the way appeared in Egypt (where the geopolymer cement was used the most) was to produce THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE. I.e. 'scientific stone' as the word PHILOSOPHY earlier used to mean science in general. Today the historians think that the mysterious philosopher's stone purportedly was for turning iron into gold. I.e. they are suggesting to us to think that the alchemists were wasting their time in the pursuit of nonsense. And only from time to time, at odd moments they would stumble upon something useful.

But now we understand that 'scientific (philosopher's) stone' is the geopolymer cement. It is most likely that many 'mysterious' stone monoliths of incredible sizes in England (Stonehenge), in Lebanon (Baalbeck) and in other places are made of the geopolymer cement in the epoch of the Horde Empire. When the Empire collapsed a desire grew in rebellious Western Europe to uncover the secret of the philosopher's stone. They failed. Hence appeared the legend about eternal and fruitless attempts to find the philosopher's stone. In the end the experiments ceased and the words the 'philosopher's stone' became magically endowed with fantastical meaning. Incidentally, in the history of alchemy it is considered that 'THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE WAS KNOWN IN EGYPT, BUT LATER THE SECRET OF ITS PRODUCTION WAS LOST [5v2], ch.7.

Baalbek[edit | edit source]

File:Baalbek1.jpg
Baalbek blocks

Baalbek 'platform' in Lebanon is amazing. It consists of a stack of enormous blocks. The weight of some of them exceeds EIGHT HUNDRED tons [1065]. Nearby rests a colossal block of weighing A THOUSAND TONS. Picture shows a part of the Baalbek platform. You can see several rows of the enormous blocks-parallelepipeds laid into the foundation of the temple's complex. Above the tower are the remains of the 'very ancient' temple of Jupiter. The size of the blocks can be appreciated by considering a tiny figure of a person bottom left. The above mentioned one thousand ton block could have possibly chipped off some structure during an earthquake or during a deliberate demolition. Most likely it was blown up with gunpowder. It is possible that to the side of Baalbek they started building another temple, but ran out of time. One of the gigantic cement blocks was still cast, but that was all [\u041f\u0415] ch.6:2.

Vague arguments that allegedly 'ancient' master-builders could move such boulders at least by one centimetre are absurd. To cast of cement - possible. To move and moreover to lift even by millimetre - impossible.

Some historians possibly feel the embarrassment of the situation in which they were put by the chronologists of the XVI-XVII cc., making such megalithic constructions so 'ancient'. But profound speculations about the 'very intelligent ancient' master-builders, who allegedly knew how to do things, which the modern builders don't know, convince very few.

PompeiiStoneMill.jpg

In fact Baalbek was built in the 'ancient' epoch of the XV-XVI cc. by the Horde craftsmen. Aka the 'ancient Roman' master-builders. At that time all similar constructions were erected by the 'Mongol' Empire. It was only within capability of a mighty and wealthy kingdom to carry out such megalithic construction. From Asia to Europe and across the ocean to America. On the territory of Palmyra in Syria also survive some 'means of the cement production'. Here and there (in year 2005) we came across some old grinder-mills with the help of which the soft formations were grounded and produced cement flour. Practically the same stone mills were discovered in 'ancient' Pompeii in Italy, see picture. You can see how one of such mill-grinders worked. Circular grind stones were put on a spindle. When rolling hemispheric stones along the inside of a vessel, the rock or grain could be milled [\u041f\u0415] ch.6.

Where and when Roman numerals were invented[edit | edit source]

It is considered that Roman numerals appeared long before AD. In the times of the 'ancient Romans'. At which time the numerals less than fifty were written with three signs: I, V, X. Why precisely these and only these signs were used for small numbers? At first people operated in small values. Only later big numbers came into general use hundreds, etc. At that time came the need for some new signs like L, C, D, M. So the signs for the small numbers were the original and the oldest.

We suggest the following hypothesis. When the carpenters build using timber and then move it to a new place, they mark the logs with their axes. The marks are necessary in order to put the logs together in the same order after moving them, as they have already been adjusted to fit each other precisely. Nowadays the marks are made with oil paint using Roman or Arabic numerals. But before the carpenters' marks were made only with an axe and only with Roman numerals. Indeed you cannot cut the Arabic numerals with an axe. It is terribly awkward. But Roman numerals seemed especially designed for effortlessly inscribing with an axe on a round log. Let us explain.

A carpenter marking a log with an axe has to do so with dawks. It is easy to do it either against the grain of the logs, or at a comparatively small angle to them. To cut a dawk with the grain is very awkward. It means that a carpenter has only three easily distinguishable signs which he can make. They are: a vertical cut, i.e. a Latin letter I. Then two interconnected side cuts, i.e. a Latin letter V. An upside-down letter V cannot be considered as a separate symbol, as a carpenter could have approached the log from a different side and a mix-up could occur. And lastly are two cuts crossing each other, i.e. a Latin letter X. All the symbols made by an axe should comprise of these signs. Or be close to them.

So, the three main Roman numerals should have appeared exactly so in the carpeting business. It appears that the ancient Romans for some reason allegedly invented the very same symbols, which should have come about as a result of people who build a lot of wooden log structures (notably with the steel axes). But in Italy the main ancient building activity was from masonry and bricks. Wooden log structures were a rarity there. There are not so many forests there. Especially not of the timber variety.

It's hard to believe that Russian carpenters, who in the old days were largely uneducated, studied 'ancient', allegedly Italian numerals. Nevertheless the carpenters in Russia marked logs with the very same "Roman numerals'. But with one provision. They did not share the rule, that the numeral on the left is deducted from the numeral on the right. As the carpenter did not employ such terms as 'right' and 'left', as you can approach a log from either side. That is why the numeral 9 was written as VIIII, and not as IX.

Most likely the Roman numerals originated in Russia, and not among the scholarly circles, but among the builders. They were doing a lot of construction in Russia, mainly of timber. There were many carpenters, and this sphere of activity was considered to be important.

Later when the Empire expanded to the West the 'Roman joinery numerals' were brought there, to Italy in particular. At first there were also some forests there, and timber building started. But soon the Italian woods were cut down to a large degree. As Italy is comparatively small. But there was a large quantity of stone. As there is in the South in general. And the Russian joinery numerals transgressed to the sphere of scholars and were called 'ancient Greek'. And this is correct. They were invented by the Russians who had colonized Europe. As from the view point of the XVII century Western Europeans they were those very ancient Romans who had founded the Roman = Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. But in the XV-XVI cc. The Ottoman Conquest commenced, which also originated in Russia. The Western Europeans perceived it as the collapse of Ancient Rome and stopped associating Rome with Russia. A false theory has emerged that Ancient Rome came into existence in the deep antiquity in Italy. And 'consequently' it was Italy where allegedly Roman numerals were invented.

Later, when they started to write Roman numerals down on paper with a quill, of course the L, M, C and D signs, which were necessary to denote large numbers, appeared. By the way, if Roman numerals were written on paper from the very beginning, then together with a 'five' = V, most likely there should have also appeared a 'tick', i.e. an 'upside down' V. These two symbols are easily told apart, providing that the terms 'top' and 'bottom' are determined.

The monasteries[edit | edit source]

It is possible that the monasteries of the Empire were created as places where the retired Cossack=Tatars were sent to, i.e. the Hordians who had completed their service. As we said before [4v1], ch.4:1., recruiting children for the military service was a 'tagma'=blood-tribute, well-known in Russia. It was recruiting for the army. The matter of military conscription was decided in childhood, thereafter a person would serve for the rest of his life. During this period they didn't start a family. They dedicated themselves completely to the Rat'(army)=Horde. In the XIV-XVI cc. the troops would depart to destinations as far as thousands of kilometres away, even to different continents. Few would come back. The family ties would be severed forever, home was just a dim memory.

Only the young men were able to serve in the Hordian army. As soon as a Cossack-Tatar reached advanced years military service became impossible. The czars-khans became aware of this problem where to place a large number of still capable men. They may not be able to fight any more, but former soldiers were not old yet. To bring them back home? Except that after the decades that passed by the notion of home itself had dissolved, became a mere word. No wife, no children, no family. Not many could build a family at this age. Then an intelligent solution to this problem was found. All over the Horde Empire, - not Just in Russia, but also in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., male monasteries were created where the retired Hordian soldiers were sent to. They started to call them monks. There they were occupied by civil activities and also, if necessary, military activities familiar to them. To the best of their ability they grew wheat and made bread, fished, worked on the undeveloped land, amassed riches, wrote and preserved books, built up the famous monastic libraries, studied science and defended themselves against the enemy.

The monasteries grew richer, turning into the centres which the surrounding civil communities gravitated to. The monasteries were well fortified. Behind their walls not only the monks, but the local residents too could find security. The word MONASTERY itself (MONASTERIUM in Latin) probably originated from MONKS - TATARS and point to a place where the retired MONGOLS=TATARS lived, where there were MANY TATARS. It is also clear that convents for women were created as well. The Empire engaged in many wars, producing many widows. So they were gathered together in nunneries. Originally only the elderly widows, who were incapable of bearing children any longer, were sent there. Thus the emergence of both monasteries and nunneries was a result of the expansion of the Empire and of the conquest and colonization of vast territories. Later in the XVII-XIX cc., the original intended purpose of the monasteries and nunneries was forgotten.

The 'Classical' abduction of Sabine women[edit | edit source]

A famous legend about the abduction of the Sabine women is associated with the founding of 'ancient' Rome. You will recall that after having founded Rome, Romulus soon discovers that there are very few women in Rome. In order to secure future generations, The Romans address the neighbouring people, requesting that the Roman men be allowed to take the foreign women in marriage. They refuse. Then Romulus arranges a feast to which all the neighbours are invited. They, not having suspected anything wrong, arrive to the festival with their wives and children. At a prearranged signal the Romans abduct young Sabine girls and women. The Sabine men flee. Due to the abduction of their women a war soon breaks out between the Sabines and Royal Rome.

The question is: if 'Ancient' Royal Rome is a reflection of the Horde Empire which emerged in the confluence of the rivers Oka and Volga, i.e. is there any mention in the Russian chronicles of the abduction of the Sabines? An event frequently reflected in Western European art. The Horde sources must be referring to a conflict caused by the abduction of Cossack-wives in the capital of Russia-Horde. It turns out there is such a reference and it was a focus of attention for a long time. More than that, the historians have a problem in connection with that, which they persistently 'are trying to solve', albeit unsuccessfully. See the next paragraph.

We discovered that the abduction of the Sabine women in 'Ancient' Rome largely reflects the abduction of the wives by the serfs in Russian Novgorod = Yaroslavl on the Volga River. It's no coincidence that the well-known Kholopii Gorod (the Town of Serfs) was situated near Yaroslavl. It turns out that not only Titus Levy and Plutarch, but Herodotus too tell us about the Novgorodian's War with Serfs on the account of their wives. Furthermore it's reflected in the famous 'Odyssey' by Homer and in works by the 'ancient' historian Pompeius Trogus \u2026 Therefore all of them knew the history of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. quite well. Trojan War of the XIII c. also contributed to the story about the abduction of the Sabines [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c] ch.1.

The historians' problem: why is Kholopii Gorod (the town of Serfs) situated near Yaroslavl and not near Volkhovskii Novgorod on the swampland?[edit | edit source]

As the original sources tell us, Kholopii Gorod (Town of Serfs) was founded by the kholops-serfs not far from the chronicles' Velikii Novgorod. However, there is no Kholopii Gorod situated near a rundown Volkhovskii district stockaded town, slyly called by the Romanovs 'that very Velikii Novgorod'. When the Romanovs were moving on paper the Yaroslavl events from Volga to the swampy Volkhov, they didn't think of drawing on the map Kholopii Gorod next to it. It's quite understandable you can't remember everything. They drew 'Novgorod' but ignored the other Volga cities associated with it. Neither did they pay attention to a Novgorodian story in the chronicles about the abduction of wives by the serfs. Here the Romanov historians made a big mistake. They didn't take into account that the story about the Novgorodian wives and the serfs is very well known. Many ancient primary sources tell us about it. So, of course, to make the forgery precise, they should have moved on paper Kholopii Gorod following the neighbouring Yaroslavl-Novorod.

Then of course the historians realised the mistake. But it was too late. The 'ancient' chronicles were expurgated and rewritten. The 'ancient' maps were edited and circulated on a large scale. And they didn't want to start a new alternative history. That is why they restricted themselves to small falsifications, having tried to fix the historians' mistake by correcting it post factum. For example they pointed out one of the foggy gnat swamps of Volkhov and unfoundedly declared it to be 'Kholopia gora' (Mount of serfs). Purporting that there is no Kholopii gorod (town) here, but instead here is Kholopia gora (mount) for you.

Having thought for a while they called one of small monasteries near Volkhov 'Nogord' KLOPSKII Monastery, i.e. Khlopskii (monastery). They happily started showing 'Khlopskii' to visiting foreigners. Among others they showed it to N.Witsen too. He nodded approvingly and neatly sketched it in his travel notes, to illustrate that it was a famous historical place. It's true that it became wild and desolate, but, as the story goes, 'extremely ancient'. As a result the Romanovs' story acquired 'reputable validation'. You see, the Dutchman drew the 'Klopskii' monastery near Volkhov on a piece of paper. The learned Europeans know best!

So where is on the old maps the real Kholopii Gorod (Town of serfs) marked? AS IT HAPPENS ON VARIOUS OLD MAPS KHOLOPII GOROD IS CLEARLY DEPICTED AND IS SITUATED NEAR VOLGA CLOSE TO YAROSLAVL [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c] ch.1. Where it is supposed to be according to the Russian chronicles. It is considered that 'Kholopii gorod stood near the town of Mologa 80 km from Uglitch, (at present it is the bottom of Rybinsk Reservoir') [161], p.331, commentary 509. A significant part of the former territory of the region today is submerged under the Rybinsk Reservoir. So any kind of excavations in the place of Kholopii Gorod are impossible.

Thus, the famous 'classical' legend of the Romans abducting the Sabine women consists of the two layers. The first - the reflection of Trojan war of the XIII century, i.e. the Crusade of 1204. The second - the story of the Kholopia war of the Novgorodians in Russia-Horde 'over the Cossack-wives' in the late XIII - early XIV cc.

The two baptism of Russia[edit | edit source]

The first Baptism of Russia was given in the XII century by Andronicus-Christ himself, aka the apostle Andrei the First-called (Andrei Bogolyubskii). The approximate epoch of the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity (the second Baptism of Russia) was under the Emperor Dmitry Donskoy=Costantine I the Great (allegedly in the IV century) we estimate at the turn of the XIV-XV cc. It corresponds beautifully with the date of Christ's Birth as calculated by us to the middle of the XII century [\u0426\u0420\u0421] Due to a centennial mistake of the chronologists, in various documents the Nativity began to date as a hundred years earlier - in the middle of the XI century. If the adoption of Christianity was circa 1400, then from the middle of the XI century until that time 350 years passed, and from the middle of the XII century - approximately 250 years. Thus dating the adoption of Christianity as circa 1400 corresponds with an established tradition of dating the adoption of Christianity to three hundred years after than Nativity [\u041a\u0420].

On the old icons on the halo of Jesus Christ there is written a date denoting year 1370 - the epoch of the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity[edit | edit source]

On the old Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian icons on the Halo around Christ's head there was painted a cross and on it three Church Slavonic letters. On the left end letter 'OT' (it was spelled as Omega with letter T above it). At the top end of the cross they painted letter 'OH' (ON) with the title (OH=ON (H=N in Russian) was written in the form of Russian letter 'O'), and on the right end the letters 'IZHE' octuple which corresponds with modern Russian letter '\u0418' (Latin 'E'), but which was spelled as modern Russian letter 'H' (Latin 'N'), see fig.37 [\u041a\u0420] ch.2.

On the later icons these letters started to disappear. Sometimes all three letters or some of them remained unchanged. But almost always - and clearly not by chance - the title above 'O' disappeared. We will explain further why it happened.

What did these Russian letters mean: OT, OH (with the title) and IZHE on Christ's Halo? To a person familiar with the Church Slavonic recording of numerals the answer is obvious. It is number 878. Definitely. Firstly, ALL THE THREE LETTERS HAVE A NUMERIC VALUE. We will clarify that not all the letters in the Church Slavonic have this property: there are only 9 of them x 3 = 27. And overall there are 40 letters including yuses ('yus' is a name of a letter originally representing nasal vowels in Old Church Slavonic) in Cyrillic alphabet [155:1], p.17. But all the three letters depicted on Christ's Halo have the numeric value.

Secondly, ALL THE THREE LETTERS ON CHRIST'S NIMBUS ARE CORRECTLY PLACED. To clarify, as there is no zero in the Church Slavonic recording of numerals, various letters are used for the units, tens and hundreds. Thousands, tens of thousands, etc. are denoted with specific signs situated next to the letters. Accordingly, a composite of the three Church Slavonic letters-numerals by no means denotes a number. It is necessary that the first letter was of the hundreds category, the second - from the category of tens, and the third one - from the units category. Otherwise the record will be nonsensical or erroneous. But on Christ's Halo the number is written absolutely correctly, without any mistakes. Specifically, the first letter 'OT' means 800. The second letter 'OH' means 70. And the third letter 'IZHE' octuple, means 8. It results in number 878.

But this is not all. In the Church Slavonic language a number is distinguishable from the rest of the text with a title. Where if a number is a multi-digit, then the title is placed above the letter-numeral second on the right [155:1], p.22. For example, for a three digit numeral the title will be positioned above the middle letter. This is exactly what we see in Christ's Halo.

So, it is a number which is written on Christ's Halo. If some abbreviations of words were meant, then the probability of meeting all the requirements listed above is infinitesimal. THEREFORE ON CHRIST'S HALO THERE IS DEPICTED THE NUMBER 878.

What can it mean? There is no information in ecclesiastical tradition, that number 878 is somehow connected with Christ himself. On the other hand this number strongly resembles a date. As we are talking about the Russian icons, then it is only natural to read it according to the Russian-Byzantine era from Adam. I.e. according to the standard era of the Russian sources. In the ecclesiastic Russian church documents the era of Adam was universally used until the end of the XVII century, and in some cases even later.

But then we have exactly two possible interpretations of this date. It is apparent that the thousands in years are omitted in it, which corresponds with the era in the Russian documents of let's say the XVI-XVIII cc. The millenniums as a rule were skipped [1v], [5v]. Therefore before us is either year 6878 or year 5878 from Adam. The first date when converted to the years AD gives us year 1370 (you have to deduct 5508 from 6878). The second date gives us year 370. All the other possibilities to add the millenniums result either in the dating earlier than BC, or to the time in the future, which is nonsensical.

If there was the year 370 depicted on Christ's Halo, it would bear no sense not only in the new chronology, but not in the Scaligerian chronology either. Besides, the date was discovered by us specifically on the icons of the era of the XV-XVI cc. Which points out the year 1370 as the most plausible date. But it ideally fits the epoch calculated by us of the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity around the year 1380. It is possible that the year 1370 signified some important phase on the way to the adoption of Christianity.

It is interesting to trace how the attitude towards these letters was changing over the course of time. The old icons turned darker and it was necessary to retouch them, i.e. to paint over anew. Only in the XIX century they learnt to 'uncover' icons, i.e. to remove the upper layers and to reveal the earlier ones. That is why we ought to understand that today we often see not the original, but the uncovered layer, which could have been partially lost and retouched by art restorers. If they didn't understand something or something seemed wrong to them, they could 'improve' the original. If we turn to the surviving icons with the letters on Christ's Halo, we will see, that on the overwhelming majority of the icons the title above the letter O is missing. But if we refer to the old icons, then sometimes there still remain traces of the title.

The matter is as follows. The three letters OT, OH with the title, IZHE octuple - to anyone familiar with the Church Slavonic alphabet, will immediately suggest that there is a numeral written there. Specifically 878. And it not written just anywhere in a corner of an icon, but on Christ's Halo. But then a question arises - what did it mean? In the XVII-XIX cc. the specialists no longer had answers to this. We would highlight the fact that in the XVIII-XIX cc. it was compulsory to study the Church Slavonic language at school. Even those who graduated only after three classes of the parochial school knew the Church Slavonic language. That is why practically anyone of that time having read on Christ's Halo the Church Slavonic number 878 would immediately ask a question: what does it mean? But there was no answer.

That is why it was decided to omit the title above O in the new icons altogether, and when uncovering the old icons they tried not to repaint it. And in some cases they would even wipe it out to be sure.

So, Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great enthrones in the year 6870 from Adam, i.e. in the year 1362. He defeats khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov = Emperor Maxentius or Maximinus seven years later in 1369 or 1370, after which in 1370 the Empire adopts Christianity. That is why it is specifically the year 1370 depicted on Christ's Halo. Recorded according to the era from Adam, i.e. by the date of (6)878. Therefore The Battle of Kulikovo took place most likely not in 1380, as it is generally thought today, but approximately in 1370.

However, dating it by the year 1380 is probably a reference to the victory of Constantine over Licinius, i.e. to the final victory over the enemies. According to the Lutheran Chronicle, Licinius was executed 17 years later after the beginning of Dmitry Donskoy's reign in 1363. This gives us year 1380 - precisely the date of the Battle of Kulikovo.

== 'The appearance of the Cross' which brought victory to Constantine the

DmitryArmyFiringAtKhanMamaiTroops.jpg

Great and Dmitry Donskoy's victory 'with the aid of the cross'. Cannons are 'the schemas with crosses' in the army of Dmitry Donskoy == In the Battle of Kulikovo Dmitry Donskoy's army used cannons [4v1], ch.6. It seems that in the army of Mamai there were either no cannons or there were significantly less of them. On some of the old Russian icons a range of cannons were depicted in Dmitry's army firing at Khan Mamai's troops, see image. Each cannon is depicted here as a stretched forward arm with a nimbus enshrouded with smoke. As we show in [\u041a\u0420] one of the symbols of the fire arm was Constantine's Labarum. It is thought that cannons appeared in the battle fields precisely in the middle of the XIV century. This is the time when gunpowder was invented.

There were no cannons in the army of Mamai depicted in the icon. It is probable, that it is due to the advantage in the artillery Dmitry was able to defeat Mamai. Mind you, Mamai's army was a professional one, and Dmitry's troops were more like a people's militia [4v1], ch.6. It is feasible that cannons were used for the first time on such a large scale in the Battle of Kulikovo [\u041a\Uffffffff\u0417] [\u041a\u0420] ch.3.

Before the battle Sergiy Radonezhsky blessed Dmitry and handed over some 'secret weapon', which in the later sources was called 'THE SIGN OF THE SCHEMA CROSS' (a special embassy cross paramand - part of monastic robes schema - translator's note). It is said: 'Sergiy presented him with a sign of the Schema cross and said: 'HERE IS THE WEAPON IMPERISHABLE! LET IT SERVE YOU INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS!' [362], v.5, ch.1, column 36.

Nikonovskaya Letopis' (Chronicle) informs us : "The Venerable Sergiy commanded them (Peresvet and Oslyabya Author's note) to prepare for an imminent battle... HE GAVE THEM WEAPONS ("Behold a weapon which faileth never!", CHRIST'S CROSS SOWN ONTO SCHEMA (VESTMENTS), and commanded them INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS to put those on their heads' [586:1], v/11, p.53.

So, Sergiy Radonezhsky handed Peresvet and Oslyabya some new weapon SCHEMA, instead of conventional armour - helmets, etc.

Commentators assure us that allegedly under the word SCHEMA or SCHEME was meant a head-dress made of fabric with a cross sown onto it. However, it is quite possible that behind the editorial term SCHEMA or SCHEME is concealed the word MUSKET (MASQUET) or MUSHKA (MUZZLE-SIGHT or BEAD in Russian) read backwards, as in Arabic: MUSHKA = MSHK --> SHKM = SHKM = SKHIMA (SCHEMA), when SH turns into --> S. See [6v1], ch.4:9.

Why is a word MUSKET usually derived from the word MUKHA (a fly - in Russian)? A direct link between a Latin MUSCA and Slavonic MOSHKA (midge in Russian) is noted by Max Vasmer [866], v.2, p.667. The word musca = mukha ('fly' in Russian) most likely entered Latin from the Russian language. Then everything falls into place. As the Russian word MUSHKA means not only a fly, but also a RIFLE SIGHT! It is not surprising that in Russia, where there are so many midges, the aiming device was compared to a midge (a fly) which came in sight). So they called the aiming sight MUSHKA (A FLY). That is why a new weapon with an aiming device (mushka) was called MUSKET in Russian. The invented aim caught the imagination of the warriors and gave name to the whole gun itself. Incidentally the Russian writers of the XVIII century called the musketeers MUSHKATERY, clearly deriving it from the word MUSHKA [866], v.3, p.20.

The parchment passed on by Sergiy Radonnezhsky to Dmitry Donskoy said: 'Help us with this HOLY WEAPON to bring down our foe'. See the details in [\u041a\u0420] ch.3, p.20. Let us turn to the 'Ancient' Roman history now. There is a famous event in it the vision of the Cross to the Emperor Constantine the Great on the eve of his battle with Maxentius. Constantine wins with the help of the CROSS. The 'Ancient Roman' story is a reflection of Dmitry's victory over Mamai. Also 'with the help of the Cross'. Dmitry Donskoy is described by the 'Ancient classics' as Constantine I the Great, and khan Mamai as Maxentius, Constantine's co-ruler.

What is said about Constantine's victory over Maxentius with the help of the Cross? Though the essence of the event was described by the different authors similarly, however, there prevailed a strange variety of opinions in the question of what was exactly 'The Cross of Constantine'. At first Constantine beheld a gleaming apparition in the sky, various authors are saying different things about its shape. Constantine ordered to make 'labarum', on which he placed the sign he saw in the sky. The labarum with Chi Rho (the sign of the Cross) helped him to achieve victory. Once again however, there are various opinions on the question of what labarum was made of and what was depicted on it and whether it was a banner in the sense of a flag at all or it was something else.

The story of Eusebius about Constantine reminds of the famous Biblical story of Moses who made 'a serpent of brass' and PUT IT ON THE POLE, by doing so he saved his people from 'the venomous serpents' (Numbers 2:1, 8-9).

OttomanCannonBanner.jpg

What else is said about the serpents in the Bible? It turns out, 'in Numbers 21:6 the venomous snakes refers to the 'serpents' attacking (those who fight for God) = the Israelites in the desert - Author's note) are called in Hebrew SERAPHIM (NEKHUSTAN), THE FIERY ONE [845], commentaries to 4 Kingdoms 18:1-8. And the Biblical Encyclopaedia translates a word SERAPHIM, in particular as FLAME, FIRE. In [6v1], ch.4:10-11, we showed that here in the Bible we are given a description of the firing cannons. There is an old Ataman (Ottoman) banner of huge dimensions which survives today, on which there is depicted a cannon firing cannon balls, see image. This banner is kept in a museum in Vienna. It is not impossible, that this Ataman (Ottoman) banner is made following the design of the famous banner of Moses and labarum of Constantine. It is possible that on Moses' and Constantine's old banners there was depicted a cannon in the form of a 'cross'.

Why the chronicles mistook a cannon for a cross[edit | edit source]

It is likely, that the first cannons invented by Sergiy Radonezhsky were wooden and not metallic. The production of metallic cannons requires complex procedures. On the other hand the inventors of the first gunpowder hardly waited for the cannons' casting method to be invented. Most likely they tried to make use of the new invention for military purposes straight away. For that a solid pipe closed-ended on one side was needed. Then it is stuffed with gun powder and a closing plug applied and then filled with stones. That's it, the weapon is ready.

But it was not easy to make such a pipe. Oak, being an exceptionally strong type of wood, has a wonderful quality. Its core approximately 10 centimetres in diameter under certain conditions can separate itself from the rest of the trunk. Several wooden layers surrounding the core rot and turn into dust. The rest of the wood remains hard and whole. The core begins to dangle around inside of the developed wooden pipe, and it is not difficult to remove it with a long chisel. Or to split and scorch it out. You will get a strong oak pipe. If you bind it with iron rods like a barrel, an oak mortar cannon like this can withstand several shots. Particularly that the first gun-powder was far less powerful than later on. Only with the refinement of the gun-powder it was necessary to switch to the cast metallic cannons.

Direct indications survive that in the XV century in Russia they indeed used the wooden cannons [\u041a\u0420]. It is interesting that they were used until comparatively recent time. Such a cannon is exhibited for example in the Nuremburg museum [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c] ch.4.

How would the people perceive such new weapon when they beheld the terrible 'firing logs' on the battle field for the first time? Besides knowing that they were invented by the Christians. The wooden cannons could have been described for example like this: 'Christian trees which brought victory to the Christian Czar'. But the Christian cross is also often called 'a tree'. In the canonical sources the expression 'tree of cross' means a cross on which Christ was crucified.

That is why it is not surprising that the 'Christian tree which brought victory to the Czar Constantine could have turned under chroniclers' quill into 'the Christian tree of cross which brought victory to the Czar Constantine'. I.e. - to the Russian Prince Dmitry.

The first Russian wooden cannons which provided Russia-Horde the undeniable advantage in the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century, soon gave way to the metallic ones. However, the wooden cannons had one important quality, which ensured their long standing inclusion in the armament. The simplicity in their manufacture was very appealing. Besides, it was not obligatory to carry them during the campaign. It was sufficient to bring just the gun-powder. Having arrived at the battle place they would find the oak trees and quickly make the cannons and fire buckshot from them. Of course, you cannot fire a lot of shots from wooden cannon. But it is not necessary. If needed, they could always make new ones. The main thing was to have gun-powder. After the victory they left the wooden cannons on the battlefield and moved on. It is clear why they almost entirely didn't stand the test of time. After being thrown away they rotted. That is why in the museums you can see only some rare examples which have survived.

While the cannons were a new weapon, never-before-seen by most, the effect of this gun on the enemy was overwhelming. The 'Christian tree' spitting fire and bringing death, inspired panic and fear. The cannons were reflected in various 'ancient' myths and legends. Later, when the concept of a cannon was adopted by many, there began a competition in precision and range. The wooden artillery gave way to a metallic one.

The outstanding Tsar-Khan Constantine I = Dmitry Ivanovich[edit | edit source]

In the 'ancient' biography of Constantine-Dmitry there is included another reflection of the Battle of Kulikoivo. It is Constantine's second famous battle, this time with his co-ruler Licinius. Instead of adversaries, Constantine - Maxentius, here it concerns the pair of Constantine Licinius. Constantine's battles with Maxentius and Licinius are considered to be the two main military combats in his biography.

Constantine's final victory over his co-rulers and opponents - is the execution of Licinius. He was decapitated. In the Russian chronicles it is the execution of Ivan Velyaminov, the son of tysiatsky (dux, Heerzog, captain of the thousand - a military leader in Ancient Rus, who commanded a people's volunteer army called 'tysyacha', or a thousand Translator's note) by Dmitry's order. The tysiatskies were effectively the co-rulers of Grand Princes. Having abolished this post, Dmitry became the mogul. But to achieve this he had to dispose of the son of the last tysiatsky - Ivan Velyaminov.

On the whole it is the same picture as under Constantine the Great. According to the old law there were several co-rulers reigning in the Empire. In Rome there were several august figures and Caesars ruling simultaneously. In Russia there was a Grand Prince and tysiatskies. And then one of the co-rulers removes the others, becomes the sole czar and changes the political system. From that moment the Czardom is controlled autocratically and the reign is passed on to the son of a deceased czar.

Prior to that it was different. In both Rome and Russia. In the Roman history before Constantine becoming the emperor was not hereditary, and only after Constantine the succession to the throne from father to son was established.

The primary sources unanimously stress the role of victory of Constantine = khan Dmitry over 'paganism'. It indeed concerned an enormous event - the adoption of the Apostolic Christianity throughout the entire 'Mongol' Empire. The words by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History on Constantine's victory are imbued with a new meaning now.

'His enemy Licinius lay there prostrate, the mighty victor Constantine... won back their own Eastern provinces and COMBINED THE ROMAN EMPIRE INTO A SINGLE WHOLE, as in former days. BRINGING IT ALL UNDER THEIR PEACEFUL RULE, FROM THE RISING SUN TO THE FARTHEST DUSK, IN A WIDE CIRCLE FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. People now lost all fear of their former oppressors'. Quotation from [140], p.120-121.

In honour of this event there were erected the monumental constructions, paintings were created and literary works were written. Some of them have survived. For example, Constantine Arch in Italian Rome. To remind you, Vatican (Batu-Khan) was the Western-European mission of the Catholic 'Mongol' church in Italy. To this day the Vatican memorialises the stormy religious events of the late XIV century. For example, the frescos in the Hall of Constantine in Vatican. The famous Raphael was appointed to paint them.

The transfer of the capital[edit | edit source]

The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to New Rome is an event of the late XIV century. The emperor Constantine I, aka Russian-Horde czar-khan Dmitry Donskoy after the victory in the Kulikovo Battle in 1380 arrived to Czar-Grad and proclaimed it the second capital of the Empire. It became the second metropoly after the main one in Vladimir and Suzdal Rus'. Having made the Apostolic Christianity the religion of the entire Empire, Constantine = Dmitry most likely decided to place the spiritual and religious centre into the old Czar-Grad = evangelical Yoros=Jerusalem, where in 1185 Christ was crucified.

Thus, not far from Yoros, a little to the South, Constantinople emerged. The military and administrative centre of Empire Constantine kept in Russia-Horde = Israel. i.e. in the biblical Assyria-Syria (in Egypt).

Hence you can see that the chroniclers could confuse OLD ROME and NEW ROME. As is shown in [1v], the confusion reflected in several versions of transfer of the Roman Empire capital. In some versions it was transferred from Old Rome into New Rome. And other claim the opposite transfer from New Rome to the Old one.

The comparison of the locations of Yoros-Jerusalem and Istanbul-Constantinople, situated close to it, shows that Constantinople is a later capital. Why didn't Constantine = Dmitry transfer his capital unchanged to the holy city of Yoros, but founded a new centre on the other side of Bosporus 30 kilometres from Yoros? This is our hypothesis.

Constantinople's location itself indicates that the city was built quite late, when people have already invented the cannons capable of firing long distances and learnt to build large ships with the deep draught for open sea navigation. Istanbul is located in the Bosporus' wide point, by the Sea of Marmara. Being in such a location the absence of cannons would have made it impossible to control the Bosporus and to prevent foreign water crafts pass through into the Black Sea and back. That is why in the earlier times when there were no cannons it would have been much better to position the city in the Bosporus' narrow point, which would provide full control over the strait. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE YOROS WAS LOCATED.

A big advantage of the location of Istanbul-Constantinople was The Golden Horn - harbour-cleft, capable of receiving large naval vessels with a deep draught at its cliffy shores. But in the epoch if the XII-XIII cc. there were yet no such ships. That is why there was no need for such a harbour. Small ships of that time navigated along the coast and had comparatively shallow draught. It was quite possible to keep them immediately in the Bosporus, in the harbour between Yoros and Beykoz. The sea storms do not penetrate there. For the epoch of the XII-XII cc. it was a fairly ample harbour.

So the location of the Yoros fortification evangelical Jerusalem was ideal for the capital of the XII-XIII cc., but in the end of the XIV century it no longer satisfied the requirements of that time. That is why Constantine = Dmitry founded New Rome, Constantinople not in the place of Jerusalem, but approximately 30 kilometres from it. However - not very far. It is likely that he none the less wanted to establish the capital as close as possible to holy Jerusalem.

'Ancient' Perseus and Dmitry Donskoy. Medusa Gorgon - is a firearm[edit | edit source]

MedusaGorgon.jpg

The picture represents a coin of Dmitry Donskoy depicting his victory over Ivan Velyaminov. Dmitry with a shield makes a strike with his sword to behead his kneeling enemy. At the same spot, as it was often done in the old miniatures, the body of his enemy is depicted prostrate and already beheaded. There is a human face depicted on Dmitry's shield. But a shield with a face or a head on it is very well known in the 'ancient' mythology. It is Perseus' shield with the head of the Medusa Gorgon. So, Perseus' shield was known in Russia and was attributed to Dmitry Donskoy. A shield with a head was depicted not just on the coins, but also on the miniatures of the Russian chronicles [\u041a\u0420], ch.3.

Let us recall that Constantine the Great and his army also (see above) carried 'signs' on their shields. The latter brought them victory. As we understand it now, they were cannons. The idea that the victory was brought by a symbol on a shield only came to mind of later chroniclers. But the same idea is also expressed in the legend of Perseus. Perseus cuts of Medusa Gorgon's head and secures it on his shield. This head becomes a terrifying weapon: it turned everything alive into stone.

In the legend of Perseus a head on the shield is given the name of GUARDIAN (SUPPORT) by which they meant the head on the shield. In the history of Constantine the word GUARDIAN (SUPPORT) was also used to denote a banner [83], v.3, p.13. Everything becomes clear. In particular, why Medusa Gorgon has snakes instead of hair. We have already pointed out that by SNAKES (SERPENTS) the old sources, the Bible, in particular, meant CANNONS. The idea is clear: a snake, or as is, cannon - is some kind of 'stinging pipe'. It is becoming clear that 'ancient' Constantine and Perseus are the reflections of the czar-khan Dmitry Donskoy.

It is clear why the people 'who looked in the face' of Medusa Gorgon died, 'turned into stone'. They fell victim to the artillery and buckshot fire. The image of Medusa is a symbol of a cannon. That being said, 'Medusa Gorgon' probably meant 'Brazen Throat (Funnel)', [\u041a\u0420], ch.3. The Horde Cossacks mainly fired buckshot from heavy mortar guns. A salvo of several mortars inflicted great casualties upon the enemy. By the way, the famous Czar Cannon which is situated in the Kremlin is a mortar. That being said, it is not of the heaviest calibre, which was in standard ammunition in the Russian-Horde army of the XV-XVI cc [6v], ch.4:16.

Cannons were often depicted on the 'ancient' monuments. In particular, in the form of torches, from which the fire bursts out 'in a straight line', i.e. along the direction of the flare stack, even if it is downward sloping [\u041a\u0420]. It is clear why there are so many of such images. Cannons were invented in the epoch of the adoption of the Christianity, and in the XV century they were still something of a novelty. The legends of the new weapon spread around exactly in the epoch of the XV-XVI cc - the golden age of 'antiquity'. That is why the 'ancient' monuments and myths overflow with allegoric representations of cannons. For example, of the 'ancient' Greek characters Pan, Pandora, Prometeus, Medusa Gorgon [\u041a\u0420], ch.3.

The battle of Kulikovo on the pages of the old testament[edit | edit source]

The Battle of Kulikovo is reflected in the Bible several times. Our method of dynasty identification immediately indicates the dating of the ruling of Samuel, Saul and David. These biblical events should be looked for in the XIV century. That being said, geographically in the metropoly of the Great Empire, in Russia Horde. In particular, the Battle of Kulikovo reflected in the Old Testament as the battle of David with Goliath [\u041a\u0420], ch.4.

It turns out, that under the names of the famous czars of the Old Testament Samuel, Saul and David were depicted as the following rulers of Russia Horde, i.e. Israel, of the XIV century:

  • Mikhail Aleksandrovich Tverskoy = Samuel;
  • Khan Mamai (+ Ivan Velyaminov) = Saul (+ his son/double Jonathan);
  • Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy = David.

Of course here the equal sign should not be taken literally. This refers to the fact, that the significant part of the 'biographies' of these three specified biblical rulers is comprised of the life descriptions of Mikhail, Mamai and Dmitry. That being said, in King David's case, only the first half of his 'biography', represented in The Book 1 of The Kingdoms and part one, Book 1, Paralipomenon, is the reflection of Dmitry Donskoy's life description. The second part of David's 'biography', described in The Book 2 of The Kingdoms and second part of Book 1, Paralipomenon, is composed of later events which took place after Dmitry's death in 1389. Besides, the legends about David included some information about Andronicus-Christ from the XII century [\u0422\u0420\u0426].

The surviving 'biographies' of ancient characters, are mainly layered. The chroniclers erroneously combined the descriptions from different epochs. Thus the Battle of Kulikovo is described in the Old Testament twice. The first time as a hard-fought battle of the Israelites with Philistines, immediately following which King Saul was killed. The second time, as a famous battle of David with the giant Goliath [\u041a\u0420].

To remind you of the biblical story (1 Kings 17). The Philistines and the Israelites met on the battle field and prepared to fight. The Philistines set forth against the giant Goliath. He began to challenge the Israelites calling someone to fight him. Young David with a staff and a sling stepped out from the Israelite army. Goliath came forward heavily armoured and started taunting David. David struck Goliath in the forehead with a stone from his sling. Goliath fell dead. After that David beheaded him. Then a great battle began and the Israelites defeated the Philistines. This story inspired many painters, sculptors, writers and musicians.

The crux of the duplication is a follows. David = Dmitry Donskoy defeats Goliath = khan Mamai and his representative - 'a tatar' Chelubey. That being said, Chelubey was killed by Peresvet, Dmitry's representative. David, like Dmitry, remains alive, fig.41 [\u041a\u0420], ch.4.

David killed Goliath striking him directly in the forehead 'with a stone from the sling' (1 Kings 17:49). It becomes clear why the Russian chronicles called the defeated 'Tatar' giant with the name CHELUBEY. It means (in Russian) FOREHEAD+STRIKE, i.e. the warrior was killed with a strike of a stone in his CHELO = FOREHEAD. The exclamation 'FOREHEAD STRIKE' was encouragement to strike the enemy in his forehead. For a reason A.Nechvolodov quotes Chelubey's name as: 'Cheli-Bey' [578], book1-2, p.804. In the Ostrog Bible it is written straight, that 'the stone' set off by David struck Goliath 'in CHELO (FOREHEAD)' (1 Kings 17) The biblical name GOLIATH could have been a distorted version of the name of CHELUBEY when 'CH' changes into -> 'G' and 'B' (changes into) -> 'TH' (at the change of...) I.e. Chelubey = CHLB ? GLTH = Goliath.

It says further: 'He (David - Author's note) took his STAFF in his hand, picked out five smooth stones from the stream, placed them in the pouch of his shepherd's bag ... took his sling in hand, and approached the Philistine (Goliath - Author's note)... When the Philistine looked carefully at David, he despised him, for he was only a FAIR and handsome boy. The Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you are coming after me with STICKS AND STONES?" ... David reached his hand into the bag and took out a stone. He SLUNG it, striking the Philistine on the forehead' (1 Kings 17:40, 17:43, 17:49). Thus, the Bible's editors paint a fairy tale picture for us. A young shepherd boy David faces the giant Goliath with just a staff, a sling and five stones. Having taken a little string and a piece of cloth, i.e. a slingshot), and having skilfully cast a stone, the hero strikes the giant. In such a way literally the artists of the XVI-XIX cc. represent this theme. There is, for example, a fresco by Michelangelo 'David and Goliath' in the Vatican. Following the text from the Bible which has already been edited, Michelangelo depicted David's slingshot in a form of a cloth and two little strings. What ought to have been painted was a musket.

Let us see how Goliath was armed. 'He had a bronze helmet on his head and was wearing scale body armour. The weight of his bronze body armour was five thousand shekels. He had bronze shin guards on his legs, and a bronze javelin was slung over his shoulders' (1 Kings 17:5-6). This is a Mediaeval knight, encased in armour, with a helmet on his head. The helmet probably covered warrior's forehead. The mediaeval helmets had visors. It is also said here that the point of Goliath's spear was made of IRON (1 Kings 17:7). Most likely Goliath was encased in the iron and not in the bronze body armour. Bronze (brazen armour) was inserted by the editors who aspired to depict the events as 'terribly ancient'. Hardly a cast stone could SHOOT DEAD a knight encased in the heavy plate armour. That being said as Josephus Flavius tells us, the 'stone' 'broke the skull and passed through to his brain' [878], v.1, p.293. But it would be comprehensible if it was a bullet from the musket or a cannon ball from a cannon. Bullets and buckshot successfully pierced the iron shields. The firearms have entirely changed the face of the battlefield. Heavy armed knights were powerless against the mortars and muskets.

So, most likely, David had in his hands not just any sticks and stones, but a MUSKET = 'a stick', GUNPOWDER = 'a sling', BULLETS or small cannon balls = 'the stones'. A long barrel of a musket or a portable cannon could have been evasively called 'a staff'. The words POROKH (meaning GUNPOWDER in Russian) and PRAKH (meaning ASH in Russian) (when the sounds Kh and Sh interchange) the editors cunningly turned into PRASHA (SLING in Russian). Using the fact that a sling was indeed a primitive weapon. Finally, musket bullets, cannon balls and buckshot could have easily been called STONES. We would like to remind you that in the Kulikovo battle field they were in fact firing cannons [4v1], ch.6.

Further. Synodic translation assures us, that David had a STAFF or a STICK in his hands (1 Kings 17:40, 43). The Ostrog Bible says something quite different. In the first case: 'He took his STAFF in his hand' (1 Kings 17). And in the second instance the same term is used: 'going against me with a STAFF' (1 Kings 17). (STAFF - is PALITSA in Russian Translator's note)

Thus, in the old text a word PALITSA (STAFF) was there. Of course, the word 'palitsa' was also used for conventional weapons a 'stick' with an end weighted with spikes. So the editors of the Bible could have swapped the word PALITSA (STAFF) for PALKA (STICK). However, in [KAZ] we have demonstrated that the Battle of Kulikovo was also described in the 'ancient' Indian Epic Mahabharata Story. Where partially there are also mentioned the STAFFS. But in Mahabharata it is the fire arms. So, most likely, David's staff in the Ostrog Bible also meant the firearm musket or musketoon. The word PALITSA (STAFF) originated from PALIT' (to burn), SPALIYU (I will burn), spaliyu = SPL -- > PLTS = palitsa, opaliat' (scorch with fire). The editors of the Bible distorted the text, in an effort to erase any mention of the fire arms.

Let us pay attention to Goliath's 'spear'. The Bible says: 'The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam, and the iron point of his spear weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer was walking before him' (1 Kings 17:7). Josephus Flavius is even more forthright: 'His spear WAS NOT LIGHT [ENOUGH](! Author's note) TO BE CARRIED IN HIS RIGHT HAND; INSTEAD HE BORE IT SUSPENDED ON HIS SHOULDERS. HE ALSO HAD A LANCE WEIGHING 600 SHEKELS. MANY FOLLOWED HIM, CARRYING HIS WEAPONS.' [878], v.1, p.291. Most likely it is not a description of a spear, but a musket or a musketoon, a small portable cannon. They were carried on a shoulder, [6v1], ch.4, like modern flame-blast weapons or portable missile launchers. They shot from a tripod, which were stuck in the ground and mounted a heavy gun barrel on top of it. It is for a reason that Goliath was accompanied by a TROOP of armour-bearers. The Mediaeval cannons were operated by several artillerymen.

Please remember the two statues of 'David' by the sculptor Donatello of allegedly 1408-1409. His 'Davids' were a product of his imagination. Donatello read the Old Testament most likely in the XVI-XVII cc., having been already brought up on the Scaligerian version. According to it he sculpted 'visual aids'. Donatello's David's head is turned very elegantly, however the Russian Horde czar-khan Dmitry Donskoy, most likely, looked different. Or for example the nude 'David' by Michelangelo. It is also very beautiful, but by no means bears any relation to reality.

A significant number of such portrayals were created in fact much later in the XVII-XVIII cc. the core of the subject is either forgotten or deliberately obscured. The artists and sculptors portrayed elegant gowns, beautiful naked bodies and excessively elaborate poses. Noticeably more truth remained on the actual old imagery of the XVI cc. Unfortunately many originals were destroyed. Today we look at the past through the distorting prism of the biased editorial revision of the XVII-XVIII cc.

Nevertheless, observing the old work of art from a new point of view, it is possible to discover numerous traces of true history, sometimes rather colourful and not noticed by the picky editors and therefore fortunately preserved. They have to be searched for. Such work is akin to the painstaking work of an investigator.

What is Noah's ark?[edit | edit source]

In the biblical life description of Samuel the central place is assigned to the travelling of the ark (1 Kings 4-7). What is it? The ark appears in the Bible in several places and, most likely, what is meant here are two separate objects. The first ark is described as a casket, a box for the Moses' tablets of stone, or their fragments [2v]. N.A.Morozov showed in [544], v.6, that this 'first ark', possibly survives until today and is well known. It is the famous Kaaba in Mecca, the object of worship for modern Muslims. The objects of adoration are the walled-in wreckage possibly of the meteor or volcanic origin. The travels of the arc, described in the Bible, are the wandering of the holy stone debris in the Middle Ages prior to their final resting place in Mecca on the Arabian Peninsula.

If the 'first arc' is a sanctum of the Meccan Kaaba, then the 'second arc', described in the 1 Book of Kings is something entirely different. We have discovered that here the issue at hand is of an icon and an arc, or an icon in the arc. Or of the relics in the arc [\u041a\u0420]. We would like to point out, that the 'first arc' and the 'second arc' are our terms, introduced for conveniently denoting the two biblical plots.

It turns out, that the travels of the famous biblical Arc of the Testament at the time of the king (czar) Samuel, is a sequence of appearances and travels of the famous icon, Theotokos of Tikhvin in Russia in 1383. The travels of the Lord's Arc are linked to the victories on the battlefields. Here the Israelites are the Russians of the XVII century, and the Philistines are their enemy the Swedes. To remind you, that some of the biblical books were written up to the first half of the XVII century [6v].

The Tatars - the Turks - Torit' (to cut away - in Russian)[edit | edit source]

In our books we referred to various written testimonials and old pictures showing that the 'Russians' and the 'Tatars' in those times were indistinguishable [4v1], ch.6. In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. they comprised a single nation. The Battle of Kulikovo was a civil war conflict. In the civil battles the 'Russian' and the 'Tatar' armies truly look virtually the same. Similar armament, similar banners, etc. So what did the word TATARS mean then?

That's what the Cossacks were called. TATARS probably originated from: TORIT' (TO CUT A PATH in Russian): TORIT/ = TRT -- > TTR = TATAR. Hence TORKI (nomadic tribes speaking Turkic language Translator's note) and TURKS. The Cossacks were the horse cavalry troops of Russia Horde. It was them who 'cut a path', travelled very fast, made new routes, lead the colonization of the distant lands. Only in the epoch of the Romanovs they thought of the artificial division of the single nation of the metropoly of the Empire into the 'Russians' and the 'Tatars'. They tried to drive a wedge between them. They followed the principle of the age of Reformation: divide and rule. Despite of the lengthy efforts they, generally speaking, failed.

The Cossacks-Aryans: from Russia to India. Epic Mahabharata[edit | edit source]

We have mentioned earlier the famous 'ancient' Indian epic Mahabharata. Here is the summary of our research results.

  1. The Epic largely relies on the Bible. It was created in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. and was finally completed only in the XVII-XVIII cc.
  2. The central theme of the Epic is the great battle of the people in the Kuru field. Here reflected is the colossal Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. In the Mahabharata under the name of Arjuna (= Horde-Khan) is described Dmitry Donskoy. And under the name of Duryodhana (=Evil Khan) appears Mamai, the adversary of Dmitry. The authors sympathise with Arjuna = Dmitry Donskoy and are ill-disposed towards Duryodhana = Mamai. Similar is the point of view of the Russian chronicles: 'good Dmitry' and 'evil Mamai'.

When comparing Mahabharata to the Russian chronicles, we restored many details of the Russian Horde history preserved in the 'ancient' Aryan Epic, but lost in Russia. They were either forgotten or cleansed by the Romanovs' historians. For example, the downfall of Duryodhana was described in the Mahabharata in great detail. But the surviving Russian primary sources speak of khan Mamai's blight very scantily. The reason is understandable. Having declared the Cossacks=Tatars the be 'evil people', the Romanovs' historians crossed out from our history all the positive accounts about khan Mamai and his fellows in arms. We were continuously indoctrinated with the idea that the 'Russians' and the 'Tatars' are allegedly long-standing foes.

There is a 'Book of the Women' in Mahabharata. And in it there is a big section 'Women's lament' [519], v.8, p.136-176. It describes the wives lamenting their dead warriors who fell in the field of the great battle. 'The Lament' is one of the emotional peaks of Mahabharata.

It is possible, that here is told a story of the mourning of those who perished in the field of the Battle of Kulikovo. In the Russian chronicles the lament was reflected very poorly. In this way we emerge deeper into the events of Hordian Moscow which followed the battle. The significant part of the 'Lament' mourns the warriors of Duryodhana, i.e of khan Mamai. It is even more interesting considering that in the Romanovs' version Mamai is represented negatively, and there are no details about his supporters.

Mahabharata narrates about the 'Mongol' conquest of the XV century. The famous Indian Aryans are 'Yuryievans' ('Yuiryievtsy') = Georgyievans (Georgyievtsy), i.e. - the Hordian troops of the Cossacks (aka the chronicle 'Tatars' who have colonized the Hindustan Peninsula and lands surrounding it. The word ARYA in Sanskrit 'means both: the name of the people and 'kind', 'wise') [519], v.2, p.250. It is possible that in the name ARYANS reflected the Russian word YARY (FIERCE), YARO (FIERCELY). Which very well corresponds with the essence of this name 'Yuryi'= Georgyievtsy the FIERCE warriors of Yuryi (Georgyi - George) The Conqueror. Let's also remember the name Yaroslav, i.e. Fierce Glory or Aryan-Glory.

In the XIV-XV cc. the territory of modern India was occupied and developed by the army of Russia Horde. They were the 'Mongolian' army directed to the South and to the East. According to the Byzantine chronicler John Malalas, the colonization of the world of that time was carried out generally in a peaceful way. Vast expanses of Eurasia were yet little populated. In the majority of cases there was no one to fight. In particular, MALALAS DESCRIBES WESTERN EUROPE AS A HALF SAVAGE COUNTRY WHERE THERE ARE EVEN NO CITIES [338]. p.28.

The Hordians who stepped on the Hindustan Peninsula, were not at all Muslim in the modern meaning of this word. On the territories of the vigorously expanding 'Mongol' Empire reigned the Apostolic

Christianity rooted in the XII century. Islam in the modern sense of this word appeared only in the XVI-XVII cc., after the split of the Christianity into Orthodox Christianity and Islam. The army of the Horde of the XIV century was called 'Muslim' post factum, in later history textbooks.

The Indian God KRISHNA (Buddha) - is the image of Jesus CHRIST, transformed on local grounds. The researchers of the history of religions have already cautiously spoken about it [2v1], ch.1. However, they avoided making any conclusions for fear of casting doubt over Scaligerian chronology. We, however, are articulating this idea clearly and directly. At the heart of the 'ancient' Indian Ramayana are the events of the XIV-XVI cc., when the powerful 'ancient' Christian Rome, aka Russia Horde together with The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania spreads its rule over Eurasia, Oceania (Pacific Islands) and America. Hence the Mediaeval population of Hindustan believed in Christ. In India His name was expressed as Krishna.

The Horde army was followed by the migrants, women and children. In their rows of carts they carried not only weapons and armament, but also the documents, archives and chronicles. After the founding of the 'Mongol' states in the Hindustan Peninsula, which were controlled by the Hordian governors, there also appeared the libraries, where among other things, the Russian chronicles were kept. Khan's clerks, civil servants, scribes and scientists have arrived to India. The culture and the language of its metropoly and provinces was ubiquitous.

B.L.Smirnov, the Fellow of the Academy of Sciences of the Turkmen Soviet Republic wrote: 'Reference to the blue eyed Aryans repeatedly occurs in 'Mahabharata'; this anthropologic detail is curious enough for the matter of the origin of the Aryans, which until present day didn't receive a universally acknowledged admission' [519], v.4, p.560. Today in historic literature it is not acceptable to say 'Aryan'. It is preferable to say 'arya' or 'airya'. We can explain the 'blue-eyed' quality of the ariyas. In Russia, for example, there were always quite a lot of blue-eyed people.

In the result of the 'Mongol' conquest the Hordian chronicles and events described in them were 'spreading' over the entire Empire. The Hordians-Cossacks leaving for campaigns, took with them mementos, chronicles, documents and archives. Having settled in the distant provinces, they tried to preserve the memory of their motherland. But as time went by, their descendants began to think that the old legends inherited by them from their fathers and grandfathers, were a narrative about their life 'here', i.e. where they lived now. They began to sincerely look for the very place where, for example, occurred the battle of Kulikovo of their ancestors. They were mistakenly looking 'nearby', close to where they lived at that point. And of course they 'found' it. Here and there. Some would begin to think that it is some kind of field on the Hindustan Peninsula. 'It turned out' to be the field Kurukshetra. This being said, it is not impossible that some other important battles took place there, but they were 'local' battles. The other descendants of the Hordians, who settled in the West, would erroneously point at some field in Western Europe. It would 'result' as a battlefield of Sempach [7v1], ch.3. And so on. It is not impossible that the reflecting glare of the battle on the Moscow field of Kulikovo shed its light on the famous Kosovo field in Serbia. The Romanovs' historians also contributed to the obfuscation of true history. They moved (on paper) the Kulikovo field from Moscow to outside of Tula [4v1], ch.6.

As we have shown in [\u041a\u0420], in the Battle of Kulikovo cannons were used. On the pages of Mahabharata (substantially edited in the XVIII-XIX cc.) there survive many references to the fire arms pounding the Kuru field (aka Kulikovo field) during the great battle between Pandavas and Kauravas. It is likely that in the original text of Mahabharata, dating back to the XVI century, the fire arms were described more explicitly.

Even after editing the surviving 'fire arms fragments' from Mahabharata are absolutely unambiguous. Only the incorrect chronology prevents the historians admitting that those are obvious descriptions of cannons. At the same time the 'fire arm scenes' in the Epic are so colourful that the historians had to come up with a theory of some kind of 'divine heavenly fire' in order to substantiate the artificial ageing of Mahabharata and to conceal from the readers the cannon battles in 'ancient' Indian history. At first they were concealing it under orders, but later they were doing it mechanically, having forgotten the origin of the matter [\u041a\Uffffffff\u0417], ch.1.

Here is a list of the Biblical events of the XV-XVI cc. comprising the essence of various chapters of Mahabharata.

  1. The flood and voyage of the patriarch Noah-Manu (=Columbus) across the ocean in the XV century.
  2. The Exodus of Moses in the XV century.
  3. The story of Esther (Elena Voloshanka) of the XVI century.
  4. The story of the biblical Susanna another reflection of Esther.
  5. The story of Esther is also described in the most 'ancient' Babylonian epic.

And here are the 'evangelical chapters' in the 'ancient' Mahabharata.

  1. Immaculate Conception, Virgin Mary.
  2. Indian God-Human Yudhisthira as the reflection of Christ.
  3. King Herod's schemes against Christ. The Holy Family's flight to Egypt.
  4. Christ's return to Jerusalem.
  5. The Flagellation of Christ.
  6. Christ's Ascent of Golgotha. The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Apostles' dream.
  7. The Ascension of Christ.
  8. Christ's descent into Hell.

Having moved the Indian Epic (like the Epics of other nations) to the deepest antiquity and having narrowed down the geographical framework of the events described in it, the historians of the XVII-XVIII cc. endeavoured to hide the fact that Mahabharata in fact narrates about the recent events of the XIV-XVI cc. It was edited with a sprinkled patina of 'ancient dust'. As a result this enormous material is perceived in an ambiguous way. On one hand with a lot of respect, which is entirely fair. On the other hand very few have read this Epic from the beginning to the end. It seems boring. To be precise, it was 'presented' to be boring.

However, it is clear now that we were intentionally conditioned to have a 'disinterested' perception! We were forced to think that Mahabharata itself is the sole source of the thousands of events described within it. And as the editors 'presented a fairy-tale' it is not surprising, that such a lukewarm attitude arises towards it. Like, hazy myths, unknown heroes, fire breathing dragons etc. Thousands of obscure (at a first glance) names, a great number of allegedly forgotten events... Ask your friends whether many of them have read at least one of the volumes of Mahabharata. You will not find many of them. Very few. Even amongst the admirers of 'ancient' Indian history. But now, after the restoration of the correct chronology of this Epic, the interest towards it rises sharply. Reading Mahabharata becomes captivating. As soon as we begin to understand that here unfold the events of the Great Empire of the XIV-XVI cc., it is impossible to pry oneself away from most of its pages. As it is from these pages that arise the biblical events, from the history of Russia Horde, The Battle of Kulikovo, etc.

Comparing different viewpoints - Aryan-Indian (from India, from the East), Russian (from the Empire metropoly), Western-European (from the Western countries) - OF THE SAME EVENTS, captivates the unbiased reader. Besides, the exposure of 'Scaligerian trickery' - is an investigation of a serious crime of the XVII-XVIII cc. in the face of science and mankind in general. It turns out the reformers didn't cover up all their tracks. On the whole, they did an excellent job. But they missed quite a lot. They failed to notice everything. And today their alibi, convincing on the surface, crumbles on closer inspection.


30 reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo discovered by us in the 'ancient' history[edit | edit source]

We will list 30 reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo, which we discovered on the pages of various chronicles both in the 'antiquity' and in the Middle Ages. We also indicate in our books, where these duplicates were presented and studied.

So: the Battle of Kulikovo of the year 1380 [4v1], ch.6. Considered to be just about the main military event of the Mediaeval Russian history. Here are its phantom reflections.

IN RUSSIAN HISTORY:

1) Khan Tokhtamysh = Dmitry Donskoy siege of Moscow allegedly two years later, in 1382 [4v1], ch.6.

2) Crushing defeat of Khan Mamai by Khan Tokhtamush Dmitry Donskoy in 1380 [4v1], ch.6.

3) The Battle on Kalka River allegedly in 1223, where the 'Mongols' fought the allied forces of the Cumans (Polovtsy) and the Russians [4v1], ch.6. 4) The Battle of Sergiy Radonezhsky with the 'devils in the Lithuanian style hats', ended in the victory of the Holy Man. Is described in the Life of Sergiy [\u0428\Uffffffff\u0425], ch.3.

5) In the history of India: the famous 'battle on the Kuru field '. The battle supposedly took place in the 'ancient' India of allegedly the IV-III cc. BC or in the even more ancient epoch. This battle is the central event of the colossal 'ancient' Indian Epic 'Mahabharata' [\u0418\Uffffffff\u0414], [\u041a\Uffffffff\u0417].

6) In the history of the East: The Battle of Kulikovo was described by the Venetian traveller Marco Polo, allegedly the years 1254-1323 [4v1], ch.6:10 and [5v2], ch.2:12.8.

7) In the history of Europe: the Battle of Kulikovo was known to the Western chroniclers, for example, to the German chroniclers, as the great battle of Sempach allegedly in 138. It supposedly took place in Western Europe [7v1], ch.3:11.

8) In the history of the Balkans: the Battle in the Kosovo field allegedly in 1389; it is considered to have taken place in Serbia. The story of Sultan Murad = Dmitry Donskoy. We will talk about it in our future publications.

9) In the history of Byzantine: the battle of the emperor Heraclius and the Persian king Khosrau [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.1.


IN THE HISTORY OF 'ANCIENT' ROME:

10) The battle of the 'ancient' emperor Constantine I The Great = Dmitry Donskoy with the emperor Maxentius or Maximinus khan Mamai Ivan Velyaminov allegedly in year 312 [\u041a\u0420].

11) The battle of the emperor Constantine (Dmitry Donskoy) with Licinius allegedly in the year 323 [\u041a\u0420]. Here Licinius is the reflection of khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov.

12) The Gallic War allegedly of the year 361 BC. The Romans fought with the Gauls, who invaded their country. The outcome of the battle was decided in the fight of a young military tribune Titus Manlius = Dmitry Donskoy with a giant Gaul = Khan Mamai [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.4. See fig.42.

13) Another Gallic War allegedly of the year 348 BC, in which Marcus Valerius Corvus won the fight with a mighty Gaul [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.5 and fig.42.

14) The Second Latin War allegedly of the years 341-340 BC, in which both Titus Manlius-father and Titus Manlius-son took part [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.6.

15) The first Latin War allegedly of the year 499 BC [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.7.

16) The Battle of the dictator-ploughman (Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus) allegedly of the year 458 BC [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.7.

17) The Battle of the Romans of Sentinum and Clusium allegedly of year 295 BC [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.6.


IN THE BIBLE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

18) The famous battle between David and Goliath (1 Kings 17), allegedly in the epoch of 1015-1055 BC [\u041a\u0420]. Here David is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy and Goliath is a reflection of Khan Mamai.

19) The battle between King Saul and the Philistines in which Saul was killed (1 Kings 29-31) allegedly in the XI century BC [\u041a\u0420].

20) David and Absalom story. Absalom dies in the battle (2 Kings 18) allegedly in the middle of the XI century BC [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.6.

21) The battle between David and the Philistines (2 Kings 5) allegedly of the XI century BC [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.6.

22) The rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri against David (2 Kings 20) allegedly in the XI century BC. [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.6. Here David = Dmitry Donskoy and Sheba = Ivan Veliyaminov or Veniyaminov.

23) The battle between the Judge Gideon and the Midianites (Judges 6-8) allegedly circa 1245 BC [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.7. Here Gideon is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy.


24) In the history of 'Ancient' Greece: the famous battle of Marathon allegedly the year 490 BC [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.1.

25) In 'ancient' mythology: the famous 'most ancient' victory of Zeus over the titans with the help of Cyclops, so called Gigantomachy [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.2. Today this myth is dated to the deepest history, identifying it as the very first and the most significant 'Olympian myth of creation'. THE WORLD BEGINS STARTING WITH THIS MYTH, the universe is conceived. In those allegedly dark ages there were supposedly no people yet. Only the mighty gods were soaring in the nebulous celestial spheres, who themselves only recently had emerged into the world and were fiercely fighting each other. Poets and writers, sculptors, painters and film directors, being inspired by these powerful legends, have created hundreds of wonderful works of art. Sincerely believing that with their artistic intuition they penetrated many thousands of years into the past, unveiling the mystery\u2026


We will slightly disappoint the poets. The 'most ancient Olympian myth of creation' in fact tells us about the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. For some, it may be that such a conclusion means the 'dilution of the pathos' of the legends about the Creation of the World. But not for us. In fact this fact enhances the value of the Battle of Kulikovo in the history of mankind. The 'ancient' tradition raised this event to a high pedestal, establishing it as the basis of the entire history. That is why the 'poetic frisson' remains. Only the dating changes. The important event becomes significantly closer to our times, appearing to be at the end of the XIV century. Zeus defeated the Titans with the help of the mighty Cyclops (i.e. cannons!) 'only' approximately six hundred and twenty years ago. In the New Chronology this event is exceptionally ancient. As the written history of mankind on the whole goes back not more than a thousand years. And emerges from the darkness only at the beginning of the X-XI cc.

We have repeatedly came across the fact that the famous 'ancient' TARTAR is a reflection of TARTARIA = TATARIA, i.e. Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc., on the pages of the 'ancient' classics. Russia-Horde inspired both respect and fear in some Western-Europeans. That is why in the epoch of the Reformation the distant Tartar was painted in sombre tones. Purporting that it is situated somewhere far away. It is difficult to reach. Tartar is a gloomy underworld, situated at the same distance from the earth as the earth is from the skies. Tartar is surrounded by the tall brass walls and a ring of fire. There the storms are raging permanently. Even the gods are scared of Tartar. The entrance to Tartar is guarded by ruthless monsters, the sinister hellhound Cerberus = Kerberos.

And so on. Many shock and 'horror stories' about Russia-Horde started to circulate in the Western Europe of the late XVI XVII cc. Tartar-Tartaria was described as an 'infernal' place, threatening everything that is progressive and cultured in humankind. Purporting that it is the empire of evil. The prison of nations. This tradition of fear firmly took root and from time to time emerges under all kinds of circumstances.

26) In the history of 'ancient' Greece: the famous Sicilian battle allegedly of 415-413 BC [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.3.

It appears that in the 'ancient' description of the Sicilian War the two layers have become closely intertwined. The first from the XII century and consists of the events connected with the Emperor Andronicus-Christ. The second is the Battle of Kulikovo of 1380. The reason for the confusion between the XII and XIV centuries (cc) is clear. The chroniclers confused the two Baptisms of Russia. The first by Andronicus-Christ himself in the end of the XII century. The Second Baptism at the end of the XIV century by Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great the Biblical Judge Gideon the Biblical King David. The chroniclers confused these two baptisms and the events connected to them. That is why the Biblical image of David absorbed the data of Andronicus-Christ [\u0426\u0420\u0421]27) In the history of 'ancient' Greece: Decelean War allegedly the end of the year 413 BC. It is considered that it took place immediately after the Sicilian Battle [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.3.

28) In the history of Conquista America's conquests allegedly in the beginning of the XVI century: the battle of the Spanish with allegedly Indian king Cotubanam [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.9.

29) In the ancient history of Iran (Persia): the battle of the king Takhmurup with the 'demonic hordes' [\u0428\Uffffffff\u0425], ch.2.

30) In the ancient history of Iran (Persia): the battle of the king Fereydun with the king Zahhak [\u0428\Uffffffff\u0425], ch.3.


Hence it can be seen what a strong impression the Battle of Kulikovo made on the nations of the Great Empire. It was written about, talked about, the legends were made about it, the songs were sung, the heroic epic ballads were passed on to the future generations. The duplicates of the Battle of Kulikovo see. Fig.43. In Fig.44. the same list is depicted in a different way. It shows which epochs the phantom reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo were erroneously dated to. To reconstruct the correct history it is necessary to 'lift' all the duplicates found by us up the timeline and identify them with the battle of 1380. As a result the number of various stories in the written history substantially decreases, but the illumination of the events noticeably increases. We get an opportunity to look at the Battle of Kulikovo through the eyes of 30 various chroniclers. Each of them communicates something peculiarly their own, sometimes unnoticed by the others. As a result the story of the battle between Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Mamai becomes noticeably richer.


25 reflections of Dmitry Donskoy[edit | edit source]

1) KARL IV HABSBURG - 'Western-European' emperor (1347-1378) is the reflection of both DMITRY SUZDALSKY (1359-1363 according to [362] or 1360-1363) and DMITRY IVANOVICH DONSKOY (1363-1389 according to [362]). The chroniclers could have combined them into one ruler as they had the same name: DMITRY. Some of the facts of Dmitry Donskoy's biography found their way into the story of WENCESLAS Habsburg, who followed Karl IV [2v1], [7v1].

2) SVYATOSLAV IGOREVICH, allegedly 945-972, a Russian Prince [1v].

3) DMITRY OF PERESLAVL, a Russian Prince, allegedly the XIII century.

4) KHAN TOKHTA, allegedly the XIII century.

5) KHAN TOKHTAMYSH, the XIV century.

6) CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT, the famous 'ancient' Roman emperor, who defeated Licinius and Maxentius (these are the two reflections of khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov or Venyaminov, allegedly the IV century [\u0426\u0420\u0421] [\u041a\u0420].

7) DAVID (partial), the famous biblical king, who defeated the giant Goliath and Saul (both are the reflections of khan Mamai) [\u0426\u0420\u0421] [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c].

8) PERSEUS, the 'ancient' hero who cut off Medusa Gorgon's head [\u041a\u0420], ch.3.

9) MURAD I (partial) the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire who died in 1389 in the battle of Kosovo Field [\u041a\u0420], ch.3.

10) ARJUNA the 'ancient' Indian demigod, who defeated in the battle the demigod Duryodhana = (Evil Khan) (the duplicate of khan Mamai). He is described in the Indian epic Mahabharata [\u041a\Uffffffff\u0417], ch.1.

11) ROMULUS (partial) the first 'ancient' Roman king. Some chroniclers confused the epoch of Andronicus-Christ (the XII century) and the epoch of Dmitry Donskoy (the XIV century) [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c].

12) JEROBOAM I (partial) the 'ancient' biblical king [1v], [2v].

13) HERACLIUS (partial) Byzantine Emperor, who defeated the Persian Shah Khosrau (the duplicate of khan Mamai) [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.1.

14) TITUS MANLIUS TORQUATUS - the 'ancient' Roman who defeated the mighty Gaul (= Golaith = khan Mamai). He was described, in particular, by Titus Levy [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.4.

15) MARCUS VALERIUS CORVINUS the 'ancient' Roman, who defeated the mighty Gaul (khan Mamai) in battle. Was described by Titus Levy [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.5.

16) TITUS MANLIUS-SON the 'ancient' Roman who struck the Latin khan Mamai during the Second Roman-Latin War [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.6.

17) QUINTUS FABIUS the 'ancient' Roman council, who lead the Romans in the Battle of Clusium and Sentinum, allegedly in the III century BC [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.6.

18) GIDEON the Old Testament commander, leading the army of Israelites in the war against the Midianites. He is described in the Book of Judges [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.7.

19) TITUS QUINCTIUS, THE FARMER-DICTATOR (PLOW-MAN) the 'ancient' Roman hero, the victor in the war with the Sabines [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c], ch.7

20) MILTIADES (partial) the 'ancient' supreme commander of the Athenian army in the Battle of Marathon [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.1.

21) HERMOCRATES, the son of Hermon the 'ancient' Sicilian commander in the Sicilian Battle (Syracusan general during the Athenians' Sicilian Expedition) of allegedly the V century BC [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.3.

22) JUAN DE ESQUIVEL a Spanish chief-conquistador, winning the battle of the early XVI century allegedly during the conquest of America. Described by Bartolomé de las Casas [\u0417\Uffffffff] ch.9.

23) ARTHUR (partial) the English king, who defeated a 'fierce giant', and also a Roman tribune Frollo (khan Mamai) [\u0425\u0420], ch.7.

24) TAKHMOURES an 'ancient' Iranian shah, who destroyed the 'demons' in a fierce battle [\u0428\Uffffffff\u0425], ch.1.

25) FEREYDUN (partial) 'ancient'-Iranian shah, defeating the evil Zahhak [\u0428\Uffffffff\u0425], ch.2, 3.


Astronomical dating of the new chronology[edit | edit source]

1. (Years 1308 or 1071 or 1189) CONCISE ZODIAC KZ. Stone bas-relief on the ceiling of the temple in the city of Erment. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first variant: 15-16 May 1071; the second variant: 30-31 May 1189; the third variant: 6-8 May 1308 [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

2. (Years 1325 or 1146) ZODIAC RC FROM THE TOMB OF PHARAOH RAMESSES IV (also written Ramses or Rameses). An image on the ceiling of the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'antiquity'. In reality the first variant: 15-16 April 1146; the second variant: 10-17 April 1325 [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

3. (Years 1345 or 1285) ZODIAC NB WITH 'CLOTHED NUT'. Possibly, painted on the lid of a wooden coffin. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first variant: the 31st January the 1st February 1285; the second variant: the 29th -31st January 1345 [\u0414\u0417\u0415\u0415]

4. (Year 1394) ZODIAC EB FROM THE BIG TEMPLE OF ESNA. Depicted on the stone slabs, on the temple's ceiling, bas-relief. 'Ancient' Egypt, Esna, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 31st March 3rd April 1394 [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

5. Here is an important result of the New Chronology. The star catalogue of the famous Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy (containing 1025 stars) was created, as it happens, in the interval between the years 600 and 1300. Thereby the Scaligerian dating of the 'Almagest' catalogue as of the II century appears to be a serious error [3v2].