How It Really Was/Reconstruction of genuine history/16th century

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Kazan = Khazar rebellion in Russia-Horde[edit | edit source]

In the middle of the XVI century the Kazan kingdom aka the legendary 'ancient' Khazar Khaganate becomes the centre of the Judaic religion. The Kazan czar, i.e. The Khazar Kagan and his court convert to Judaism. Kazan makes an attempt to break away from the Empire. It is possible, that there was some kind of connection between Kazan = Khazar Judaism and the Western Reformation, Protestantism.

The Kazan Judaism of the XVI century and contemporary Judaism should not be confused with each other. The present names of the religions originated from positive sounding notions. For instance, Jew meant 'One who praises God'. For a long time these terms were not attached to any of the religious branches. They were still in general use. That is why the mediaeval terms: Jew, Orthodox, Catholic = universal do not always correspond with the same terms in the contemporary sense which is already associated with this or that religious institution. The aforesaid also refers to the names of the countries. For example, Israel, i.e. fighter for God, was a religiously tinged name of the entire Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. Judaea was the name for Asmania (Osmania) - Atamania with its capital in the Biblical Jerusalem = Czar-Grad. That is why in the epoch of the Reformation the name Israel was used by some newly emerging states in order to emphasise their rightness in the religious debate. Only later this name was assigned to just one religious branch and one state.

In 1552 the czar-khan of Veliky Novgorod Ivan the 'Terrible' severely crushed the Kazan Khazar revolt [6v1], ch.6. The history of the capture of Kazan was intertwined in the chronicles with the seizure of Czar-Grad by the Osmans a century earlier, in 1453.

In the book [ZA] we showed that the seizure of Kazan is described, in particular, by 'classical' Herodotus in his work 'The Histories'. Moreover, it is described more than once and 'under different names'. For example as the conquest and crushing defeat of 'Egyptian Memphis' by King Cambyses II (i.e. by Ivan the 'Terrible'). For the second time as the construction by King Xerxes (Ivan the Terrible once again) of a 'bridge across Hellespont'. Allegedly across the strait which separates Europe and Asia. The subject matter here is the beginning of Xerxes' punitive campaign against Europe with a purpose of punishing the Greeks and the Europeans in general 'for disobedience'. At the very beginning of the campaign Xerxes gives an order 'to pacify Hellespont' and to build a bridge across it, over which it would be possible to transport a huge Persian army from Asia into Europe. The massive bridge was built. This storyline by Herodotus reflects the building of the city of Sviyazhsk for the purpose of transporting Grozny's army across the Volga river prior to the conquest of Kazan [ZA].

The revolt-reformation in Western Europe[edit | edit source]

In the second half of the XVI century in Europe the governors who do not wish to obey the distant czar-khan of Veliky Novgorod form a rebellion. They seek independence. The banner of religious separation from the Empire was chosen as the ideological basis of the revolt. The rebels-protestants took advantage of the emergence of Lutheranism in the West as a just cause for political separation. Martin Luther himself was most likely a purely religious reformer and loyal subject of the 'Mongol' Empire.

'The Reformation ... is one of the major events in world history, the name of which was used to symbolize the whole period of the new era spanning the 16th and the first half of the 17th century'[936], v.2, p.471. As a religious motto the reformists chose Lutheranism. In Russia it was called the heresy of the Judaizers [6v1], \u0433\u043b.7. In the Romanovs' version of Russian history this heresy is mainly moved from the XVI century to the preceding XV century. The truth is that the Romanovs themselves were mixed up in the heresy of the Judaizers [6v1], ch.7. They were covering their tracks. However, even in the distorted version of the XVI century there survive many traces of the actual events. It is generally thought, that in the XVI century in Russia the heresy of the Judaizers re-emerges.'

Russia-Horde's preparation of the punitive campaign to supress the Western reformation[edit | edit source]

Having crushed the rebellion in Kazan, Russia-Horde turns its attention towards the seething West. The decision was made to send a punitive force there. In the Russian sources this event is known as the beginning of the Livonian war [6v1], ch.8.

In fact the whole of Western Europe is called as Livonia here. It was only later that the Romanov historians cunningly depicted Livonia as just a small region on the territory of contemporary Lithuania, where the Russian army was headed to in order to crush Lutheranism. In other words, as we understand it now, to crush the entire Western Reformation. The historians made light of the matter in such a way as if to say that the conflict between Russia and Western Europe was the struggle between the enormous Russia with the tiny Livonia. So in the end it came across as if the Empire was fighting a fruitless and long drawn out war with a small, but proud Livonia. I.e. allegedly with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. This is the so called Livonian war of the XVI century.

So the 'Romanovs' Livonia' was granted - on paper the achievements of the entire Reformist Europe. The small countries, included today by the historians into 'Livonia of the XVI century', were on the edge of Western Europe along the border with the metropoly of Russia-Horde. The name of Livonia itself in the XVII century, after the collapse of the Empire, has disappeared from the maps [797], p.707-708. Along with the so called Livonian Order. In other words, with Livonian Horde. The historians themselves admit that the Livonian Order was in fact GERMAN [797], p.708. So the historians tried at all costs to take the name of Livonia away from the whole of Western Europe and keep it just for the Baltic countries.

The Reformation in Western Europe = 'Livonia' was perceived in Velikii Novgorod as a revolt in the dependent regions. A decision was made to crush it by force. A massive campaign was prepared the third conquest of Europe, so to speak. But at this point a revolt ignites in the capital of the Empire, escalating into terror and the oprichnina (political and administrative apparatus established by Ivan IV the Terrible Translator's note).

The story of Esther and the Oprichnina as the massacre of the ruling military class of the Great Empire[edit | edit source]

A major revolt rises up in the capital of the Empire. Czar-khan Ivan IV falls ill, becomes deranged and retires from office. According to the Western sources, Karl V aka Ivan the Terrible leaves for the monastery, abdicating from the throne. In the epoch of the oprichnina it is a teenage Ivan, the son of Ivan the Blessed, who is formally the czar, but it is the others, his mother's relatives, who in fact rule. The pro-Western faction of the Zakharyins-Romanovs assumed power. The coup takes place 'via a woman'. I.e. with woman's help. It is described in the Old Testament as the legendary Esther [6v1], ch.7. A group of the Lutherans, which were called the Judaizers by the Russian Orthodox church, found itself in power for a certain period of time. They were the foreign Protestants, who enjoyed full confidence with the Zakharyins-Romanovs. They sabotaged the punitive Russian-Hordian campaign to the West which had already started. The epoch of the oprichnina begins. It is one of the darkest periods of Russian history. The massacre of the Hordian military commanders and elite takes place. Including the heirs to the Russian throne. One of the bright reflections of this in the 'ancient' history is the slaughter of his brothers by Svyatopolk the 'Accursed'. In the Bible it is reflected as the 'massacre of the Persians'. To commemorate this event in the Judaic church the famous holiday of Purim was established.

There are several consecutively ruling czars represented on the pages of the Russian history under the name of 'Ivan the Terrible'.

1) Czar Ivan Vasilyevich, subsequently Vasiliy or Ivan the Blessed (1547-1553).

2) Czar Dmitry Ivanovich, a younger son of Ivan Vasilyevich, who died as an adolescent in an accident (1553-1563).

3) Czar Ivan Ivanovich, the second son of Ivan Vasilyevich, a youth on whose behalf and under whose authority the oprichnina was unleashed (1563-1572).

4) Czar Simeon (1572-1584), crowned to rein under the czar name Ivan after the defeat of the oprichnina and dethronement of Ivan Ivanovich. The founder of the new dynasty to which belonged czar Feodor Ivanovich and the last czars of which were Boris Feodorovich 'Godunov' and his teenage son Feodor Borisovich, who were assassinated by the conspirators.

The palace revolt in Russia of the XVI century, which put the end to the Livonian war, and the oprichnina and terror which followed it, are described in the Bible, in the Books of Esther and Judith. The 'story of a woman' played an important role. In the Bible it is depicted twice. As Esther, in 'the Book of Esther', describing the court life of Russia-Horde in the XVI century. And as Judith, in 'the Book of Judith', which gives an account of the same events, but through the eyes of a Western chronicler far from the khan court of the Empire.

In the Romanovs' version the story of the heretic Esther-Judith has been cleaned out from the XVI century as dangerous for the Romanovs who were embroiled in heresy. However it turned out that the epoch of the XVI century in the Romanov's history is duplicated in the XV century. It affords us an invaluable insight into the XVI century, by peering into its XV century reflection. Here the 'story of Esther' is presented in its brightest form. Ivan III should be read as a czar of the epoch of Ivan the 'Terrible' of the XVI century. It is most likely Ivan's IV brother Georgiy, who came to power after Ivan IV = Vasiliy the Blessed stepped down. Georgiy I is described in the Bible as Artaxerxes Macrocheir (Latin: 'Longimanus'). In Russian history he also reflected as Yuri Dolgorukiy, the founder of Moscow. Under his rule the capital of the Empire was in fact moved to Moscow, where the Kremlin was built. It took place only at the end of the XVI century. But not in the XII-XIV cc. as we are constantly assured. Notably the transferal of the capital is closely related to Esther and the revolt in the Empire.

The recollections of these events were painful for the Romanovs even in the XVIII century. That is why in their version, the creation of which started in the XVII century, the 'story of Esther' was presented in a muffled way. At the same time, however, a fairly honest chronicle of these events was composed, which was included in the Bible. But here they were disguised under the invented 'biblical' names for the characters, countries, etc. The biblical canon was being created in the late XVI XVII cc. Its final edition was carried out by the winners-reformers. In other words by the protestants.

The details of the story of biblical Esther = heretic Elena Voloshanka and Dmitriy-Mordecai, her son[edit | edit source]

The Bible (biblical) version[edit | edit source]

In the Old Testament 'Book of Esther' the events unfold in the Persian kingdom under the great king Artaxerxes. The capital city is Susa. King Artaxerxes falls out with his wife Astin. She is accused of being disrespectful towards her husband. The king disgraces her. The king's subjects demand Astin's banishment and her replacement with another queen.

The Bible says: 'The Queen Vashti (Astin) would not come into the king's presence on his command... the king ... had an errand for the seven chamberlains that waited on him... They were to bring queen Vasthi (Astin) into the king's presence... Vain was the royal summons that the chamberlains brought her; she would not come. Whereupon the king broke out into a great passion of rage... Mamuchan thus spoke:... So please thee, let an edict go out in thy name... forbidding Vasthi ever to come into the royal presence again. LET THE CROWN PASS TO SOME HEAD WORTHIER THAN HERS... and the king did as Mamuchan had advised' (Book of Esther 1:12-13, 1:15-16, 1:19, 1:21).

The 'Persian' custom of selecting a bride for the czar is described in the Book of Esther as a matter of state importance. 'Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai ...Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity ... whom the king of Babylon had carried away. And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's daughter' (Esther 2:5-7).

Esther takes part in the bridal parade and the choice falls on her (Esther 2:17) So, a FOREIGNER Esther, aka Hadassah was chosen as the NEW WIFE of the Persian king Art-Xerxes. She was a JEWESS, a step-daughter and a relative of Mordecai. One of the captive Jews moved from Jerusalem = Czar-Grad by the king Nebuchadnezzar = Ivan the Terrible. At first Mordecai FORBIDS her to disclose her origin and faith (Esther 2:20).

The Bibles tells us: After this did king Ahasuerus promote Haman ... and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him ... And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman... (Esther 3:1-2).

On Haman's command the letters were sent by posts into all the king's provinces in the name of Art-Xerxes ' to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all Jews ... and to take their spoils for prey' (Esther 3:13).

Among other things Haman writes the following: 'There is a CERTAIN PEOPLE SCATTERED ABROAD AND DISPERSED AMONG THE PEOPLE IN ALL THE PROVINCES OF THY KINGDOM; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws... If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed (Esther 3:13). (Could it be 3:8, 3:9?)The Jews demanded of Esther who had already become Art-Xerxes' wife to prevent the massacre. She succeeds. As if by chance it happens, that king Art-Xerxes catches Haman who 'was fallen upon the bed whereon Esther was'. (Esther 7:8)The king was enraged: 'Will he force the queen also before me in the house?' (Esther 7:8) Haman was hanged, and then was the king's wrath pacified. The Jews were saved. And 'the house of Haman' was given unto Esther the queen. (Esther 8:7-10)After the fall and death of Haman = Ivan Molodoy (Ivan the Young) (see below), the Jews succeeded in taking vengeance upon the Persians and crushing them. To commemorate this Purim, a two-day holiday was established (Esther 9:26). The decree of the king Art-Xerxes, which annulled the earlier sanction to persecute the Jews, provoked the Jews to attack their enemy. By this time the new edict praised the Jews.

The Bible: '...the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them, though it was turned to the contrary, that the Jews had rule over them that hated them. The Jews gathered themselves together ... to lay hand on such as sought their hurt...' (Esther 9:1-2)And further: 'THUS THE JEWS SMOTE ALL THEIR ENEMIES ... And in Shushan palace the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men... The ten sons of Haman ... slew they' (Esther 9:5-6, 9:10). And also: 'But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces ... and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand...' (Esther 9:15-16).

It is curious that here the Ostrog Bible (one of the earliest East Slavic translations of the Bible Translator's note) and the Elizabeth Bible (the authorized version of the Russian Orthodox Church Translator's note) carries on: 'AND DEVASTATED THEIR DOMAIN ON THAT DAY'. But in the synodic translation and the Hebrew Scriptures, the direct opposite is said: BUT ON THE PREY THEY LAID NOT THEIR HAND'. It appears that the later editors sometimes radically altered the version of events, changing black into white and vice versa.

The Russian version[edit | edit source]

The Biblical Arta-Xerxes, aka Nebuchadnezzar, aka Ivan III the Terrible (allegedly 1462-1505) is a partial reflection of Ivan IV the Terrible (1533-1547-1584) [6v1], ch.7-8. Ivan IV was born allegedly in 1503 (in fact he was born in 1526 [RI], ch.2, [ERIZ] and was declared the Grand Prince in 1533 [988:00].

Biblical Esther is Elena Voloshanka, the wife of Ivan Molodoy (Ivan the Young), the son of Ivan III = Ivan IV. The story of Elena Voloshanka in the Romanovs' version is shifted into the XV century. In fact the events took place in the second half of the XVI century. Elena was in fact a foreigner, who came to Moscow from the South. 'In 1482 the heir to the throne Ivan Ivanovich married Elena Voloshanka, the daughter of the MOLDAVIAN ruler (of MOLDAVIA)' [778], p.115. Exactly corresponding with the Bible, she was a Hebrewess and belonged to the heresy of the Judaizers, which was a secret heretic movement in Russia in that time [690], \Uffffffff.10-12. Reportedly, 'on the surface the followers of the heresy remained Orthodox Christians and maintained a pious exterior. In front of the people... they presented themselves as the strict devotees of Orthodox Christianity, denounced and damned false doctrines. In secret they carried out their nasty work' [690] p.9-10.

So, Esther is Elena Voloshanka, i.e. Moldovanka (Moldavian), the princess of Moldavia. Her father is the Khan of Moldavia that is the biblical Mordecai.

The expert on the history of the church A.V.Kartashov states: 'In ...1470 in Novgorod there appears a heresy of the so called the 'Judaizers'. It's vaccine is brought from the outside... the Novgorodians... invited... Prince Alexander of Kiev (on the other accounts he was a Lithuanian prince [690], p.9 Author)... The prince arrived in Novgorod ... with his aids who brought ideological novelties from the West ... Not the novelties of the Christian West, but of the Western Jewry. In the prince's entourage there was Skhariya the Jew, a medical scholar' [372], v.1, p.489. Within a year some people from the circle of the high-ranking clergymen of Novgorod joined the heretical movement. The heretics were sometimes called Skharians after Skharia (Zechariah).

And further: 'THE RELATED, PROFESSIONALLY FAMILIAL nature of the cult is striking ... The whole matter was essentially arranged as a covert plot... The sect managed to maintain its SECRET LIFE for a whole ten years ... at the end of 1479 Ivan III, the conqueror of Novgorod, arrived there himself and was enchanted by the talents and gallantry of the cunning libertines proto-presbyters.

He decided to move them into his capital. He made Alexei the Arch-priest of Uspenskiy Cathedral and Denis the Proto-pope of the Arkhangelskiy Cathedral. Chances are that this honorary transferal ... was suggested to him by the secret alliance of the Judaizers itself... the Moscow branch of which had already been established AT THE VERY ROYAL COURT of Ivan III and was headed by Feodor Vasilievich Kuritsyn, his MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS and deacon of the Ambassadorial Council. It's all kept shrouded in secrecy until 1487 when the conspiracy collapsed in Novgorod' [372], v.1, p.490-491.

Allegedly in 1487 (in reality a century later) the Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod uncovers the Heresy of the Judaizers and initiates its persecution. In Novgorod, i.e. in Yaroslavl, heresy was destroyed. However in Moscow the heretics were left untouched as they comprised the CLOSEST ENTOURAGE OF THE CZAR IVAN III. Nevertheless, Gennady and the other hierarchy of the Russian church insist on the persecution: 'Execute the heretics burn and hang them!' [690], p.13.

Allegedly the council against the heretics was appointed in 1490. Hanging over them was the imminent danger of complete annihilation. But among their number they already could count Elena Voloshanka, Ivan III's daughter-in-law, the wife of Ivan the Young. It is also possible, that she was a heretic from the very beginning. The wedding of Ivan the Young and Elena of Moldavia took place allegedly in 1482 or 1483 [778], p.115, [282], p.54. Shortly after Elena of Moldavia gives birth to a son, Dmitry, a family scandal flares up among the family of Ivan III, in the centre of which are Sophia Paleologue, Ivan's III wife, and Elena, his young daughterin-law. Ivan III falls out with Sophia Paleologue.

In March of allegedly 1490 Ivan the Young dies suddenly. Some thought that he was poisoned. The doctor who was treating him was executed.

The quarrel between Elena Moldovanka and Sophia Paleologue, the wife of Ivan III is enflamed even more. The conflict between Ivan III and Sophia becomes explicit. The czar rejects his wife and openly BRINGS ELENA CLOSER a young widow, the wife of his deceased son. She acquires the absolute trust of Ivan III. This is the biblical 'story of Esther'.

There emerge two antagonistic camps. One - Sophia Paleologue and her son Vasili. The other Elena Moldovanka and her son Dmitry. Both boys are the potential heirs to the throne. The first camp is supported by the Russian Orthodox Church, Joseph Volotsky and the Archbishop Gennady. The second camp is supported by the Heresy of the Judaizers.

At that point Ivan III favours the second camp for a considerable time, supporting the Heresy of the Judaizers. The threat of crushing heresy recedes. The same year, allegedly in 1490, Judaizing heretic Zosima becomes the Metropolitan of Moscow [372], v.1, p.495. The heretics Alexei and Dionisy were appointed by the czar for the ecclesiastical ministry in the Moscow Kremlin: Alexei as the Arch-priest of Uspenskiy Cathedral and Dionisy the priest of the Arkhangelskiy Cathedral.

The Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod and the other hierarchs of the Russian church succeeded in convening the councils in an attempt to destroy heresy in Moscow. The council is held allegedly in 1490. However IT DOES NOT RULE AGAINST THE HERETICS. The imprisonment of Vasily, Ivan III's son and the cruel execution of Vasily's confidants and zaritsa Sophia's supporters formed the pinnacle of the triumph of the Heresy of the Judaizers. They were thrown into the Moscow river. Sophia Paleologue flees to Beloozero (White Lake). Elena Voloshanka triumphs. Allegedly in 1498, while Ivan III is still alive, her son Dmitry is triumphantly crowned Czar. He becomes Ivan III's co-ruler. It is here that the Old Testament Book of Esther concludes its narration.

But to complete the picture we would like to tell you what happened next. Sometime later Ivan III comes to his senses and returns his favour to Sophia Paleologue and his son Vasily. VASILY WAS DECLARED AN HEIR TO THE THRONE. Soon, allegedly in 1503 Sophia dies. Ivan III was also taken ill. 'In 1503 Ivan (Ioan) III REPENTED IN HIS FORMER WEAKNESS TOWARDS THE HERETICS AND ASKED THE CLERICS FOR FORGIVENESS' [690], p.16. From that point the pendulum started moving in the reverse direction , and the counter stroke was intense. Elena Moldovanka was thrown into a dungeon, where she died shortly, allegedly in 1505. In 1504 THE EXECUTIONS OF THE JUDAIZING HERETICS SWEPT THE GRAND DUCHY OF MOSCOW. From that point the heresy of the Judaizers for some time ceased to exist in Russia. But, apparently, it took its toll on Ivan III. Allegedly in 1505 Ivan III dies.

However the biblical Book of Esther does not speak a word of it. We add the word 'allegedly' to the dating of the XV century as in fact the events took place a century closer to us.

It turns out that the legendary patriarch Joseph of the Old Testament is the reflection of Joseph Volotsky renowned saint of the Russian church, as well as of Dmitry-Mordecai, the heretic, the son of Elena Voloshanka = the biblical Esther of the VI century [P\u0415], ch.5. The relocation of the family clan of Jacob-Israel to Egypt described in the Old Testament Book of Genesis is the emergence and establishment of the Western heretics-Reformers in Moscow. Russia-Horde becomes immersed in the Great Strife.

The original Esther in the Russian history of the 16th century and a number of her striking duplicates in earlier epochs[edit | edit source]

In [6v1], ch.7 we presented two bright reflections of the story of Esther in Russian history. One of them is the epoch of the heresy of the Judaizers under Ivan III, where Esther is Elena Voloshanka. The other is the epoch of the Seven Boyars after the death of Vasily III, where Esther is Elena Glinskaya, the mother of Ivan IV the Terrible. However, neither of the reflections occupies the correct place on the timeline. The original story of Esther is associated with the oprichnina of the XVI century and the Great Strife of the early XVII century, the origins of which lie in the late XVI century. The epoch of the XVI century, which was the key one in Russian history, was most thoroughly worked on by the Romanovs' historians. Their goal was to conceal both the very moment of the split of the "Mongol' Empire and its causes. Luckily a more or less exact duplicate survived in the XV century under Ivan III as it was not recognized by the Romanovs' falsifiers. If they did recognize it, they would have immediately eradicated it, in order to remove accusations of the heresy of the Judaizers from the Romanovs-Zakharins, i.e. the Skhariyans, Zakhariyans.

Fig. 64

Fig.64 shows a diagram of the story of Esther in its several variants. The most interesting is the original in the XVI century. Having broadly generalized it, it can be described as following:Plot 1: THE TWO CZARS-CO-RULERS Arta-Xerxes and Haman. Haman is named 'our second father' (Esther 3:13). Or 'second after' [6v1], ch.7. They are related, either father and son, or a brother and his older brother.

Plot 2: THE TWO WIVES. According to the Bible, they are Astin and Zeresh. Astin is the wife of Art-Xerex (Horde-George).

And Zeresh, ZRS or ZRSh in Hebrew (Esther 5:14), is the wife of Haman = Ivan. The name Zeresh, Zeres or Tsereth would probably (most likely) mean Czaritsa (Queen in Russian).

Plot 3: THE THIRD WOMAN-RIVAL AND THE HERESY. There appears the third woman Esther. She pushes aside both of the women, Astin and Zeresh. Astin is banished, and Zeresh is defeated. The heretic Esther gets the house of Haman, the husband of Zeresh (Esther 8:1).

Plot 4: A SEXUAL SCENE involving Art-Xerex, Haman and Esther. The scene results in Haman's death. Here Esther acts as a wife and a lover of both.

Plot 5: SLAUGHTER OF THE KING'S CHILDREN FOLLOWED BY POGROM. IN THE Book of Esther it is the slaughter of Haman's children and the massacre of the Persians by the Jews. To commemorate this event the celebration of Purim = fate was established.

Plot 6: AS A RESULT ENTHRONEMENT OF ESTHER'S RELATIVE. In the Bible it is Mordecai's accession to power.

Let us look at the scheme closer and see which events of the XVI century it is comprised of.

Plot 1: THE TWO CZARS-CO-RULERS. Ivan IV had a co-ruler Georgy or Yury, his brother [6v1], ch.7. The historians don't like to speak of Georgy's death. But when they do, they immediately add that he was allegedly disabled, feeble minded [6v1], ch.7. 'His consort Iuliania was considered to be the second Anastasia' [362], v.9, ch.1, column 26. The name IULIANIA is close to Elena well known to us as the name Esther from allegedly XV century.

Plot 2: THE TWO WIVES. The history of Ivan IV the Terrible's wives is very dark. The first two Anastasia and Maria. It is not very clear which of them was the wife of Ivan IV and which one of Georgy. Why Georgy's consort was considered 'quasi Anastasia' [6v].

Plot 3: THE THIRD WOMAN-RIVAL. The third wife of Ivan IV is considered to be Marfa Sobakina. Somehow she didn't become an actual wife to Ivan. Further still, this impediment was for some reason 'attested to by the verdict of the high clergy' [776], p.210. She died in 1571 before the end of the oprichnina and the old branch of the Horde dynasty ascent to power, i.e. Simeon [4v]. Marfa is the biblical Esther. And her name MARFA or MARTHA, MARDA is a slightly distorted name MARDOCAI. The letter 'F' = Fita (\u0472) in the name Marfa is spelled practically indistinguishable to 'D'. It was after Marfa's death Ivan the Terrible performed ecclesiastical penance. It was exactly in the same way that in the duplicate of the XV century Ivan III repented after the death of Elena Voloshanka.

Plot 4: A SEXUAL SCENE. In the XVI century it was the reason for the death of Ivan Ivanovich the son of Ivan IV the Terrible. It appears that there is something ambiguous going on between the czar-father and the son's wife. 'The last QUARREL BETWEEN THE FATHER AND HIS SON happened in Alexandrovskaya sloboda ... Grozny (The Terrible) found his daughter-in-law czarevna (princess) ELENA sitting on the bench in a warmly heated room wearing only her undergarments... He physically assaulted his daughter-in-law ... when Ivan Ivanovich tried to defend his wife... Ivan the Terrible attacked him as well. This scene was described by the Jesuit Possevino... One Italian interpreter told him that the czarevich (prince) was seriously wounded with a heavy blow to his head with a staff' [776], p.235. There were also the other versions of the event.

Here is described the same scene from the Biblical Book of Esther, allegedly from the XV century. The father-czar and his son-co-ruler find themselves at the bed of the son's young wife. Incidentally according to the Bible, Esther is presumably the son's wife, because Haman was called 'our second father' (Book of Esther 3:13). A quarrel flares up, as the result of which the son dies.

Plot 5: SLAUGHTER OF THE KING'S CHILDREN FOLLOWED BY POGROM. THE PERSECUTION AND EXECUTION OF THE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE FIRST TWO CZARINAS Anastasia and Maria is associated with Marfa Sobakina in the epoch of the Oprichnina [362], v.9, ch.3, column 110. The circumstances of this matter are unknown and Karamzin speculates on the reasons for the execution. While the persecution and execution of the relatives of the first two wives is a distinct trace from the story of the biblical Esther = Elena Voloshanka.

Plot 6: AS A RESULT ENTHRONEMENT OF ESTHER'S RELATIVE. Under Ivan IV the Terrible the time of the oprichnina is the time of ruling on behalf of the young Ivan Ivanovich [4v]. Possibly it was him, who was Marfa's son. Ivan the Terrible himself at this time has most likely become Vassily Blazhenny (the Blessed). The state is ruled by the others.

According to the Bible, at the end of the epoch of Esther, Mordecai accedes to the throne. What are his traces in the XVI century? They are vague, though something has survived. 'DURING THAT TIME (in the last yeas of the oprichnina Author's note) A BIG INFLUENCE OVER THE CZAR WAS GAINED BY Eliseus Bomelius, a physician and astrologer from Westphalia who had arrived to Russia from England ... in London Bomelius was ... imprisoned for black magic ... In May 1571 ... he became GROZNY'S (Ivan The Terrible) MAIN PHYSICIAN TO THE CZAR AND COURTIER ASTROLOGER. A doctor and astrologer, Bomelius became one of the TRUSTED ADVISORS TO GROZNY (IVAN THE TERRIBLE) ... He predicted all sorts of disasters and immediately presented recommendations of how to avoid them ... He concocted poisons for the courtiers who fell out of favour' [775], p.439-440. The Russian sources inform us that 'Bomelius, planted from abroad, 'STEERED THE CZAR AWAY FROM THE FAITH' and 'INCITED THE CZAR TO KILL MANY OF THE BOYARS AND PRINCES' [775], p.498. After the demise of the oprichnina Bomelius attempted to escape Russia. He was captured and executed [775], p.484. He was spit-roasted on an enormous skewer [776], p.197.

It is feasible that the story of Bomelius, an astrologer, a physician and a poisoner, is the surviving trace of the biblical Mordecai in the XVI century which survives to our day.

It turns out the story of Esther has also been told by the legendary Plutarch in his 'Parallel Lives' as a story of Artaxerxes II Mnemon King of Persia, a 'grandson' of the Persian king Artaxerxes Macrocheir (Latin: Longimanus 'with a long hand) [6v1], ch.7. Hence the 'classic' Plutarch lived and worked not earlier than the end of the XVI century. However it is no longer news to us. We have already presented the facts identifying Plutarch as Petrarch and advancing his lifetime into the XVI-XVII cc. [2v1], ch.1:4.

Judith[edit | edit source]

This is what the biblical Book of Judith tells us.

  • The Assyrian King Nebuchadnezzar who rules in Nineveh marches against the King Arfaxad and defeates him. It resembles a civil war.
  • Nebuchadnezzar gets angry with his WESTERN allies who no longer fear him and display signs of independence.
  • Nebuchadnezzar plans a massive military campaign to the West in order to curb the arrogance of the Western Kings and win back their lands held under the Assyrian power.
  • The general Holofernes is appointed head of the Assyrian army. At first it is planned to conquer the country and the city of Bethulia. The Assyrians invade the land of the city of Bethulia.
  • A wealthy widow, Jewess Judith decides to save her country from the invasion of the enemy. She infiltrates Holofernes' camp, cunningly gains his trust and enchants Holofernes. Left alone with him she kills him by decapitating him with a sword.
  • The Assyrian army is demoralised and flees. The Israelites attack the Assyrians, drive them out and chase them to Damascus, destroy, plunder and enrich themselves.

Given that these events take place under the Assyrian King Nebuchadnezzar it occurs that the Book of Judith describes the Russian and European history of the XVI century. This logical conclusion can be explained [6v1], ch.8. It turns out that here is given an account of the events of the epoch of Ivan III = Ivan IV the Terrible. We have already identified him with the Assyrian Nebuchadnezzar. The story of Judith clearly shows the traces of the story of Esther already familiar to us. A foreigner, a Jewess, infiltrates the court of the 'Persian' king, becomes his wife or an 'intimate person'. As a result a son or a close relative of the king the king's co-ruler, tragically dies. It is followed by the massacre of the 'Persians' by the Jews. It is no coincidence that in the modern biblical canon the Book of Judith is placed next to the Book of Esther.

Previously Russia and Turkey were a part of the same Empire. Up until the XVII century the relations between them were quite amicable. Only after the break of the Empire in the XVII Turkey and Russia began to grow apart.

In the epoch of the oprichnina and the unrest of the late XVI century Western Europe gradually gains independence. Osmania = Judaea estranges itself from the seething Russia-Horde = Israel and makes an attempt to once again conquer the rebellion in Western Europe. But it cannot succeed in this single-handedly.

The emperors of the Great Empire = the Russian Czar-Khans of the 16th century[edit | edit source]

Vasiliy III[edit | edit source]

Vasiliy II Ivanovich also had the following names: Ivan, Varlaam, Gavriil [161], p.68, and also [145], p.173. He ruled in 1505-1533 according to [362], or in 1507-1534 according to [36], [145]. On the pages of the Western chronicles he is reflected as Habsburg, i.e. Novgorodian, 'Maximilian I' 1493-1519 according to [76].

It was a peaceful rule. The major event was the division of Western European and possibly African 'Novgorodian lands', which were affected by the Ataman conquest. The lands were divided between the new governors from the Russian-Hordian nobility. However there was so much land, that there was not enough of the elite and it was necessary to attract the 'best serfs'. The land parcelling was under control of the special authority called Novgorodskaya Izba (Novgorodian Hut) [6v1], ch.5:10.

On the pages of history Vasiliy III is also known by the name Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, where he is erroneously dated to XII century.

Revolt, Elena Glinskaya = Jezebel, Queen of Israel[edit | edit source]

Revolt: Elena Glinskaya + Ivan Ovchina 1533-1538 according to [775]. It is followed by Semiboyarshina (the government formed of 7 boyars - court nobility), i.e. board of trustees in 1538-1547 according to [775]. To clarify: after Vasiliy III Ivanivich's death there began an inter-dynastic war, followed by the reign of the Boyars Duma = Semiboyarshina, lasting up until the accession to the throne in 1547 of Vasiliy III's son - Ivan IV Vasiliyevich 'The Terrible', who reached maturity.

The Western chronicles did not register this strife in the history of the Habsburgs = Novgorodians. It seems that viewed from Europe the turbulent events in the Moscow court surrounding the throne occupied by the juvenile Ivan, were not visible. That is why in the Western chronicles immediately after 'Maximilian I' = Vasiliy III the power passes to 'Charles V' = Ivan IV. Technically that was what happened. However in Russian history the others were ruling for Ivan minor at first the boyars, and then Elena Glinskaya and Ivan Ovchina (Sheepskin) [776], p.11-15. Later there was Semiboyarshina. And only in 1547 Ivan IV the 'Terrible' finally took the power into his own hands and ascended to the throne [362], v.8, column 56-57.

The 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. reflected in the Old Testament as the Kingdoms of Israel and Judaea.

Vasiliy married Elena Glinskaya in the beginning of 1526 [578], Book 2, p.262. This event was described by the Western chronicles as 'Charles V' Habsburg's marriage to JEZEBEL, the daughter of the King of Portugal. In the Bible this marriage is reflected in the history of the Kingdom of Israel as the marriage between King Ahab and JEZEBEL (3 Kingdoms 16:31). Thus the infamous Jezebel is the reflection of Elena Glinskaya, the wife of Vasiliy III. In the Fourth Book of Kings of the Bible the Russian-Hordian czar-khan Vasiliy III is reflected under the name of the Old Testament King Ahab. Partially he is also 'Charles V of Habsburg'.

Elena Glinskaya dies young. It is thought that she was poisoned [362], v.8, column 29. Vasiliy Shuisky accedes to power. He executes Prince Ivan Ovchina Telepnev. The name Shuisky originates from the word Shuja or Shui. In the Third and Fourth Books of the Bible Vasiliy Shuisky, i.e. King Shui reflected as the legendary Old Testament commander-czar Jehu.

Ivan IV "the terrible"[edit | edit source]

The epoch of Ivan IV Vasilievich 'The Terrible' (born 1526, see above) 1533-1584 according to [775]. In 1547 he acceded to the throne [362], v.8, column 56-57. On the pages of the Western Chronicles Ivan IV is described under the name of Habsburg, i.e. Novgorodets, 'Charles V' 1519-1556 according to [304], v.3, p.27 or 1519-1558 according to [76]. In the Bible Ivan 'The Terrible' is described as the legendary czar of Assyria and Babylon Nebuchadnezzar. Ivan 'The Terrible' is a 'combination', a Hybrid of four different czars-khans. In the history of 'Ancient' Rome it is reflected as a 'foursome' of famous emperors: Tiberius + Caligula + Claudius + Nero. He is also the very same Henry IV: allegedly 1053-1106. He is also the very same Ivan III the Terrible: allegedly 1462-1505. He is also the very same Frederick III: allegedly 1440-1493 [6v1], ch.5.

It is thought that the time of 'Ivan the Terrible' is well documented and studied. It is not so. There are virtually no authentic documents left from 'Ivan the Terrible'. His time is one of the most dark and intriguing in Russian history. It separates two completely different epochs: Russian-Hordian and the Romanovs'.

Under Ivan IV Veliky Novgorod was conquered and defeated. It was one of the most notorious crimes of the Oprichnina [776], p.145-160. In the bible the massacre of Novgorod = Yaroslavl is reflected as the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Assyria and Babylon [6v1], ch.5.

In the Western chronicles the same events were described as the struggle between Charles V and the Protestants. One of the central events is Charles V defeating the protestant city of Magdeburg on Elbe River allegedly in 1550-1552 [304], v.3, p.107. It is feasible that here on the pages of the European chronicles, were reflected the distant events in Russia-Horde, when Ivan IV 'The Terrible' defeated Veliky Novgorod, i.e. Yaroslavl on Volga river.

At the end of his life 'Ivan IV' withdrew to a monastery, virtually forsaking all power and responsibility. Then in 1553 he falls seriously ill and turns into a holy fool [4v1], ch.8:5 and [6v1], ch.5. He becomes Vasiliy (or Ivan) the Blessed. I.e. the famous holy fool of the XVI century.

Ivan IV as Vasiliy the Blessed[edit | edit source]

Ivan IV Vasilievich = Vasiliy the Blessed or Ivan the Blessed, Moscow miracle worker, 1547-1553. Ivan IV began to rule together with his brother Georgiy Vasilievich and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich. The main event of the young czar Ivan IV's reign was the conquest of Kazan in 1552.

During Ivan IV's reign a major rebellion ignites in the Empire under the banner of the religious separation from the metropoly = Veliky Novgorod. The government decides to crush the rebellion. The first step was the siege and conquest of Kazan in 1552. The next stage was planned as the military campaign to Germany, which was in the grip of a rebellion-Reformation. This is 'The Livonian war'.

In 1553 Ivan IV was taken seriously ill and became deranged. He was called Vasiliy the Blessed Moscow Miracle worker, and also Ivan the Blessed Moscow Miracle worker. Several years later he died. In the end of XVI century in Moscow in the Red Square St. Basil's Cathedral was built = Pokrovsky Cathedral, where, most likely, the remains of Ivan IV were re-interred. However under Ivan IV the czar's quarters are still situated in Suzdal, and the administrative centre of the Empire, the court of the governors was in Yaroslavl. The Moscow Kremlin had yet to be built.

Ivan IV is also known in history under the name of Vsevolod, except erroneously dated to the XII century. The biblical king Nebuchadnezzar who lost his mind is the very same Blessed Vasiliy as one of Ivan IV the Terrible's periods of reign.

Dmitry Ivanovich[edit | edit source]

Dmitry Ivanovich, 1553-1563. An infant, the son of Ivan IV Vasilievich. Selected Council Izbrannaia Rada (the circle of persons close to the czar, a legislative body - Translator's note) a board of trustees headed by Adashev, ruled on behalf of Dmitry Ivanovich. During the rule of Izbrannaia Rada the Livonian War was started in order to bring Germany to submission, seized by the rebellion of the Reformation. By the end of Dmitry's reign a major military invasion into Western Europe was prepared. However the dynastic revolt in the Empire prevented it. In 1563 an adolescent Dmitry perishes in an accident. As a result of the distortion of Russian history this death was dated several years later and was depicted as the murder of czarevitch (Prince) Dmitry by 'Boris Godunov' in Uglich.

He is also known under the name of Iziaslav, except erroneously dated to the XII century.

Ivan V Ivanovich[edit | edit source]

Ivan V Ivanovich 1563-1572. In the Western chronicles reflected as Habsburg = Novgorodets 'Ferdinand I' 1558-1564 according to [76].

Following the tragic death of the adolescent czar Dmitry Ivanovich, his younger brother, infant Ivan V Ivanovich acceded to the throne. From his enthronement the Zakharyins-Romanovs regain power and begin the terror. The Livonian war is brought to an end. The climax of the terror is the establishment of the oprichnina, the defeat of the Old Russian capital Yaroslavl (Yaroslavovo Dvorishe (Yaroslav Court) of Velikiy Novgorod), the execution of Vladimir Andreyevich Staritsky, the member of the Royal House, the co-ruler.

On the pages of history Ivan V Ivanovich and his uncle Georgiy Vasilievich, who was ruling under him during his time are also depicted as: a) Yury Dolgorukiy (Yury The Long-Armed), erroneously dated to the XII century; b) the biblical Artaxerxes Macrocheir ('Longimanus'), erroneously dated to the VI century BC.

Only after 1564 the infamous terror attributed to Ivan 'The Terrible' began. The Terror had started indeed. But it was unleashed by the Zakharyins, who were butchering their enemies. And as we know, their opposition included, PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE OLD BOYARS NOBILITY. I.e. the Russian-'Mongol' nobility of the Horde dynasty. The struggle between the supporters of the Empire and the faction of the Zakharyins-Romanovs, eager to seize power, ignited. The Zakharyins-Romanovs evinced pro-Western interests. Civil war flared up. This is the actual beginning of the Great Strife in Russia-Horde.

During this time the first attempt of the revision of Russian history was made.

It is clear that political objectives were being pursued, which, strictly speaking, were not concealed. 'The concern regarding the disclosed revolt of the boyars which in 1563-1564 impelled the monarch to embark upon the AMMENDMENT OF THE HISTORY of his reign' [775], p.172. And further: 'The blossoming of the Moscow official chronicle writing in 1550 early 1560 and ITS COMPLETE CESSATION after 1568 ... The fate of the clerks in charge of the chronicle writing... The print worker Ivan Viskovati was executed... FEAR PREVENTED ANY ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE WRITING OF THE CHRONICLES IN ZEMSHCHINA (the basic part of the territory of the Russian state with its centre in Moscow not included by Ivan IV in the special appanage of the sovereign, the oprichnina. It included the cities of the Perm' and Viatka regions and Riazan', Starodub, Velikie Luki, and other cities. - Translator's note). [775], p.22.

Thus the people who were writing the history of Russia were annihilated. Besides, we are shown a 'dangerous place for chronicle writing' the pogrom of Novgorod. This is the moment where the name of 'Veliky Novgorod' was stripped from Yaroslavl and then transferred to the Pskov region. The motives were purely political. The new people came to power the Zakharyins (the Skharievtsy), the future Romanovs. They had their domain in Polotsk, in the Western Russian region and gravitated towards Pskov and Hanseatic League (a commercial and defensive confederation of merchant guilds and their market towns that dominated trade along the coast of Northern Europe Translator's note.) They wished to distort the Russian history in such a way that the origins of the old Horde dynasty from Yaroslavl were concealed. They created the impression that the Russian dynasty allegedly originated from North-Western Russia, Pskov region, where the Zakharyins themselves came from. Changing the geography of the events and their dates, the Romanovs-Zakharyins underpinned their new dynasty with the 'historical foundation'.

In 1564 the oprichnina was established. "The boyar V.M. YURIEV-ZAHARYIN became one of the main initiators of the oprichnina and it was the Zakharyins around whom the RULING CIRCLE OF THE OPRICHNINA has grouped around "[775], p. 225.

We are not going to dwell on the details of the terror of the Oprichnina. They are very well-known. We would only like to emphasise that the entire terror of Ivan 'The Terrible' fits within the period from 1563 to 1572. I.e. precisely during the reign of the juvenile Ivan Ivanovich on whose behalf the Zakharyins-Romanovs ruled.

The main stages of the terror: the establishment of the Oprichnina in 1564, the Kazan deportation in 1565, the conspiracy of the equerry Fedorov-Chelyadnin, THE CRUSHING DEFEAT OF NOVGOROD in 1569-1570, the murder of the Metropolitan Philip and the Archbishop of Kazan Gherman, the murder of the czar's cousin Vladimir Andreyevich, THE MASS EXECUTIONS of the boyars in 1568 [775], p.338.

The crushing defeat of Veliky Novgorod = Yaroslavl is the turning point of the oprichnina. The city was completely destroyed and the entire population was banished. The pogrom was followed by the execution of the member of the royal dynasty Prince Vladimir of Staritsa. The civil war breaks out.

A new faction of the Zakharyins-Romanovs decided to eradicate the Russian-Horde dynasty, the old capital and the pillar of which was Veliky Novgorod = Yaroslavl. The Moscow oprichniks' army of the Zakhariyns-Romanovs destroyed Yaroslavl and executed Vladimir Andreyevich, who could have claimed the throne from the side of the Horde dynasty.

The Horde = Rat' (Army) puts up an armed resistance. In the Miller-Romanovs' version of history it is presented as the invasion of the Crimean Khan. In 1571 the 'Crimeans', i.e. the Horde, approached Moscow. Moscow is captured and destroyed. The Czar Ivan 'abandoned his army and fled to Rostov'[776], p.162. Shortly before then in 1569 the czar requested asylum in England, presumably anticipating a dangerous turn of events. The Horde prevailed. The famous 'Moscow affair' begins. The Horde, which by then had gained strength, crushes the party of the Zakharyins-Romanovs. The leaders of the previous oprichnina, the 'Romanovs' oprichnina, are executed. During this time the famous ... Malyuta Skuratov-Belskiy and Vasily Griaznoy are in operation. It is thought that they didn't participate in the first 'Zakharyin's-Romanov's terror'. Their activities began only after the Novgorod pogrom [776], p.169. Thus they act as the HORDIANS (ORDYNTSY) who severely punished the usurpative Zakhariyns-Romanovs clique. 'Skuratov helped Ivan the Terrible to dispose of the old guard oprichniks' [776], p.175. I.e.the Zakhariyns' guard.

Thus the Hordian Malyuta Skuratov rooted out the representatives of the Zakharyins Oprichniny (Oprichny) terror. It was for this that he was later declared to be 'evil'. We can see who was the author of today's formally recognized version of Russian history. It is the Zakharyins-Romanovs and their descendants.

The Horde-Rat' (Army) is victorious. The Zakharyins' Oprichnina Duma is defeated. Basmanov, its leader is executed. The new Duma is created consisting of 'the nobility of the highest possible rank... Almost all these figures or their relatives were subjected to persecution under Basmanov' [776], p.174-175. Directly following this, 'the English ambassador' was informed about the cessation of the secret talks regarding the granting of the asylum to the Czar's family in England' [776], p.189.

To summarize, the first attempt of the Zakharyins (Skharievtsy) to seize the throne of the Empire failed. The 'Mongol' Horde reaffirmed its status. In fact the capital for some time was transferred to Novgorod. 'The czar soundly settled in his new residence (in Novgorod Author's note)... ON THE YAROSLAVOVO DVORISHE (Yaroslav Court) 'by the czar's palace a new bell was hung up' [775], p.374. Even the czar's treasury was transferred from Moscow to Novgorod [776], p.181. Incidentally 'the treasure which was brought to Novgorod was stored in the church cellars in THE YAROSLAVOVO DVORISHE (Yaroslav Court) [776], p.189. Today it is thought that the city in question is referring to Volkhovsky Novgorod on the swamps, in fact it is Novgorod-YAROSLAVL. Which is quite natural: Yaroslavl is the old capital of the Horde Empire. And the YAROSLAVOV DVORISHE (YAROSLAV COURT) is simply a Court in Yaroslavl.

To sum up. The version of the historians for the period of 1563-1572 is as follows. The actual power belongs to the boyars Zakharyins-Romanovs, 'who concentrated the control over Zemschina in their hands and who were ruling at court of the successor czarevitch Ivan, their relative on his mother's side' [776], p.165. The court of the YOUNG CZAREVITCH IVAN was the control centre. The Zakharyins rule on his behalf.

Here is our point of view. As a matter of fact here we say exactly the same. The power belongs to the Zakharyins-Romanovs who rule the country on behalf of the young CZAR Ivan. The difference being only that the historians 'proceed' here with the invented 'Terrible czar' with 50 years of reigning, where as we claim that Ivan IV is no more. The young Ivan Ivanovich is the czar.

Simeon-Ivan Beckbulatovitch[edit | edit source]

Simeon-Ivan Beckbulatovitch 1572-1584. In the Western chronicles he is reflected as the Habsburg 'Maximillian II' 1564-1576 according to [76].

Following the crushing defeat of the oprichnina czarevich Ivan was forced to abdicate. Simeon, the head of Zemschina, a member of the Royal house becomes the czar. He adopts the royal name of Ivan and attempts to continue the Livonian war. But Russia's strength is exhausted by strife and terror. Simeon-Ivan enjoyed only regional success in the war. The campaign against Germany was postponed. But it never happened.

Simeon is also known under the name of Mstislav, notably he was erroneously dated to the XII century.

Our reconstruction. After the Civil war 1571-1572 the party of the Zakharyins-Romanovs suffers defeat. The executions of the leaders of the Oprichnina in Moscow have begun. The historians call all of this 'Moscow massacre' or 'Moscow affair' [775], p.163. At the head of the new oprichnina stand the most noble families, which prior to this were being wiped out. The army-Horde once again comes into power. The Yaroslavtsy-Novgorodtsy stand at the head of the country. The old documents confirm our version: 'The oprichnina army received the biggest reinforcement in its entire history; more than 500 Novgorodian noblemen joint its ranks... The Czar tried to create a force represented by the Novgorodian oprichniki' [776], p.169.

The capital was even transferred to Novgorod for a while. The government was headed by the Tatar khan Simeon Beckbulatovitch, most likely the youngest son of Ivan III, i.e. the uncle of the deceased Ivan IV. In 1575 the young czar Ivan Ivanovich was forced to abdicate. Then Simeon-Ivan was magnificently crowned czar in 1576. It was customary to change the name when crowned to reign in Russia at that time, as the example with Vasily III shows. Simeon is of course a rather elderly man. He is around 70 years old by then.

During this period Moscow virtually ceased being the capital. At first there was an attempt to transfer the capital to Novgorod, where they have already begun, but didn't complete the building of the Royal Court and a mighty fort [776], p.169. But then due to some reasons the czar moved to Tver: 'Having left Moscow, Simeon moved for his 'great reign' in Tver'[776], p.205. The historians enclose the words 'great reign' in quotes because they dislike that the chronicle informs us about the 'great' reign of Simeon'.

What about 'Ivan the Terrible?' - they say. It cannot be that some Simeon was a Grand Prince when the czar and the Grand Prince 'Ivan the Terrible' was still alive! But 'Ivan the Terrible', as we are told, in the last years of his reign also turns out to be in Staritsa under Tver with his entire family [776], p.228. Everything is clear. 'Ivan the Terrible' in his later years and khan Simeon is one and the same person.

To sum up. The version of the historians of the period of 1572-1584 is as follows. Tatar Simeon is absurdly vested with overall authority by The 'Terrible czar Ivan' who then leaves himself at a loose end.

Our view. Following the return of the Horde dynasty to power, in 1572 the head of the Zemskaya State Duma khan Simeon becomes the sovereign ruler. In 1575 the 22 year old czar Ivan Ivanovich, who had already been stripped of power, was forced to abdicate in favour of Simeon. This is the famous abdication of Ivan the Terrible in 1575 [776], p.195. The Hordian Khan Simeon acceded to the throne and reigned until 1584.

We know that 'Ivan the Terrible' prior to his death was already old and senile. However, Ivan IV was born allegedly in 1530 (in fact in 1526) and at the time of the death of 'Ivan the Terrible' in 1584 he would have been 54-58 years old. The historians explain such decrepitude by citing mental disorder. Simeon, the son of Ivan III in 1584 should have been approximately 80 years old. Indeed, Ivan III died in 1505, i.e. 79 years before 1584. Ivan III had several children and it is only Simeon we know nothing about. This is why the notion that Simeon 'Beckbulatovich' is the son of Ivan III seems entirely natural.

In truth, the Great Strife of the XVI-XVII cc. was a longstanding civil war. As a result the state system of Russia radically changed at its core. The old Russian-Horde dynasty was destroyed. The coup d'etat was carried out by the representatives of the Western Russian, Pskovian faction of the Romanovs. The coup was supported by the Reformation revolt in the Western Europe. A brand new period in the history of Russia and the world has begun [6v2], ch.1.

The main thing that the Romanovs did was to declare the preceding Russian-Horde dynasty to be 'unlawful'. The entire Great epoch which lasted nearly three hundred years was denounced as a period of the 'cruel foreign yoke' in Russia. They declared their predecessors, the Russia Horde khans, savage barbarians from distant Eastern countries, who had usurped the power of the first 'Rurikovichs'. The former life of the country under the 'Mongol conquerors' was depicted as the epoch of grim violence. On the other hand the Romanovs presented themselves as the 'restorers of the truly Russian national identity', which had at last replaced the bloodthirsty 'foreigners'- Tatars. The Tartar Godunov was declared to be 'evil'. They said he had butchered a boy.

You have to hand it to them, the Romanovs were smart. In fact they hardly manipulated the historical facts. They simply presented them in a different light. As a result the Russian history of the 'Mongol' period was hugely distorted. The remains of the Cossack army Horde = Rat' scattered during the war and partially pushed aside from the centre to the borders of the Empire, were declared by the Romanovs to be the fugitive surfs. Or 'the bad folk' banished for some kind of wrong-doings. The Romanovs' historians wrote a new history of the 'evil Horde' in the light of the social commission dictated by the new masters. The result was perfectly plausible at first glance. However, they didn't succeed in plastering over everything. That is why today we can restore our true history.

But besides the main strategic task the Romanovs also pursued other aims, smaller, but by no means unimportant to them. Namely:- To conceal the fact that the Great Strife began not in the XVII century, but in the middle of the XVI century as early as under 'Ivan the Terrible'. And that the Romanovs were among its main organisers and instigators.

- To prove the legitimacy of their claim to the throne. To do so they presented themselves as the relatives of the last legitimate czar.

- To conceal their participation in the oprichnina and the internecine fighting, dumping all the bloody sins onto 'the Terrible Czar'. They cover up their involvement in the religious heresy of the Judaizers.

- To trace their ancestry from a kind of ONLY LEGITIMATE WIFE OF THE 'TERRIBLE CZAR' Anastasia ROMANOVA.

It is possible that specifically for this purpose the Romanovs' historians combined the four czars into one, falsely presenting their wives as the wives of the same person. We would like to remind you that according to the canonical law, after the fourth marriage all wedlock was considered to be unlawful. Thus the marriages of the last of these four czars were wrong, and the children born within them had no rights to the throne, as it were. Then the czar Feodor Ivanovich was declared childless. This was not true. His son, i.e. Boris Fyodorovich 'Godunov' the Romanovs declared to be unlawful czar, who did not inherit the throne. This is also not true.

Feodor Ivanovich[edit | edit source]

Feodor Ivanovich 1584-1598 according to [362]. He is the son of Simeon-Ivan. A peaceful reign without any internal disturbances. The military actions in the Livonian war were stopped, however the separation of the West from the Empire as a result of the Reformation revolt was not recognized as lawful at the court of the Great Khan. In the West they understood that when Russia consolidated its strength the Livonian war would resume.

The wife of Feodor Ivanovich is Irina Godunova. The family of the Godunovs operates at court in the XIV-XVI cc. Its representatives occupied high posts. The son and the heir of Feodor Ivanovich is Boris Fyodorovich Godunov. In the 'Romanovs version he was falsely presented as IRINA'S BROTHER i.e. as a person who did not have the inherent right to the throne.

Moscow of the 16th century is described in the Bible as Jerusalem in the times of Nehemiah[edit | edit source]

In [6v2], ch.2 we have shown that the transferal of the capital of Russia-Horde to Moscow in the end of the XVI century and the construction of Moscow Kremlin were described in the Bible as the reconstruction of Jerusalem. The Old Testament Book of 'Nehemiah' is entirely dedicated to this important event.

In fact there are TWO JERUSALEMS described in the Bible. The first one is the Jerusalem of the New Testament. We call it The New Testament Jerusalem. It is Czar-Grad (Yoros) on the Bosphorus. It is the very same 'ancient' Troy. Jesus Christ lived here and was crucified (on the Beykoz mountain) in the XII century.

The Second Jerusalem is the Jerusalem of the epoch of the so called reconstruction of the temple described in the Bible. This is Moscow of the XVI century. The Books of the Old Testament which describe the 'second Jerusalem' are the latter books of the Bible. Though today they are on the contrary considered to be the most ancient. In fact they were written in the XVI century and were edited up until the middle of the XVII century.

The numerous parallels between the descriptions of the Old Testament Jerusalem in the Book of Nehemiah and the Moscow Kremlin, which we have discovered, do not leave any doubts about the fact that at this point the Bible gives an account specifically of the construction of Moscow and the Kremlin in particular. This amazing correspondence comes down to the last detail. While in the modern Palestinian Jerusalem (its original name, as we know, El Quds) there is nothing even faintly reminiscent of the Biblical description of Jerusalem.

Thus, the Old Testament Book of Nehemiah, when speaking of the second reconstruction-building of Jerusalem in the 20th year of Arta-Xerexes, in fact narrates about the construction of Moscow and the Moscow Kremlin in the XVI century circa 1567. Whereas the six Biblical fortress gates of the 'reconstructed' Jerusalem are the six old gates of the Moscow Kremlin. Namely:# The cattle, Sheep gate of the Old Testament Jerusalem is the Spasskiy (Saviour) Gate of the Moscow Kremlin. The Jerusalem Gate in Jerusalem is also the Spasskiy Gate of the Moscow Kremlin.

  • The Fish Gate of the Old Covenant Jerusalem is the Timofeev Gate of the Moscow Kremlin.
  • The Fortress Old Gate of Jerusalem is the Nikolsky or Old Nikolsky Gate of the Kremlin.
  • The Dung Gate, the Dirty, Sordid garrison gate of the Old Covenant Jerusalem is Kremlin Troitsky Gate.
  • The biblical garrison Valley Gate in Jerusalem is the Kremlin Borovitsky Gate.
  • The biblical Fountain Gate in Jerusalem is the Kremlin Tainitsky Gate.
  • Further, the fortified walls of the tower of the 'reconstructed' Old Covenant Jerusalem are the Moscow Kremlin towers. In particular the biblical towers Meah and Hananel are the Kremlin Nabatnaya and Tzarskaya towers.
  • The biblical Tower of the Furnaces is the Kremlin Arsenal (Arsenalnaya) Tower.
  • The Old Covenant Dragon Spring in front of the Valley Gate in Jerusalem is the Chertoryk river opposite the Kremlin Borovitsky Gate.
  • The Biblical Garden of the King and the City of David within the Jerusalem walls are the embankment Czar Garden (Tsarsky Sad) and Czar Palace (Tsarsky Dvorets) in the Kremlin. The very same garden was described in the 'ancient sources' as the famous 'Hanging Gardens of Babylon' ('Semiramida Gardens').
  • The Biblical 'Wall of the Pool of Shelah' within the Jerusalem fortress is Furrier's Chamber of the Czar's State Courtyard (Monarchic Court) in the Kremlin.
  • The Old Testament Sepulchers of David inside the Jerusalem wall are the Czar's Burial Chambers Tombs in the Kremlin Cathedral of the Archangel (Arkhangelsky Sobor).
  • The Biblical 'House of the Mighty' and Rybaritsa the Pool inside the Jerusalem wall are the Hobro Courtyard, The Armoury Chamber and the Timofeevskaya Tower = the Fish Tower in the Moscow Kremlin.
  • The Old Testament 'Armory at the Angle of the wall' of the Jerusalem fortress is the Arsenal in the corner of the Kremlin, in the Corner Tower.
  • The Biblical 'the House of the High Priest (Eliashib)' inside the Jerusalem fortress is the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin.
  • The Old Testament House Royal and the 'High Pillar' ('great projecting tower') next to it within the Jerusalem fortress are the Czar's Palace and the Ivan the Great Bell-tower in the Kremlin.
  • The Biblical Horse Gate inside the Jerusalem Fortress is the Czar's Argamac Horse Stable at the Borovitskii corner of the Kremlin.
  • The Old Testament Judgement Gate of Jerusalem is the Administrative Order by the Moscow Kremlin Troitsky Gate.

In the XVI century the Empire reaches the height of its power. Moscow becomes its new capital after Yaroslavl = Veliky Novgorod upon the Volga river. In the XVI century the massive construction works begin in the place of the small settlement which used to be situated here (in 1380 the Battle of Kulikovo took place there), where the best architects, summoned from various different countries, work. The new capital of the World Empire is being built. At first using a cut-and-cover method, in a ditch for foundation, a large underground town is built. Then a roof is laid' over it, then it is covered with soil and on top of it and above ground a city is built - Moscow. This gigantic building and construction work greatly impressed contemporaries and was described in many 'ancient' sources of the XVI-XVII cc. In the Bible it is reflected as 'the restoration of Jerusalem' which was called the Second Jerusalem, i.e. following the First Jerusalem of the Gospels = Czar-Grad. Speaking of the erection of the Second Jerusalem under Ezra, the Bible primarily refers to the building of the magnificent Moscow Kremlin.

In the Book of 'Genesis' the Bible once again allegorically alludes to the construction of imperial Moscow in the XVI century. This is the erection of the Tower of Babel. The Graeco-Roman 'classicists', notably Heradotus, describe Moscow as the 'Egyptian labyrinth'. Primarily they refer to the mysterious underground Moscow which truly resembles a labyrinth. This underground city was created as a powerful defensive fortification enabling the safe storage of the treasury, armaments, and provisions, the secret manoeuvres of military troops and their unexpected appearance at a besieging enemy's rear. Moscow of the XVI century, the last capital of the 'Mongol Empire', was designed and built as an impregnable city.

To conclude, Moscow of the XVI century gave rise to the 'classical' legends about the Tower of Babel and the Labyrinth. We discovered the ancient paintings where the Biblical Tower of Babel is depicted either in the centre of the Labyrinth or next to it [GRK], ch.4. We can see that the ancient authors actually combined the Tower of Babel and the Labyrinth and considered them as parts of the same construction.

The founder of Moscow the Grand Prince Yuri Dolgorukiy (literally Yuri the Long-Armed'- Translator's note) with the 400 year shift rises exactly to the epoch of Ivan IV the Terrible. The corrected years of Yuri Dolgorukiy's reign are as follows: 1563-1572. Instead of the erroneous scaligerian-Romanovs': 1148-1157. The years between 1563-1572 is the exact epoch of the oprichnina. It perfectly corresponds with the construction of the Moscow Kremlin in the XVI century.

So it appears that the Russian chronicles on the whole truly say that it was Yuri Dolgorukyi who founded Moscow. It is only necessary to amend the erroneous chronology. In the Bible the Prince Yuri DOLGORUKIY is present as the Arta-Xerxes Longimanus = Long Armed, the King of Assyria and Babylon. Meaning Arta-'XERXES' Long-Armed or Horde-Georgii the Long-Armed.

A settlement called Moscow was founded in the place of the Battle of Kulikovo at the end of the XIV century. The old centre was situated near Staro-Simonov (Old Simon) Monastery. It is quite possible that it used to be the capital of a small appanage principality. In the late XVI century in the times of the strife and the oprichnina the epoch of the Biblical Esther the czar arrives here from Suzdal = Biblical Susa and founds a new capital. He builds the Moscow Kremlin. To accomplish that he sends for the Italian masters. He either could not or would not call the domestic ones as the country was split into two antagonistic factions: the oprichnina with the czar as its head, surrounding himself with the heretics Judaizes, and Zemschina to which the old capitals of Vladimir and Suzdal Russia belong to. This building of Moscow and the whole situation in general, the historians dated a hundred years earlier, in the epoch of Ivan III. They also generated some other duplicates-reflections in the Russian history. Namely the story of Yuri Dolgorukiy allegedly of the XII century. Hence a false impression emerged, that allegedly Moscow was founded a number of times. Purportedly in the XII century or maybe even earlier. The first city on Neglinnaya, allegedly in the IX century.

Under the name of the Biblical prophet Nehemiah leading the reconstruction of Jerusalem, the Old Testament described the famous Kuzma Minin. The liberation of Jerusalem is the Biblical account of the liberation of Moscow by Kuzma Minin and the Prince Dmitry Pozharsky's militia in the early XVII century. In the Bible Books 1,2 of Ezra and Nehemiah alongside the name of the prophet Nehemiah the name Zerubbabel is constantly mentioned as one of the main participants of the reconstruction of Jerusalem. Under the name of Zerubbabel was partially described the same Kuzma Minin.

Dmitry Pozharsky, who alongside Minin entered the annals of Russian History, is also reflected on the pages of the Bible. Most likely it is the Bibical Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah (1 Ezra 1:7-8, 1:11). It was Sheshbazzar, who received the vessels of the house of the LORD from the hands of Mithredath, the treasurer (1 Ezra 1:8).

So, the famous monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Red Square is the monument to the Old Testament Horde heroes Nehemiah and Sheshbazzar.

Biblical Nehemiah, i.e. Kozma Minin, was buried in Nizhnii Novgorod in the Kremlin's Our Saviour Transfiguration Cathedral. The sepulcher of the Prince Pozharsky = Biblical Sheshbazzar was situated in the chapel of the Spaso-Euthymius Monastery [6v2], ch.2:7.

Jerusalem in Palestine[edit | edit source]

So, the Old Testament reconstruction of Jerusalem has no relevance to 'Jerusalem' in modern Palestine. When and how did the concept emerge of the Biblical Jerusalem as situated on the Eastern bank of the Mediterranean Sea, in the remotest part of Palestine? Most likely this 'Jerusalem' emerged on the world map (including the 'ancient' ones, compiled and reproduced in Europe) in the epoch of the XVII century, at this point as a mere dot on a piece of paper. Someone, sitting in Europe marked a place on the map and said: 'Biblical Jerusalem must be situated here'. Why was this done? Following the split of the Great Empire and enthronement of the pro-Western Romanovs in Russia, Atamania remained the only serious threat for Europe. That is why all the efforts were concentrated into fighting it. The European state with the participation of the Romanovs planned the Crusade into Turkey. These plans resulted in the lengthy Russian-Turkish wars in the late XVII - XX cc.

The idea of the Crusade was easy to connect with the 'liberation of Jerusalem'. All the more so as there was a Jerusalem in Turkey. It is Czar-Grad (Yoros), Jerusalem of the Gospels, the holy city, where Christ was crucified. The city which at some point was known to the entire Great Empire. But the ideologists-reformers of the XVII century didn't want to name Istanbul, the capital of Turkey as the goal of their campaign. As the religious split had taken place relatively recently in the XVI - XVII cc., and many still remembered something about the former religious unity of the 'Mongol' Empire. That is why the fact that holy Jerusalem is the capital of the Turkish sultan, could mean for many that the sultan is the embodiment of the much truer faith than the French king, for instance. And therefore maybe the Sultan should be the one to submit to, so on the whole the emerging situation was quite slippery.

It would be much more intelligent to say that Jerusalem is, of course, under the power of the Turks, but they, being heretics, turned it into a pit in the middle of nowhere, not showing the due respect for the holy place. Besides, it is useful to set the 'holy goal' at the rear of the Turks. So that in order to conquer it, it would be necessary to conquer the whole of Turkey. That was the main purpose of the idea.

This immediately implies though that holy Jerusalem should be identified on the territory of Turkey, but not in its capital. It should be somewhere far out, in the middle of nowhere. Of course they were trying to find a place more or less corresponding to the universally acknowledged biblical description of Jerusalem and its vicinity as the Promised Land, flowing with milk and honey, lush with blossoming gardens and generally reminiscent of paradise on earth. But the Western Europeans were not allowed into Turkey for a long time. That is why it was difficult to know exactly where the rivers were flowing with milk and honey there and where they were not. From general consideration it was presumably decided that the East coast of the Mediterranean Sea was suitable enough. The magnificent sea, the wonderful climate... But to mark the 'Jerusalem dot' on the very coastal line of the Mediterranean Sea was not right. As the Gospels and the Bible in general do not describe Jerusalem as a sea port or a coastal city. It is described as a city situated far from a big sea, though a lake is mentioned close by. Although there should be river Jordan flowing nearby. The real Jerusalem Czar-Grad (Yoros) - is in fact a long distance away from the wide open sea and is situated on the long Bosphorus, which as well as the Marmara Sea, was depicted on many Mediaeval maps as a wide long river. It was considered to be Jordan.

That is why the 'Jerusalem dot' on the map was put at some distance from the Mediterranean coast. Just around fifty kilometres away from it. How were it's authors to know, that in those places the fertile lands stretched only a narrow line along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and that fifty kilometers away from it there is mainly stony desert.

So, the dot was marked. And the name of Jerusalem was written on the map. One of the main ideological goals of the planned crusade was thus decided the sacred frontier which they should aspire to reach, was now indicated and was at the very rear quarters of the Turks. But in order to acquire it the whole of Turkey must be conquered.

The wars began. They lasted for a long time and were bloody. Only in the very end of the XVIII century, i.e. almost two hundred years later, the Europeans were eventually able to launch an assault behind enemy lines, in Egypt. Close to the sacred mark the 'suffering Jerusalem' in Palestine. It was Napoleon's famous Egyptian campaign which began in 1798. It was only in 1799 that Gaza in Palestine was seized. The Europeans were at last within a stone's throw of the Palestinian 'Jerusalem's mark'. Then on the 3rd April 1799 Sur was seized followed by the victory in Nazareth on the 8th April, [6v2], ch.2. Which means that at last they had 'reached Jerusalem'.

It is possible to imagine that when the Western Europeans arrived in Jerusalem they found there the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Although rebuilt numerous times, but nevertheless standing proudly in the village of Al-Quds in the middle of the stony desert. 'Proving' that it is not just any common village, but ancient Biblical Jerusalem. That very sacred goal pursued for so long by the Western 'Crusaders' of the XVII-XVIII cc.

However it turns out that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was 'newly built' in 1810 or even later. The alcoves for the crosses exist only in the stone veneer of 1888. It is not possible to see the Holy Sepulchre itself. It is possible that it could be there, but it would be underground. However search and excavation is not permitted [6v2].

But if we are told that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was rebuilt in 1810, than doesn't it follow herein, that prior to the XIX century there was simply no church there at all? Later, in the XIX-XX cc. this site was declared, without foundation, to be 'holy'. Pilgrimages began to be made here.

The history of the Western Europeans knowledge of the 'holy places' of modern Palestine is very insightful. It began only after Napoleon. Even up until the end of the XIX century the Europeans were in a muddle in regards to how to situate the Biblical holy places on such unsuitable territory. Where, for instance, could they 'find' the walls of Biblical Jerusalem, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, etc. But then they were 'painted' and 'manufactured' [6v2], ch.2.

As far as we know, none of the Russian Emperors has ever appeared in the 'Holy Land' in modern Palestine. It is probably no coincidence. Chances are they understood very well, that all the 'Palestine relics' were first drawn on paper, and then manufactured on the location quite recently.

The new Jerusalem outside of Moscow[edit | edit source]

For a long time Czar-Grad was considered the only centre of worship in the entire Christian world. In time the kingdom expanded and the people from the provinces were not always able to go to Jerusalem on the Bosphorus to worship. An idea emerged to create semblances of the holy city 'in situ', in the provinces. It emerged either in the XIII or in the XV cc., when Czar-Grad was seized. The conquest of the holy city was reflected in the biblical 'prophecies' of the fall of Jerusalem. At the end of the XVI century Jerusalem was built in Moscow [6v2]. Shortly before this Kazan was also referred to as Jerusalem. In the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah the construction of the Moscow Kremlin is referred to as 'the reconstruction of Jerusalem'.

Long after the Bible was printed in the XVII century the construction of another Jerusalem, namely in the modern day Palestine, begins. Later on it was declared 'the only Jerusalem'. The historians chose to forget about the previous Jerusalems so that no awkward questions would arise. However not everything was forgotten. A remarkable example of the construction of Jerusalem in the XVII century in the time of patriarch Nikon on the Istra river outside Moscow survives. It was designed on a large scale. However, the works were scrapped a few years down the line. It was appointed a place of a conventional monastery.

Hence it appears that everything could have turned out differently. If the original plan was not cancelled and the New Jerusalem was accomplished on the large scale, then it is entirely possible that today's Jerusalem would have been located on the Istra river, near Moscow, but not in modern Palestine. Mind you, no one would of course have remembered that in the XVII century the river was called Istra. Everyone would have sincerely called it 'the Gospel river Jordan'. The numerous guide-books would have told us with conviction about the centuries-long history of this Isra-Jordanian Jerusalem. They would have pointed out to us 'that very same' Mount Sinai which Moses had once ascended. But if anyone dared to openly declare that the city of Capernaum in the XVII century was called Zinovieva Pustosh (Zinoviev wasteland), this person would have been looked at with the same suspicion as anyone, who today would attempt to reinstate the former Arabic names in present day Palestine. For example, the Arabic name Al-Quds of modern Jerusalem, the Arabic name of the village renamed 'Biblical Jericho', etc.

More importantly, the editing of the Bible would have taken a different direction. They would not have eradicated the traces of snow, frost and the Northern winter in general. On the contrary, they would have added something about the thick snow and bitter cold. Everything would have looked rather convincing. Even more convincing than in the modern 'Southern, Palestinian version'.

But for some reasons Jerusalem on Istra was abolished. Only after this they started calling it The New Jerusalem. Alleging that it was not the 'actual' Jerusalem. And in general, the entire grand design was only a whim of the Patriarch Nikon. And the 'genuine Jerusalem' is situated in a completely different place. Allegedly in the present day Palestine.

Babylonian exile[edit | edit source]

In the Bible there are a number of events called the 'Babylonian Exile'. The first is the Babylonian exile of the XIV century, during the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest. It is reflected in the history of the Catholic Church as the Babylonian captivity of the papacy. Its details are virtually unknown. What is suggested to us is a XVII century version. It was composed after the breakup of the 'Mongol Empire' and is a part of the distorted Scaligerian history. In particular Dante's works, for example his 'Letters', where he speaks a lot of the Avignon Exile (he calls it Babylonian [2v1], ch.1:4) were written, most likely, not earlier than the XVII century.

The same refers to the works of Petrarch (allegedly 1304-1374) which were allegedly written XIV century. As we said before they were most likely to have been created in the XVII century [2v1], ch.1:4.

It is thought that Dante lived in 1265-1321 [797], p.359. The bronze bust of allegedly XV century, modeled on the mold of Dante's face is well known [304], v.2, p.410. Most likely it was made not earlier than the XVII century using the death mask of a man who lived in that epoch. Alternatively it could be yet another 'visual aid' of the XVII-XVIII cc. for the textbooks on the Scaligerian history in front of us.

The second Babylonian captivity was in the XV century. It is the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453.

The third Babylonian captivity took place in the XVI century. It is the conquest of Kazan-Khazaria in 1552 and Novgorod-Yaroslavl in 1570 by Ivan the Terrible, i.e. the biblical Nebuchadnezzar [6v1], ch.6. The important events in Russia-Horde of the XVI-XVII cc. are connected to these foreigners-settlers. Namely, the story of Esther.

The biblical temple of Solomon and Hagia Sophia in Istanbul[edit | edit source]

When the Biblical and European histories are aligned, King Solomon overlaps the Byzantine emperor Justinian I allegedly of the VI century. He 'restores' the famous Hagia Sophia in Czar-Grad. The Holy Temple built by Solomon and Hagia Sophia coincide. The temple erected by Solomon in Jerusalem is often called Solomon's Temple. So it is CONSTANTINOPLE'S HAGIA SOPHIA WHICH IS SOLOMON'S TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM. Going forward, king Solomon (the very same Justinian I) is the reflection of the legendary sultan Suleiman, aka Suleiman the Magnificent. Born in 1494 or in 1495, he became a sultan in 1520 and died in 1566. One of the most eminent rulers of the Ottoman (Ataman) Empire. So Hagia Sophia = Solomon's Temple was erected in the XVI century. It is the first construction project of the enormous temples. It didn't turn out entirely successfully. In approximately twenty years the temple began to 'sprawl', and Selim II had to reinforce it with the 'supporting piers' [6v].

Prior to the early XVII century and possibly later, Hagia Sophia, where the sultans had already been praying for many decades, still did not change its Christian appearance. In other words the Istanbul sultans up until the XVII and maybe even up until the XVIII century PRAYED IN THE CHRISTIAN CATHEDRAL! This is contrary to any ingrained prejudices we may have about the Ottomans = Atamans. But it corresponds brilliantly with our reconstruction: as the Ottomans (Atamans) came from Russia-Horde, were Christian and prayed in the Christian churches. The Christian icons were not plastered over. All the major changes in the ritualism, at least those connected with the iconoclasm, prevailed only in the XVII-XVIII cc.

Suleiman the Magnificent's wife was the Russian Roxelana, and Solomon's wife was the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh. But as we have shown already, the Biblical Egypt is Russia-Horde. So, Solomon's wife is a Russian princess. By the way, the Queen of Sheba, who once came to visit King Solomon, is partially identified with the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine. She is also the Russian princess Olga.

Furthermore, the mysterious biblical 'a great many waters in the midst of David's Column' in Jerusalem is a vast underground reservoir-cistern of the Mediaeval Istanbul.

Besides, the Old Testament's 'Sea of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem on the 12 oxen' is once again the legendary Istanbul cistern-reservoirs [6v].

The Amazons[edit | edit source]

Many think that the Amazons existed only in the 'ancient' Greek myths. In the meantime the Russian Povest Vremennykh Let (The Tale of the Bygone Years The Russian Primary Chronicle, also called Chronicle of Nestor or Kiev Chronicle Translator's note), for example, tell us about the Amazons. The equestrian squadrons of female warriors did in fact exist in Russia-Horde. For example, THE EQUESTRIAN FEMALE COHORTS ACOOMPANIED EQUIPAGES OF THE GOLDEN HORDE QUEENS [282], p.146.

Astonishingly this CONVOY OF THE AMAZONS existed at the Russian czars' court until the early XVII century! There survived some foreign travelers' commentary about it [282], p.145-146. Giving this description, the historian I.E. Zabelin could not refrain from an obvious comparison: 'The ceremonial female equestrian convoy, the Amazons of a sort, leads us to wonder, whether such a custom for a queen's escort was adopted from the long-term customs of the escorts of the ancient Queens of the Golden Horde [282], p. 146. As we understand it now, the Golden Horde was simply a Russian state of the XIV-XV cc. with its capital in Kostroma or Yaroslavl Veliky Novgorod. Moscow Rus' (Russia) of the XVI century became the heiress of that state. Naturally the customs of Moscow and Golden Horde corresponded.

The country of the Amazons, as situated in Russia, is named directly on the magnificent map of Charles V and Ferdinand dated to the XVI century. It turns out that Amazonia situated between the Volga river and the Don river, in the region of the Sea of Azov, Tartaria, below the Volga and Don skid way. This country is named on the map of Charles V as AMAZONVM [4v1], ch.4. HERE THE NATIVE COSSACK, I.E. TATARIAN LANDS WERE SITUATED.

Finally we will quote a wonderful title of one of the chapters of 'Universal Chronicle' by Marcin Bielski published allegedly in 1551. The chapter is thus named: 'ON AMAZON WOMEN, THE TATARIAN WIVES' [344], p.231. Thus in the XVI-XVII cc. it was JUST THE TATARIAN WIVES WHO WERE CALLED THE AMAZONS. And who are the Tatars? In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. they are the Cossacks. Therefore, the Amazons were the Cossack wives, kazatchki. They were always famous for being great horse riders, active in public life. They sometimes fought alongside men.

The Cossack-Amazons are reflected in various 'ancient' sources. The Amazons entered the realms of classical literature and art. The Amazons were the favourite motif on Greek painted vases. They were depicted on a horse wielding a spear, fighting the Greeks [4v1], ch.4.

The conquest of Central America by Ataman (Cossack leader) Yermak = Conquistador Cortes[edit | edit source]

It appears that Yuri Vasilievich, the brother of Ivan the Terrible, is described by Herodotus as 'ancient' Dorieus. Herodotus gives a detailed account of him as a brother of Cleomenes. Thus we were lucky to come across an old document containing the most interesting facts of the mysterious story of Ivan IV the Terrible's brother Yuri Vasilievich, the son of Solomonia Saburova, the first wife of Vasili III [163], p.250-251. 'Ancient' Herodotus unexpectedly lifts the veil off an important page in Russian history hitherto obscured by the Romanovs. It is for a good reason that the historians still ardently dispute whether Yuri Vasilievich, brother of Ivan the Terrible, ever existed at all. It turns out that not only he existed, but also accomplished remarkable deeds.

We discovered that the famous Cossack ataman Yermak Timofeev of the second half of the XVI century was described by Herodotus as Spartan Dorieus, the brother of king Cleomenes, i.e. Ivan the Terrible. Herodotus informs us about Dorieus' campaign, his conquest of the city of Sybaris and his death [ZA], ch.7. It was the second campaign, following the one in the early XIV century, being the colonization of Siberia and its subjection to the metropoly of Russia-Horde.

According to the Romanov sources at first the relationship between Ivan the Terrible and ataman Yermak-Vasili was hostile. The chronicles accuse Yermak of robbery, looting and insubordination to authority. Herodotus says something similar about Dorieus. Dorieus is also resentful, clashes with his brother and refutes his brother's authority.

According to Herodotus the confrontation between the Spartan king Cleomenes and his brother Dorieus resulted in Dorieus, at the head of the army, LEAVING THE KINGDOM AND ESTABLISHING COLONIES OR SETTLEMENTS IN DISTANT COUNTRIES. The two Spartan kings could not coexist in the same country. One of them had to leave. A plausible excuse was concocted to conquer the far off territories. That is where Dorieus set off to.

According to the Romanov chronicles, following the animosity between Ivan the Terrible and the Cossack Ataman Yermak-Vasili, the latter sets off to conquer Siberia at the head of the Cossack army equipped with the firearms. Not only did Yermak conquer the cities, but founded new settlements. A vast and wealthy country is being colonized. It is probable, that Yermak-Vasili was purposefully 'pushed out' of Moscow as far as possible, when an honourable, but dangerous occasion turned up. Something in terms of: Let him fight! And if he is killed, as it did happen in the end, we will glorify him, proclaim him a great conqueror.

We will repeat that Herodotus unexpectedly illuminated the dark Romanov version of Ivan the Terrible's reign. Herodotus has got the details of Yuri Vasilievich = Dorieus, the brother of Ivan the Terrible = king Cleomenes. Moreover, we discovered an astonishing fact: in essence Herodotus claims, that Ivan the Terrible's brother was that very same famous Yermak-Vasili, whose name was so popular in the Russian history of the XVI century.

Where did this 'classic' name DORIEUS originate from? As it points to Yermak, it could have been connected with his great campaign to the East. Immediately the name 'DAURIA' springs to mind, which was very well known in the Far East: 'DAURIA is a country stretching from the Yablonoi Mountains to the East up to the river valley of Arguni. THIS NAME OCCURS SINCE THE RUSSIANS EMERGENCE THERE and originates from the Tungus tribe inhabiting it' [988:00], 'Dauria'.

The facts that we discovered about Dorieus-Yermak are interesting and unexpected. Notably it would be impossible to uncover them without the New Chronology. Hence it is clear how vital it is to have the correct dates at your disposal.

Furthermore, the core of the narrative of Yermak's conquest of Siberia is the colonization of America by Russia-Horde and Ottoman (Ataman) Empire in the XV-XVI cc. In the Western sources all of this is described as the conquest of America by the Conquistador Cortes.

In [6] we showed that the voyage of Columbus is the reflection in the Western chronicles of the conquest of America in the XV-XVI cc. carried out by Russia and the Ottoman Empire, where the troops of Russia-Horde invaded the American continent not only from the East, having crossed the Atlantic, but also from the West, having made it through Siberia, via the Pacific Ocean. The Cossacks entered America also via Alaska. Having colonized a continent, little populated at that point, the Cossacks and Ottomans-Atamans created here the civilization of Maya, Aztec, Inca and Toltec... These civilizations perished during the epoch of the Reformation of the XVII-XVIII cc., when the troops of the Western European armies who were crushing the 'Mongol' Empire, arrived to America. Including its distant American colonies. Later the atrocities of the 'progressive reformers' were attributed to the Horde colonists of the XV-XVI cc.

Was the colonization of America reflected in the RUSSIAN CHRONICLES? At first glance it wasn't. However, it turns out that the conquest of America is nonetheless described in the Russian sources. Only these descriptions are included as a part of the stories about the famous voyage of Yermak and his conquest of the 'vast Siberia'.

The Romanov editors GREATLY BELITTLED THE SCALE OF YERMAK'S CONQUEST AND NARROWED DOWN ITS GEOGRAPHICAL FRAME. Today we are led to believe that allegedly only several hundreds of Cossacks set off for the campaign. And they succeeded in conquering a huge country. Besides, in order not to insult the colleagues-reformers across the ocean, the Romanovs did their best to erase from the chronicles any mention of the fact that the Cossack army, having crossed Siberia, invaded America and founded their prospering civilizations ones which later on were declared by the historians to be 'terribly ancient'. Following the emerging of the USA in the XVIII century in place of the former territories of Russia-Horde the true history of America was, by coordinated efforts, plunged into darkness.

The traces of the true events surface even in Karamzin's work one of the most faithful of the Romanov historians. Karamzin himself, without our prompting, compared Yermak's voyage with the conquest of Central America by Cortes [362], v.9, ch.6, column 226-228. And it is correct. To a far greater degree than Karamzin believed himself. Correct - not figuratively, but literally.

It is for or a reason that the old depictions of Yermak's voyage show him navigating large rivers [ZA], ch.7. Of course some Siberian rivers are very wide. However, earlier the seas and the oceans were depicted on the geographical maps as rivers [1v], [2v]. That is why some old images of Yermak's voyage could have been describing the crossing of the ocean by the large Cossack ships.

Likewise Herodotus' account of Dorieus' army sailing across the sea to a faraway 'island of Sicily' could have reflected the crossing of the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean by the Russian-Horde troops on their way to America.

When the historians radically minimized the scale of the events, it appeared that sailing from Greece to the nearby island of Sicily had begun to be considered 'very far-off'. What actually happened is that in the old original an account was given of the crossing of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. I.e. about truly long-distance expeditions. The cunning editors of recent times started to assure us that the 'ancient' settlers of Dorieus were sailing not to America, but merely to the 'island of Sicily'. Purporting that it was 'too far and dangerous'.

Let us take a look at the name of khan KUCHUM who Yermak fights with. The name KUCHUM pointed not only to the ruler, but to the entire kingdom, which was sometimes called the 'Kuchum's Domain'. If the conquest of America is reflected here, then will we find KUCHUM and his kingdom there? Yes, we will. In [6v] we showed that during the colonization of America the name of the people of MAYA KICHE or KICHE MAYA emerges. It is plausible, that KUCHUM is a variant of the pronunciation KICHE MAYA which appeared in the Russian chronicles.

The name of the American people Maya Kiche is the marking of the Slavic conquest reaching America and engulfing it in the XIV-XVI cc. The first Hordian settlers could have appeared here in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. under the 'Mongolian' conquest. After two hundred years, in the XV century, the Cossack czar Yermak-Vasili meets the descendants of this first wave of the Horde-Cossacks. They called themselves Kiche Maya = Kuchum. We would also like to note, that KICHE is close to the word KOCHevnik (NOMAD in Russian Tr. note), meaning the horse cavalry of the Horde.

The great significance attributed by the Russian chronicles to Yermak's voyage becomes clear. In the XVI century it was not Siberia at all that they conquered: there was no need to do so. As it is, Siberia was already a part of the Great Empire for a long time, since the early XIV century, when the 'Mongol' invasion swept through Eurasia. The second 'conquest of Siberia' by Yermak in the XVI century could have of course meant the suppression of the small rebellions or separatist tendencies on his way. But such a voyage clearly wouldn't 'cut it' to play such an outstanding role attributed to it by the chroniclers. But if the matter at hand concerned the COLONIZATION OF AMERICA, then the picture would be altered. The campaign in fact becomes a grandiose event.

Supposedly Yermak's troops crossed Siberia and the Far East quite fast. As they were HOME lands. But the main events began later. The Cossacks continued their journey across the Bering Strait and the Pacific Ocean towards the distant America. Called by Herodotus a 'distant ISLAND of Sicily'. Where the king Dorieus (Dauria=Horde?, Dal, Dalnii meaning 'Distance' and 'Distant' in Russian) had to sail his ships to. It is clear why the old Russian texts, wrongly ridiculed by Karamzin, claimed that not hundreds of Cossacks, but THOUSANDS of them were marching with Yermak. Obviously, in order to conquer a vast transoceanic continent, large numbers of the soldiers-crusaders were needed.

Aside from Russian Alaska, Russian Oregon and Russian California, the emergence of the entire Great Tartaria also becomes clear = Moscow Tartaria spanning Siberia as well as the significant part of the American continent [6v].

It is clear why the name of the Cossack czar YERMAK in a form of AMERICA began to apply to the entire continent. The conqueror named the country after himself. Besides, the name AMERICA or AME-RICA could have originated from MAYA-RICA, i.e. (meaning) MAYA-STATE, THE STATE OF MAYA, MY STATE. In the Middle Ages the word RICA meant STATE (for example, Costa Rica, etc.).

The stories about the famous conquistador Hernan Cortes came down to us from the Western European, mainly Spanish chronicles. In a nutshell the essence of the conquest of Central America by Cortes sounds like this. It turns out that it is necessary to repeat almost word for word the accounts of the Russian chronicles about Yermak. This will result in the following.

A great conqueror at the head of a small naval brigade, equipped with firearms, conquered a distant vast country, the inhabitants of which were brave warriors. Cannons and muskets, thus far unfamiliar to the locals, crushed their resistance.

It turns out that the surviving documents about Yermak's voyage emerged not earlier than the middle of the XVII century or even later. Most likely they were based on the old testimonies of Yermak's contemporaries [ZA], ch.8. However these texts didn't survive. Yermak died in 1584. It means that today we view his voyage based on the texts written at least 20-30 years later, and more likely half a century later. Or even later. The old testimonials were edited by the Romanovs' censors. They 'corrected the history' adapting it to the newly created version. The main purpose was to erase from the chronicles any traces of the fact that having crossed all of the Siberia and Far East, Yermak's army made an intrusion into the territory of Central America. It was there where the MAIN EVENTS unfolded. Also it is not impossible that Yermak set out to America either from the shores of Kamchatka or from the east, from the island of Cuba in the Atlantic Ocean.

The Siberian chronicles became accessible to the public only after the final division of the spheres of interest between the Romanov Russia and the USA in the second half of the XIX century. Since 1867 the Romanovs gave Alaska away to the Americans [4v]. After that the Russian sources were edited once again and in 1880 it was kindly allowed to publish the Kungur Chronicle.

What do we know about the documents giving us an account of the conquest of Mexico and Central America by Cortes allegedly in the first half of the XVI century? The picture is similar to the one in the Russian historiography. The surviving Western-European texts on this topic surface not earlier than in the XVII century. It is thought that the conquest of Central America was described mainly by the Spanish. This being said they mean the people who lived on the territory of modern Spain.

But most likely the 'Spanish conquest' is the Ottoman conquest. To recap, the famous division of the world in the XV-XVI cc. between Spain-Castile and Portugal was in fact the division of the world between Ottoman (Ataman) Empire and Russia-Horde. Certainly, some parts of the Ottoman and Horde troops could have consisted of the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, where present-day Spain is situated. But at that time all of these lands as well as many others were part of the Great Empire. That is why when reading today about the SPANISH conquest of America one ought to understand that at the bottom of it is the OTTOMAN and HORDIAN colonization of the continent in the XV-XVI cc.

There survives information in the Russian Siberian chronicles informing us that Yermak was buried near some volcanos [RI], ch.4. So where were they situated? There are no volcanos on the territory of present-day Siberia. Hence Yermak was not buried in Siberia. But where? The answer is simplified by the fact that WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND OUT THE TRUE SETTING OF THESE EVENTS. They unfolded in Central America. Near the city of Meshiko (Mexico) there are indeed situated the two huge volcanos Popocatepetl and Istasiuatl, more than 5 thousand meters high [ZA]. They are probably presented in the Russian Kungur Chronicle. Later on the Romanov historians 'dragged' (on paper) Yermak's voyage from America to the Asiatic Siberia and edited the old texts. But, luckily, they didn't pay attention to the volcanos described and even depicted in the drawings in the Kungur chronicle. Thus we yet again catch the falsifiers red-handed.

The mysterious phrase in the Kungur Chronicle becomes clear: FIERY COLUMNS CAN BE SEEN BY THE TATARS AND MUSSULMEN, BUT NOT BY THE RUSSIANS. Indeed, it is very far from the European and Siberian Russia to Mexico across the ocean. It is in fact impossible to see the columns of fire and smoke above the Mexican volcanos. But the American inhabitants Meshikas-Mexicans, Aztecs = Ostyaks, could see these 'great burning candles' really well.

Yermak's voyage and Cortes' campaign correspondence scheme[edit | edit source]

  • The Conquistador Hernan Cortes is the Cossack ataman Herman-Yermak Timofeyevich.
  • Diego Velazquez, the governor-sovereign's vicegerent of the emperor Charles V in Cuba is Stroganov or the Stroganovs, the sovereign's vicegerent of Ivan the Terrible allegedly in the Urals. Or perhaps in Cuba not far from America.
  • Emperor Charles V is czar-khan Ivan IV the Terrible [6v].
  • The clash between Cortes and Charles V's authorities is the conflict between ataman Yermak and the authorities of Ivan the Terrible. However the authorities flirt with Yermak-Cortes, invite him to serve and declare a major campaign.
  • The ships sail off. The sudden fury of Diego Velazquez in the beginning of Cortes' campaign is the reflection of Ivan the Terrible's sudden wrathful decree at the start of Yermak's expedition.
  • The campaign of the allegedly small crew of Hernan Cortes to Central America is the voyage of the allegedly small crew of ataman Yermak to the Siberian Czardom.
  • The true historical event was the voyage of Herman-Yermak from Russia via Siberia to Central America, to Mexico. The Western chroniclers described this campaign as the voyage of Hernan Cortes from the island of Cuba to Mexico. I.e. they described only the last stage of Yermak's conquest, omitting his voyage through Siberia, The Far East and The Pacific Ocean.
  • The accounts of the both campaigns emphasized the fact that the colonizers were equipped with the firearms which the locals did not possess. Due to this in particular, victory was gained, despite the high courage of those on the defensive side.
  • The American Azteks are described in the Russian chronicles as the 'Siberian Ostyaks'.
  • King Moteuczoma or Motecuhzoma, who was later killed and who fought against Cortes in Mexico, is the czar-khan Kuchum, who was also later killed and fought against Yermak in the 'Siberian Czardom'.
  • The seizure of the city of Meshiko, the capital of Mexico by Cortes is reflected as the seizure of the Asiatic city of Siberia, the capital of the Siberian Czardom by Yermak. Both the American capital and the Czardom itself were called the same name MESHIKO.
  • The Spanish conquistadors of the epoch of the 1519-1524 years are the Russian-Horde Cossacks and Ottomans-Atamans, i.e. also the Cossacks of the epoch of the 1581-1584 years.
  • The well-known 'La Noche Triste' ('the night of sorrows') is the severe defeat of the conquistadors and Cortes' wounding is the well-known night attack of khan Kuchum on Yermak's crew and the death of the famous ataman.
  • Cortes' letters to the Emperor Charles V are Yermak's messages to the czar Ivan the Terrible.
  • The temporary setback of the conquistadors is the temporary retreat of the Cossacks after Yermak's death. They soon regrouped with fresh reinforcements. Following which the wave of the colonization ultimately overwhelmed the vanquished country.
  • The name MEXICO or MESHIKO is a slight distortion of the name MOSOCH-MESHECH or MOSCOW. Thus was also called the vast MOSCOW Tartaria, spanning not only over the Asiatic Siberia at that time, but also the greater part of America. The word MESHECH itself could have originated from sMESHAYU ('I will mix' translated from Russian), sMESHEniye ('medley, mixture' translated from Russian), i.e. a mix of races. Hence the word MUZHIK (a man, a peasant). The word MOSOCH entered the Bible as the name of one of the biblical patriarchs. That is why in some old chronicles the word MESHIKI could have been understood as meaning MUZHIKI (MEN).
  • Why is it still not possible to trace the Ostyak capital Isker-Siberia in the Asiatic Siberia? The answer: because it was situated in America. It is the Atzec city Meshiko = Mexico.
  • The confusion in the description of Yermak's voyage by the Western chroniclers is clear. Yermak-Herman went from Russia to the East, via Siberia to America. But the Western chroniclers decided that he Hernan Cortes sailed from the island of Cuba to the West, to America. The fact is that it is indeed as early as at the end of the XV century that the Hordian and Ataman troops appeared in America, having crossed the Atlantic ocean. It was the Columbus expedition [6v2]. Since then the Western chroniclers confused the directions of the Horde or the Ottoman invasions. As Russia and Ottoman (Ataman) Empire entered America from both directions from the West and from the East. Or in fact Yermak's army set out to Mexico from the island of Cuba in the Atlantic Ocean.
  • Cortes' voyage in 1519-1524 was dated by the chronologists approximately sixty years earlier than the voyage of Yermak: 1579-1584. As we understand now, Yermak's expedition is in its correct chronological place. But the Western Europeans were noticeably mistaken and shifted the dates approximately 60 years down the line. The duration of both campaigns roughly coincide.
  • Ataman Yermak's death at the end of his campaign and the serious wound of the conquistador Cortes at the end of the voyage to Mexico. The Romanov historians deceived us when assuring that Yermak purportedly died in Asiatic Siberia. There are surviving testimonials in the Russian chronicles that Yermak was buried in Mexico, close to the two large volcanos in the Meshiko valleys.

The chronicler of the voyage of Yermak-Cortes[edit | edit source]

According to the commentators the book by Bernal Diaz 'The True History of the Conquest of New Spain' is the most authentic and the most colourful among the conquest chronicles, the most valuable material on the conquest history of America'[64:3], p.320.

At the same time 'the most complete Siberian chronicle was written by SAVA YEFIMOV, who finished his book on the 1st September 7145 {1636}. The aforementioned Yefimov declares in it that HE COMES FROM AMONG THE YERMAK'S COMPANIONS AND THAT HE WAS AN EYEWITNESS TO EVRYTHING DESCRIBED BY HIM' [876:3], 306-307.

Thus emerges before us the name of the Cossack, a participant of Yermak's expedition, who left behind a whole book describing the voyage. It provided the basis for the chronicles known to us today. Sava Yefimov's accounts correspond well with another edited version of his work known today as the 'book of Bernal Diaz de Castillo'. Presumably in the XVII century there were several editions made of the book by Cossack Sava Yefimov = Bernal Diaz. It was rewritten both in Russia, in Siberia and in Western Europe, in Spain. Some things were changed, in particular characters' names, however the core of the matter remained the remained the same. That is why we managed to restore the true facts, having detected a striking correspondence between the Siberian Chronicles and the Spanish = Ottoman book by Bernal Diaz. That is why in the history of Russia there remained a version which was later called the 'book by Sava Yefimov', and in the history of Ottoman Empire its other version under the name of the 'book of Bernal Diaz'.

The chronicle of Bernal Diaz is considered to have been published in 1632, and Sava Yefimov's chronicle was completed in 1636. These dates are close. As we understand now it is not a coincidence. We speak here about the same remarkable piece of work.

In the both versions the same kind of contemptuous sneer of the later historians towards Sava Yefimov = Bernal Diaz can be felt. Purporting that an 'inelegant' 'swashbuckler' wrote a bulky chronicle. It is of course important for history, but the author was just an 'uneducated bandit'. He has shed much more blood than ink. And thus, we are told, was just spinning a good yarn.

The conclusion. The comrade-in-arms of Yermak-Cortes described the campaign of 1581-1584. In Russia he became known under the name of Sava Yefimov. In Spain he is already famous as Bernal Diaz del Castillo = the Castilian. His work is at the heart of the modern perception of the conquest of Central America. The Romanov historians edited the chronicle, having shifted the place of action exclusively to Siberia. They pretended that Yermak's army had never been to America. In general they did their best to distort the story in such a way, that the mere notion of the Horde Cossacks conquering America at the end of the XVI century began to seem absurd.

Apparently, the story of Yermak is reflected on the pages of the 'ancient' Roman classics, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, for example. The general Germanicus, the nephew of the Emperor Tiberius (= the reflection of Ivan the Terrible), is the Cossack ataman-conquistador Yermak-Cortes, who conquered Central America [RI], ch.4.

To conclude, the pages of Tacitus, Suetonius, Herodotus, etc. give us a detailed account of the ataman-conquistador Yermak-Cortes. Where a lot of information which survived in the works of the 'ancient classics' is described in the Russian and Spanish (Ottoman) chronicles either more sparsely or is not reflected at all. Now we write a completely new and much more detailed history of the conquest of Central America. The picture becomes richer and more colorful.

Why the Amazon river was named the Amazon. The elephants in America[edit | edit source]

Let us turn to the Western-European version of the discovery of the Amazon river in South America. These documents colourfully illustrate the 'relocation of the names' which we detected. In the epoch of the great conquest and then during its second wave in the XV-XVI cc., which in the Bible was called the 'conquest of the promised land', the colonizers brought with them their recollections of their Motherland. I.e. of Russia-Horde and the Ottoman (Ataman) Empire. There were some special people in the Cossack army responsible for the written documents, military and diplomatic correspondence and the archives. The notes of a journey were written, the maps were compiled and reports were prepared for the Imperial administration in the metropoly of the Great Empire. The Horde and the Ottoman armies conquered the vast territories and founded settlements and cities. The people settled down there for a long time and even for good. They carried over here the customs, names and the geographical names from their distant Motherland. They called some of the American settlements the same names as their native European and Asiatic cities which they had left behind forever. The military and battle archives of the conquerors formed the basis of the future American libraries and archives. The chronicles giving us accounts of the events in the Old World also found their way here. The first settlers still remembered their true content, but their descendants were forgetting about the roots of the old texts passed on to them by their fathers and grandfathers. And after a couple of generations they started to think that these dusty chronicles purportedly described the events in the New World. Thus some important events and names of the Old World 'migrated' (on paper) into the New World.

We have repeatedly given the examples of such 'paper relocation' [STKR]. For example, the battle of Kulikovo 'was relocated on paper' from Moscow to the remote India during its colonization by Russia-Horde in the XIV-XV cc. And the battle of Kulikovo was erroneously considered to be the local Indian 'battle in the field of Kurus'. Even the suitable 'battleground' was picked out. It was drawn on the map near the city of Delhi. Since then 'this battle' is considered to be one of the most important events in the history of India.

A similar thing was happening in America. For example, a country Amazonia from Russia-Horde has 'relocated' here too (see above). And appeared on the map as a name of the South American Amazon river, although no Amazon women were ever there.

Let us clarify. In the Horde chronicles which emerged in America, there appeared some accounts of the great Volga river flowing in the meridian north-south direction. Later, when the European origin of the chronicles was forgotten, the descendants of the pioneers decided, that in them there was a description of the great South American Amazon river. As though the magnificent Volga transferred on paper its properties to the magnificent Amazon. And for some time, looking into the Russian chronicles, the confused chroniclers were mistakenly convinced that Amazon was allegedly flowing ALONG THE MERIDIAN [ZA], ch.8. In time they of course got things straight and realized the correct direction of the Amazon (it flows approximately along the parallel of latitude). But the old texts, like those of the chronicles of Oviedo, survive in the archives. And raise the commentators' eyebrows. Purporting that he was a wonderful geographer, but was so oddly mistaken.

The documents of the conquistadors contain accounts that allegedly there were CAMELS, ELEPHANTS AND TIGERS in America. However there were never such animals in America and there are none of them now. All such fragments found their way into the chronicles of the Spanish conquest on the territory of America as a result of transporting here the European and Asian chronicles during the colonization of the XV-XVI cc. The Horde Cossacks and Cossack-Amazons remembered Eurasia and Africa, where they saw, of course, the camels, the elephants and the tigers.

On the whole the theme of the 'elephants in America' have been irritating the historians for a long time [6v2], ch.6:27:2. There are a lot of references to the elephants that survive in the American Indian culture [336], v.1, p.206. It is clear now, that, for instance, the American burial mounds in the shape of elephants, were erected in the epoch of the XIV-XVII cc. by the Hordians, who had arrived there recently from Eurasia, where there are plenty of elephants. The elephants were also depicted on smoking pipes. On reflection, the historians declared unfoundedly, that purportedly the American burial mounds and pipes were 'unbelievably ancient', that they were made by the 'primitive people' in a distant epoch, when there were prehistoric elephants and mastodon wandering around America, which later became extinct [336], v.1, p.206. Thus the Hordian-Ottoman constructions of the XIV-XVII cc. were shifted to the 'stone age'. The historians emitted a sigh of relief, having mistakenly thought that they had solved the problem.

The conclusions. Cossack - Conquistador Yermak-Cortes[edit | edit source]

  • The Russian sources identified the CORRECT dates of Yermak's campaign, specifically 1581-1584. The Spanish = Ottoman sources were MISTAKEN by approximately 60 years. They decided that allegedly Cortes'-Yermak's voyage took place earlier in 1519-1521.
  • On the other hand the Romanov historians WRONGLY professed that the main events allegedly developed exclusively in Asiatic Siberia. Most likely it was a deliberate deception. In fact there was no war between Yermak and the Siberians. The main voyage of Yermak-Cortes developed in Central America. Here the Spanish = Ottoman chronicles are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Yermak's troops could have set off to America from the shores of the Far East or from the Atlantic island of Cuba.
  • The Romanov historians MISTAKENLY thought that Yermak allegedly died on an island in the middle of the large Siberian river Irtysh, and then was resurrected. In reality Yermak-Cortes was badly wounded on an island in the middle of the lake Lago de Texcoco in Mexico during the battle for the capital Meshico. Here the Spanish = Ottoman version is CORRECT, and the Romanov version is ERRONEOUS.

On the whole the Russian-Horde descriptions of Yermak's expedition despite all the distortions of the editors perfectly correspond with the Spanish = Ottoman chronicles telling us about the voyage of Cortes.

  • Yermak-Cortes was Yuri, the brother of the czar-khan Ivan IV the Terrible. There are some vague stories that survive in the Romanov version of history. Herodotus also mentions him as the brother of the great king, calling him the 'ancient' Spartan king Dorieus.
  • 'Ancient' Herodotus gives a brief description of the voyage of Yermak-Cortes and the conquest of Mexico as the expedition of 'ancient Dorieus' to conquer Sybaris-Siberia.
  • There survive some sources, for example, a work by Isaac Massa, in which the development of the Asiatic Siberia is described as a peaceful colonization, except it was carried out not by Yermak, but by other people. It is all correct: Yermak was fighting in completely different territories. And Asiatic Siberia already belonged to Russia-Horde for a long time and there was no need to conquer it by force.
  • Most likely, Yermak-Cortes didn't die in 1584, though he was badly wounded during the siege of Meshico, the capital of Mexico. The Spanish = Ottoman version quite rightfully claims that for some time the ataman-conquistador was alive, took part in the conquest of Central America, and then died in disgrace. The Russian chroniclers didn't know anything about the burial place of Yermak = Cortes. The Western chroniclers also flounder here. Most likely Yermak-Cortes was at first buried in Meshico, not far from the two Mexican volcanos. Maybe in one of the Mexican pyramids. Later his body was re-interred.
  • When wiping out from the chronicles the very fact of the existence of the vast American domains owned by Russia and the Ottoman Empire up until the XVIII century (until the victory over 'Pugachev'), the historians fulfilled an order striving for geopolitical goals. Following the division in the XVIII century of the territories formerly belonging to Horde in America between the recently emerged USA and Romanov Russia, it was necessary to cast a veil over the true story of these 'Mongol' lands so that Russia could not demand the return of its overseas domains after it became more powerful. In the XVII-XVIII cc. the feeble Romanovs being at first the pro-Western minions, more or less toed the line of their masters. But later, in the XIX century, having partially forgotten the core of the matter, they altogether gave away to the USA the last remaining scraps of the former Hordian domains: vast Alaska, huge states of Oregon, California, etc. [6].

The rough scheme of the correspondence between the plots of the Spanish Conquista in America and the fragments of the Ottoman history of the conquest of Europe, looks like this:* The Spanish-conquistadors are the reflection of the Ottomans-atamans, and in some cases the Oprichniki of Russia-Horde of the second half of the XVI century.

  • Sometimes the 'American Indians' are the reflections of the Western Europeans, and sometimes = the people of Russia-Horde during the epoch of the Oprichnina.
  • In some narratives the conquest of the Indian lands in America by the Spanish is the reflection of the Ottoman conquest of Europe. I.e. the Promised land.
  • Occasionally the description of the torments of the American Indians is the description of the torments suffered by the Western Europeans during the Ottoman conquest, and also the suffering of the population of Russia-Horde in the epoch of the Oprichnina.
  • The Spanish conquistadors shocked the American Indians with firearms which were hitherto unknown to them. Similarly the Ottomans-Atamans were largely victorious in Europe due to their more powerful artillery. It is true that the Western Europeans of the XV-XVI cc. were already familiar with the firearms, but were not as skilful in using them.
  • The atrocities of the conquistadors in America are in some cases the reflection of the quarantine 'cleansing' of Western Europe by the Ottomans-Atamans of the diseased as a result of the epidemics.

"The story of Esther" as one of the symbols of the reformation[edit | edit source]

Let us recap. In the late XVI century in Europe there appears a centrifugal tendency, reinforced by the deep seated resentment towards the Russian-Horde authorities for the merciless 'medical' operation of the XV century. These feelings erupted into a major rebellion in the West. The Western governors increasingly exhibited independence. The epoch of the Reformation and Protestantism begins. The attempts of the central Imperial regime to crush the rebellion failed. In the Bible, in the Book of Esther, for example, these events are described as unsuccessful attempts of the Assyrian king Nebuchadnezzar, aka khan Ivan the 'Terrible', and his commander Holofernes Malyuta Skuratov to establish order in the provinces of the Persian-Babylonian Empire.

The Great Revolt begins in the Empire. The Western governors split from the centre. In the capital of Russia-Horde there emerges a religious movement, commonly known as the 'heresy of the Judaizers'. There forms a plot and the rebels-reformers manage to sow discord within the Horde Royal family. In the Russian chronicles it is the story of the heretic Elena Voloshanka allegedly of the XV century (aka the biblical Esther).

These events are described in the Biblical Book of Esther and Book of Judith as the victory of the Jews over the 'Persians', aka p-russians, the white Russians (Russii). In the early XVII century the Empire splits. The rebels' armies, amongst which there were particularly many natives of Western Europe, marched out to Russia. The Russian-Horde dynasty of the Empire is mercilessly butchered. The Romanovs, the pro-Western puppets, come to take power. A harsh occupational regime is established in Russia. Serfdom is introduced effectively slavery for the greater part of the population. Practically all of the aspects of Russian life conform to Western 'standards'. The epoch of the Horde Empire is declared by the Romanovs to be the epoch of the 'dark Mongol-Tatar yoke' in Russia. The Romanovs played the people of Russia-Horde against each other, driving a wedge between the 'Russians' i.e. the Russian Orthodox and the 'Tatars' i.e. the Muslims. They foster nationalism in Russia. The Battle of Kulikovo is being 'repainted' from the religious battle between the Apostle and the Royal = Hereditary Christianity into an allegedly international fight between the 'enslaved Russians' and the 'invaders / Tatars'. The image of the enemy is being carefully fabricated.

The appearance of various works of art and literature dedicated to the subjects of Esther and Judith in the XVII-XVIII cc. is attributed to the 'joy of liberation' experienced by the Western Europeans. The meaning embedded into such 'works of art' was as follows. The enlightened West has finally defeated the barbaric East. Look: a beautiful European woman Judith with a steady hand decapitates the fierce Eastern monster of Horde. All of this was impressed onto their contemporaries by the rebellious governors of Horde. In order to supress any memories that were still fresh among the people, both the chronology of Scaliger and Petavious and the 'correct art' were called in for assistance.

But if many nations remembered their recent true history well, then how was it possible to force them to forget it? Apparently it was not easy at all. Moreover, it was incredibly difficult.

Various social strata of Western society and entire nations fought back tooth and claw. And then the sword was called in to support the word. The 'New Bible' and the 'new order' was introduced by fire and sword. Europe for a long time was shaken by the bloody wars, which are today evasively called religious. These are the wars of the times of the Reformation.

The terminology of the authors of the Book of Esther and the Book of Judith correctly reflects the realities of the XVI century. The Book of Judith uses the name of Israelites when speaking of the Western rebels who Nebuchadnezzar wishes to supress. Effectively, earlier, in the XIV-XV cc. Europe was conquered by the Fighters for God, i.e. the warriors, the Israelites, and became Khan = Land of Canaan. Their descendants rebelled in the XVI century. So it was the descendants of the sons of Israel, i.e. the warriors of Russia-Horde who had settled in Europe earlier - whom Ivan IV the Terrible the head of Israel=Horde wanted to punish.

The Book of Esther uses the term Jews. That is quite clear. Here the God praisers are referred to, the representatives of a different social class. They are not the warriors, but something alike to priests or Druids. They were located in the capital of the Horde Empire, amongst those close to the Czar's court. 21. ANCIENT HISTORY IS BEING RE-WRITTEN.

In the memory of the Western Europeans of the XVI-XVII cc., who were the descendants of the Hordians of the first wave of the XIV century, the era of the 'ancient' Russia-Horde of the XIV-XV cc. turned into a nostalgic beautiful memory. In the XVI-XVIII cc. the Europeans started to talk about this Hordian epoch as the 'beautiful ancient Rome' dealt deathly blows by the 'evil nations'. Having distorted the history, they started to keep quiet about the fact that the Ottomans' invasion was aimed at stopping the epidemics in Europe. The military aspect of the invasion was given precedence. The blame for the 'barbaric destruction of ancient Rome (i.e. the Western provinces of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XV cc.) was attributed to the 'aggressors' Russia and Atamania (Ottoman Empire). Hence the tension between West and East, which later triggered the wars between Russia, Turkey and Western Europe.

It is understandable why the Europeans, beginning with the XVII-XVIII cc., paid such deference to the 'iron ancient Rome'. They started talking about it with a heady idealism, as if of a beautiful legend, worthy of emulation. In the XIX-XX cc. the 'ancient' Roman ruins were restored all over Europe. And where there was nothing left, they simply built them anew, unashamedly declaring them to be the remains of the military Roman camps, aqueducts, theatres and arches. They wanted so badly to have their own 'sightseeing attractions'. Without compunction they erected 'half ruined ancient columns' of modern reinforced concrete. They made cracks and holes 'from the savage cannon balls' in the freshly built 'ancient' walls. They broke the bricks off in a beautiful way. For example, in the XVIII-XIX cc. an 'ancient' modern replica was erected the Coliseum in Italian Rome, in imitation of the genuinely old Coliseum of the XIV-XV cc, in Czar-Grad [VAT]. The modern replicas were muddied and cured with smoke to give them an 'ancient' patina. Numerous 'designers' worked hard. Here and there, nearby, there were authentically old pieces, fragments from the XIV-XVII cc. BC which were scattered picturesquely, on each of them an obligatory plaque: II century BC, VIII century BC, XXVI century BC and so on. Tourists arrived in their droves, and with them money. Piles of it.

A French artist Hubert Robert, 1733-1808, in 1784 was appointed in charge of the Louvre museum and the curator of its art gallery. He created a series of large great canvases celebrating the ruins of 'ancient Rome'. He painted gigantic half-ruined Roman temples, lit by the rays of the setting sun. Moonlit remnants of the grandiose statues. The colonnades overgrown with trees... But there were never any ancient constructions of such a size in Western Europe. Hubert Robert aimed to arouse the emotions with such exaggerations. He expressed the spirit of his age. The talented artist placed tiny figures of people in front of the background of crumbled silent 'classical' temples, who in admiration were gazing at the traces of Europe's great past.

Thus the history of the Horde Empire was divaricated (on paper). One 'half' of it was turned into an idealised glamorised myth to be worshiped and adored. The other part in fact the same one! was declared to be the Empire of every evil. So:1) 'ANCIENT' ROME is mainly the reflection of the Great Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. The Russian emperors are the Russian-Horde czars-khans.

2) ISRAEL was in that epoch the name for (including the Bible) Russia-Horde with its capital in Vladimir, Yaroslavl = Veliky Novgorod, and later in Moscow. They also emphasized fighting in the name of God, the militarized nature of the metropoly: the 'Mongol' troops of Russia-Horde always inspired fear.

3) JUDAEA in that epoch was the name for the Ottoman Empire=Atamania with its capital in Czar-Grad (and the Yoros fortress) = Biblical Jerusalem =ancient Troy. Concurrently the God praising nature of that part of the Empire was emphasized. Everything is clear: it was Czar-Grad where Jesus Christ lived and was crucified. Later in this city, which became holy for the Christians, they began to Praise God (Judaeans = those who praise God).

In the Bible under the word ROSH or ROS (RASH or RAS) is meant RUSSIA (Ezekiel 38:2-3, 38:18 and further; Genesis 46:21). By the way, in the Western reading the word in English, for example is spelled Russia and until now is read Russia, i.e. the same Rosh. In the Ostrog Bible is said perfectly clear: PRINCE ROSSKA!Under the Biblical names GOG and MAGOG (and also MGOG, GUG, MGUG) (for example, Apocalypse 20:7) are hidden the very same Russians and Tatars, who had created 'Mongolia' = Magog, i.e. the Great Empire. The Mediaeval tradition claims that the Apocalyptic people Gog and Magog are Goths and Mongols. Some English chronicles actually identified Gog and Magog, speaking of one people Goemagog. In fact they identified Goths with the Tatars and Mongols.

In the Bible under the words MESHEKH (or MESECH) (MShKh or MSKh) are meant MOSOCH the legendary persona after whose name, as asserted by many Mediaeval authors, MOSCOW was called.

The Biblical TUBAL (FUVAL) (TBL or TVL) is TOBOL river in Western Siberia, on the East side of the Urals. It is the very same BALTICS. The fact is that letter Fita (?, ?)= Theta (\u0398, \u03b8) was pronounced as T (Th) and as F. Besides the sound V could shift to B and vice versa because of the double interpretation of the Greek letter Vita = Beta (\u0392, \u03b2 \u0392?\u03c4\u03b1).

The famous 'ancient' Assyria, described among other places in the Bible - i.e. Syria or Ashur is identified with Russia-Horde. The Biblical names: ASSYRIA or ASSUR and also ASUR or SYRIA and also ASHUR are simply the backward reading of the three old names of our country: ROSSIA i.e. ASSYRIA or ASSUR; then there is RUS' i.e. ASUR or SYRIA and, finally, RUSSIA i.e. ASHUR. The British, FOR EXAMPLE, use the word RUSSIA (for ROSSIA) until now.

The Biblical Babylon is the White Horde of the Volga Horde. And after the Ottoman conquest the Biblical Babylon is most likely Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus. The Biblical Nineveh the Great City is Novgorod Veliky on Volga river. The Biblical Assyrian Damascus is Russian Moscow [6v1], ch.5.

'ANCIENT' GREECE is just the name of Greece of the epoch of the XII-XVI cc. For the identification of these 'ancient' and mediaeval events see [2v2].

'Such an integral part of the mediaeval historiography as anachronism' becomes clear. 'THE PAST IS DEPICTED USING THE SAME CATEGORIES AS THE MODERN TIMES... THE BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL CHARACTERS APPEAR IN MEDIAEVAL COSTUMES... the presence of the kings and patriarchs of the Old Testament alongside the classical thinkers and characters from the Gospels on the portals of the temples best of all explains the anachronistic attitude towards history' [217], p.117-118.

The historians reliant on the erroneous chronology, think that the Middle Ages 'confused on massive scale ' the epochs and notions that the mediaeval authors, and only 'due to their ignorance' identified the 'ancient' biblical epoch with the epoch of the Middle Ages. This is not true. The writers and the artists, on the whole, faithfully reflected the reality.

The 'classical' authors who for example described the 'classical Greece' Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon et al - lived in the XIV-XVII cc. They were not the falsifiers, but the chroniclers who reflected the original mediaeval events. They were writing at the same time as the other chroniclers known to us as the mediaeval ones. The difference between the 'classical' writers and the 'mediaeval' ones is that their works were dated incorrectly and were shifted back into the past. Besides, the Scaligerian editors have 'raked over' them. They got rid of all the obvious traces of the Middle Ages. A lot of things were distorted, but some things (even a lot of things) survive. This falsification took place in the XVI-XVIII cc.

The Bible[edit | edit source]

The Bible describes the events of the XII-XVII cc. and is completed at the end of the XVII century. The New Testament narrates the second half of the XII century, and the Old Testament - about the XII-XVII cc. The books of the New Testament give the account of the life and deeds of the emperor Andronicus-Christ (Andrey Bogolyubsky), Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), Christ's apostles who lived in the second half of the XII - beginning of the XIII cc. The Old Testament also relates to these characters, but also tells us about the Ottoman conquest of the XV-XVII cc, about the Moscow Kingdom the metropoly of the XV-XVII cc. Empire, about the Ottoman Empire (Atamania) and finally about the Time of Troubles in the early XVII century.

The legendary Old Testament mount Sinai (Zion), aka Horeb is the Vesuvius volcano in Italy. The biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by God ('24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of the heavens... 28 ...the smoke of the country went up like the smoke of a furnace' (Genesis 19:24, 19:28) are the famous cities of Stabia and Herculaneum, buried by the eruption of the Vesuvius in the XVI early XVII cc. The part of the Apocalypse of the Old Testament about the destruction of Jerusalem gives an account of the ruin of the city of Pompey during the eruption of Vesuvius in 1631 (and far from the II century as we have been assured). The ruins of 'ancient' Pompey excavated from the ground show us the way people of the XVI-XVII cc. lived. The 'classical' artists of Pompey were the contemporaries of the epoch of Rafael and Julio-Romano. It is not surprising that they had a common style [1v], ch.1.

The well-known God's Revelation together with the commandment tablets that the biblical Moses received also on Vesuvius in the XV century. '...there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain (Sinai), and a very loud trumpet blast... Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him' (Exodus 19:9, 19:11, 19:13, 19:16, 19:18-19). Besides this, the legend absorbed not only the story of Moses' commandment tablets, but also the story of Yaroslav meteorite falling near the Volga river in 1421 [1v], ch.1, [PRRK].

Biblical Phoenicia Venice, the mighty Republic of Venice. According to the Bible the 'ancient' Phoenicia was a powerful maritime state reigning over the entire Mediterranean and establishing its colonies in Sicily, Spain and Africa. The 'ancient' Phoenicians traded heavily with the far away countries (Ezekiel, ch.27).

Various events from the Old Testament, for example, the journey of the Israelites lead by Moses and the conquest of the Promised Land by Joshua ben Nun, didn't take place in the modern Palestine, but in Europe, in particular in Italy, as well as in America.

According to the Scandinavian chroniclers [5v2], ch.9, the biblical PARADISE is situated in the East [523], p.32. The Volga River was called in the 'ancient' sources as RA. According to the common view in the Middle Ages, from the Paradise in the East the four great rivers were flowing out. See for example the map of Hans Ru"st, allegedly of the XV century [1v], ch.5:9.

So, the geographers of the Middle Ages used the name PARADISE to name some geographic region. Which one? It is not so simple to understand it from the old reference maps. But there is in fact a place from which the four major European rivers flow out. It is the Central Russian Upland. Here, not far from each other, are situated the sources of rivers Volga, Don, Dnieper and Western Dvina. The largest of them is Volga. That could be the reason why it was called RA. As according to many PARADISE used to be situated there. So appealingly described in the Bible. These lands were actually very convenient for living. Here, the metropoly of the Great Empire many were striving for.

The stopped sun[edit | edit source]

Both in the Bible and in the history of Charles the Great there plays out a familiar theme of the stopped sun. An idea to place the centre of the world in the sun, in other words to bring to THE SUN TO A STOP appeared in the XVI-XVII cc. when the Books of the Bible were being written and edited [6]. The famous words in the Book of Joshua ben Nun about the SUN that STOOD IN THE SKY 10:12-14, in a poetic way reflect that deep impression made on people when the heliocentric model was first revealed. Quite unexpectedly it turned out that IT IS POSSIBLE TO STOP THE SUN. Contrary to all evidence! As the sun is continuously moving across the skies and 'never stops'.

The editor of the bible of the XVII century attributed to bringing the sun to a standstill to Joshua Ben Nun [6v1], ch.5. I.e. to the conqueror of the epoch of the Ottoman conquest of the 'Promised Land'. But it was in the XVI century when there originated the idea of the heliocentric model finally and conclusively formulated by Tycho Brahe (Hipparchus) and Nicolaus Copernicus [3v1].

Thus, the discovery by Brahe and Copernicus revolutionized people's minds. The scientists 'made the Sun stand still', i.e. placed it in the centre of the universe and made all the planets, including the Earth, revolve round it. Prior to that Ptolemy's system was predominate, where the stars revolve round the Earth [3v1], ch.11:7.6.

In the 'most ancient' Bible the Sun was brought to a standstill allegedly during a battle, which was Joshua Ben Nun's revenge for a prior defeat.

In the well-known Mediaeval epic poem 'The Song of Roland' the Sun was brought to standstill during the battle which was Charles the Great's (the Great King) revenge for the defeat of his rear guard.

Pic. 65
Pic. 66

Pic.65 shows an unusual symbol which can be seen in 'The Triumphal Arch of Maximilian I' by Durer [PE]. The oblique Andreevsky cross surrounded by the four symbols of the stopped sun. The sun while moving across the skies stumbles against the czar's crown and comes to a standstill. We see that the discovery of the heliocentric model was depicted on the coat of arms of the Horde Empire. On 'The Triumphal Arc' there is also the image of the stopped sun, boxed in between the two czar's royal crowns. Such images are also present in both 'The Triumphal Procession', pic.66, and in a A.Durer's gravure 'Large Triumphal Carriage' [PE].

When the symbols of the constellation of stars and their names were invented[edit | edit source]

We are being told that the constellations of the stars depicted on the Mediaeval and modern star maps were invented in the deepest antiquity. There were some changes occurring over the course of time, but as we are told, on the whole, the starry sky was divided into the constellations a long time ago. They claim, for example, that the star signs appeared 'possibly as early as 2500 years ago'. See the details in [3v2].

The figures of the constellations of Serpent-bearer, Gemini and Orion, for example, appeared allegedly long before AC. And naturally long before Christianity. So allegedly there are no Christian symbols there, let alone the symbols connected to the events in the Middle Ages. And thus there is allegedly no connection with the Biblical events.

However, it is not true. A fresh approach to the ancient celestial maps uncovers some incredible connections, for example, with the biblical history. The sky atlas turns from something 'very ancient' and half-forgotten into a selection of bright illustrations on the history of the XI-XVII cc. It is, in short, an 'illustrated textbook'. The pictures-hieroglyphs, i.e. the celestial figures, reflected major events of that epoch [3v2], ch.9. Later all of this was forgotten.

The most ancient fragment of the celestial map is the Zodiac. The figures of the zodiacal constellations acquired their final form not earlier than the XII century. The first half of the Zodiac represents the biblical events of the XII century. The second half the story of Georgi Pobedonosets (George the Conqueror) = the Russian-Horde czar-khan Georgi Danilovich = Genghis Khan. I.e. the events of the XIV-XV cc., the creation of the Great Empire and the seizure of Czar-Grad in 1453.

The celestial maps of the Northern and Southern skies were finally created in the XV-XVI cc. There are, in particular, depicted on them the events of the late XV century: the voyage of Columbus = Biblical Noah = 'ancient' Jason crossing the Atlantic Ocean; the discovery of America = 'India'. The striking images of the Biblical Apocalypses written in 1486 also reflected in the map of the Southern sky [1v], ch.3 and [3v2], ch.9.

When and how the Arabic numerals were invented[edit | edit source]

V.V.Bobynin, the mathematics historian wrote: 'THE HISTORY OF OUR NUMERALS PRESENTS NO MORE THAN A SET OF ASSUMPTIONS, INTERMITTENT WITH THE ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS, which, as a result of preceding application of the indoctrination method, occasionally comes across as SOMETHING SEEMINGLY PROVEN'. Cited by [989], p.53. Having explained various theories of the origin of the Arabic numerals, the authors of the Encyclopaedia [989] conclude: 'Thus WE STILL DO NOT HAVE A HISTORICALLY VALID THEORY WHICH COULD ADEAQUATELY EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF OUR NUMERALS' [989], p.52.

However the matter is much simpler. As we show in [4v2], ch.1, all the 'Arabic numerals' originated from the preceding Slavonic and Greek demi-radix numeration system. Where it was exactly the SLAVIC VERSION OF LETTERS-SYMBOLS used. The Russian XVI century ornate cursive writing was its source. All of this took place in the XVI century in the epoch of the invention of the positioning system.

It doesn't follow from the fact discovered by us, that the 'Indo-Arabic' numerals were invented exactly in Russia, in the metropoly of the Empire. It could have been done in one of the Imperial provinces. For instance in Egypt or in Europe in the late XVI early XVII cc. Then the Great Empire was still one and its lands fulfilled different functions. It was convenient and sensible. In some regions the Horde czars-khans developed shipbuilding, in the other - science and medicine, and in the third - the fine arts... All the achievements belonged to the 'Mongol' Empire, 'went in to the pot'. The Imperial court and the Great czar-khan, the Emperor himself were considered to be the owners of all of the achievements. Only after the breakup of the Empire in the XVII century there occurred the phenomenon unknown before. There appeared and magnificently flourished sharp provincial competitiveness whose science or whose medicine was better. Such a question has simply never arisen before. But at that point some were proud of their ships, purporting that they were the best, while the others were responding by having the best cannons. Having forgotten that not so long ago both the ships and the cannons (and everything else) were collective, Imperial and were produced in this or that place in accordance with the economic plan put together in the administrative office of the Great Emperor.

Therefore, we will repeat, the 'Indo-Arabic' numerals could have been invented in a place where in that epoch they decided to organise the scientific centres and to channel the funds to. But we claim that AT THE ROOT OF THE INVENTION LIES EXACTLY THE SLAVIC TRADITION OF RECORDING NUMERALS BY USING LETTERS. As we have demonstrated in [4v2], ch.1, only within this tradition it was possible for the 'Indo-Arabic' figuring to emerge. If they were invented in Europe, it means that in Europe they used the Slavic letters and language. And if they were invented in Russia, it means that Western Europe simply made use of the new notations, having possibly altered them; in particular, having repositioned five with six and three with seven [4v2], ch.1.

Traces of repositioning six into five in the old documents[edit | edit source]

Pic.67
Pic. 68

Here is, for example, the engraving 'Melancholia' by the famous Albrecht Durer who lived allegedly in 1471-1528, pic.67. In the right upper corner there is depicted a magic square of dimensions 4 by 4. The Sum total of the numbers in each line and sum total of numbers in each column is the same and equals 34. In pic.68 this square is enlarged. Have a look at the first square in the second row. Here is number 5. And it should be there, otherwise the square stops being 'magic'. But it is obvious that this five is a result of the correction of the number six which was previously there [4v2] ch.1.

The picture is clear. Today's six was originally perceived as a five. And vice versa, the current five was then perceived as a six. These were the original denominations used in Durer's 'magic square'. But when the symbols were repositioned, the square ceased being magic. So it was necessary to amend the image. It is possible that it was done by Durer himself. Or, it might be done after his death by his pupils or followers. It is possible that the numbers were amended not only on the Durer's drawings. So, on the engraving 'Melancholia' there survived clear traces of the AMMENDMENTS OF THE NUMERALS in the XVI-XVII cc.

The amendment of the old dates in the 17th century[edit | edit source]

The fact that in the early XVII century the value of the 'Indo-Arabic' numerals had not been long established yet, was cunningly used by the Scaligerian historians in order to falsify the dates of the early XVII century. Let, for example, in some document the date of YEAR ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN be written down according to the old style, i.e. as 1514, where digit 5 in the shape of letter DZELO denotes the numeral SIX. Then the numeric value of the digit has changed and has become FIVE. If we forget that numeric value of digit 5 was changed we can read the date 1514 'in a new way' (which would be wrong): as 1514. Instead of the correct 1614. As we can see the date became older by a hundred years. Using this simple method it was possible to shift the dates of many early XVII century documents backwards. It is probable that the chronologist widely used this method. As a result many events of then XV-XVII cc. were shifted a century back.

So now a question arises - when did the famous figures of the allegedly XV-XVI cc. really live: the rulers, scientists, writers, artists and sculptors... For example we are being assured that A.Durer lived in 1471-1528. Doubtfully so. Most likely he lived in the late XVI - early XVII cc. As the old value of the dates like 15(...) which are marked on his works was 16(...). And therefore his engravings, star maps for Ptolemy's Almagest, etc. were made not in the early XVI century, but in the early XVII century. To recap, our analysis of Almagest showed that this book in its contemporary version appeared not earlier than the beginning of the XVII century [3v1]. Therefore Durer's star maps for Almagest were made approximately at the same time.

Scandinavian geographical treatises and maps of old Russia[edit | edit source]

From a great variety of geographical names cited in the Scandinavian chronicles and geographical treatises [5v2]. ch.9, we will choose only three, presenting the most interest to us at the moment: 1) RUSSIA-HORDE - the very same Great = 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc; 2) DON - river; 3) EUROPE.

We would like to explain the meaning of the sign '=' used in the following list.

The Mediaeval cartographers sometimes themselves identify some of the geographical names clearly saying, for example, that 'Thrace is the same thing as Grikkland' [523],p.96. Some 'patchings' were discovered by the historians. Some were added by us. We mark all of them with the equal sign.

What Russia-Horde was called by different peoples[edit | edit source]

It turns out that Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. was called the following names (some of them possibly referred not to the entire Empire, but to its parts): Scandinavian RUSIA = RUTSCIA = RUZTSIA = (Scand. RUZCIA) - RUSLAND = Scand. RUZALAND = RIZALAND (Scand. RISALAND) = LAND OF GIANTS = Scand. GARDARIKI = LAND OF CITIES (CITY is 'GOROD' in Russian) = HORDE-RIKI, i.e. HORDE-STATE, Scand.GARDAR = VELIKY GRAD (Rus.GREAT CITY) = GOROD = GRAD, Old Slavic (Slavonic) = GRHAS, ancient Indian (Old Ind.) = HOUSE (DOM in Russian) = GRHAS, ancient Ind. = GARDAS, Lithuanian (GARDAS, Scand.) = GUARD RAIL (OGRADA in Russian) = GARDAS, Scand. = GARDS, Got. (GARDS, Scand.) = HOUSE, FAMILY (DOM, SEMIA in Russian) = SAMARIA - SARMATIA, land of Sarmatians, see the city of SAMARA = KYLFINGALAND, Scand. = LAND OF BELLS = AFRICA = THRACIA = TURKEY = TATARIA = BLALAND = OSTARRICHI = ASIAN-TATAR-EMPIRE = AUSTRIA = SCYTHIA (SCITHIA, Scand.) = SITHIA, Scand. = CIPHIA or CITHIA, Scand. = CITIA, i.e. China! = SCOTIA, hence SCOTLAND = SCOT-LAND, SCYTHIA is named after MAGOG! = SVITJOD THE GREAT (SVITJOD HINN MIKLA, Scand.) = SARMATIA+ALANIA=GOTHIA, i.e. SCYTHIA was divided into these three regions = THE GREAT SVITJOD (The Great Saint) = GODLAND, Scand. = LAND OF THE GREAT GOD, or LAND OF GODS, or GOD'S LAND = LAND OF GOTHS = GOTHIA (GOTH LAND), GOTHS = GODS = GOD = GAUTAR = GEATS = HETHITES (OR HITTITE) = HOMELAND OF THE GIANTS = JOTUNHEIM = JOTLAND = GREAT GOTHIA = NOBLE GOTHIA (Scand. REIDGOTLAND = HREIDGOTAR). The Great Svitjod was at first populated by the Turks, i.e. closely connected with TURKEY. The Great Svitjod probably included THE LITTLE SVITJOD, i.e. SWEDEN.

Furthermore, the Old Russia = THE GREAT SERKLAND, sometimes is placed either in Africa or close to Africa = THRACIA = Scand. KVENNALAND = QUENLAND = KUNALAND = LAND OF THE AMAZONS = LAND OF WOMEN-QUEENS (Scand. QUEN-LAND or QUEEN-LAND) = LAND OF SERES, i.e. RUSSII (RUSSIANS), hence ASSYRIA, then SCITHIA = CHINA! = LAND OF SARACENS! A Muslim country = CHALDEA! = PALESTINE! = MESOPOTAMIA! = INDIA, i.e. a DISTANT land, where the division of INDIA into THREE INDIAS is, most likely, the division of Russia into THREE HORDES. PARTHIA was populated from SCITHIA, where at some point Parthia was probably used for PRUSSIA = PRUTENIA =PRT = P+RUSSIA = White RUS (RUSSIA).

It is possible that Rus (Russia) = Bjarmaland = Land of Boyars or Barms (Bjarmians, Beormas). Where the name Bjarmeland = Great Permia was later used only for the territory of modern Germany, Austria and Italy. Later the historians relocated the name Great Perm (or Great Permia) to the territory of the Romanov Russia.

Going forward, Rus' (Russia) = Scithia = BARBARIA, according to the English sources.

We will add some identification which we encountered: RUS (RUSSUA) = KINGDOM OF PRESTER JOHN, and will also integrate some synonyms of Rus' (Russia) which were used in the English sources. See [517], ch.3:1.5. So.

THE ANCIENT RUS (RUSSIAN STATE) = SUSIE, RUSSIE, RUISSIE, RUSIA, RUSSIA, RUTHENIA, RUTENIA, RUTHIA, RUTHENA, RUSCIA, RUSSCIA, RUSSYA, ROSIE.

Let us point out the name RUTHIA. Without vowel marks we have RT or RD. It is simply HORDE, RAT'(ARMY). One of the most best-known names of the Great Empire. It turns out that the English called Ancient Rus' (Russia) absolutely correct HORDE.

Such amplitude of the synonyms can be explained by the importance, which the World Empire acquired in the XIV-XVI cc. Each nation among the many peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa and America populating it, would give it their particular name. That is why such a variety of names survive to our time.

To remind you, the Empire was in close connection with the Ottomans, i.e. with the Cossack Atamans. Russia and Ottoman Empire (Atamania) began to grow apart only with the Romanovs coming to power in Russia. The relationship deteriorated and turned into the military confrontation.

The 'ancient' Empire of Alexander III of Macedon (Alexander the Great) is the phantom reflection of the Ottoman Empire (Atamania). [2v2], ch.1:18-19. By the way, why was Alexander called The Two-Horned ISKANDER? The meaning of the word Two-horned is clear - it is the Ottoman crescent. But what about ISKANDER? Could it mean 'a man from SCANDIA', i.e. a man from SCITHIA! See above the identification of SCANDIA and SCITHIA.

Which medieval rivers were called by the name Don[edit | edit source]

The Scandinavian sources inform us of the following identifications:DON = DANUBE = DANUBIS (Scand. DANUBIUS) = DUN (Scand. DUN) = DANUBIUM (Scand. DANUBIUM) = DYNA (Scand. DYNA) = HISTER, HYSTER (Scand. HISTER, HYSTER) = ISTR (Scand. ISTR) = DNESTR (or DNIESTER) = DON = THANAIS (or TANAIS) = TANAKVISL = DUNA (Scand. DUNA) = WESTERN DVINA (or DAUGAVA RIVER) = DAN = JORDAN JOR+DAN.

Such variety is very simple to explain. We have already said that earlier DON used to mean RIVER. As we showed in [4v1], ch.6:2.12, the todays Moskva-river sometimes used to be called Don.

The sons of biblical Japheth[edit | edit source]

According to the Scandinavian sagas, the seven sons of Biblical Japheth ruled Europe. Where it is told in great detail who owned what. In [5v2], part 3, we showed that the settlement of the sons of Japheth is another reflection of the Great Empire conquering Europe and was ruling it for a long time.

The sons of Japheth are the seven major peoples or the seven Euro-Asian regions which were a part of the Empire during the first stage of its expansion in the XIV century. They are:1)MAGOG = 'MONGOLS' = GREAT MIGHTY = GOTHS; 2) MADAI the very same Mongols; 3) IVAN (JAVAN) OR IVANS (JAVANS) IVAN KALITA = BATU KHAN, who conquered the West; 4) TURKS TATARS = TIRAS, Southern part of the Empire; 5) TOBOL Siberian part of the 'Mongol' Empire or BALTIA;6) GOMER ET-RUSCAN ITALY, FLORENCE and Western Europe in general; 7) MESHECH = MOSCOVIA. The very same original MECCA.

Catherine De'Medici is a reflection of the Russian Czarina Sophia Palaiologina and Mary Stuart is a reflection of Elena Voloshanka, i.e. Esther[edit | edit source]

'Catherine de'Medici is among the MOST FAMOUS WOMEN OF THE PAST. The heiress of the well-known Florentine Medici family, the wife of the French king Henry II and regentess on behalf of the juvenile kings of the ruling Valois dynasty, SHE LEFT A DEEP MARK IN THE HISTORY OF FRANCE. FOUR CENTURIES AGO SHE WAS CONSTANTLY TALKED OF AND WRITTEN ABOUT. This was mostly due to the bloody events of The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572. The massacre of the Huguenots in Paris shook the whole of Europe... Her personal drama fired the imagination and was perceived with undiminishing interest by close and distant descendants' [659], p.3-4.

In reality Catherine de 'Medici is to a great extent the reflection in the Western chronicles of Sophia Palaiologina, the famous Russian-Hordian princess, the wife of Ivan III the Terrible. Karamzin informs us that they called Ivan III the Terrible: 'He was the FIRST to be given the name of GROZNY (Terrible) in Russia' [362], v.6, column 215. He was also called the GREAT. We will repeat that he is the reflection of Ivan IV Vasilievich the Terrible from the XVI century.

Today Sophia Palaiologina is dated to the XV century. And Catherine de' Medici lived in the XVI century. However, there is nothing surprising in such a hundred years shift. We discovered it in the history of the XV-XVII cc. [4v1]. Ch.2:2 and [6v1], ch.6:2. In the Bible Catherine-Sophia are described as the Queen Vashti (Astin) the first wife of King Artaxerxes.

It is quite challenging to point out the original of Sophia-Catherine in the XVI century, as the epoch of Ivan IV suffered particularly thorough cleansing by the historians. From what survive it is only possible to understand that the image of Sophia Palaiologina combined with information about several wives of 'Grozny' (the Terrible) Anastasia and Maria [6v1], ch.7.

Elena Voloshanka, the rival of Sophia Palaiologina in the Russian-Horde court, the very same Biblical Esther, reflected in the Western chronicles as the notorious Diane de Poitiers and also as the famous Mary Stuart, her contemporary from the XVI century. Please make note of the similarity between the names Esther and Stuart. Biblical ESTHER or ESTER or STR without the vowel marking (on account of TH turning into T) was considered in Europe as the name STUART, i.e. STRT, without the vowel marking. Or, in other words ASTRUM (ASTER), i.e. a STAR in Latin.

The following 'merging' result derived from the parallelism between the Western European 'Habsburg dynasty' and the Russian-Horde dynasty of czars-khans of the XIV-XVI cc. The brief gist of it is as follows.

  • Catherine de Medici is the reflection of Sophia Palaiologina.
  • Diane Poitiers (and Mary Start) is the reflection of Elena Voloshanka, i.e. of Biblical Esther.
  • Henri II d'Orléan is the reflection of Ivan III=IV the Terrible.
  • The death of the king Henry II is the reflection of the death of czar-khan Vasilii III, i.e. Biblical king Ahab.
  • Biblical prophet Micah is the famous seer Michel de Nostredame (Nostradamus).
  • The Huguenot-Protestant rebellion in France against the Catholics is one of the manifestations of the Reformation revolt in the 'Mongol' Empire of the XVI century. Such uprisings, the Oprichnina in the XVI century Russia in particular, reflected in the Bible as 'slaughter inflicted by the Jews on the Persians'.
  • The notorious massacre of Saint Bartholomew's day France in 1572 is the response of the Empire to the rebellion of the Protestants Huguenots. It is a partial reflection of the crushing of the Jewish heresy in the metropoly of the Empire and its other regions.
  • The disgrace of Mary Stuart and her execution in prison is the reflection of the disgrace of Elena Voloshanka = Biblical Esther who was put in the Hordian prison and died there.
  • In the British history of the XVI century the legendary queen Elizabeth Tudor (1533-1603), who reigned in 1558-1603, is the phantom reflection of Sophia Paleologue. Her name Eli-Zabeth or Eli-Sabeth could have been a distortion of the name Great Sophia or Al-Sophia. i.e. the name of Sophia Palaeologue.Besides the name TUDOR probably originated fromT-HORDE, where the article T was put in the beginning of a word, where it was necessary to stress its significance.

We are assured that Ivan the Terrible's proposal of marriage to queen Elizabeth allegedly failed, as did the proposal of marriage to Mary Hastings and that purportedly Elizabeth never married. Now it is clear that it is not true. Elizabeth, aka Sophia Paleologue, DID MARRY Ivan the Terrible and became the famous queen-khaness. Together they ruled the Empire. Which England was a part of. That is why on the pages of the English chronicles Elizabeth-Sophia is reflected as the English ruler.

In the epoch of Reformation the history was re-written. In Europe it was declared that allegedly Elizabeth never married, and that Ivan the Terrible marriage proposal to her failed. In the Russian history Elizabeth remained under the name of Sophia Paleologue.

Thus the Russian-Horde story of Esther is reflected in the Western chronicles twice. First - in French history as Catherine de Medici and her rival Diane Poitiers. The second time - in the Anglo-French history as Elizabeth Tudor and her rival Mary Stuart.

Fig.69

See the parallelism we have discovered in fig.69 [7v1], ch.4. It turns out that the story of Esther = Elena Voloshanka was colourfully described by 'ancient' Suetonius and Tacitus. Notably in the versions close to the Biblical one [RI], ch.2.

We would like to repeat that in that time Scotland was used as a name for the Land of Scythians, i.e. Russia-Horde [4v2], ch.6. The death of Elena Voloshanka at the end of the XVI century was the result of the temporary defeat of the heresy of the Judaizers. It is clear, that in the metropoly of the 'Mongol' Empire and its provinces the execution of the heretic Elena = Esther at that point was quietly accepted. The name and cause of the heretic later became an emblem of the Reformation in the XVII century.

In the Russian chronicles death of Elena Volosanka is covered extremely poorly. It is quite clear. The story of Esther rather sensitively affected the family of Ivan III = IV the Terrible. It is quite possible that after Voloshanka = Esther and her son were takenprisoners, they were exiled as far as possible from the metropoly. Banished out of sight. They could have easily chosen the British Isles as one of the furthest provinces of the Empire. They probably considered it impractical to exile them to Hordian America due to its extreme remoteness. England was far more convenient. On one hand, far enough, on the other - within close range. Out there Elena = Esther was executed. The local governors of Russia-Horde in England, the locals and the chroniclers witnessed the momentous events reaching them from the metropoly. Some distinguished prisoner was brought from the mighty capital of Russia-Horde. It immediately sparked the interest of the English towards her. Her story was written down according to their understanding of it. The description turned out fantastical in many respects. Later, when England separated from Russia-Horde in the XVII century, the story of Esther was declared to be 'purely Franco-English', and it became known as the story of Mary Stuart. At that point the writers sprang into action. F. Schiller created a popular tragedy about Mary. Stefan Zweig wrote a famous novel. In all these narratives it is difficult to recognise at first glance the true events of the struggle between Sophia Paleologue and Elena Voloshanka. As the authors by that time had forgotten the core of the matter.

The legendary Joan of Arc is described in the Bible under the name of the prophetess and warrior Deborah[edit | edit source]

'Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc), the 'The Maid of Orléans' (circa 1412-31), is a folk heroine of France. She was born into a peasant family. During the Hundred Years' War 1337-1453, she led the French people against the English invaders and in 1429 she freed Orleans from the siege. In 1430 she was captured by the Burgundians, who in exchange for money handed her over to the English, who in their turn declared Joan of Arc a witch and put her on ecclesiastical court trial. For charges of "insubordination and heterodoxy" she was burnt at the stake in Rouen. In 1920 she was canonized by the Catholic church. [797], p.431. A vast amount of literature is written about Jean of Arc.

The story of the prophetess and warrior Deborah is narrated in chapters 4-5 of the Old Testament Book of Judges. In the synodic translation her name reads as Devra, however in the scholarly literature they usually use Deborah [797], p.365.

The comparison of the Joan of Arc and biblical Deborah stories reveals a vivid parallelism [7v1], ch.9. It was partially known to some of the authors of the XVII-XVIII cc. But today it is thought that the chroniclers 'were only comparing' Joan of Arc and Deborah, i.e. identifying them in the literary sense. But this 'congruence theory' was formed only in the XVIII-XIX cc., when the historians who were editing the texts, were substituting the direct identification of the ancient characters with tenuous 'comparisons'.

Even the supporters of the traditional version admit that THE MAID OF ORLEANS BEGAN TO BE CALLED JOAN OF ARC ONLY FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE XVI century [7v1], ch.9. But this implies that in the duration of MORE THAN A CENTURY the heroine was called something else. The question is, what? According to our results she was called DEBORAH. Under this name she entered the Book of Judges. Then in view of the growing interest towards Joan, her other names and nicknames also fell into common use. And later, in the XVII-XVIII cc. the former name Deborah was gradually extruded from the story of Joan. The fact that Joan and Deborah is the same person was slowly forgotten. The 'biblical events' were pushed into the past, two thousand six hundred years back! The following generations of historians began to sincerely perceive Joan of Arc and the biblical Deborah as two different characters.

In our reconstruction Deborah = Joan of Arc lived in the epoch of the Ottoman conquest in the world of the XV-XVI cc. That is why the original geography of the events connected to her campaigns was much wider than the modern version. We are assured that allegedly the armies of Joan = Deborah fought only in France, in the comparatively small area. But the Bible and Josephus Flavius here refer to:- the ASSYRIANS [878], v.1, p.230 and the kingdom HAZOR (Book of Judges 4:2), i.e. the RUSSIANS and RUSSIA [6v1], ch.6;- the kings of CANAAN (Judges 4:2), i.e. KHAN rulers;- town of Kedesh (Judges 4:6, 4:10), probably the capital Kadesh, i.e. Czar-Grad [5v] and [6v];- the waters of MEGIDDI (Judges 5:19), i.e., probably, the waters of MACEDONIA. Etc.

When creating the Scaligerian history all of these large-scale campaigns were artificially 'squeezed' into the territory of one county in France, greatly reducing the scale of events. As a result some of the distant geographical names also 'moved' here. And the entire story of Joan of Arc turned into an allegedly 'purely French' story.

Furthermore, it turns out that the famous French marshal Gilles de Rais, Joan of Arc's legendary comrade-in-arms, is partially described in the Bible under the name of Samson, the famous hero and warrior. This congruence is a result of the stories of Joan of Arc and the biblical Deborah overlapping each other [7v1].

The epoch of the judges of Israel described in the Bible is the epoch of the inquisition of the 15th-16th century[edit | edit source]

One of the main books of the Old Testament is the Book of the Judges of Israel. Following the shifts on the global chronological map of A.T.Fomenko, we identified some of its stories with the real events of the XIII-XVI cc. Here they are.

1) The story of the prophetess-warrior Deborah (judges 4-5), aka Joan of Arc, in the French version allegedly the XV century. Joan was found guilty by the Inquisition tribunal and was executed. One of the landmark cases of the Middle Ages.

2) The story of Abimelech (Judges 9), aka Simon de Montfort in the French version, allegedly XIII century. He spearheaded the crusade against the Cathars, he supported the Inquisition in its battle against the Cathar heresy by fire and sword. Simon de Montfort was also described by the 'ancient' Greek writers, in particular Plutarch = Petrarch, and the well-known general Pyrrhus [6v2], ch.1:7.5.

3) The story of Samson (Judges 13-16), i.e. Gilles de Rais, allegedly XV century. Marshal Gilles de Rais, French national hero, faced the Inquisition court and was burnt at the stake in the town of Nante. One of the most infamous landmark cases 'on witchcraft'.

All three storylines are directly connected with the activities of the Inquisition on the territory of France (in the Scaligerian geography). A thought occurs that the epoch of the JUDGES of Israel is the EPOCH OF THE INQUISITION of the XV-XVI cc. And by the JUDGES of Israel the Bible means the JUDGES of the Inquisition. To recap, the Inquisition tried and scourged mainly in Western Europe. In [5v1], ch.12:9-10, we showed that today the role of the Inquisition was distorted and the pervasively negative attitude towards it is a result of Scaligerian brain-washing. In those times the Inquisition was a Horde and Ottoman organisation whose aim was to eradicate the social consequences of the epidemics which broke out in the provinces of the Empire. Also to eliminate the introduction of orgiastic elements of the Christian church service, which blossomed in the West as a result of the distortion of the ascetic Christianity of the XII century which led to social decline and the spread of venereal disease. But later, after the breakup of the Empire, the work of the Inquisition was rendered exclusively in dark tones and, let's face it, rather successfully. But the Old Testament Book of Judges perceives the Inquisition either sympathetically or neutrally, which corresponds very well with the point we are making.

We have also studied the rest of the storylines in the Book of Judges. It turns out that they are related to the 'Mongol' Inquisition in Europe too.

For example, the well-known biblical story of the 'body cut into pieces' and the battle of Israel with the tribe of Benjamin is the famous 'expulsion of the Jews' from Spain in the late XV century. In particular, according to the Bible the assault of a husband-Levite and death of his concubine draws the whole of Israel into war against the tribe of Benjamin. In Spain in the XV century the assassination of an official of the Spanish Inquisition - inquisitor Pedro de Arbues precipitated a massive persecution of the Jews.

The Old Testament places a special emphasis on the 'blood epistle' in the form of the body parts sent to all of the tribes of Israel in order to chasten the sons of Benjamin, i.e. one of the tribes of Israel for the vicious thing they did. Now then, the 'blood epistle' to the tribes of Israel is the infamous edict of 1492 by Kind Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. According to the historians of the Inquisition, the edict made a 'stunning impression' [330], v.3, p.150.

According to the Book of Judges, furthermore the tribe of Benjamin is virtually wiped out in its entirety. All the rest of the tribes of Israel descended upon the sons of Benjamin, killing them and driving them out from their homes. So, the destruction of the Benjamin tribe by the Israelites is the crushing of Marranos in Spain in the late XV century.

As we showed in [6v2], ch.6, the 'exodus of the Jews' from Spain in 1492 reflects Columbus' voyage and the conquest of the distant America. In the late XV the early XVI cc. the flotillas were departing Spain and Portugal for the inviting lands overseas. It was the extension of the Horde-Ottoman conquest of the world. The wave of conquests having rolled up onto the shores of the Atlantic for some time had ended up here. Later, when the large naval vessels - 'Noah's arcs' were constructed, the Horde and Ottoman armies moved on, across the ocean. The vestiges of this massive event were imprinted in the Spanish chronicles as the 'Jewish exodus'. The 'Mongol' Empire required major military and trading assets for such an event. The 'Mongol' governors in Spain the Orthodox Christian sovereign-cafolics Ferdinand and Isabella used every effort in order to organise the crossing of the ocean by the massive fleets with thousands of people. As always, such actions were accompanied by exerting a certain amount of force upon the large masses of population. The people would mainly embark upon the unknown and frightening ocean not by following their hearts, but by following an order, under penalty of the church or the administration.

Understandably, the chronicles of that time all vied to inform about mass migration of peoples across the 'great sea' (the Atlantic ocean). But later, in the XVII-XVIII cc. the Scaligerian historians, erasing the very fact of the existence of the 'Mongol' Empire, edited these accounts and instilled into them a sombre mood of forced banishment. Which the merciless rulers of XV-XVI cc. Spain were to blame for. The armies of Horde and Ottomania were called 'Gods Warriors', i.e. armies of Israelites. Therefore there is a large element of truth in the words about 'Israelites exodus' from Spain. The Israelite = Horde armies boarded the ships in the ports and embarked upon the ocean. In that epoch such an enterprise was very dangerous. Most people and families left Europe for ever. This fact lent a tragic air to the event as a whole. Thus the HUNDRED THOUSAND OF Jews BANISHED from Spain and Portugal, referred to in the sources, are most likely the crew of several 'Mongol' flotillas setting out to colonize the American continent = The New World.

It doesn't concern the religious persecution of a selected part of the population according to their nationality or on any other grounds during that epoch, nationalities in the modern sense of the word were not formed yet, but the formation of the military and commercial and administrative bodies for the transfer across the ocean. Most likely, entire villages and colonies were signed on to these ships. Some families would look after the cattle, and some would provide the repairs of the shipboard equipment. Those who refused or balked were, clearly, malicious heretics. They would be dealt with by the Inquisition tribunal. Some of them were burnt at the stake, after which the rest became much more compliant. As a result, America was successfully colonized.

The biblical abduction of the women of Shiloh is the "ancient" Roman rape of the Sabine women, aka - the Catalan abduction and division of the wives allegedly in the 16th century[edit | edit source]

The last chapter of the Book of Judges narrates the cessation of the persecution of the Benjamites. '...But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh ... So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us the favour of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them...So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.' (Judges 21:1, 21:3, 21:6-7, 21:16-21, 21:23).

It turns out that this storyline is described in the 'ancient' Roman history as the well-known Roman rape of the Sabine women in the epoch of the founding of Rome. And also in the history of Mediaeval Greece, when the Catalan military, allegedly circa 1311, divided between themselves the wives of the knights killed in the Battle of the Cephissus. According to the chronological shifts discovered by A.T.Fomenko, the founding of Rome in Italy dates circa 1380. Thus, in the history of the Middle Ages the dramatic biblical storyline of the abduction and division of the wives is accounted for and dates not earlier than the XIV century. Considering the one hundred years shift it is not impossible that the event dates to the XV century. It may well be that they might be speaking here of one of the Horde squadrons of Israelites=Benjamites, who left Spain after 1492 to conquer the Promised Land [2v2], ch.2.

Besides, in the book [TsRIM] we show, that the rape of the Sabine women in 'Ancient' Rome to a great extent is the reflection of the abduction of the wives by serfs in the Russian Novgorod=Yaroslavl.

Harem-Terem ("Tower-Chamber")[edit | edit source]

In [4v] the section 'Russian terem and Eastern harem is the very same thing' we showed that in Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. amongst the prosperous Hordians, there was a common custom to keep harems. Here can be seen an earlier similarity between the customs of Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Why did the harems = terems appear? In the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century and the Ottoman conquering of the Promised Land following it in the XV century, there developed a shortage in the male population of the Empire. A great many warriors and Horde officials left for the distant land in order to colonize it. There were also human losses on the battle fields. As a result the amount of women in the metropoly of the Empire considerably exceeded that of men. The replenishment of the human resources was required. The harems=terems appeared as one of the methods to solve this new problem. At the same time another problem was solved to protect young women from insalubrious sexual relations in order to guarantee a healthy and viable offspring for the elite. Well-off harem children were intended to take important posts and positions in the various provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire spanning Eurasia, Africa and America.

The biblical story of Samson is the battle of Zemshchina against the Oprichnina in Russia under Ivan IV the terrible[edit | edit source]

Samson is an allegorical description of Zemshchina as its two main leaders and two other famous characters of the 16th century[edit | edit source]

Ivan Petrovitch Cheliadnin-Fedorov, the equerry, who had wielded a lot of influence and was well respected, became the leader of the Zemshchina opposition [776], p.118. 'Zemtsy (landed proprietors) addressed the czar with a protest against the arbitrary actions of the oprichny guards who inflicted unbearable insults on zemshchina... The dvoryane (noblemen and gentry) demanded the immediate abolishment of the oprichny governance. The uprising of the noblemen was quite impressive: 300 Zemshchina nobles participated in it... The opposition declared itself in 1566. The protest against the oprichnina's violations originated from the members of the Zemskoy Sobor (Assembly of the Land) summoned in Moscow... The czar denied the request of the Zemshchina noblemen and used the emergency powers granted to him by the Oprichnina edict, to punish Zemshchina. 300 petitioners were thrown into prison [776], p.119.

Karamzin gives an account: 'Fedorov (Cheliadnin Auth.), a man of old customs, DECORATED WITH MILTARY GLORY and the gravitas of the state experience, having occupied the respected post of the Equerry and the head of the State Office for 19 years, a magnanimous and splendid nobleman became an object of slander' [362], v.9, column 58.

During the epoch of the struggle of Zemshchina against Oprichnina Filip Kolychev, the supporter of Zemshchina forces comes to the fore of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. 'The conflict with the highly influential ecclesiastical authorities, put the czar (Ivan the Terrible Auth.) in a difficult situation, and he had to come to terms with the choice of a new candidate for the potential metropolitan. Father Superior Philip of The Solovetsky monastery was urgently summoned to Moscow (his secular name was Fedor Stepanovich Kolychev). Philip descended from a highly distinguished old Moscovian family...It appears that he was put forward by the same faction, which was HEADED BY THE EQUERRY I.P.CHELIADNIN AND WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL IN ZEMSHCHINA. The Solovetsky Father Superior was distantly related to the equerry. Philip entirely aligned his fate with that of the boyarin Cheliadnin... IN HIM THE ZEMSHCHINA OPPOSITION AQUIRED ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE AND ENERGETIC LEADERS. Kolychev... CATEGORICALLY DEMANDED THAT THE OPRICHNINA WAS IMMEDIATELY DISBANDED. THE BEHAVIOUR OF SOLOVETSKY FATHER SUPERIOR MADE IVAN THE TERRIBLE FURIOUS [776], p.118.

However the czar was confronted by Zemshcina and he was forced to come to an arrangement with Philip Kolychev about the mutual neutrality. As a result 'on the 20th July 1566 Philip was forced to publicly repudiate his demands and pledged 'not to intervene' in the Oprichnina and the czar's 'household customs' ... After this Kolychev was consecrated metropolitan' [776], p.118.

The parallels in the story of Samson and the Battle of Zemshchina against Oprichnina[edit | edit source]

In [7v1], ch.10 we discovered some correspondence between the biblical Samson and the French version of the story of Gilles de Rais. But the French version, as well as the Old Testament account are only the variant reflections of important events in Russia-Horde in the middle of the XVI century. I.e. the fight between the two major organisations, parties, which gathered together a great many people under their banners. These were the tragic events in the history of Russia-Horde. Biblical Samson, as well as Gilles de Rais are the slightly allegorical reflections of Zemshchina. I.e. a large party which was at the head of the opposition to Ivan the Terrible and Oprichnina.

We will describe the parallels between 'Horde Zemshchina = biblical Samson' as a table, see the details in [7v1].

In column 1 there are listed the main storylines constituting the core of the Old Testament story of Samson.

Column 2 reflects the correspondence with the French 'biography' of Gilles de Rais.

Column 3 contains the fragments of Cheliadnin's biography reflected in the Old Testament Book of Judges.

Column 4 recites fragments of Cheliadnin's biography reflected in the Old Testament Book of Judges.

Column 5 points out the facts of metropolitan Philip Kolychev's life which entered the Bible under the guise of the deeds of Samson.

Column 6 is designated to the analogous data from the 'biography' of Khan Simeon Beckbulatovich.

Column 7 contains the information from the 'biography' of Simeon, Prince of Rostov, which contributed to the story of Samson.

Column 8 we designated to Ivan the Terrible, who was also reflected both in the Bible and in the French version under the symbolic names: 'Gilles de Rais' or 'Bluebeard'.

Asterisked are the events from Russian history reflected in the Bible, in the 'biography of Samson' and 'the Frenchman Gilles de Rais' [7v1], ch.12.

Events from Russian history reflected in the Bible.gif

According to the Bible, a sly Philistine Delilah, Samson's beloved, cunningly charmed out the secret of Samson's strength and revealed this secret to the Philistines. They used this information and finally captured Samson (Judges 16). In the French version these events are reflected in the way of the 'cunning devil' who ensnared the knight Gilles de Rais into his web, which led to the arrest of the marshal and his death on a charge of sorcery.

The original of this biblical storyline in the history of Russia-Horde is the insidious treachery of Zemshchina and particularly the equerry Cheliadnin by Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritskii.

The fantastical strength of Samson (i.e. Zemshchina) - the enemy of the Philistines (i.e. Oprichniki)[edit | edit source]

Subsequently the Bible's continuous emphasis of Samson's incredible power becomes clear. If it concerned some specific person, then the heroic feats attributed to him would have looked exaggerated at the very least. But if the Old Testament authors described Zemshchina in its entirety, then such heroic qualities become clear. Zemshchina was a credible force based on the wide social strata of Russia-Horde society. Zemshchina was fiercely fighting for its rights hand in hand with the Orthodox Church headed by Philip Kolychev. The Bible, being a religious book was bound to take this into account. In that epoch the Orthodox Church was an imposing power in the Empire, which was impossible to disregard.

In these chapters of the Book of Judges Oprichniki and Oprichnina, on the whole, act under the name of the Philistines, the enemies of Samson-Zemshchina.

Thus the Biblical story of Samson reflects the major events in the Russian-Horde history of the XVI century, the struggle of Zemshchina against The Oprichnina. Samson is a generalized image of Zemshchina, which had absorbed various factors from the biographies of several of its leaders. Primarily the equerry Ivan Petrovich Cheliadnin-Fedorov and the metropolitan Philip Kolychev. 35. SEVEN DECEASED WIVES OF BLUEBEARD. THE ENGLISH KING HENRY THE VIII AND HIS SIX WIVES ARE THE REFLECTIONS OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE AND HIS SEVEN WIVES.

In [7v1].ch.10:4, we are talking about Bluebeard, one of the reflections of 'Gilles de Rais' in French history. King Bluebeard had 7 wives whom he killed [330], v.2, p.487. The fact of him having a comparatively large number of wives and that there were seven of them stands out. Considering the parallelism with the Russian history discovered by us, we should draw your attention to the fact that 'Ivan the Terrible' also allegedly had 7 wives. They probably should be distributed between the four czars, combined in the Romanov version under one name of 'Grozny' (the Terrible).

And now let us recall that in the English history there is also a famous character Bluebeard. This is the King of England Henry VIII [7v1], ch.10. There are no other famous kings with a nickname of Bluebeard in European history.

In [7v1}, ch.3/ we showed that the dynasty of Novgorod khans, the rulers of the Empire of the XIII-XVI cc. reflected in the Western chronicles as the Habsburg dynasty. Furthermore, in [7v1[, ch.4, we showed that the epoch of Oprichnina is dramatically reflected in the history of France and England. Specifically czarina Sophia Paleologue is described as the French Catherine de Medici and the English Elizabeth Tudor, and Elena Voloshanka as Mary Stuart. But then the English king Henry VIII is the Western-European reflection of the khan-czar of the 'Ivan the Terrible' epoch. This is in fact correct [7v1], ch.12 and [ShEK].

Incidentally Henry VIII as Ivan the Terrible is considered to be a cruel tyrant [304], v.3, p.181. The name HENRY itself could have originated from KHAN+REX, i.e. Khan-Czar or Khan-Rus, i.e. as the sounds of Kh-Sh and S were often interchangeable.

Henry VIII is considered to be a polygamist, he had six wives. At this point it is difficult to say which names exactly Ivan the Terrible's wives are concealed beneath the names of the Englishmen's Henry VIII wives.

Where and when Icarus ascended into the sky. The religious mystery plays[edit | edit source]

We all know the most 'ancient' legend about the destruction of Icarus. He took to the air using artificial wings, but fell down and drowned. His fall is depicted, for example, in the 'ancient' paintings, discovered during the excavation of Herculaneum and Pompeii. Now then, Icarus' famous flight is the flight of the aeronaut Nikita, Trofim's son, under the czar Ivan the Terrible Nero [RI], ch.2. Besides, the Ancient' Greek legends about the Labyrinth, Minos, Minotaur are the reflections of the dramatic events of the XVI-XVII cc. in the capital of Russia-Horde [6v3], ch.3. Specifically, the story of Esther = Elena Voloshanka, a heretic and Ivan the Terrible's lover. Thus the flight of Daedalus and Icarus precisely during the times of Minos and Minotaur once again date them to the second half of the XVI century.

In Russian history we know Icarus by the name of 'Nikita, the serf, Trofim's son'. He climbed the tall Crucifixion Church in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda and leaped from the belfry flapping a pair of wooden wings. Nikita purportedly even flew over the rampart surrounding the czar's headquarters. We were informed about this detail in the science division of the Alexandrovskya Sloboda museum in October 2006. During the epoch of Oprichnina Sloboda was Ivan the Terrible's capital. It is most likely that Nikita invented something along the lines of a light glider, on which he could remain airborne for a considerable amount of time.

The flight was successful. However after his landing Nikita was allegedly accused by the czar of 'a diabolical act' for which he was executed. This corresponds with the 'ancient' accounts of Icarus, son of Daedalus, who crashed and drowned. Most likely the Western chroniclers like the 'Ancient Greeks' and Suetonius got confused in the details of the notorious event in the capital of Russia-Horde. They knew that Icarus-Nikita ascended into the air and that he perished 'because of the flight'. But they didn't know the flight itself was completed successfully, and the death of the pilot was a result of the czar's wrath. The chroniclers 'glued' these facts together and it resulted in Icarus allegedly rising into the air, but 'falling down and crashing'.

'The ancient' master craftsman Daedalus, the wings inventor, should be searched for in the XVI century, in the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. The search should also cover the epoch of Ivan III, the phantom reflection of Ivan IV and dated to the XV century instead of the XVI century. The search won't take long. We have repeatedly looked to Aristotele Fioravanti the famous architect and master craftsman, who allegedly lived in the XV century and who did much for Ivan III. It turns out that it was he who was the 'ancient Daedalus' [RI], ch.2.

It is widely thought that 'the teachers of the Russian architects in the subterranean construction were the Italian architects-builders, the creators of the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod (the walled merchant town - China Town): ARISTOTELE FIORAVANTI, Petrus Antonius Solarius, Aloisio the New, Petrok Maly. Ignatius Stelletskii claimed that both the underground and above-ground Kremlin was built according to the plan of the 'wizard and sorcerer' Aristotele Fioravanti' [815:1], p.9.

And further: 'ALL THE THREE ARCHITECTS COULD NOT LEAVE MOSCOW AND HAD TO LAY THEIR BONES THERE. Is it a fluke? Not in the least!... This idiosyncratic triumvirate of the Moscow Kremlin (Aristotele Fioravanti, Solarius and Aloisio Author) was the bearer of its innermost secrets... To let even one of this glorious trio back to Europe would have been almost equivalent to making Moscow's innermost secrets the subject of malicious gossip... It is that and only that, it seems, to be raison d'être of the violent death of the creators of the Moscow citadel in its depths', p.106-107.

To recap, the major building and construction of Moscow began not in the XV century under Ivan III as it is thought today, but in the XVI century under Ivan IV [6v2], ch.2. Erecting the capital in the new place could be attributed to the fact that Ivan the Terrible's court for some time lapsed into the heresy of the Judaizers, which caused a rift in the Empire's ruling elite. The czar even left the former capital (Yaroslavl or Suzdal) and decided in favour of a small settlement located at the site of the Battle of Kulikovo. There they began to build the stone Moscow = the Second Jerusalem. However the czar could not invite the local Horde builders as a result of the social rift. The Orthodox Church strongly condemned the heresy of the czar and his immediate entourage [775]. This was the reason for summoning the Italian architects. In that time Italy was one of the provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire and naturally, the Western architects quickly arrived to the metropoly by order of the Emperor. On the completion of building, the chief architects, who knew the scheme of the underground Moscow, could be silenced for ever, so they could tell no one.

It is quite possible, that Icarus-Nikita took flight from the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. Perhaps during Ivan the Terrible's reign there were several of such flights depicting the Ascension of Christ. There survive a tradition which directly connects Nikita's flight under Ivan the Terrible with Moscow Kolomenskoye. This tradition hardly originated from nothing. The information about Nikita's flight lived amongst the gliders and pilots [RI], ch.2.

In the Middle Ages in Europe there were popular mysteries, i.e. the religious plays depicting the Gospel events for the public. For example, Christ's arrest, Pilate's trial, the Flagellation of Christ, the Road to Golgotha and the Crucifixion [KAZ]. 'This Liturgical performance which took place not in a church, but in public, is considered to be the oldest religious drama and simultaneously 'the first performance bearing the similar characteristics of theatre' [415:1], p.9, 11. It is not improbable, that in some of the Western mystery plays an 'actor' who was personifying Christ was crucified for real.

Most likely Nikita's flight from the tall cathedral-belfry in the presence of the czar Ivan, courtiers and a multitude of spectators was an element of such a religious mystery play. The ascent of a man into the air on wings symbolised the climax of the play - The Resurrection and The Ascension of Christ. It is likely that Nikita took off exactly from the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. The very name of the church suggests that it was exactly from here, in full public view, a man depicting the Ascension of Christ rose up into the sky. The mysteries were illustrating the key moments of Christ's life. It is absolutely clear that the climax the Ascension should have been represented in some way. But at this point the directors would be presented with problems. It was not so easy to show Christ ascending. It is most likely that for a long time they were unsuccessful. They had to be satisfied with some conventional scenes symbolising the 'ascent to heaven'. It is possible that the actor was hoisted up with ropes or some other device.

They approached this subject in a more fundamental way. Clearly the capital should have been the place for the most gripping performances dedicated to the Gospel. That is why it must have been this very place where they should have begun to think about how to recreate the Ascension Day. They began to experiment. Soon they realised that it was possible to create 'wings' capable of lifting a person into the air and keep him there. Thus aeronautics was born. It is possible, that Nikita could have been the first or among the pioneers. Supposedly there must have been many rehearsals of the religious show which would culminate with the flight of the actor who was playing Christ. When the directors and gliders decided that enough experience had been accumulated, they announced the performance. A premier, so to speak.

The entire court assembled, numerous guests. It is likely that there were rumours swarming and everyone was expecting something extraordinary. Ivan the Terrible, the great khan himself, was seated in the first row. The actors were nervous. The closer to the end of the performance, the greater the tension. Lo and behold! A man with wings ascends the dome of the Kolomensky Church of the Ascension. The climax of the performance. Nikita breaks away from the dome and soars into the air. The flight was a success. The czar was delighted. It is highly unlikely that Ivan the Terrible was enraged and ordered the execution of the adventurous serf. Contrarily, we should think that Nikita was handsomely rewarded. A different matter is that in the minds of the later chroniclers the two excerpts of this extraordinary performance could have merged together. The first the execution and death of Christ performed by some other actor. The second plot is the flight of the glider pilot Nikita, performing the Ascension of Christ. By the way, human sacrifices were no longer carried out in Russia during that epoch. Particularly during the Apostles Christianity which condemned the 'ancient' 'pagan' customs, among which bloody sacrifices indeed existed. That is why it is most likely that in Russia the actor was not actually 'crucified' for real. However, the Western chroniclers were more accustomed to more bloody forms of Christian mystery plays. So they decided that allegedly Nikita was executed by the cruel czar. A myth about a poor Icarus who fell from the sky was born. Ultimately some of the actors-gliders could have in fact easily crashed. As it was a new and dangerous activity. Then again, the very same 'ancient classics' would add that contrary to Icarus, Daedalus successfully landed using his wings. Thus the 'ancient' myth narrates both about the misfortunes and the successes of the aeronautics.

Nikita's flight in Kolomenskoye from the height of the Church of the Ascension feels more genuine than from the Crucifixion Church Belfry in Alexandrovskya Sloboda, though it is worth repeating that there could have been a number of similar flights. As the mystery plays were staged over many years. In some years an actor could have flown into the air from the Crucifixion Church Belfry in Alexandrovskya Sloboda, in the other years from the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. There also must have been other locations from which the Russian=Horde gliders demonstrated their skills in front of the delighted audience.

After some time the religious performances became a thing of the past. But the art of gliding in the air remained and began to develop according to the laws of scientific research. Professional aeronautics was born.

The Roman emperor Claudius, aka Ivan the Terrible was a writer. It turns out that the first version of the famous "Litsevoi svod" (the illustrated chronicle compilation) was compiled under him[edit | edit source]

Practically in all the phantom reflections of Ivan The Terrible it is stressed that he was a prolific writer, was interested in literature and was the author of many works. The same account was also given about the Emperor Claudius, allegedly 41-45 years. Suetonius informs us:'He was neither uncultured nor lacking in eloquence, but on the contrary had constantly devoted himself to the liberal arts ... As Emperor he continued work on his history, hosting frequent readings but employing instead a professional reader. He began the work with Julius Caesar's assassination, then he started afresh with later times... He completed only two books of the earlier work, but forty-one of the later times. He also wrote an eight-volume autobiography... and also penned a 'Defense of Cicero against the charges of Asinius Gallus', a work of no little learning. HE ADDED THREE ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF HIS OWN INVENTION TO THE LATIN ALPHABET, maintaining that there was a dire need of them, and after becoming the Emperor was able to initiate their general use...He gave no less attention to Greek studies... He would often make his Senate reply to Greek envoys with a prepared speech in their own language...HE WROTE COMPLETE WORKS IN GREEK: TWENTY VOLUMES OF ETRUSCAN HISTORY AND EIGHT OF CARTHAGINIAN. A new Claudian wing was added, in his name, to the old Museum at Alexandria, with HIS ETRUSCAN HISTORY READ ALOUD FROM BEGINNING TO END ANNUALLY IN THE OLD, AND THE CARTHAGINIAN IN THE NEW, VARIOUS READERS BEING EMPLOYED IN TURN, AS IS THE WAY WITH PUBLIC RECITATIONS.' [760], p. 145-146.

This information is very interesting. It turns out that the Emperor Claudius, i.e. Ivan the Terrible was the author of an immense work consisting of at least SEVENTY NINE BOOKS (as stated: 2 + 41 + 8 + 20 + 8). Among them: 43-volume History of Rome, 20-volume Etruscan History and 8-volume Carthaginian History.

As we already understand, the history of 'Ancient' Rome written by Claudius is the history of Russia-Horde of the XIII-XVI cc.

Et-ruscan history is also the Russian history, and the Carthaginian history is the history of Czar-Grad [5v], [TsRIM]. So it means, that under the Emperor Claudius = Ivan the Terrible there was created an enormous work on the history of Russia-Horde and Czar-Grad. We will repeat: 63 books on the Russian History and 8 books on the history of Czar-Grad.

It is hardly likely that the Emperor Claudius Ivan the Terrible wrote with his own hand all 79 books he is credited with. As the czar has a lot to do. Most likely he ordered the creation of a detailed history of the 'Mongol' Empire. Scholars, scribes and artists were summoned, who under the Emperor's supervision created such a prodigious body of work.

But we are told that no such immense body of work survives until our time. They say that hundreds and thousands of years have passed... Allegedly everything is lost... However neither Suetonius nor Tacitus say anything about Claudius' books perishing. Which means that they still did exist during their time, i.e. in the XVI-XVII cc.

As Claudius is Ivan the Terrible, than the historical manuscript created on his initiative should have left an indelible mark in Russian history. Is that so? Yes. It is. We know that it is under Ivan the Terrible the multivolume Litsevoi Svod was created. The mammoth historical literary classic encompassing world history from the most ancient times to the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. Incidentally for a very long time Letsevoi Svod was not published at all. It was published for the first time in Moscow by the publishing house 'Akteon' [477:31], amid the extensive public discussions on the New Chronology.

However, according to our results, THE ORIGINAL text of Litsevoi Svod never survived. Most likely in the XVII century under the Romanovs it was edited in the spirit of 'new ideas'. So the version which exists today belongs to a later date. Nevertheless, even in the 'Romanov' way it presents an invaluable monument of the XVII century based on the sources of the XVI century.

So to conclude, under the 'Ancient' Roman Emperor Claudius = Ivan the Terrible Litsevoi Svod was created. According to the Roman accounts, at first it consisted of 71 books. Even re-worked and abridged by the Romanovs this body of work comprised 10 gigantic volumes. That is why the publishing house 'Akteon' divided most of the volumes into two parts. As the result Litsevoi Svod in its new modern facsimile edition takes up 19 voluminous books.

Nothing of its kind has been created ever since! All known Western European, Arabic, Eastern, Chinese and other chronicles known today pale by comparison with the Russian-Horde Litsevoi Svod. None of them are even remotely similar. This is understandable. Litsevoi Svod was created in the capital of the Great Empire in the XVI century, in the age of its progress and might. That is why from the very beginning it was destined to be unique. The best scholars and craftsmen were gathered. Writing of the world history, i.e. the history of the Empire of the XIII-XVI cc. was under the control of Ivan the Terrible = Claudius himself. The executants did their absolute best. Litsevoi Svod is illustrated with magnificent illuminations.

'Ancient' Suetonius spoke respectfully of Litsevoi Svod, calling it a body of work dedicated to the Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history.

Suetonius' accounts of Claudius personally writing the Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history corresponds with the opinion of the historians, that Ivan the Terrible was himself editing the text of Litsevoi Svod. It is thought that some notes on some pages were made by Ivan the Terrible [775], p.28-31.

According to Suetonius the Emperor Claudius also wrote 8 books about his own life. I.e. his autobiography. Most likely he didn't write it himself, but dictated it to the scribes, or based it on his own archives. Thus we learn that in the XVI century there was a large account written of Ivan the Terrible's life: 8 volumes! Unfortunately this work didn't survive. It is possible that it seemed to the Romanovs unacceptable. That's why it was destroyed. And but for Suetonius we would have never learnt that Ivan the Terrible (Claudius) wrote his own autobiography.

The lighthouse of Alexandria (Pharos of Alexandria)[edit | edit source]

Apparently the famous 'ancient' Lighthouse of Alexandria, aka Pharos of Alexandria (one of the seven wonders of the ancient world) is a well-known Bell tower of Ivan the Great in Moscow [RI], ch.6. In the ancient times the Pillar of Ivan the Great was compared to a burning candle. Hence comes the legend of the 'lighthouse'. The divine bronze statues of Pharos of Alexandria are the huge bells of Ivanov Pillar. Incredible as it may be, in the 'ancient' history of Pharos of Alexandria accounts are given of the events from the reign of Peter I (The Great), from the late XVII early XVIII cc.! See [RI], ch.6.

Besides, the 'Pillar of Ivan the Great' in Moscow was described by the 'ancient classics' as the 'Ancient' Roman military column or as the famous Tower of Babylon [RI].

The historians think that allegedly Pharos (Etruscan) Lighthouse was close to Egyptian African Alexandria. However today there are no traces of it there. Then they unfoundedly professed that allegedly the lighthouse 'of course, is dilapidated', and that it remained there allegedly until the XIV century, after which it 'irretrievably disappeared'. 'The remains of a tall pedestal on which the beautiful tower stood, survive until our time, BUT THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY UNACCESSABLE TO THE ARCHITECTS AND ARCHEOLOGISTS, as they are built into the mediaeval fortress' [572], p.118. Purportedly the remains 'may be still there', but unfortunately it is impossible to see them.

Such lamentations are needless. Pharos Lighthouse exists even now, though in a somewhat reconstructed version. Those who wish to see it should visit the Cathedral Square (Sobornaya Square) of the Moscow Kremlin and see the Et-ruscan Pillar of Ivan the Great.

Tacitus and Suetonius describe the times of troubles in Russia[edit | edit source]

THE EMPEROR VITELLIUS IS THE FALSE DMITRY I.

Apparently, starting with the 'biography' of the emperor Vitellius, Suetonius and Tacitus describe the Time of Troubles in the Horde Empire. Tacitus is speaking about the great revolt in his preface to the 'Histories'. In Tacitus' 'Annals' descriptions are given of the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero and Claudius. I.e. primarily the epoch of Ivan the 'Terrible', the second half of the XVI century [RI], ch.10.

In the 'Histories' Tacitus begins his narration with Galba followed by Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. According to our findings Vitellius is the reflection of the 'False' Dmitry I. Incidentally, Tacitus informs us that he himself is a contemporary of all the above mentioned 'ancient' emperors. Consequently the famous Cornelius Tacitus lived in the epoch of the first half of the XVII century. Or later.

The next emperor of 'Ancient' Rome was Vespasian. And the Russian czar who succeeded the 'False' Dmitry I was Vasili Shuisky. Hence 'ancient' Vespasian could be a phantom reflection of Vasili Shuisky. Our idea holds up very well [RI], ch.10.

Furthermore, Roman emperor Titus is Russian prince Skopin-Shuisky. Titus' siege of Jerusalem is the defence of Moscow in 1610 by Skopin-Shuisky, which Tacitus combined with the liberation of Moscow by Minin and Pozharsky in 1612 [RI], ch.11.

Moscow of the late 16th - early 17th century is described by Flavius Josephus as Jerusalem[edit | edit source]

The well-known work of Flavius Josephus 'The Jewish War' describes the civil war in Judaea under the emperor Titus, followed by the siege, military assault and the fall of Jerusalem, the capital of Judaea. It is thought that during that time Judaea used to be a province of the Roman Empire. Therefore all of these events took place in the early XVII century in Russia in the metropoly of the 'Mongol' Empire. In particular, the seizure of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus must be some major and well-known event in the Times of Troubles in Russia. Such an event does exist. It is the defence of Moscow by Skopin-Shuisky in 1610 followed by the final victory over the 'Poles' and the liberation of Moscow in 1612 by Pozharsky and Minin. Jerusalem described by Flavius Josephus is Moscow, the capital of the Empire. The walls of Kitai-gorod (China town), Bely gorod (White Town) and Zemlyanoy Gorod (Earthworks Town) in Moscow are described by Flavius as the three walls surrounding Jerusalem.

To remind you, there were two well-known Jerusalems in ancient history. The first, evangelical is Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus, Homeric Troy. The second Jerusalem is described in the Old Testament Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was 'reconstructed' during the reign of the kings Artha-Xerox, Cyrus and Darius. Apparently here the subject matter happens to be the construction of Moscow and the Moscow Kremlin in the middle of the XVI century under Ivan the Terrible = Artha-Xerox [6v2], ch.2.

Today we can see only the foreign made old plans of Moscow-Jerusalem. It clearly states that the Russian originals didn't survive (were destroyed?). Surprisingly NONE of the old original plans of Moscow of the XVI century epoch survived! Just the foreign 'copies'. We are being assured that allegedly they more or less accurately follow the 'lost Russian originals'. But is this true?Most likely it is the result of the editing 'activities' of the epoch of the Reformation. After Russia's occupation by the Western armies followed by the ascent to the throne of the Romanov dynasty, the history of the Great Empire began to undergo distortions. Including removing from the old 'Mongol' maps and city plans various Horde names which became inappropriate in light of the 'Reformation history'. Everything 'incorrect' was crossed out and burnt. After which crocodile tears were shed in front of the future generations for the 'lost originals'.

There are known reports that in Russia under Godunov the 'extensive cartographic activities' have unfolded. It is understandable as it is during Godunov's reign the 'Mongol' capital Moscow (Jerusalem) achieved its highest peak. However, we will repeat, that there are no surviving original plans of Moscow. Everything perished!But now we can reasonably contemplate what exactly was depicted on the Russian-Horde maps burnt by the Reformers. It is probable that Moscow (Jerusalem) was depicted in the way in which 'Ancient' Rome is drawn today. In particular, the Pillar of Ivan the Great could have been called the Babylon Tower or the Pharos of Alexandria (Lighthouse) or the Roman Milliarium Aureum. I.e. the central pillar of Rome from which the distances into all the ends of the Great Empire were measured. Clearly all such names (which became 'incorrect') were immediately abolished [RI], ch.11.

The 'ancient' book 'The Jewish War' by Flavius Josephus describes the grandiose war encompassing not only the Judaic Kingdom, but the entire Roman Empire comprising Judaea, among others. As we understand, the subject matter is the Times of Troubles in Russia and the wars of the Reformation, spreading all over Europe. Thus the voluminous work of Flavius Josephus was devoted to the events of the XVI-XVII cc. which his contemporaries were deeply passionate about. His book reveals many details of that epoch which were previously unknown [RI], ch.11.

Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus complete their accounts with the Great Strife of the early XVII century, i.e. the fall of the Great Empire. It is exactly during this time the Scaligerian chronology is being created and enforced. It was already used to the utmost by Flavius Josephus for example. Therefore there is every reason to believe that in the works by Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus there must become apparent the chronological shifts invented by the Scaligerians. Notably, the shift which combines the beginning of the Roman Empire in the XIII century with its ending in the XVII century. In other words, concluding with his narrative about the Times of Troubles of the XVII century, Flavius could 'skip' to the end of XII the beginning of XIII cc and tell us, albeit briefly, about the events in the gospel Jerusalem = Czar-Grad. We already know that the chroniclers sometimes confused the Gospel Jerusalem with The Old Testament Jerusalem, i.e. Moscow of the XVI century.

Our prognosis comes true. Flavius Josephus does in fact 'leap' from the XVII century into the end of XII century and gives us a summary of the story of Andronicus-Christ. His death followed by the avenging Crusade of Russia-Horde and its allies onto Czar-Grad in order to punish those responsible for the crucifixion. These accounts are vaguely reflected by Flavius Josephus, but it is still quite recognisable [RI], ch.11. 41. DOMITIAN.

The Biography of Emperor Domitian concludes the works by Seutonius and Tacitus. It turns out that the 'ancient biography' of Domitian narrates about False Dmitry and Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Then there is a jump into the beginning of the Empire, and the last part of the 'biography' of Domitian gives an account of King Herod and Emperor Andronicus-Christ. Thus at this point Suetonius and Tacitus 'skip' back in time from the XVII century into the XII century, from the end of the Great Empire into its very beginning. As a result 'ancient' Domitian is a 'bonding' of the following four genuine historical figures: False Dmitry II + Czar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, then King Herod + Emperor Andronicus-Christ. The first two are from the first half of the XVII century, and other two are from the late XII century.

In his book Suetonius clearly states that his youth fell within Domitian's reign [760], p.216. Therefore the 'ancient' Suetonius was born in the early XVII century, in the epoch of Times of Troubles. He wrote his book in his adulthood. Hence in the middle of the XVII century or even later.

The story of Ivan Susanin in the biography of "ancient" Domitian, i.e. of Mikhail Romanov[edit | edit source]

We all know a story of Susanin who saved the young czar Mikhail Romanov from Polish captivity having paid for that it with his life. This story was popular in Romanov Russia. In particular, the composer M.I.Glinka wrote a famous opera called 'Life for the Czar' (it is sometimes called 'Ivan Susanin').

The story of Susanin still touches people. In order to satisfy interest in this subject the historians make somewhat odd 'discoveries'. For example, in January 2007 yet again a statement appeared that allegedly several years earlier Susanin's remains were found in Kostromskaya district. Though, as noted, 'for many years the place of the hero's death was unknown'. The remains were 'examined in the Russian centre of forensic investigation under the supervision of the professor Victor Zvyagin. Vladimir Filippov was assigned to reconstruct Susanin's appearance based on the skullbones' (Journal 'Arguments and Facts', issues 1-2, 10-16 January 2007, p.13). As far as we know there are no scientific publications which would tell us in detail on what grounds the found bones were declared to be 'Susanin's remains'. That is why our attitude towards this 'finding' is rather sceptical, as it is towards the 'discovery of the remains of Andrey Bogolyubsky and Yuri Dolgoruky ' , widely advertised in its time, which were also unsupported by any scientific data.

Let us get back to more reliable accounts kept by the ancient authors. It turns out that the 'most ancient' Suetonius and Tacitus tell us about the story of Susanin. Allegedly more than two thousand years before Mikhail Romanov, prior to the event taking place [RI], ch.12.

As Susanin saved young Mikhail Fedorovich, and he agreed to accept the Imperial crown, according to the Romanov version, The Times of Troubles declined. The new Emperor emerged in Russia. This event is considered to be a turning point in the bloody Strife of the early XVII century. In Romanov interpretation it was Susanin's heroic deed which saved the country from further civil wars: 'Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov's election as Czar of Russia put an end to the strife' [578], book.2, p.1002.

We can find in 'ancient' Tacitus' accounts a perfectly analogous presentation of a story about Sabinus (it turns out that it is Susanin). He straightforwardly claims that according to many Romans it was Sabinus' death which saved Rome from the new civil wars and upheavals [RI], ch.12.

Let us draw our attention to the psychological difference in the descriptions of Susanin by 'ancient' Suetonius and the Romanov sources. The 'ancient' version is more exalted as opposed to the Romanov's version, slightly more grounded. For example, the Romanov historians have a 'burning barn', and Suetonius and Tacitus a 'burning temple' (or even Capitol). According to the Romanov historians, frightened Mikhail was hidden in the barn, burying him in the hay. According to Suetonius and Tacitus, the trembling Domitian is hidden in the sacred temple. Possibly, someone wished to turn (on paper) a prosaic shed (and barn) into a poetic temple (and Capitol). It may be that on the contrary the Romanov historians purposefully lessened the scale of the events, belittling them. It could possibly be that the ancient text was describing a temple-cathedral, and the Romanov editors turned it into a 'barn' and 'farm shed'. Thus by doing so they moved the events from the Imperial capital to a small village, tenaciously destroying any traces of 'Ancient' Rome in the Russian sources.

Why domitian was buried as a "gladiator". Where the gladiator games originated from[edit | edit source]

It is said that Domitian (i.e. Andronicus-Christ) was buried 'like a gladiator' [726:1], p.135. The ancient authors paid particular attention to this aspect. We repeatedly came across the 'ancient classics' start talking about the 'emperor-gladiator' when describing some of the phantom reflection of Andronicus-Christ. What is it all about?The common explanation of a word Gladiator is: 'Term 'gladiator' originates from a word 'gladius' a sword, which was used by Roman legionaries and various types of gladiators' [589:1], p.8. This is quite possible. Latin GLADIUS = SWORD could have been a slightly distorted Slavic word KHOLODNY (COLD), i.e. 'cold' weapon. Besides in Russia a word 'KLADENETS' (steel sword) was used to describe a SWORD (was called 'KLADENETS'). So 'GLADIATOR' is a man armed with a COLD WEAPON or KLADENETS. But we will note a following peculiarity in the Scaligerian version. Not only gladiators, but also regular soldiers of the Roman army, were armed with swords (gladius). But they were not called gladiators! Only the participants of the special combat-performances were thus called. A suspicion arises that a word 'gladiator' could possibly have had a different origin.

It is possible, that the Latin word GLADIATOR, in relation to Domitian-Christ, originated in the process of distortion of the word-combination KOLYADA+TORIU when K turned into ---> G. To remind you, sometimes Christ was called KOLYADA [TsRS]. And the word TORIT' is Russian, meaning 'to clear a path', 'to carry'. Hence, the words 'tract', 'roadway', etc. [7v2]. Hence originated a name with a meaning 'carrying Christ' (KHRISTA TORIU). It becomes clear why the name Christopher in Greek meant 'bearing Christ' [533], v.2, p.604. That is why Saint Christopher was often depicted carrying young Christ on his shoulders [RI], ch.12. So in Domitian's biography the word GLADIATOR could have originally meant CHRISTOPHER, i.e. denoting Christ. If KOLYADA is CHRIST, than the expression KOLYADA=TORIU could have literally meant the same as CHRISTOPHER (CHRIST TORIU). Then later, KOLYADA-TOR could have turned into GLADIATOR. It appears that two ideas got intertwined in the term 'gladiator': 'cold weapon' (kladenets) and 'Christ Toryu' carrying Christ).

The famous gladiatorial contests in Ancient Rome probably originated to commemorate the execution of Christ-Kolyada in 1185 and the Trojan War = Russia-Horde Crusade. To begin with the Gladiatorial Games were the religious performance, a mystery play, enacting the Passion of Christ and vengeance catching up with his enemies. The masses of believers and spectators would gather in the church-circus. In particular, Andronicus-Christ murder by the Roman soldiers was re-enacted. Perhaps a man personifying Christ was called KOLYADA-TORIU, i.e. CHRISTOPHER, 'Christ bearer', a man who symbolically carried the image of the suffering Christ. Later the original meaning of the mystery-plays was forgotten and they continued to exist just as the bloody performances, where a gladiator (Kolyada-tor) died under the strikes of the soldiers representing the Czar-Gradians of the late XII century. Then the battle of the two groups of warriors would commence. One of them represented the Jews who crucified Christ, and the other the crusaders (gladiators) avenging him. When in time the meaning of the religious performance became vague, the 'main gladiator-Christ' was forgotten.

It becomes clear why the 'ancient' gladiator contests were so ruthless and often resulted in the gladiators' death. Allegedly in the III century approximately every other combat would result in the death of a gladiator [589:1], p.167.

The spectators often participated in judging and could either pardon a wounded soldier, or condemn him to death. Then he would be slaughtered in the arena accompanied by the roar of the crowd. Today it is 'explained' to us that such was the bloodthirsty nature of the Romans. Of course, many enjoyed watching battles and death. However, most likely, the violent performances were based on the real events the execution of Andronicus-Christ, followed by a war and punishment of his murderers. That is why at first the 'actors' were killed on the arena for real. The memory of the recent events was still fresh. And only while the heart of matter was gradually forgotten, some of the participants of the show were left alive.

A similar idea also came from the religious performances dedicated to god Mithra, i.e. once again Christ. Here the performers represented on the stage of a circus-church the death of Christ in the shape of a bull impaled by a bullfighter's steel weapon. It is not impossible, that we see the traces of the original symbolism, in which an Ox-bull identified with a cross (stauros), in the famous Spanish Corrida (Bullfighting). Maybe in some versions of the liturgical performance (which later on turned into Corrida) a bull symbolises a cross, bringing death to Christ, and the matador Christ himself.

Later the original meaning of the mystery plays was forgotten, and the performance took on a life of its own. The toreadors began to kill the bulls in an arena in front of the audience excited by the smell of blood, simply for entertainment and a demonstration of their fighting skills.

And so, Domitian-Christ was buried 'as a gladiator' for no other reason that it was Kolyada-Tor, i.e. Christ, who they were burying. And since Kolyada (Nikolay) is Christ, then a 'gladiator' meant Christ bearer or Cross bearer, a man who fights in the name of Christ. I.e. Christopher, who goes into battle under the banner of Christ. Bringing to the nations the name and the legacy of Christ. This corresponds with the essence of the Crusades of the early XIII century whose goal was to punish those guilty in the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ. These are Horde campaigns described by the 'classical authors' as the Trojan War.

The ancient references to the gladiatorial games being established exactly by the ET-RUSCANS, i.e. the Russians, according to our results, become clear [RI], ch.12. Following the victory in the Trojan War it was in 'Ancient' Rome, i.e. in Russia, where the religious festivities were established, spreading from the metropoly to the provinces of the Empire. The Et-ruscans = Russians celebrated the victory over the enemies of Andronicus-Christ. It is clear that the celebration in honour of the victory was established by the victors, and not by the defeated side.

It turns out that there were women-gladiators [589:1], p.121. It is not surprising, since in the Trojan War there were both men and women among the victors and the defeated.

So, in the arenas of the circuses-churches the two groups of Gladiators = Christ bearers came together. Some represented the Hordians, the others their enemies. They fought to the death. The gladiatorial games originated within the Royal Christianity, practiced by the czars, who succeeded Andronicus-Christ. At first in Czar-Grad, and later in Russia-Horde after the capital of the Empire was moved there in the XIII century. The Royal Christianity is known to us today as 'ancient paganism', when bloody sacrifice was practiced, including those of humans. One of those sacrifices was the Gladiatorial = Christ bearing Games, the religious pageants.

Today all the participants of the Games are called the Gladiators. However, earlier, most likely, only those who represented Horde Cossacks avenging Christ were called thus. The warriors representing those people who crucified Christ might have been called differently. It's for a reason that the gladiators came under different groups.The name of one of them Retiarii clearly points to Rat' (army), Horde. The Retiarii probably represented the Horde-avengers. Another group under the name of Murmillones brings to mind the name of Myrmidon. Thus were called the 'ancient' warriors Achilles-Svyatoslav, who participated in the Trojan War [NOR]. In this way the very names of the gladiator castes reflect the events of the Trojan War.

The history of the Gladiator Games shows that they were not GAMES in the modern meaning of the word. They were not considered as a contest of agility. The commentators correctly identified the key element of the Games: 'Closer than anything else to the Gladiatorial Games is the 'trial by combat', in which the guilt of the accused was decided by way of armed combat. The defeated had to admit his guilt or die. The victor was considered not guilty. The combats were usually conducted with the real weapons and in the presence of an audience' [589:1], p.8-9.

Originally the Gladiator Games were replaying 'combat by trial' between those guilty in the execution of Andronicus-Christ and the crusaders. The Trojan War is the act of revenge. There were both judges and accused. This war could have been viewed as God's retribution to those guilty.

From the descriptions of the Gladiator Games it is clear that they were an important public event. Large (sometimes enormous) sums of money were spent. Special schools for gladiators were established. One can see what a great importance the czars-khans of the 'Mongol' Empire placed on the Trojan War being cemented in the people's memory, as it was the Trojan War which prompted the emergence of this gigantic Empire. The rulers constantly reminded their subjects of that.

After the Battle of Kulikovo, when Dmitry Donskoi = Constantine the Great gained victory over the Royal Christianity, he made Apostolic Christianity the state religion. The radical reform inflicted a blow to the Gladiator Games too. They were declared 'pagan' and were banned: 'The end of the gladiator games is directly connected with the adoption of Christianity (under Constantine Author)' [589:1], p.22.

The Gladiator games were irrevocably banned under the emperor Honorius. According to our analysis, it took place in the late XIV early XV cc. Gradually the Gladiator Games and the gladiators in general were forgotten. Up until the middle of the XVIII century 'the gladiators were of no interest and it's likely that very few people knew anything about them at all. A new surge of interest towards this subject was caused by the discovery of the objects of gladiatorial weaponry in Pompeii in 1766' [589:1], p.5.

Thus, the Gladiator Games were abolished as the 'relic of paganism', i.e. of Royal Christianity. Human sacrifice was forbidden in Apostolic Christianity. The enormous 'ancient' circuses-churches were abandoned and began to dilapidate. 'Pagan' Gladiator contests became a thing of the past. They were replaced by the more peaceful religious mystery plays. Where Christ's death was represented with the conventional acting devices (red paint in place of blood, etc.)Besides the gladiator contests, where the two groups of warriors would fight, on the circuses-churches' arenas combat with animals took place lions, bulls, bears, wild boars. Could it be that fighting animals was originally of a religious nature?The answer is probably as follows. In the XIII-XIV cc. the emperors who followed Royal Christianity, persecuted the Apostolic Christians. They were baited with animals and set on fire, notably, in full view of the public. The Scaligerian history speaks of it as the 'persecution of the first Christians' allegedly in the I-II cc. In fact it took place in the XIII century in the epoch of the Trojan War. That is why when after some time the czars established the religious Gladiator Games, there were two kinds of the bloody performances provisioned for in them . The first the fight between two groups of warriors representing Passions of Christ, his execution and the Trojan War as revenge. The second type the warriors fighting wild animals. Here they represented the hunting of the Apostolic Christians as admonition.

The reports from the 'ancient' sources become clear telling us that 'frequently among the condemned (from whom the gladiators were also recruited Author) were the CHRISTIANS REFUSING TO BESTOW GOD LIKE HONORS UPON THE EMPEROR' [589:1], p.163. It is all clear. The Gladiator contests with the animals is a form of execution of the Apostolic Christians who renounced the divinity of the Roman emperors, beside Andronicus-Christ.

What we learnt about the 16th-17th century from the "ancient" sources[edit | edit source]

Fig.70

In fig.70 we sum up our studies of the 'ancient' epoch of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. There is demonstrated an overlapping between the Roman Emperors and the Russian czars and rulers [RI], ch.12.

Galba <---> Simeon + Prince Dmitry (under Feodor Ioannovich),Otho <---> Boris Godunov,Vitellius <---> False Dmitry I,Vespasian <---> Vasilli Shuisky,Titus <---> Skopin-ShuiskyDomitian <---> False Dmitry II + Mikhail Romanov and also: King Herod + Andronicus-Christ.

Slanting broken arrows on the picture represent the overlapping of the 'ancient' and Russian rulers. The 'ancient' biography of Domitian is split into four parts, marked in fig.70 by the numbers 1,2,3,4.

Part 1 describes False Dmitry II, part 2 Mikhail Romanov; part 3 describes King Herod from the XII century; part 4 tells us of Andronicus-Christ from the XII century.

Feodor Ioannovich is lightly reflected in the works of the 'ancient classics'. Possibly as a result of circumstances, is made note of in the Romanov version as well. Feodor was perceived as a weak ruler who was under the strong influence of Boris Godunov. Probably for the 'ancient' authors Feodor's reign was 'covered' with the reign of Boris Godunov, who is reflected in their accounts under the name of Emperor Otho. On the other hand during Feodor's reign the infamous murder of Prince Dmitry took place, which was brought to the notice of the 'ancient' chroniclers and which was described by them in detail [RI]. As a result, Boris Godunov's strong personality and Dmitry's death, which astounded many, obscured the 'fainter Feodor Ioannovich in the eyes of the 'ancient' chroniclers.

In the epoch, reflected in fig.70, the correspondence between the duration of the reigns is greatly distorted. It is clear. As the subject matter is the Time of Troubles, the descriptions of which are muddled up and also distorted by the Romanov historians. Chaos in history bred chaos in the chronicles. At the same time the overall duration of the Time of Troubles approximately 30 years is the same both in the 'ancient' and in the Russian sources. Here we speak of the epoch of the 1584 -1613. After all the chronology generally survives, though the details got substantially deformed.

Fig.71
Fig.72

In fig.71 and fig.72 is represented a scheme of parallelism found by us, between the Russian czars-khans of 1530-1620 and the 'Ancient' Roman emperors of the Second Roman Empire of allegedly I century. We can clearly see that beginning with Fedor Ioannovich Russia-Horde plunges into the gravest strife. If prior to 1584 the correspondence of the durations of the reigns on the whole is not bad, then post 1584 the chroniclers start to get seriously confused. In particular, they 'compress' in time some of the reigns [RI], ch.12.

Fig.73

In fig.73 it is shown which epochs of the Russian-Horde history are described by Suetonius and Tacitus. Above are marked the reigns from Ivan IV to Mikhail Romanov. Below is indicated under which names they were reflected in works by Suetonius and Tacitus. Starting with a short biography of Augustus, Tacitus in detail tells us the story of the 'Ancient' Rome, i.e. Russia-Horde from the Seven Boyars of the first half of the XVI century to Vasily Shuiskii (Vespasian) and Skopin-Shuiskii (Titus). The Emperor Mikhail Romanov (Domitian) is not reflected by Tacitus any more. In other words, Cornelius Tacitus cut his narration short approximately at the year 1610.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus spans a slightly longer time interval. He begins with Julius Caesar and Augustus. Then he moves on to Tiberius (Ivan the Terrible) and continues his narration up to Domitian (Mikhail Romanov). Thus Suetonius advances slightly further than Tacitus, about ten years, and stops approximately at the year 1620, having illuminated the first part of Mikhail Romanov's reign.

The two initial biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus in the book by Suetonius are represented on the left in fig.73 by two triangles. In a similar way on the right are marked the fragments from his book referring to the last two plots from Domitian's 'biography'. To recap, here are described King Herod and Andronicus-Christ. In this place Suetonius skips back in time: from the XVII century into the XII century.

Besides, in fig.73 there is also shown 'volume (in years) of the description' by Suetonius of the various emperors-czars. To clarify. Suetonius' book consists of 12 'biographies', from Julius Caesar to Domitian. We calculated the volume (in pages) of each 'biography'. Having divided the resulting volume of life description by the number of years which each given czar reigned (according to the chronology of the Russian history) we received an average number of pages allocated by Suetonius for each year of his reign, fig.73. For example, the volume of description about Tiberius is not great, but, let's say, about Caligula rather large. Here we fall back on the fact that the Roman emperors are the reflections of the Russian czars. That is why, when calculating, the reign duration was taken as specified in the Russian sources.

In the case with Tacitus we did not calculate the volume of accounts, as in his work the life stories of the emperors are closely intertwined, and it is difficult to calculate their volume. That is why in fig.73 the chronological disposition of Tacitus' work is represented by a horizontal line of uniform thickness.

So, as it follows from fig.73, the main bulk of books by Suetonius and Tacitus is dedicated to the second half of the XVI early XVII century. Beyond this epoch remain just the biographies of Caesar, Augustus and the last part of Domitian's 'biography'. All these fragments date from the second half of the XII to early XIII century.

We can see that for Suetonius, Tacitus and Flavius the events of the XVI-XVII cc. were vital. They wrote keenly, taking everything close to heart. It is understandable. They lived in the turbulent times of the Reformation and the events of their generations and the preceding one's were of the utmost importance to them.

Fig. 74

In fig.74 see the general picture of the parallelism which we discovered [RI], ch.12. On the left are depicted the Second Rome and the Third Roman Empires spanning the period from the I century BC to the middle of the VI century (in Scaligerian dating). On the right there is shown the chronology of Czar-Grad and the Russian-Horde Kingdom from 1000 to 1620. Between the dates on the right and on the left there is an approximately 1050 years shift. It is one of the main shifts discovered by A.T.Fomenko [1v], [2v]. To remind, the Second Rome and the Third Rome are the phantom reflections of the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIII-XVII cc. Therefore they duplicate each other to a great extent.

In fig. 74 we can see that with a shift of approximately 1050 years the dates of the Battle of Kulikovo of 1380 and the 'ancient' battle between Constantine and Maxentius of allegedly 312 perfectly coincide [TsRIM], [ZA].

THE CONCLUSIONS. The 'Ancient' Roman history of the I century is a phantom reflection of the events of the XVI-XVII cc. unfolded in Russia-Horde, the metropoly of the Great Empire. The Russian sovereign rulers 'Ivan the Terrible', Dmitry, Godunov, 'False Dmitry', Vasily Shuisky, Prince Skopin-Shuisky, czar Mikhail Romanov reflected in the 'ancient world' are the famous emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.

The works of Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Titus Flavius Josephus narrate the events of the XVI-XVII cc. unfolding mainly in Russia-Horde and Western Europe. These 'ancient writers' lived in the epoch of the XVII century. The events of the Reformation mattered deeply to them. They witnessed the grandiose turning point in history the breakup of the Great Empire. 45. THE 'MOST ANCIENT' IRANIAN EPIC POEM SHAHNAMEH IS THE CHRONICLE OF THE GREAT EMPIRE OF XII-XVII CC.

The poet Ferdowsi is considered to be the author of the 'ancient' long epic poem Persian Shahnameh (six large volumes in the academic edition) the crowning glory of world culture. The surviving manuscripts of Shahnameh happen to be written not earlier than the XIII-XIV cc [ShAH], ch.1. The full text allegedly was created in the XV century. Beginning with the XVI century allegedly the Shahnameh epic poem becomes fairly well-known. Europe became acquainted with the epic poem only in the XVIII century. However, even in the XIX century various versions of Shahnameh were still circulating. Taking into account our knowledge of the dates shifting by 100, 300, 400 years, it appears that the epic poem Shahnameh was compiled and eventually written down not earlier than the XVI-XVII cc. It was based on the Persian legends of the XII-XVI cc. We are told that the original sources, which Shahnameh is based on, were 'for some reason' destroyed. It is possible that the editors who were creating Shahnameh in the XVII-XVIII cc. based it on the Old Iranian chronicles and adapted them in the Reformist way. We are already familiar with this by the example of Herodotus, Plutarch, Thucydides, Tacitus, Titus Livy, Suetonius, Xenophon, Aristophanes and others. After editing, the old texts were either destroyed (in order to conceal the true story), or were treated as worthless rubbish, and therefore the chronicles were abandoned and soon disintegrated.

The epic poem Shahnameh is sometimes called Iranian and sometimes Persian. We use both terms without disputing them.

We discovered that the beginning of Shahnameh consists of the seven repeated accounts about one and the same Emperor Andronicus-Christ. He is reflected as the 'ancient' Iranian kings: Abu-Mansur, Keyumars, Siyamak, Jamshid, Merdas, Zahhak, Fereydun. Whereas the Iranian king Husheng is Achilles, aka Siegfried. To remind you, Achilles and Siegfried are the reflections of the Grand Prince Sviatoslav.

The Battle of Kulikovo of 1380 turns out to be one of the most famous events in the Old Iranian chronicle of the Empire. The 'ancient' Iranian king Fereydun is the reflection of the Russian Prince Dmitry Donskoy. Furthermore, the well-known inventor of gun powder Berthold Schwarz is the reflection of The Venerable Sergius of Radonezh (Sergey Radonezhsky), who invented gunpowder and cannons, on the pages of the Western-European chronicles. The legendary 'ancient' Iranian Kave the Blacksmith is also the reflection of Sergius of Radonezh.

'Ancient' Iranian heroes Zal and young Rustam are two other partial reflections of the Emperor Andronicus-Christ (Andrey Bogolyubskii) from the XII century. The legend of Zal and Rudaba is a reflection of the legend of the Holy Spirit, Christ and Virgin Mary Mother of God. The Annunciation, Immaculate Conception and caesarean section are all mentioned in the Shahnameh. The young Rustam is described as the 'Greek Hercules',i.e once again as Andronicus-Christ.

The four reflections of the story of Esther (Elena Volshanka) from the XVI and also Ivan the Terrible's Livonian War appeared on the pages of the 'ancient' Persian epic poem Shahnameh. Besides, Ferdowsi describes Andrey Kurbsky's betrayal and the construction of Moscow as The Empire's capital. Where adult Rustam is the reflection of Ivan the Terrible and his son Sohrab is the reflection of Ivan the Young, Ivan the Terrible's son.

The story of Prince Kurbsky is given a detailed account by Ferdowsi as a tale of 'Siyavush' who changed sides from his king to his opponents. It takes place in the beginning of the Livonian War between Ivan the Terrible and Western Europe, which was reflected in Shahnameh. It also describes the fear of Western Europe before the invasion of Ivan the Terrible's army and the treachery of Prince Kurbsky.

The construction of Moscow as a capital by Ivan the Terrible is described in the Shahnameh as the creation of the Turanian capital 'Gong', and also the building of the city of 'Siavashgird' ("the round city of Siavash", and Gong ("Giant" Castle Tr.)Furthermore the Livonian War and the Times of Troubles in Russia in the XVI-XVII cc. are described by Ferdowsi as the 'ancient' wars between Iran and Tiran. The Turanian King Afrasiab is a reflection of Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov. The Russian-Horde Prince Dmitry, falsely declared by the Romanovs as an Impostor, is presented in the Shahnameh as the rightful 'ancient' king Kai (or Kay) Khosrow. Besides, information about Ivan the Terrible (= Vasili the Blessed) are incorporated into the ending of the story about Kai Khosrow once again. Several reflections of the Livonian War and several reflections of the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrey Kurbsky on the pages of the Shahnameh are very interesting.

The Madness of Kai Khosrow is the madness of Ivan the Terrible = the biblical Nebuchadnezzar = the Emperor Charles. King Khosrow displaying and then giving his treasures away is a famous scene shortly preceding Ivan the 'Terrible's death [ShAH], ch.6. The Iranian story of the most 'ancient' king Gushtasp is another narration about False Dmitry from the early XVII century [ShAH], ch.7. The construction of the 'Crystal Town' under Persian king Lohrasp (Ivan the 'Terrible') is the erection of the Moscow Kremlin.

The 'ancient' Zoroastrianism is Royal Christianity of the XII-XIII cc. and the Russian Orthodox Christianity up until the XVII century. Presumably Zoro-astr = Czar of the East is another reflection of Andronicus-Christ. Perhaps, the name Zar=Astr was interpreted also as Czar-Star, as ASTRA means a 'star'. It is appropriate for Christ, who sometimes was called the Sun, and with whose Nativity the flare of the Star of Bethlehem is associated. This star was included in the symbol of Czar-Grad and later became a part of the Symbolism of Islam: a crescent and a star.

So, the ancient Persian (P-Russian) Cult of Fire originated in Royal Christianity of the XII-XIII cc. and was an important part of the Russian Orthodox Christianity up until the XVII century. It was abolished after the XVII century church reform in Russia. But in some provinces of the Great Empire, in particular on the territory of modern Iran (Persia), it has transformed, absorbed some local traditions and existed up until the XIX-XX cc., giving rise to the contemporary sects of Zoroastrianism. Today the archaeologists and historians when discovering traces of the cult in Iran and its neighbouring countries erroneously date them to the deepest antiquity and think that it was here that at some point that Zoroastianiam originated. It is a misconception based on the incorrect Scaligerian chronology and geography.

The Iranian Prince Goshtasp the son of Lohrasp (Ivan the 'Terrible') is Prince Dmitry, who was later declared by the Romanovs to be an Imposter. The Prince's flight from his motherland to its enemies. The Prince's wandering. The marriage of the fugitive prince to a daughter of the foreign ruler. The 'ancient' Princess Ketayun (or Myrin?) is Marina Mnishek from the XVII century.

Unlike the Romanov version the Iranian Epos clearly states that the fugitive Prince Goshtasp (Dmitry) was never an imposter. He was a genuine prince, a son of the king Lohrasp. This perfectly corresponds with our results, according to which 'False' Dmitry was the true son of Ivan the Terrible. Thus we yet again catch the Romanov editors red handed. The distortion introduced by them vividly surfaces when compared with the independent sources.

The beginning of the military invasion of Dmitry into Russia in the XVII century is described in the Shahnameh as the 'Goshtasp slaying a wolf-dragon', and also as the 'second fight of Goshtasp with the dragon'.

Prince Goshtasp returns to Iran, replaces Lohrasp and becomes the King of Iran. Here is given an account of the Time of Troubles in Russia: the sudden death of Boris Godunov and seizure of power by False Dmitry. It could also be a 'peculiar' handover of power to Simeon Bekbulatovich.

Introduction of a new religion - Zoroastrianism - in Iran, which bread disturbance and discontent among the people. It is the reflection of the attempts to introduce Catholicism to Russia in the early XVII century under False Dmitry or the reflection of the story of Esther from the XVI century, when power was seized by the heretics in Russia.

The emergence of Iskandar = Alexander the Great in the epoch of Goshtasp is the reflection of the sultan Suleiman the Magnificent from the XVI century.

The 'ancient' Persian description of the life of Eskandar (Alexander the Great) is the sum of several layers: first Andronicus-Christ from the XII century, then biblical Moses from the XV century and Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror from the XV century, and finally Suleiman the Magnificent from the XVI century.

Fig.75
Fig.76

The siege and conquest of biblical Jericho = Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus with the use of cannons reflected in the life description of Iskandar = Alexander the Great. At the same time we found out what is the famous 'iron wall to defend against Gog and Magog' built by Alexander the Great?The final part of the 'most ancient' Shahnameh narrates about the events of the XVII-XVIII cc., fig.75, fig.76 [ShAH], ch.9.

44 reflections of Ivan the Terrible, which we discovered in the Scaligerian history[edit | edit source]

IVAN IV VASILIEVICH THE TERRIBLE 1533-1547-1584. In fact under the one name the 'Terrible' there are four Czars-Khans put together. They are Ivan IV 1547-1553, then Dmitry 1553-1563, then Ivan V 1563-1572, and finally Simeon (Sain-Bulat) Bekbulatovich (the royal name - Ivan) 1572-1584 [4v]. The following personas are the phantom reflections.

1) IVAN III VASILIEVICH GROZNY (THE TERRIBLE) THE GREAT 1462-1505.

2) VASILI BLAZHENY (BASIL THE BLESSED OR FOOL FOR CHRIST) (aka PARFENII YURODIVY (THE HOLY FOOL) allegedly Ivan The Terrible's pseudonym), i.e. THE BLESSED CZAR (and also holy IVAN THE BLESSED, Moscow miracle-worker is the reflection of Ivan IV (1547-1553). Czar Ivan IV in the end of his life, in 1553, fell ill, withdrew from state affairs and became a blessed fool. [4], [6v].

3) VSEVOLOD 1139-1146 in Kievan Rus' (Kiev Russia). The reflection of Ivan IV 1547-1553. This is the first phase of the 'Terrible Czar' [4v].

4) IZYASLAV 1146-1155 (1154) in Kievan Rus'. The reflection of minor Dmitry 1553-1563. This is the second phase of the 'Terrible Czar'.

6) YURI DOLGORUKIY 1148-1157 (partial) in Kievan Rus'. The reflection of adolescent Czar Ivan; during his reign the Zakharyin-Yurievs and the oprichnina 1563-1572. This is the third phase of the 'Terrible Czar'.

4) MSTISLAV IZYASLAVOVICH + IZYASLAV DAVYDOVICH 1157-1169 in Kievan Rus'. The reflection of Simeon-Ivan 1572-1584. This is the fourth and final phase of the 'Terrible'.

5) VASILI III (partial) the Russian-Horde Czar-Khan, the XV century [6v].

6) IVAN OVCHINA (Obolenskii-Telepnev) (partial), Elena Glinskaya's favourite, the XV century [6v].

7) VSEVOLOD YAROSLAVICH, erroneously dated to the XI century [4], [7v1].

8) CASIMIR LITOVSKY (CASIMIR OF LITHUANIA) [4v], [7v1]. 9) CHARLES V 1519-1556 according to [304], v.3, p.27, or 1519-1558 according to [76]. Allegedly 'Western-European' Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire [6].

10) FERDINAND of HABSBURG 1558-1564 according to [76].

11) MAXIMILLIAN II 1564-1576, the reflection of Khan Simeon [7v1].

12) FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA the 'German' Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, allegedly years 1125-1152-1190 [6v].

13) FREDERICK II the German Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, allegedly years 1194-1211-1250 [6v].

14) FREDERICK III of HABSBURG 1440-1493 according to [76], [7v1].

15) NEBUCHADNEZZAR a famous 'ancient' Assyrian and Babylonian king, described in the Bible [6v].

16) ARTAXERXES I LONGIMANUS (= DOLGORUKII (translates as LONG HAND) (his other names are: ASVER, ASSWER (or Ahasverus? Achashverosh? Ahasweros?) AND ASSUERUS) famous 'ancient' king of Persia. Described in the Bible [6v].

17) ARTAXERXEX II MNEMON (ARSICAS, OARSES) king of Persia, allegedly a 'grandson' of King Artaxerxes Longimanus (Artaxerxes I). Described by Plutarch [6v].

18) PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHUS (partial) 'ancient-Egypt' king [6v].

19) QUETZALCOATL Mediaeval king of the American K'iche' Maya Indians and a Toltec king [ZA], ch.8.

20) BELSHAZZAR (OR BALTHAZAR) a king of Babylon and Persia who 'saw the writing on the wall'. Described in the Bible [6v]. 21) THE ELDER who made an attempt to falsely accuse the beautiful Susanna of promiscuity (or Shoshana). Described in the Bible Book of Daniel [6v].

22) TIMUR - TAMERLANE (partial) the famous conqueror [6v].

23) MEHMED II THE CONQUEROR (partial, the XV century [6v], [PRRK], ch.4.

24) HENRY II DUKE OF ORLEANS King of France, the XVI century [7v1].

25) HENRY VIII (A BLUEBEARD) the English king (1509-1547) [7v1], [ShEK], ch.5.

26) MAXIMILIAN II - as Western-European reflection of Khan Simeon-Ivan Beckbulatovich [7v1].

27) In the history of 'Ancient' Rome Ivan the Terrible is reflected as a 'quartet'; of famous emperors: TIBERIUS + CALIGULA + CLAUDIUS + NERO [1v]. Essentially parallels between them are as follows; (though here and there is some confusion), see paragraphs 28-31: Ivan Blazhenny (the Blessed) 1547-1553; Dmitry Ivanovich 1553-1563; Ivan Ivanovich 1563-1572; Simeon-Ivan Beckbulatovich 1572-1584. It appears that in the 'classic ancient' literature they are reflected as:28) TIERIUS, allegedly (years) 14-37,29) CALIGULA, allegedly (years) 37-41,30) CLAUDIUS, allegedly (years) 41-54,31) NERO, allegedly (years) 54-68.

Certain elements of 'Ivan the Terrible's life descriptions are fantastically played out between these four phantoms sometimes in a contravention of chronology. But on the whole the stream of the main events remained intact [RI].

32) HENRY IV, allegedly 1053-1106 [1v].

33) PARIKSHIT the 'ancient' Indian rajah, a king of the Ikshvaku dynasty. Described in the Indian Epic the Mahabharata [KAZ], ch.1.

34) CAMBYSES - a famous king of 'ancient' Persia (son of Cyrus). Described by Herodotus [za], ch.5. To clarify. Cambyses (or Cyrus), the king of Persia is Ivan the Terrible or Ivan the Younger, and the Egyptian princess Nitesis is Esther = Elena Voloshanka. The successful Egyptian campaign of 'ancient' Cambyses is either the conquest of Czar-Grad in 1453 or the conquest of Kazan in 1552. The siege and crushing defeat of Memphis by king Cambyses is the siege and defeat of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible. The destiny of Psammetichus, king of Egypt is the reflection of the fate of Khan Ediger of Kazan who was captured by Ivan the Terrible. The treason of 'ancient' Phanes is Prince Kurbskys treason. Cambyses' insanity is the 'madness' of Ivan the Terrible. King Cambyses' failed military campaigns is the unsuccessful Livonian War of Ivan the Terrible. Death of Prince Dmitry Ivan the Terrible's co-ruler is described by Herodotus as Smerdis' death, who was seated at the royal throne in Cambyses' 'dream'. The story of the Russian metropolitan Phillip was also vividly reflected on the pages of Herodotus' 'Histories'. Hordian False Dmitry from the early XVII century and the beginning of the Times of Troubles in Russia-Horde was described by Herodotus in considerable detail.

It is curious that Herodotus' point of view on 'False' Dmitry is close to that of the Romanovs'. It appears that the Western-European Herodotus used a version invented by the Romanovs for both external and domestic use. By the way, Dmitry's mother, in monasticism Marfa, and Marina Mnisheck from the XVII century, False Dmitry's wife, are both described by 'classic' Herodotus in his famous 'Histories' under the same name of Fedima, the wife of False Smerdis. Preksasp, an 'ancient' Persian, whom Herodotus is telling us about, is also the reflection of Vasili Shuisky and clerk Timofei Osipov from early XVII century.

Finally, the 'classic' story by Herodotus about the death of a noble Persian Intaphrenes is a story about the death of the famous Prince Skopin-Shuisky in 1610.

35) XERXES the famous 'ancient' Persian king (the king of kings) [ZA], ch.7. The famous Greco-Persian war of allegedly the V century BC and Xerxes' failed punitive campaign in Hellas is the lost Livonian war of Ivan the Terrible from the XVI century. Consequently the last three books of the 'Histories' by Herodotus were devoted to the second, but this time a more detailed account of Ivan the Terrible's Livonian war.

To elaborate. The preliminary suppression of the revolt in Egypt is Ivan the Terrible's conquest of Kazan. The debates between Xerxes' councillors on the expedience of the campaign in Hellas are the debates in Ivan the Terrible's court on the subjects of the declaration of the Livonian war. The short lived accession to the Russian throne of Simeon Beckbulatovich is the temporary accession to the Persian throne of Artabanus. Xerxes' famous bridge crossing the Hellespont is Ivan the Terrible's crossing of the Volga. The death of the 300 famous Spartans of king Leonidas is the death of the Mediaeval detachment of the knights (the members of the Livonian order) of commander-in-chief Philipp Bell. 'Ancient' Thermopylae is the Western-European Fellin (Viljandi castle Tr.). Spartan King Leonidas is the German commander in chief Philip Bell, and the perished Spartans are perished German knights. 'Ancient' traitor Demaratus at Xerxes' court is Prince Andrey Kurbsky who betrayed Ivan the Terrible. The Spartan King Cleomenes is another reflection of Ivan the Terrible.

The famous Cossack chieftain Yermak Timofeyev from the second half of the XVI century was described by Herodotus as a Spartan Prince Dorieus, a half-brother to King Cleomenes = Ivan the Terrible. The heart of the chronicle account of Yermak's conquest of Siberia is the colonization of America by Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Atamania) in the XV-XVI cc.

Xerxes' retreat from Hellas is Ivan the Terrible's army's retreat from Livonia. The Persians' defeat in the Battle of Plataea is the defeat of the Russians at Polotsk. Death of the Persian general Mardonius is the death of notorious Malyuta Skuratov. He is the very same biblical Holofernes. The 'ancient' Persian Tiribaz during the rule of Artaxerxes is another reflection of Prince Andrey Kurbsky in the pages of Plutarch.

36) ARTABANUS the chief official of Xerxes, who was temporarily enthroned by Xerxes, is a reflection of Khan Simeon Beckbulatovich, i.e. 'the fourth period of the Terrible Czar' [ZA], ch.7.

37) CLEOMENES 'ancient' Spartan king. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.

38) JUAN (KHAN) MILLAN an old mad astrologer, who authoritatively influenced' Governor Diego Velasquez during the expedition of conquistador Cortes (Ataman Yermak) to America [ZA], ch.8.

39) FRANCESCILIO 'an old lunatic' who 'strongly influenced' the Governor Diego Velasquez. Mentioned by Bernal Diaz [ZA], ch.8.

40) INCITATUS THE 'HORSE' of the Roman emperor Caligula, which he 'introduced to the senate'. It is the reflection of Khan Simeon Beckbulatovich (of Ivan the Terrible) [RI], ch.5.

41) GALBA (partial) 'Ancient' Roman Emperor [RI], ch.7.

42) ROSTAM or RUSTAM (partial) is the epic Persian 'ancient' hero. Described in the Epic of Shahnameh [ShAH], ch.5.

43) KEY KAVUS 'ancient' Iranian shah (a mythological shah of Iran) [ShAH], ch.5.

44) AFRASIAB (partial) 'ancient' shah of Turan. Described in the Epic Shahnameh [ShAH], ch.5.

45) KAI KHOSROW (OR KAY KHOSROW) 'ancient' Iranian shah [ShAH], ch.5.

46) LOHRASP (partial) 'ancient' Iranian shah, Khan Simeon Beckbulatovich's duplicate, i.e. the 'fourth period' of Ivan the Terrible, ch.5.

47) KING LEAR (LEIR) 'ancient' English ruler described by Geoffrey of Monmouth (Latin: Galfridus Monemutensis Tr.) and Shakespeare [ShAK], ch.1.

48) THE FOOL, who accompanies King Lear is the reflection of Parfeny Yurodivy (Parthenius the Fool-in-Christ) - the name given to Ivan the Terrible at Baptising (Vasily Blazhenny Basil the Blessed or Holy Fool for Christ). Later the historians erroneously decided that this name was Ivan the Terrible's 'pseudonym' [ShAK], ch.1.

49) DUKE OF ALBANY (partial) - a contemporary of King Lear, [ShAK], ch.1. 47. FOURTEEN REFLECTIONS OF THE LAWFUL WIFE OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE.

'Either Seven or six wives of Ivan the Terrible' (Anastasia Zakharyina Romanova; Princess Kucenej, who after her baptism into the Russian Orthodox Christianity, took the name of Maria; Marfa Sobakina; Anna Koltovskaya; Anna Vasilchikova; Vasilisa Melentyeva; Maria Dolgorukaya; Maria Nagaya) are: ONE wife of Ivan IV the Terrible Anastasia Romanova, b) THREE wives of his son Ivan Ivanovich, c) ONE wife of Czar Fedor Irina Godunova, d) ONE or TWO wives of Khan Simeon-Ivan. The following characters are the phantom reflections:1) SOFIA PALAIOLOGINA the wife of Ivan III the Terrible, pushed aside by Elena Voloshanka [6v].

2) VASHTI the 'ancient' queen, the wife of the King Artaxerxes of Persia, later she was pushed aside by Esther [6v].

3) STATEIRA the first wife of Artaxerxes II Mnemon, allegedly a 'grandson' of King Artaxerxes Makrocheir of Persia. Described by Plutarch.

4) CATHERINE DE MEDICI the famous Queen consort of the 'French' King Henry II, pushed aside by Diane de Poitiers, XVI century [7v1].

5) ELIZABETH (I) TUDOR the famous 'English' queen, 1533-1603 [7v1].

6) CATHERINE OF ARAGON (1485 1536 Queen from 1509) wife of the 'English' King Henry III, pushed aside by Anne Boleyn (Esther) [7v1], [ShEK], ch.5.

7) THE WIFE OF KING CAMBYSES I (OR CYRUS), pushed aside by a young beautyhetaerae Nitesis (Esther). Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.58) (CLAUDIA) OCTAVIA a noble 'ancient' Roman lady, loyal wife of Emperor Nero (Ivan the Terrible) [RI], ch.2.

9) PASIPHAE the wife of 'ancient' Cretan King Minos [RI], ch.2.

10) AGRIPPINA the wife of Roman Emperor Tiberius [RI], ch.3.

11) LAWFUL WIFE of Roman Emperor Caligula [RI], ch.5.

12) PLAUTIA URGULANILLA or AELIA PAETINA two lawful wives of Roman Emperor Claudius, pushed aside later on by the promiscuous Messalina [RI], ch.6.

13) JARIREH - a lawful wife of the 'ancient' Iranian Siavash, pushed aside by Ferigees. Described in Epos Shahnameh [ShAKh), ch.5.

14) CORDELIA King Lear's 'daughter', pushed aside by her two 'sisters'. Described by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Shakespeare [ShAK), ch.1.

48. THIRTY EIGHT REFLECTIONS OF ELENA VOLOSHANKA = BIBLICAL ESTHER.

ELENA STEFANOVNA VOLOSHANKA wife of Czarevich Ivan the Young, son of Czar Ivan III the Terrible [6v]. Her phantom reflections are the following characters.

1)ESTHER (HADASSAH) a Jewess, adopted daughter and a relative of Mordecai, a new wife of Artaxerxes after the banishment of Queen Vashti. Described in the Bible [6v].

2)ATOSSA the second wife of Artaxerxes Mnemnon who replaced Statira. Replaced by Plutarch [6].

3)JUDITH a Jewess, who killed Assyrian general Holofernes. Described in the Bible [6v].

4)YAEL a Jewess, who killed general Sisera(a duplicate of Holofernes) having driven a tent peg (with a mallet) through his temple. Described in the Bible [6v].

5)ELENA GLINSKAYA (partial), the wife of Russian Czar-Khan Vasili III, a 'young Lithuanian' [6v].

6)WIFE OF YAROPOLK AND VLADIMIR, the Russian princes, allegedly the X century [6v].

7)SUSANNA Biblical beauty, whose honour was besmirched by the two old judges. Described in the Old Testament Book of Daniel [6v].

8)JEZEBEL (partial) Queen of Israel. Described in the Bible [7v1].

9)DIANE DE POITIERS, the former Countess de Brézé, the wife of the Grand Sénéchal of Normandy and later the infamous lover of Henry II, who 'pushed aside' Catherine de Medici [7v1].

10)MARY STUART well-known Queen of Scotland (1542-1587)[7v1].

11)ANNE BOLEYN (1507-1536, Queen of England from 1533), originally a lady-in-waiting to Catherine of Aragon, and then a lover and a wife of King Henry VIII 'of England'. She replaced Catherine of Aragon [7v1], [ShAK].

12)FROG PRINCESS, at first a lover, and then a wife of the 'Ancient' Indian maharaja Parikshit (= Ivan the Terrible). Described in the Indian Epic the Mahabharata [KAZ], ch.1.

13)ISTAR = ISHTAR (ASTARTE) THE 'Ancient' Babylonian goddess, allegedly the third millennia BC [KAZ], ch.1.

14)SUKANYA the ' Ancient' Indian princess, the honour of which was attempted by the two demigods Ashwini Kumaras. Described in the Indian Epos the Mahabharata [KAZ], ch.1.

15)NITETIS a foreigner-Egyptian, who pushed aside the wife of the King Cambyses (or Cyrus) and became his concubine and wife. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.5.

16)ATOSSA a cunning wife of the 'Ancient' Persian King Cambyses II. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.5.

17)'ANCIENT' NOBLE WOMAN, connected with the death of a Persian military commander Mardonius in Xerxes' army - is the Old Testament Judith, who killed the Assyrioan Holofernes = Malyuta Skuratov [ZA], ch.7.

18) ARTAINTA lover of King Xerxes (a young wife of his son Darius), for whom Xerxes sets aside his lawful wife. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.

19)ASENATH (ASENITH) WIFE OF THE Egyptian courtier (a priest and a prince) Potiphar (Potipherah), second in command after pharaoh in Ancient Egypt. Asenath wished to seduce Biblical Joseph the Fair, but failed. Described in the Bible. Some consider Asenath to be a wife of Joseph and a daughter of Potiphar [PE], ch.5.

20)ZULEIKA or RA'IL wife of Kitfir or Itfir (Biblical Potiphar). Slandered by her Joseph the Fair finds himself in prison. Zuleika is a character from the Arabic and Persian Epic Literature [PE], ch.5.

21)AGRIPPINA (partial) mother of Roman Emperor Nero the reflection of Elena Glinskaya, mother of Ivan the Terrible. She is also partially Esther [RI], ch.2.

22)POPPAEA SABINA 'Ancient' Roman noble woman, who pushed aside Octavia, the lawful wife of Emperor Nero (Ivan the Terrible) [RI), ch.2.

23)EUNUCH SPORUS 'wife' of Roman Emperor Nero [RI], ch.2.

24)ARIADNE daughter of 'ancient' King Minos [RI], ch.2.

25)JULIA the second wife of Roman Emperor Tiberius, who pushed aside his first wife Agrippina [RI], ch.3.

26)DRUSILLA lover and then wife to Emperor Tiberius, his cousin [RI], ch.5.

27)(CASSIUS) CHAEREA Roman tribune with 'female passwords', who organized a plot against Emperor Caligula and murdered him. Duplicate of the story of Judith who slayed Biblical Holofernes [RI], ch.5.

28)VALERIA MESSALINA well-known harlot, wife of Emperor Claudius, who pushed aside his two previous wives [RI], ch.6.

29)FAUSTA a cunning wife of Emperor Constantine the Great [ShAKh], ch.3.

30)TACHMINA 'Ancient' Iranian princess, who seduced Rostam the hero (Ivan the Terrible).Described in the Iranian-Persian Epic Shahnameh.

31)GORDAFARID a cunning Iranian beauty- female warrior, duplicate of Esther and Judith [ShAKh], ch.5.

32)TURANINA BEAUTY, mother of the hero Siavash. Duplicate of the story of Susanna=Esther [ShAKh], ch.5.

33)SUDABEH wife of the Shah, Kay Kavus, who fell in love with his son and unsuccessfully tries to seduce Siavash. Duplicate of the Biblical story of Joseph the Fair [ShAKh], ch.5.

34)FERIGEES a new Turanian wife of Iranian Prince Siavash, who pushed aside his lawful wife [ShAKh], ch.5.

35)MENIJEH beloved of 'Ancient' Iranian knight Bijan [ShAKh], ch.5.

36)GONERIL AND REGAN the two 'daughters' of King Lear correspond with a 'bad couple': Elene Voloshanka (aka Biblical Esther) and Ivan the Young, the son of Ivan the Terrible. Here the English chroniclers 'turned' (on paper) a man into a woman [ShAK], ch.1.

37)The last years of CORDELIA'S rule (partial) in the description by Geoffrey of Monmouth (but not by Shakespeare!) is a version of the story of Elena Glinskaya, i.e. the reflection of Esther (Elena Voloshanka) [ShAK], ch.1.

38) GERTRUDE (partial) mother of Prince Hamlet. Described by Saxo Grammaticus and William Shakespeare [ShAK], ch.2.

11 reflections of Andrey Kurbsky[edit | edit source]

Prince ANDREY KURBSKY, originally a friend, but later the enemy of Ivan IV the Terrible. The following characters are his phantom reflections.

1) ACHIOR Assyrian military official who betrayed Nebuchadnezzar and general Holophernes. Described in the Bible in the Book of Judith [6v].

2) MAURICE OF SAXONY Elector. At first he was one of the closest supporters of Emperor Charles V, but later became his enemy [7v1].

3) PHANES a military commander of the 'Ancient' Persian King Cambyses, who betrayed him during the conquest of Egypt. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.5.

4) DEMARATUS 'ancient' courtier, traitor in the court of King Xerxes of Persia. He betrayed the king during the war between the Persians and the Greeks [ZA], ch.7.

5) DEMARATUS, the son of Ariston, the second Spartan King, who was at the head of the Lacedaemonian army together with Cleomenes (= Ivan the Terrible). Later Demaratus became the enemy of King Cleomenes. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.

6) TIRIBAZ 'ancient' Persian courtier under Artaxerxes, who betrayed the king. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.

7) CORBULO 'Ancient' Roman military commander in the army of Emperor Nero during the seizure of Artaxata ( = Kazan) [RI], ch.2.

8) And once again CORBULO, but this time in the biography of Emperor Claudius, yet another reflection of Ivan the Terrible [RI], ch.6.

9) VINDEX 'ancient' military commander, who betrayed Nero [RI], ch.2.

10)ARTABANUS (partial) King of Parthia. His correspondence with Tiberius [RI], ch.3.

11)SIAVASH (PARTIAL) Iranian Prince, defecting from his king to his enemies. Correspondence between Siavash (=Kurbsky) and the Shah Kay Kavus (= Ivan the Terrible) [ShAKh], ch.5.

The astronomical dating of the new chronology[edit | edit source]

1. (1513) HERCULES ZODIAC GP TWELVE LABOURS OF HERCULES. It appears that the 'classical' descriptions of labours of Hercules recorded the details of the location of the planets in the Zodiac. The Myths of Europa, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 17-21 November 1513 [GRK], ch.2.

2. (1524) ZODIAC PD OF GIUSTO FROM PADUA = THE BAPTISTERYZODIAC.

Depicted on the Christian fresco, which is a part of the painting in the dome drum of the Baptistery. Italy, Padua, the Baptistery, allegedly 1378. In fact: the 7 March 1524 [TsRIM]ch.1.

3. (1526) ZODIAV PG OF IVAN IV THE TERRIBLE. Russia, Moscow. The zodiac is depicted on the Czar's throne. It is portable royal throne in the form of an armchair with armrests entirely covered with carved plates of ivory. The throne is kept in the Armoury Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. The astronomical dating of the horoscope: 9 February 1526 [RI], ch.2, [ERIZ]. Compiling Birthday horoscopes was popular in XVI-XVII cc. in Western Europe. The astrologers were exceptionally zealous in compiling horoscopes for the rulers. That is why it is most likely that in this case on the Czar's throne a horoscope for his birthday is also depicted. It appears that Czar Ivan IV was born on the 9 February 1526. But then it emerges that Ivan IV was born four years earlier than is thought today. This fact points out that the Russian chronicles in existence today are the later editions manufactured in the XVII-XVIII cc. amongst the narrow circle of forgers. The Romanovs, the usurpers, required such a version of Russian history, one which would justify their right to the throne and would simultaneously compliment the all European programme of historical distortion. The Romanovs of the XVII-XVIII cc. were the Western minions on the Russian throne and depended entirely on West Europe.

4. (1546) ZODIAC DP OF HENRY II AND DIANE DE POITIERS. Depicted on the old French Gobelin tapestry. France, allegedly circa 1550. Astronomical dating: 28 February 1 March 1546 [ERIZ].

5. (1586 or 1289) ZODIAC RS FROM PHARAOH RAMSES VI TOMB. The image on the ceiling of the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, the Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first solution: 4-5 February 1289; the second solution: 20-21 February according to Julian Calendar 1586 [NHE].