How It Really Was/Reconstruction of genuine history/17th century

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The failed attempt of the restoration and the new height of the unrest. The Romanovs rise to power[edit | edit source]

For some time the revolt in Russia-Horde is worn down. The Oprichnina is destroyed and the Horde power is temporarily, for approximately 25-30 years, restored under the rule of the branch of the old Horde dynasty. It comprises – Simeon-Ivan, followed by Feodor Ivanovich, and then Boris 'Godunov'.

However it was too late. The Protestants firmly established themselves at the Russian-Horde royal court. It is shortly followed by a new large scale revolt of the early XVII c. The Protestant party regains power once again. The royal throne is seized by the Romanovs, their undisguised minion. But resistance of the remnants of Russia-Horde continues up until the end of the XVIII c. (Pugachev's Rebellion).

Horde's penultimate attempt to return to power was the so called 'Razin Uprising', which in fact was a war between the two splinter-states of the former Empire. Namely between Moscow state, where the Romanovs (the rebel boyars) were already in power, and the South Russian Astrakhan state, where the descendants of the Horde dynasty still remained in command. Stepan Timofeyevich Razin was Commander of the Astrakhan Horde army. The Romanovs heavily relied on the military support of Western Europe. Their most reliable troops were Reiter regiments, streltsy (riflemen) comprised of Western mercenaries [4v1], ch.9:4. The war ends with the defeat of the Horde army and the incorporation of the Astrakhan Czardom to Moscow. Nevertheless there still remained a vast Russian Horde Kingdom cutting across the whole of Siberia, the Far East and the most significant part of the North American continent. It was called Muscovite (or Russian) Tartary. It was conquered by the Romanovs and the United States only at the end of the XVIII c., following the Romanovs' victory over 'Pugachev' [4v1], ch.11:2.

Thus, in 1605 The Time of Troubles began in Russia. In 1613 a sharp turning point took place – the pro-Western dynasty of the Romanovs-Zakharyin-Yurievs' ascent to the throne.

The Romanovs banished the Cossack Horde from Moscovy. This was the end of the Old Russian dynasty. The remains of the defiant troops of the Old Empire were pushed away from Moscovy. As a result today we see the Cossack regions not in the centre of Russia, but far away. All of these Cossack regions are the legacy of Russia-Horde. For example, Kazakhstan is simply Cossack-Stan, i.e. a Cossack region, a Cossack site.

Fig.77

As a result of the Romanovs' open pro-Western policy and the weakening of Russia itself, the 'Mongol' Empire splits into several states – Russia, Turkey, Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, France, Spain, Egypt, England, Middle East, Persia, China, Japan, India, America and some other European, Asian and African countries, fig.77.

The turning of the Romanovs' Russia and Turkey against each other as the two halves of the former empire[edit | edit source]

But for Western Europe there still existed the danger of overcoming the crisis in Russia. The success of the Reformation rebellion was not secured and largely depended on the caprice of the Moscow Czar Romanov, though he was the ally of Western Europe. He might be a supporter today, but tomorrow he might change his mind. Besides there is still Turkey, which wasn't subjected to any damaging defeat at all.

Western Europe – the epicentre of the rebellion – does its best not to allow even a possibility of the restoration of the Great Empire. Not being capable of succeeding it via a military route, the Western politicians emphasised the diplomatic work. They wanted to split the former union of Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Atamania), and to set them against each other.

Let us recall that Russia and The Ottoman Empire up until the XVII c. were parts of the same state. In particular, Zaporozhean Cossacks freely moved between Russia and Turkey serving in turn the Czar or the sultan, without considering such changes to be treacherous.

In the end the relations between Russia and Turkey got spoiled, but not in the least on religious grounds. In Russia, prior to the Romanovs, Muslims were not persecuted, and the Russian Orthodox were not persecuted in The Ottoman Empire. But as soon as the Romanovs' regime strengthened, they started the wars with Turkey which lasted with intervals over the entire 300 years of the Romanovs' reign. It was for the purpose of the ideological support of these wars that the slogan 'archetypal religious discord' between the two countries was introduced.

Let's remember that the famous Turkish Janissaries, the elite infantry units that formed the Ottoman Sultan's household troops, consisted mainly of the Balkan Slavs [4v1]. The popular belief, that allegedly they were 'taken captive as infants', is not accurate. As in Russia at that time, the conscription of one tenth of the population into the Cossack army was a lawful 'tagma'– a part of the national service, similar rules presumably applied in the Ottoman Empire. 'Taken captives' has nothing to do with it.

Diplomatic success of the reformation[edit | edit source]

So, the Romanovs come to power in Russia. The tension of Russian military pressure on Western Europe is lifted. Peter I is 'cutting a window through to Europe' and subjects life in Russia to the Western fashion in many ways. The idea of the Western superiority over Russia is being embedded into the consciousness of the Russian population. In the field of science, culture, etc. The German historians of the late XIX c. wrote: 'Peter interfered even into the family and public life. He banned FEMALE TOWER-CHAMBERS ('TEREM') and wouldn't tolerate the former CUSTOM OF WOMEN COVERING THEIR FACES. He demanded that women were not kept under lock and key in an Asiatic manner, but would walk about freely in the European manner… He also introduced European customs in Public life and arranged balls and assemblies according to the French fashion. Moreover he commanded the boyars to wear Western-European clothes in order to transform both their domestic and social life TO CHANGE THE NATION'S ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE according to one of the English diplomats, and to make his people truly European, or, according to Peter's OWN EXPRESSION in the presence of the Danish ambassador Jens Juel in 1710: 'TO TURN CATTLE INTO PEOPLE'… in a nutshell, THERE HARDLY EXISTED ANY CUSTOM WHICH PETER WOULD NOT WISH TO TRANSFORM… in order to shock his people out of its barbaric state' as soon as possible. [336], v.5, p.569-570.

Beginning with the XVIII c. various 'educators' continuously hammer in to us: it is necessary to turn cattle into people. Along the way we shall note that there are many reasons to believe that the authentic Сzar Peter I was replaced during his well-known 'journey to the West'. See our book 'Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great: the Czar fictitious and the Czar false'.

The Romanovs re-wrote the history of Russia. In particular, the Russian-Horde army was declared to be an evil foreign power, which conquered not just Western Europe – now it is only mentioned in passing – but allegedly Russia itself. The descendants of the Mighty = the 'Mongols' = the Scythians, in England were respectfully called the Scots (Scots – Scythians), i.e. the very noble Scottish [4v2], ch.6:11. But in occupied Russia the triumphant victors squeamishly called the population bestial, i.e. filthy beasts.

At the same time they try to consign to oblivion those facts clearly showing that in the epoch of the XIII-XIV cc. Western Europe was still a sparsely populated and undeveloped land – see Ioannes Malalas and Mauro Orbini. All these lands were colonized and populated by Russia-Horde during the 'Mongol' conquest. Only then there started developing industrial crafts, science, culture, hygiene; see in [5v1], ch.12:4.4, a chapter called: 'When did they begin to wash hands before eating?' In it we cite some information put forward by the historians on this interesting subject. Apparently, they started to wash hands before eating comparatively recently, only with the arrival of the 'Mongols' [457:1], p.216-217.

By distorting history the western chronologist move the unpleasant events into the past[edit | edit source]

Following the retreat of the Horde and Ottoman Empire from Western Europe, the chronologists attempted to erase from the historical memory all the still fresh but, from a European standpoint, unpalatable recollections. These events were pushed back into the distant past, where they would be less painful.

Ultimately, it's as if the historians were saying that anything could have occurred in the past. But since then no one at any time conquered Europe in such a barbaric way. And even if they did have to pay tax, it was mainly done by some very ancient Romans to some very ancient Goths and the long gone, more ancient Huns. And anyway, is it even worth recollecting? Since then everything has changed. The mediaeval and modern Europe is culture, progress and finesse and the East remained the same wild Horde as it was before.

And in order for the public opinion to come to terms with these 'truths' for many years they devised historic literary and film epics. Visually and persuasively making us understand how, for example, 'the early mediaeval Eastern barbarian Attila the Hun only through his ignorance dared to challenge The Great Western Rome. But in the very end having marvelled at Italian culture, and cowed by Roman might, he turns back, shamefully fleeing to the refuge of the barren steppes.

According to the Romanovs' version of Russian history, a huge gap appeared in place of the XV century. It was filled up with duplicates from the XVI century. The historians 'plugged the hole' which appeared during the editorial cleansing of the chronicles. This is precisely why the life story of Ivan III the Terrible is to a great degree the reflection of the events which took place a century later, under Ivan IV the Terrible.

The word NATION originated most likely from a Russian word NASHI (meaning OURS). After the split, the Empire was thus called 'our own', i.e. the people who found themselves inside one fragment of the Empire often hostile to the world around it. That is exactly the time when 'insiders' and 'outsiders' appeared. Earlier, in the 'Mongol' time there was nothing of the kind. Everyone was a subject of one Empire and obeyed one Khan-emperor. But following the Time of Troubles the terms 'insiders' and 'outsiders' acquired a special meaning. A battle for the vast Imperial succession commences. Rivers of blood are shed. Political and religious boundaries emerge dividing the nations. Until now, for instance, in English there is a word spelled NATION, i.e. 'NASHI'. The English NATIONALITY = national identity, citizenship, nation, allegiance; it could have originated from the Russian: NASHI LYUDI = OUR PEOPLE. It well corresponds with the definition of 'national identity' [7v2].

The last emperors of the great empire = the Russian Tsar-Khans of the Early 17th century[edit | edit source]

Boris Godunov[edit | edit source]

BORIS FEDOROVICH 'GODUNOV' 1598-1605 ACCORDING TO [362]. He was a son of the previous Czar Fedor Ivanovich. Godunov's story is badly distorted by the Romanovs [4v1]. Czar Boris 'Godunov' is not at all an old experienced politician. He is still a very young person. His characteristics, ascribed to him by the Romanovs and so familiar to us today, should refer not to him, but to Dmitry Godunov, his uncle on his mother's side. According to our reconstruction it was Dmitry Godunov who was a brother of Irina Godunov, the wife of Czar Fedor Ioannovich. Czaritsa Irina was not the sister of Boris 'Godunov', but HIS MOTHER. Thus, Boris Fedorovich 'Godunov' is the LEGITIMATE SON AND HEIR of Czar Fedor Ivanovich.

Initially it was a peaceful reign with no major domestic revolts. The government of Boris Fedorovich tries to succeed in the Livonian war via diplomatic means, being supported, in particular, by England.

Then the Troubles begin. Czar Boris is poisoned and dies young, leaving an heir – an infant son, Fedor Borisovich, his wife Maria and their daughter Ksenia. The conspirators count on Dmitry Ivanovich, the son of Czar Ivan Ivanovich, who was removed from power in 1572. Dmitry Ivanovich was forced to become a monk, but managed to escape to Poland. He tried to seize the power by military means with the assistance of the Polish mercenaries, but was defeated by the army of Boris Fedorovich. However the plotters poisoned Czar Boris Godunov in the capital and cleared the way to the throne for Dmitry Ivanovich.

Fedor Borisovich[edit | edit source]

FEDOR BORISOVICH, 1605. As a boy became the Czar after the death of his father Boris Fedorovich. Was soon murdered together with his mother by the plotters.

Dmitry Ivanovich, "false Dmitry"[edit | edit source]

DMITRY IVANOVICH (FALSE DMITRY) THE 'IMPOSTER', 'THIEF' 1605-1610. A son of Czar Ivan Ivanovich who was stripped of his authority in 1572. He was forced to take monastic vows, but escaped to Poland and began his struggle for power. He seized the throne as a result of the plot and the palace coup d'état. A year later, in 1606, he was deposed by the supporters of Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, also a member of the royal house. The reign of Dmitry Ivanovich and the simultaneous reign of Vasily Shuisky is the epoch of the largest dynastic revolt in Russia, the civil war and chaos. In the Romanov history Dmitry is called an 'imposter' and a 'thief'. Notably the 'imposter' and the 'thief' are presented as two separate people. He was murdered in 1610.

The infamous story of Dmitry the 'Imposter' always produced a strange impression on researchers [183], v.2, p.97. Everything becomes clear in the New Chronology. This person was indeed a Czarevich (a prince) and his name was in fact Dmitry Ivanovich. He was a son of Czar Ivan Ivanovich, who reigned from 1563 to 1572 and was then deposed. Czar Ivan Ivanovich was brought up in the Zakharyin-Romanovs family, who ruled the state on his behalf, as Ivan Ivanovich himself was still very young (see above). As we can see the son of Ivan Ivanovich, Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (the future 'False Dmitry') was also brought up in the family of the Romanovs. In order to prevent Dmitry ascending the throne, he was forced to take monastic vows, as the becoming a monk, according to the old Russian tradition, denied the right to take the throne.

But – a reader might object – Czarevich Dmitry, as it's well-known, was murdered in Uglich. Does it mean that under the name of Dmitry Ivanovich there was still an imposter? No, it does not.

It is thought that under Ivan the 'Terrible', there were allegedly TWO separate princes with the same name: Dmitry Ivanovich. They were both children of Ivan the 'Terrible'. One death occurred due to a nurses' negligence, who drowned the child in 1563. The second – the infamous Uglich tragedy allegedly of 1591 [4v].

In our opinion there was ONLY ONE death of Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich in 1563. However subsequently, during the rule of Vasily Shuisky, a false version of Czarevich Dmitry's murder in Uglich in 1591 (generally accepted today) was set in motion. The purpose of this fabrication is clear. Czar Vasily Shuisky endeavoured to present his rival Dmitry Ivanovich as an 'IMPOSTER'. To achieve this it was declared that the true Czarevich Dmitry was allegedly murdered as a boy in Uglich. Therefore the Czar, who fights against Shuisky is none other, but an imposter.

In fact it was a completely different Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich who died – he was the son of Czar Ivan Vasilievich and a brother to Czar Ivan Ivanovich, the father of 'False Dmitry'. He was an uncle to his namesake the 'imposter' Dmitry Ivanovich, whom Shuisky was fighting against. Using the coincidence between the names, the death of one of them was attributed to the other. Thus the true Czar Dmitry Ivanovich was declared an 'IMPOSTER'.

The entire story of Czarevich Dmitry's death could have been composed in Moscow. 'There are reasons to believe that Uglich's source became a victim to a retrospective appraisal of events [777], p.72. To put it simply, it was a FORGERY.

We'll elaborate. The falsification was based on a crafty SUBSTITUTION. The Shuiskys deliberately mixed up (on paper) Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, who died in 1563, and Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich the 'Imposter', who by no means died as a child, but on the contrary jostled with Vasily Shuisky for power at that very time. The exchange was cunning. The thing is, that Czarevich Dmitry, who died in 1563, as we show in our book 'The Expulsion of the Czars' ('Izgnaniye Czarei'), WAS ALREADY A CONSECRATED SAINT AND POPULAR AMONG THE PEOPLE by the time of this fraud. The Shuiskys SLYLY used the identical names of the two princes – the dead and the living one. They attributed the holy name of Saint Dmitry Ivanovich which was widely popular among the people and who died in 1563, to their contemporary Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. Shifting (on paper) the death of Saint Czarevich approximately 30 years forward – from 1563 to allegedly 1591. Thus they turned (again on paper) their living and healthy rival Dmitry Ivanovich into the Czarevich who allegedly had died in childhood. Following which the living Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich naturally turned into an 'Imposter' (according to them). As he allegedly had already died a long time ago! At first this fraud was necessary for Czar Vasily Shuisky in 1606. But later the Romanovs used it very cunningly. Moreover, they directly participated in this fraud. It was none other, but Feodor Nikitich Romanov, the future Patriarch Filaret, who went to Uglich to unveil Czarevich Dmitry's remains [988:00], article 'Filaret, the Russian patriarch'.

In the Cathedral of the Archangel of the Moscow Kremlin there was allegedly a fragment kept of the grave-stone of Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. It was most likely a modern replica. Please see our theory on the burial of Czarevich Dmitry in Egypt in [5v2], ch.7:5. We are referring to the famous 'pharaoh' Tutankhamun burial site discovered by Howard Carter in the first quarter of the XX century. Most likely the young Tutankhamun is the very Dmitry, buried in the Horde Imperial cemetery in the early XVII century. It was one of the last burials of the Russian Horde khans there.

Vasily Shuyisky and the Romanovs[edit | edit source]

VASILY IVANOVICH SHUISKY 1606-1610 according to [362]. Ascended the throne in 1606 as the result of the plot and rebellion against Czar Dmitry Ivanovich. There were two Royal courts formed in the country – one of Vasily Ivanovich in Moscow and the other the court of Dmitry Ivanovich not far from Moscow, in Tushino. Dynastic embroilment and chaos stirred. Shuisky made an attempt to establish a new dynasty – as a branch of the Old Russian Horde dynasty, which the Shuiskys belonged to. This attempt failed.

Thus, 'False Dmitry I' – is the true Czarevich Dmitry, the son of Czar Ivan. From the very beginning of Dmitry's struggle for the throne EVERYONE WHO SAW TOOK HIM FOR CZAREVICH. The Polish aristocracy, the Polish King, the Russian boyars, crowds of people in Putyvl and other cities and at last his own mother – Czaritsa Maria Nagaya, by this time the nun Marfa [777], [183], v.2.

But the historians do not believe the numerous claims of the contemporaries that Dmitry is the real son of Czar Ivan, and proclaim all of the eyewitnesses to be either gullible simpletons or pretenders. Russian history was finalised under the Romanovs. They purposefully declared Dmitry to be the imposter and 'False Dmitry'. Why? The answer is simple. It appeared that Dmitry, who did become a Czar and who was of the royal descent, HAD A SON. The Romanov historians dubbed him a 'little thief'. Following Dmitry's death his son should have succeeded him. But the Romanovs were very keen on grasping power themselves. They usurped the throne even while Dmitry's son was still alive. Hence ELECTING MIKHAIL ROMANOV TO BECOME THE CZAR HAPPENED SIMPLY TO BE UNLAWFUL, as the son of the actual former Czar was still alive. There was only one way out for the Romanovs – to declare Dmitry as an 'imposter', which was immediately done. However, there still remained one more obstacle – Dmitry's living son. The problem was easily solved. The Romanovs cold bloodedly hanged the boy on the Spassky Gate.

It is indeed a complicated point in Russian history. And for the Romanovs dynasty it is the key moment. The Romanovs needed a proof of the legitimacy of their enthronement. They solved the problem via means which were clear and readily available to them.

We have mentioned above that Czarevich Dmitry was enthroned as a result of the boyars' plot which deposed Czar Boris. However the boyars regarded the Czarevich only as interim figure. The head of the plot was Shuisky, who himself was striving for power. That is why Czarevich Dmitry was merely in the way. Soon after Dmitry's coronation the palace coup d'état took place. It is thought that as a result Dmitry was killed. Vasily Shuisky ascends to the throne.

In this plot the Romanovs acted most likely on Shuisky's side, as Feodor Romanov, the future Patriarch Philaret, brought back from exile, was appointed Patriarch of Moscow.

Our point of view: CZAR DMITRY WAS NOT KILLED AND MANAGED TO ESCAPE. Czaritsa Marfa was presented with someone else's body. That is why it was disfigured, in order for it to be impossible to identify the murdered person. And in order to irreversibly remove traces, the body was burnt [436], p.288.

Thus Czar Dmitry remained alive after the coup. It should be expected that he will take centre stage once again. Indeed, soon in the very same town of Putyvl, which was previously Dmitry the first's headquarters, there EMERGES 'FALSE DMITRY II'. The first time 'FALSE DMITRY' was seen by crowds of people. It appears that the same crowds of people having seen 'False Dmitry II' 'ONCE AGAIN RECOGNISED HIM AS CZAR DMITRY! 'Having gathered the people in Putyvl, Shakhovskoy presented a new contender and claimed that in Moscow the traitors had MURDERED SOME GERMAN INSTEAD OF DMITRY AND DMITRY IS STILL ALIVE, and that the people should rebel against Shuisky' [183], v.2, p.125.

'FALSE DMITRY II' IS THE VERY SAME CZAR DMITRY, AKA 'FALSE DMITRY I'. Soon after Marina Mnishek gave birth to a son of 'False Dmitry II', whom the Romanovs were quick to call a 'little thief'. 'False Dmitry II' himself was nicknamed 'Tushinsky Thief'. Thus acknowledging that it was 'False Dmitry's II' son. It was this very child who was later killed by the Romanovs – and hanged from the Spassky Gate. In order to eliminate the legitimate successor to Czar Dmitry.

Marina Mnishek's behaviour becomes clear. After the death of 'False Dmitry II' SHE DID NOT LEAVE RUSSIA AND STAYED BY HER SON'S SIDE, CONTINUED TO FIGHT FOR THE RUSSIAN THRONE with the aid of the troops loyal to her, headed by Zarutsky. No wonder. She knew for sure that her son was a legitimate successor to the Russian Czar Dmitry. But if he was a son of some rootless 'Tushinsky thief' then it would have been more sensible to immediately leave the tumultuous country. In which Mikhail Romanov had already assumed power. She ought to have fled to her native Poland. She had such an opportunity. But instead she set off to Volga, Don, Yaik River, TO JOIN THE COSSACKS [1.83], v.2, p.158. The brave woman was fighting for her own rights and for the rights of her son – the legitimate heir to the Horde throne.

A war between Zarutsky and Marina with the Romanovs began. This is one of the most obscure parts in Russian history. It is most likely that the description of this war known today was invented by the victorious Romanovs who won this war [436, p.769-778. Represented by the Romanov historians it looks like a battle of the Romanovs, the legitimate rulers 'against the thieves'.

It is possible that Czar Dmitry Ivanovich had not yet been killed at this point. In which case he was executed by the Romanovs later. His execution was later passed off as the execution of Zarutzky. The suspicion increases by the fact, that following Zarutsky's execution there immediately emerges allegedly the second Zarutsky, about whom nothing was known earlier for some reason. More specifically, onstage enters the ataman of The Cherkasy Malorosy Cossacks, 'A certain Zakhar Zarutsky, possibly a brother or a relative of Ivan' [436], p.779. Most likely there was nonetheless just the one Zarutsky, and Horde Czar Dmitry Ivanovich was there with Marina Mnishek, whom later on the Romanovs cunningly called Zarutsky, in order to avert suspicion of regicide, which clearly suggests itself.

The army of Zarutsky (Czar Dmitry?) and Marina Mnishek were crushed by the Romanovs.

The cross and the crescent moon with a star[edit | edit source]

The crescent moon with a star is an old symbol of Czar-Grad [6v1]. It owes its origin to the blaze of the star of Bethlehem and to the solar eclipse which are associated with the Nativity of Christ and the crucifixion of Andronicus Christ. Today the crescent moon with a star is perceived exclusively as a Muslim symbol. However, up until the end of the XVII century a crescent moon with a star adorned, for example, the spire of the huge Christian St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. The crescent moon was removed from the spire (and replaced with a cross) only in 1685 [6v1], ch.5.

Fig.13

A star inscribed into a crescent moon was a form of the Christian cross, Fig.13. A cross in the shape of a star – 8- or 6-pointed, for example, - is known in mediaeval iconography. Such images of the crosses-stars can be seen on the walls of the famous St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. It turns out that a cross with a crescent moon on the domes of the Russian cathedrals and a Turkish crescent moon with a star, symbolising a cross, are just the VARIOUS FORMS OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN SYMBOL! The universal symbol of the Great Empire acquired a slightly different form in Russia and Turkey. When the Empire fragmented in the XVII century the Christian cross remained with the Christians and the Christian crescent moon with a star – with the Muslims. The Christian six-pointed star – with the Jews.

Is there a crescent moon present in the old Russian coat of arms? For example, in the coat of arms of the Russian cities? Many readers would probably think that nothing of the kind existed in Russia, as today it is very rarely that one might see such a Russian coat of arms.

Nevertheless let us open a fundamental edition [162] dedicated to the coats of arms of the Russian cities entered into the complete body of laws of the Russian Empire from 1649 to 1900. A book [162] for each coat of arms indicates the date of it being established. The majority of the dates refer to the XVII-XIX cc., however, reportedly, the majority of the coats of arms date back to an earlier age.

It appears that in the old coats of arms of the Russian cities the symbol of the crescent moon with a cross = a star was present. Notably, very vividly expressed. For example, the coats of arms of several cities in the Chernigov region consists of a large crescent moon with a cross inserted in it. Sometimes there is a star placed near a cross. There are quite a few such examples – we counted at least 29 coats of arms [4v1], ch.10. The crosses with the crescent moons, i.e. the crescent moons with a star = cross (see fig.13, bottom left) are, for example, high on the domes of the Moscow Kremlin. Now the presence of numerous crescent moons with a cross (a star) on the domes of the Christian churches becomes clear.

The double-headed eagle and the crescent moon with a star-cross[edit | edit source]

Why did a two-headed eagle become the symbol of the Empire? After all, the two-headed creatures very rarely occur in nature, except as an anomaly. It is clear, that the symbol of the Imperial two-headed eagle was determined by some reasons far removed from the study of nature.

Fig.78
Fig.79
Fig.80

Let us refer to the exceptional and fascinating engravings by Albrecht Dürer, comprising his famous Arch of Maximilian I , known as Ehrenpforte [1067]. In fig.78 there is presented one of the coats of arms on Dürer's Ehrenpforte. It is perfectly clear, that here is depicted a crescent moon with rays emanating from it. At the same time it is apparent that these are the upturned wings of an eagle. The rays are the feathers of a bird. There is no head of an eagle here. So, THE TWO-HEADED EAGLE, MOST LIKELY, SYMBOLISES THE CRESCENT MOON WITH A STAR, OR, THE CRESCENT MOON WITH A CROSS, WHICH IS THE SAME THING, as a star was often depicted in the form of a cross. The two heads of the eagle looking in opposite directions – is one of the forms of a star-cross, resting on the crescent-wings of the eagle, fig.79, fig.80. See [4v2], ch.2. The two-headed eagle with the wings raised upwards - is one of the forms of the Christian cross, 8- or 6-ended. Aka, we'll repeat, - the Ottoman crescent moon with a star.

The Arabic inscriptions of Russian weaponry[edit | edit source]

Before the end of the XVI century Russia, Ottoman Empire and Persia were all parts of the single Horde Empire. That is why there surely must have existed common cultural traditions. In particular, the similar weaponry production and ornamentation techniques. Despite the emerging religious split between Christianity and Islam in the XVI century, the state and military traditions of the XVI-XVII cc. must have still been very close.

Fig.81

Sure enough up until the middle of the XVII century, i.e. already in the epoch of the Romanovs, THE RUSSIAN CRAFTSMEN still decorated the weapons – even the Royal ones! – with ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS. It was only in the second half of the XVII century they were probably told that they were no longer allowed to do so. After that the Russian weapons with Arabic inscriptions disappeared. However, Russian Royal weaponry with Arabic inscriptions emblazoned with gold, diamonds and other precious stones produced by the best craftsmen of the Armoury Chamber, were preserved, in view of its material value. But most of the 'Russian-Arabic' weaponry were moved to the storerooms, see Appendix 5 in [6v3]. But today, when all of this is forgotten, some of this 'dangerous weaponry' is displayed in the museums. For instance, in the Kremlin Armoury Chamber. Here, for example, is the ceremonial helmet of the Moscow Czars made of damascene steel called 'Jericho cap' ('State helmet' – Tr.), i.e. Jericho cap, fig.81. However, in order to see the ARABIC INSCRIPTION ON THE RUSSIAN WEAPONRY you have to be very attentive. As the explanatory signs don't say anything about such 'improper' engravings. And the exhibits are often displayed in such a way that the Arabic engravings are barely discernible [4v2], ch.1.

Weapons with the Arabic inscriptions were being forged not only, and quite possibly, not as much in Turkey. In the Christian Russia UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE XVII CENTURY they liked to ornament the weaponry with the Arabic script. The sabre of Prince Mstislavsky, who was Ivan the Terrible's commander, was adorned with Arabic aphorisms [187], p.207. One of the aphorisms goes: 'There will be strong protection in the battle' [187], p.207. There is also a Russian inscription on the sabre stating the identity of the owner [187], p.207.

So why today are the Russian weaponry with the Arabic inscriptions always attributed to a non-Russian origin, usually Turkish or Persian? In those cases, when the Russian work is completely obvious, it is considered that the inexperienced and ignorant Russian craftsmen copied the wonderful Eastern and Western pieces in an apprentice-like fashion. Alleging that they mechanically transferred them, like some 'beautiful pictures' onto the magnificent weapons of the Russian Czars and commanders without understanding their meaning. And they proudly wore and showed off those strange aphorisms which were incomprehensible to them. Accompanied by the reserved and incredulous smiles of the learned Arabs and even more learned Europeans.

This is not true. In the epoch of the XVI and even the XVII cc. a great many of the Russian-Horde weaponry with the Arabic engravings were produced, it seems, in Russia-Horde, which in the XV-XVI cc. constituted a whole with the Ottoman Empire=Atamania. Later, a considerable part of the weaponry made in Moscow, Tula, Urals and the Russian weapons in general was cunningly declared to be either 'damascene', 'Eastern' or 'Western'. An opinion formed, that allegedly in that epoch the Russians carried mainly foreign weapons. As, purportedly, there were very, very little home-made weapons and they were of poor quality, though it is obvious that any military power fought using its home grown weaponry. That said, they forgot that Mediaeval Damascus was T-Moscow, i.e. the name of Moscow with the definite article T (denoting respect).

They also made weaponry with LATIN inscriptions in Russia. Or at least they used the Latin letters. As, for example, the precious Damask steel sabre made by the RUSSIAN craftsman Ilya Prosvit in 1618 [187], p.156-157.

The historians reassure us that the Arabic inscriptions are present on the old Russian weapons only because they were presented as the gifts to the Russian Czars and the Russian warriors by foreigners, who wrote in Arabic. This explanation is incorrect. Moreover, it appears that THE RUSSIAN CZARS THEMSELVES PRESENTED THE FOREIGNERS WITH GIFTS OF WEAPONRY ADORNED WITH ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS [4v2], ch.1.

Fig.82

Everything said about the Arabic inscriptions on the Russian weaponry does not only refer to the Kremlin Armoury Chamber. For example, in the museum of Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, the modern town of Alexandrov in the Raspyatskaya (the Crucifixion) Church-belfry there is exhibited the armoury of a Russian warrior – chain mail, a shield, a helmet, fig.82. The museum sign informs us, that this is Russian armour. Indeed, the entire helmet is covered with the depiction of exotic animals, horsemen, birds carried out in the Russian style, reminiscent of the famous engravings on the walls of the white-stone cathedrals of Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. The nose guard of the helmet ends above with a 4-ended - cross. All of which unmistakably points to the Russian origin of the helmet. At the same time there is a clear wide band inscription in Arabic running round it. Next to the helmet there is the shield. Once again there is a wide band inscription in Arabic running along the edge of the shield [4v2], ch.1. And this is a Russian shield! The same sort of thing is in Moscow museum-reserve 'Kolomenskoye'. There are exhibited two old Russian military helmets [4v2], ch.1. Both of them have the inscriptions in Arabic and only in Arabic! And so on.

So, on the Russian Mediaeval weapons the inscriptions survived, which today are perceived as Arabic. Should you pay attention to it just once, you immediately begin to stumble across such examples at every step. This astonishing fact does not fit into the traditional version of the Romanov history. Just this one fact is enough to understand that the history of Russia of the pre-Romanov epoch was completely different than it is presented to us today.

Even in the 17th century the Russian texts were sometimes written with Arabic letters[edit | edit source]

Even in the XVII c. in Russia they still used a variety of alphabets to write down the Russian texts. The perfect example is the travelling notes, 'kept by Paul of Aleppo' (Paul, Archdeacon of Aleppo) – the talented ecclesiastical writer of the mid XVII century, who accompanied his father everywhere, Patriarch Macarios III of Antioch. In 1656 the Patriarch visited Russia for the first time and was in Moscow… On the invitation of Czar Alexey Mikhailovich the Primate of the Antioch Church he visited The Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery' [422], p.94.

When accompanying the Patriarch, Paul of Aleppo made detailed notes, a trip report of a kind. Maybe such were the rules of the Patriarchy in that time. The notes survive to our day and are considered as remarkably valuable testimonies of the epoch of Alexey Mikhailovich [422].

The question is what language was the text written in? For our contemporaries brought up on the Scaligerian-Romanov history the answer would seem to be obvious. One must suppose that Orthodox Christian Paul of Aleppo, the son of the Orthodox Christian Patriarch of Antioch, who arrived to Orthodox Christian Russia to visit Orthodox Christian Czar Alexey Mikhailovich would write his report either in Russian or in Greek. At the very least in Latin. Which, admittedly would have been odd. But apparently the ACCOUNTS ARE WRITTEN IN ARABIC [422], p.95.

Further on it becomes even more intriguing. The Orthodox author of the XVII century freely alternates between Arabic and Russian, but at the same time he writes down a RUSSIAN TEXT WITH ARABIC LETTERS [422], p.98-99. Thus it unexpectedly becomes clear that in the epoch of Alexey Mikhailovich a RUSSIAN TEXT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN WRITTEN DOWN IN RUSSIAN, BUT USING ARABIC LETTERS.

The very fact, that Paul Aleppo's accounts, written in Arabic and Russian, but using Arabic letters survive, means that it was carefully preserved as an important official document.

But today we are assured that the writing of such documents in Arabic must definitely indicate their Muslim origin. At the same time the Antioch Patriarchy was considered one of the most important centres of the Orthodox Church. We can see that in the XVII century the picture was different from the way it is presented to us today [4v2], ch.1.

Another example is the famous writing - The Journey Beyond Three Seas (Khozheniye za tri morya) by Afanasy Nikitin. The text was written by an Orthodox Christian. 'The Journey' was mainly written in Russian. However from time to time Afanasy Nikitin freely and fluently changes into Turkic and even Arabic languages. Then, in the equally flowing way he changes back to the Russian language [4v2], ch.1. It is obvious, that he himself, as do his readers, knows several languages. But this is not the main thing. The main thing this is that the Turkic or the Arabic languages are used by Afanasy Nikitin for the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PRAYERS! Or, if you will, for the Islamic-Orthodox Christian prayers. However strange this combination of words may sound in our times.

The Russian bilingual coins[edit | edit source]

Apparently on the 'Heads' side (of the Russian coins of the XIV century – Auth.) there is ALWAYS A COPY FROM THE TATAR COIN… On the reverse side of these coins there is ALWAYS an inscription the 'Grand Prince's seal' or 'Prince's seal and the image of the sealing wax itself. Possibly, soon after, they started adding the name of a Grand Prince… Hence it is necessary to conclude that ALL THE FIRST RUSSIAN COINS HAD TWO NAMES ON THEM' [309], P.33.

The numismatic historians call these coins 'double named'. I.e. on one side there is a name of a Tatar Khan, and on the other – of a Russian prince. It's true though, that, allegedly, due to their illiteracy the Russian money makers often put down the name of a wrong Khan [309], p.33.

Our explanation is simple. All of these coins are not double named, but bilingual. Meaning that on the coin there was printed a name of one ruler – who was simultaneously a Khan and a grand prince. But it was written in two languages – Russian and Tatar.

The Horde Empire broke up[edit | edit source]

The 1610-1613 strife lasted for three years. The change of dynasties takes place. Mikhail Romanov mounts the throne, 1613-1645. The very name of a new dynasty – the Romanovs probably meant at that point NEW ROME. It is likely the new rulers tried to emphasise the difference from ROME OLD, i.e. from the Russian-Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc.

In Western Europe the former 'Mongol' governors who had split off from the metropoly enter a fierce battle for lands and dominance. Wars break out which today are known to us as the 'Reformation wars'. During this epoch, instead of the previous point of view: 'All the lands in one and undivided Empire belong to the Czar-Khan and are divided by him', a new ideology of the split emerges: 'This is our territory, we are the masters here and do not take orders from anyone '; 'We are better than the others'; 'We have lived here before you, so return these lands to us'; 'Our achievements are better than yours (our ships are better than yours, our science is better than yours…)'; 'We are sophisticated, you are 'ignorant', etc. The new unscrupulous ideology of the reformers was reflected in the cynical book 'The Prince' attributed to Machiavelli. A frenzied acrimonious carve up of the territories of the legacy of the Great Empire stretched on for decades. Rivers of blood were spilt. Today the true reason for the carve up - fight is forgotten. The historians bring the entire matter down to alleged religious squabbling.

The network of the 'Mongol' fortifications, which for a long time provided stability and order in the Empire, is destroyed. Primarily the reformers struck the blow on the Cathar = Scythian castles of the West Europe and on the Crusader castles-fortifications of the Middle East – in Syria, etc. They preferred to destroy the former mighty military fortifications in the Imperial provinces seething with revolt, fearing that in a few days they might fall in the hands of their enemies once again. The mighty Hordian castles were blown up with gun powder.

The annihilation of the Cathars/Scythians[edit | edit source]

The struggle of the Reformation of the XVI-XVII cc. with the splinters of the Horde Empire is very well illustrated by the annihilation of the Cathars in France. The history of the Cathars is one of the most breath-taking and mysterious chapters of the Middle Ages.

Allegedly in the X-XI cc. in Western Europe and in particular in France there emerged a new Christian movement, the supporters of which became known as the Cathars (the Cathari), and also the Albigenses (or Albigeois). It is thought that the religion of the Cathars was Christian [6.2], ch.1. However, it differs from the Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism of today in its details. It was declared to be heretical.

It is widely thought that the Cathar heresy widely spread and met with the opposition from the Catholic Church. In the first half of allegedly the XIII century the crusades were organised against the Cathars. They fought back tooth and claw, but they were defeated, their mighty fortresses were destroyed. Allegedly since the XIV c. they 'exit the stage'. However up until now the south of France is called 'Cathar Country'. Very little remains from them today. But whatever is left is very impressive. In the first place – the mighty castles-fortresses in the cities, on top of the mountains and cliffs which controlled the trade and military routes. The magnificent fortifications received the name of the 'Cathar Castles'.

As we demonstrate in [6v2], ch.1, the Cathars are the Scythians of the Volga river, who came to France in the XIV c. from Russia-Horde during the 'Mongol' conquest. They settled down here and, as the colonizers, created the ruling class. Their religion was Christian.

In the epoch of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. the Cathars = Scythians, having partially mixed with the local population, created a unique culture, built the cities, cathedrals, fortresses, some of which are still called Cathar. In the end of the XVI- beginning of the XVII cc. during the revolt of the Reformation in West Europe, the Cathars – Scythians were defeated in a gruelling war.

Later they story was 'transported' from the XIV-XVI cc. into the XI-XIII cc. In addition it was declared that the Cathar = Scythian Gothic cathedrals starting as early as the XIII century, i.e. from the very start of their construction, allegedly were 'genuinely Catholic'. In its later Reformation sense. This was a falsification. The Bulgarian = Volga Orthodox Christian religion of the Cathars = Scythians was proclaimed to be 'heresy'.

The dramatic events of the history of the Cathars = Scythians found their way onto the pages of the Bible. For example the story of Count Simon (Osman) de Montfort, (Earl of Leicester) (aka 'ancient' Pyrrhus) under the name of ABIMELECH, is briefly described in the Old Testament Book of Judges, ch.9. Various 'ancient' authors of the XVI-XVII cc. gave their account of it. For example, Plutarch = Petrarch [6v2], ch.1.

Some of the Empire's provinces resisted the split and tried to restore the former unity. Siberia, the Far East and a part of the North America were governed by the Horde up until the middle of the XVIII century. In the West the conservative Imperial climate was particularly strong in Spain and England. In the East and South, where there was no rebellion, the former Imperial regions took up an antagonistic position towards the West and the pro-Western Romanovs. We mean Siberia, the Far East, America, China, Japan, Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Hindustan.

The rebels strive to prevent the resurrection of the Great Empire[edit | edit source]

Aiming to establish their rights to the territory ceased and divided between themselves, the usurpers-rebels in Europe and the Romanovs in Russia re-write history. The Great Empire is wiped off the pages of the chronicles. The adulterated Scaligerian chronology is being created making the dates of a great number of events artificially older. Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) and Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652) are considered to be its creators. Though it is not very clear if in fact they were the authors of the works attributed to them or their names were cunningly made use of. Creating a self-serving version of history, the new authorities strived to prove their allegedly 'ancient origins' and non-existent alleged hereditary rights to the throne. A great many newly-minted Crowns, which were declared 'independent from time immemorial' appeared in the XVIIc on the ruins of the Empire – in France, Germany, Italy, England, etc. They were in conflict with each other for a long time.

The theory of the Indo-European languages originating from the distant India occupies an important place in the Scaligerian history. Where India is perceived in the modern sense, as a country situated on the Hindustan peninsula (the Indian Subcontinent). It is considered that the proto-languages originated here and permeate many countries. We do not see any reasons for objections except one. Where was that 'ancient India' situated in reality, where did the Indo-European languages originate from? And when? According to our results it is Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc.

The reformists quickly invent and energetically introduce the new languages based on the former Imperial state Church-Slavonic language and the local dialects in the provinces which acquired their independence. For example, French, German, Spanish, English and also 'ancient' Latin and 'ancient' Greek. This allowed the rebels to build language barriers between the populations of the newly-formed states. Their purpose is clear: to destroy the unity between the nations of the Empire. In the face of the newly established religious and linguistic barriers, former bonds began to break. It is all described in the Bible as 'the confusion of tongues' following 'the Babel pandemonium'. The invention of the new languages allowed the reformists to speed up the process of the casting into oblivion of the memory of the Great Empire to prevent its restoration. But as these new languages inevitably incorporated a significant layer from the former Imperial state Slavonic language, the numerous Slavonic traces can be found in them even today [7v2].

The process of the dissimilation of languages was also spurred on by the state activities. The settled Imperial governors began to introduce the alphabets into their territories, change grammar, invent new fonts and vowel marking, new reading rules. For example, in some places they introduced the way of reading 'not the way it is spelled. A great example of this is French. Let's say it is spelled Foix – the name of the Cathar city (a town not far from Toulouse, pronounced as Fwa. They strived to distance themselves as soon as possible from the Slavonic language and Slavonic writing.

In schools they introduced the study of the recently invented languages and in a generation or two the old language and writing were forgotten by the majority of the population. The old books written in Slavonic language with the old characters became incomprehensible. Not being reproduced they gradually became obsolete. In the West things were happening particularly fast, as this process was brought to the level of a national programme. The Index of Forbidden Books was introduced. Previous history, books, writing and also 'heretics' were thrown on the fire.

In the end of the XVI – beginning of the XVII cc. the formerly united Christianity began to splinter into several branches, including via the efforts of the reformists. In time there formed separate religions: Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. The former unity was forgotten and in some cases gave way to feuding. This was quite convenient for the usurpers who came to power. In order to keep hold of the recently created and still unstable local thrones they strived to split the previously united population of the Empire into antagonistic groups. The subjects were deceived by pointing at the neighbouring peoples and being told that: 'We were always different'; 'We always spoke different languages'; 'We always had different faith'; 'We never married gentiles (we never took adherents of different faith as our wives'). All of which was untrue. In the XVII-XVIII cc. in place of the former imperial idea of the world united under the sole supreme power with the limited power in places (at the local level), a new principle was introduced: in my own state I rule as I will. In the times of the Empire, on the contrary, there always existed a possibility that the supreme Czar-Khan arrives and the governors would have to answer for their actions. This curbed the arbitrary actions of the local authorities in places, which wasn't very popular with some of the Imperial officials. Thus the grounds for the Reformation were created.

How the Romanovs destroyed the history of the Horde[edit | edit source]

The Cathedral of the Archangel in the Moscow Kremlin could have told us a lot of things about the old Russian history, as it was declared to be the official burial vault of the Russian Grand Princes and Czars including the first Romanovs. Today there are approximately 50 tombs in the cathedral. It is thought that here were buried all the Moscow Grand Dukes beginning with Ivan Kalita.

However those tombs, which today can be seen in the cathedral, are the brick tombstones made in the XVII century under the first Romanovs [552], p.24. I.e. at the time when the old frescos removed from the cathedral walls and vaults and new ones were painted in their place. It is thought that 'burials were made in white stone sarcophaguses, which were lowered into the ground under the floor. In the first half of the XVII century at the burial site they erected brick tombstones with white stone slabs ornamented with Slavonic inscriptions. At the beginning of the XX century the tombstones were placed in glazed cases made of bronze' [552], p.25-26.

Thus the old tombstones slabs, beneath which there were supposed to be the burial site, were bricked up! At the same time they assure us that the inscriptions on the old slabs were reproduced precisely on the brick tombstones made by the Romanovs. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to verify this. To do so would require dismantling the massive modern constructions. It is only natural to question the authenticity of these 'royal burials' after the facts we have learnt about the barbaric destruction of the cathedral's frescos by the Romanovs [4v2], ch.2.

Today, situated in the basement of The Cathedral of the Archangel there are also the sarcophaguses of the Russian queens (Czaritzas) which were moved here in the XX century from the Kremlin cemetery, which was destroyed during the construction of the modern buildings. However, as we have shown in [4v2], ch.2, the Romanovs, in the middle of the XVII century, simply either used the anonymous tombs of nuns or removed the names from some other tombs and then passed them off as the 'tombs of the Russian queens'. They wished to establish some 'material evidence' to support their false version of history. The true burial sites of the Russian-Horde queens were, most likely, destroyed. That is if the graves were located on the territory of Moscow at all and not in the Royal cemetery in African Egypt. But the Romanovs needed to produce something to 'demonstrate' as proof of the image of Russian history they had painted. And it is in the XVII century the Romanov historians and archaeologists 'happily discovered' allegedly authentic tombs of Yaroslav the Wise (Mudry), Saint Vladimir (Svyatoy) etc. And their colleagues in Moscow at this very time were working hard on the creation of a 'presentable Royal necropolis of the XI-XVI cc'. in the Archangel Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin.

More specifically, having received the order from above, they were hastily producing the 'old Royal burial sites'. It has to be said, rather carelessly. It seems they simply arrived at the monastery cemetery and decide to turn it into the alleged cemetery of the 'pre-Romanov queens'. The name signs of the nuns were cut off. The tombstones bearing the new 'appropriate signs' were placed on top. Then they buried under each tombstone an old coffin. But as the coffins were buried, the officers-executants who were fulfilling this task didn't make those signs very thoroughly. Is it worth trying so hard if all of it was to be immediately buried under the ground?! In some cases they altogether forgot to make a sign on the tomb. In two cases they have missed, possibly by an oversight, the names of the simple nuns scratched with a nail on the old coffins. Thus, with such audacity there was created a false 'necropolis of the queens' in the Moscow Kremlin. We will repeat that there was no necropolis in Moscow in the pre-Romanov epoch. The Russian-Horde Czars and Czaritzas of the XIV-XVI cc. were transported to African Egypt to be buried in the Imperial cemetery.

The less distinguished ones were buried in Russia. But having assumed power the Romanovs did their best to destroy those old sarcophaguses which could have revealed the true story of the pre-Romanov Russia-Horde. What we are presented with today as 'antiquity' is either the Romanov modern replicas or the poor coffins of common people, presented by the Romanov historians as the 'Royal burial sites'.

Moreover, the Romanovs started using the old Russian white stoned tombs as building materials [62], p.297; [4v2], ch.2. This was a clear manifestation of the Romanovs' attitude towards Russian history. In everyday life builders would hardly go to a cemetery in search for the building materials and take the tombstones for that purpose, in order to build an apartment block out of them. Would you want to live in a building like that? Such things were always considered an insult to the memory of the deceased. It did happen sometimes, but exactly as a token of the disrespect towards those who were buried beneath those gravestones. This is amply demonstrated in the Romanovs' actions.

Apparently between 1632 and 1636 there the CHANGES IN THE TYPE OF BURIALS THAT OCCURRED IN RUSSIA. This refers at least to the royal burials. Before 1632 the first Romanovs still buried their queens according to the old tradition customary in Russia-Horde. But then, as we show in [4v2], ch.2., the Romanovs change the type of burial. Starting with 1636 they were burying in a different way. So we unexpectedly came across a serious fact. The change in the type of the burial is a major religious-social reform. It signifies the fundamental turning point in the life of the Russian society in the middle of the XVII century. Surprisingly nothing is said about this major event in Russian history.

Thus we come across the very same borderline – the XVII century, which separates the falsified history from the more or less accurate one. It is extremely difficult to surmount the barrier of the XVII century – very little true archaeological evidence and written records from earlier than the XVII century survive. In the colonies of the Great Empire, in Western Europe, the former imperial cathedrals and constructions were on the whole also destroyed. However the Western reformers who came to power decided to preserve the Gothic architectural style of the 'Mongol' temples in their own new buildings, having only declared it to be ancient and exclusively their own, allegedly purely Western-European [4v2], ch.2:47. A shock wave of the historical reconstruction with the total 'elimination of all traces' swept through occupied Russia of the XVII century. Not only the architectural style was changed, but also the very nature of the burials.

Why the name of "Novgorod" taken away from Yaroslavl was moved to the North-West, to lake Ilmen?[edit | edit source]

As we have already said the Veliky Novgorod of the chronicles is Yaroslavl upon Volga. To be precise, the name of the entire region including a number of cities, Rostov and Suzdal in particular. But in the epoch of the XVII century the name 'Novgorod' was taken away from Yaroslavl and given to a small town, a former town-district, a small fort in the North West of Russia, by lake Ilmen, by the mouth of the river called VOLKHOV. Why was it here that the famous name of Novgorod was moved to – on paper and on the maps – and at the time the name of VOLGA with it? As it is absolutely clear that VOLKHOV is a slightly distorted version of the name VOLGA.

The answers may differ. However, there is one that appears worthy of serious consideration. Let us turn to the old maps of Moscow drawn by the Western cartographers and travellers of the XVI-XVII cc. There emerges a curious fact. Northern Dvina River and its vicinities are rather well depicted on these maps [TsRIM], ch.1. It is clear that the Western cartographers knew those regions, where the Western merchants and trading ships would arrive via the Northern shipping route, quite well. They went up Dvina River and the other rivers of that region, eventually reaching Yaroslavl – the major centre of that epoch.

But Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, the suburbs of Moscow and the territories to the South and West of Yaroslavl on the whole, the Western cartographers had noticeably poorer knowledge of. They had difficulties even with Moscow. I.e. the capital of Russia in the XVI century! For instance, on that very map by S.Herberstein, allegedly of the year 1546, the city of Moscow is not indicated at all. There was written only the name of the land – MOSCOWIA [TsRIM], ch.1. A city near the Moscow river was drawn, but without a name. The other cities, however, were indicated and named.

It proves that the Western cartographers of the XVI century were getting confused about the location of Moscow, the capital of Russia. They knew roughly that it was situated 'somewhere there, far away', but they had trouble telling where exactly. That is why they nominally drew a large territory 'Moscowia'. Inside this territory they tentatively depicted a town, not quite understanding where exactly it was located. The same story was with Vladimir, another old capital of Russia-Horde.

Most likely in the epoch of the XIV-XVI c. the Russian-Horde authorities simply didn't allow the foreigners inside the country further than Yaroslavl and the merchant cities along the Volga river. The Horde acted in a comprehensible way. You are welcome to come and trade, but your entrance into the land where the Czar's quarters is situated is either forbidden or highly restricted. As the regions to the South and West of Yaroslavl were Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, the metropoly of the Empire. These lands were strictly guarded.

That is why the Western cartographers had to use on the whole only some vague stories about which towns, rivers and lakes are situated in the vast metropoly of the Empire, which was inaccessible to them. To draw a map based on such conversations was not simple of course. So Vladimir and Suzdal Russia on the maps of S.Herberstein and the other cartographers were possibly drawn in the quiet of European offices based on the snippets of the incidental information.

Fig.83

Let's go back to the 'problem of Novgorod'. Let's have a look at the map of S.Herberstein, fig.83. We can see that the Mologa river is shown INCORRECTLY. Instead of a 'loop' the Western Europeans depicted the river practically as a straight line starting not far from the lake Ilmen and flowing straight towards the Volga river. This is a first-rate blunder. In fact the Mologa meanders in a loop beginning in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia and flowing into the Volga river a little bit above Yaroslavl [TsRIM], ch.1. At the same time S.Herberstein says correctly, that THE MOLOGA RIVER 'FLOWS FROM THE LANDS OF VELIKY NOVGOROD' [161], p.153.

That is why the Western merchants and travellers having arrived to Volga at the mouth of Mologa near Kholopii Gorod (Town of Serves) understood that going up the Mologa river they would soon find themselves in the Czar's quarters of Velikii Novgorod. S Novgorod was not just another town, but an entire region of towns. That is why if you go up the Mologa river, at first you need to move TOWARDS THE NORTH WEST. However later, going up Mologa further, you need to turn South or even East, and as a result the ship will return to the Yaroslavl, i.e. Novgorod lands.

Thus the Westerners CORRECTLY informed their cartographers, that the Czar's headquarters in Velikii Novgorod was situated upstream of the Mologa river. The only thing left to do was to draw this river on the map. That is where the cartographers were faced with difficulties. They knew for sure that going upstream on the Mologa from Volga, the ship would at first go NORTH WEST. But they had no idea how the river would act further. They were not allowed as far as that. So the cartographers decided to merely CONTINUE THE LINE OF THE RIVER STRAIGHT TO THE NORTH WEST. The way it is drawn on the map of Herberstein. Having made this fundamental mistake, the cartographers 'stretched' the Mologa river as far as the lake Ilmen. And they erroneously decided that Mologa's source is located there. After that they confidently DREW HERE THE CZAR's VELIKI NOVGOROD, 'at the riverhead of Mologa'. Thus the annalistic royal Novgorod was 'driven back' far to the North West.

The Romanovs dynasty was pro-western not only by blood, but also by their original spirit. That is why the Western chronicles and maps, which replaced either the destroyed or the edited chronicles and maps of the 'Mongol' Empire, provided the basis to the Romanov geography and history. As we can see on the Western maps Velikii Novgorod is erroneously drawn near the lake Ilmen. There was nothing left for the Romanov historians to do, but to place here 'on the ground' the geographical Novgorodian names, which they have read from the Russian chronicles. In particular, they had to call a shabby town-district with a prison 'Velikii Novgorod'. This was an isolated place, desolate swampland, wolves, frogs, snakes and mosquitos. The mistake once firmly consolidated, it acquired an authoritative appearance, and overgrew with the other distortions. In the XX century Moscow archaeologists arrived here in order to 'even better confirm the chronicles'. To see the outcome of this 'activity' see [4v1], ch.2:11-12.

The coat of arms of the Russian-Horde Empire of the 16th century[edit | edit source]

The coat of arms of the Russian Empire has changed over the course of time. It is interesting to see what it looked like in the XVI-XVII cc., during the epoch of the Horde Empire and immediately after its break up in the XVII century. According to [162] four old depictions survive of the Imperial emblem of the XVI-XVII cc. [4v2], ch.2. Namely:

Fig.84
Fig.85

1) The state seal of Czar Ivan the Terrible (Ioann Grozny). Here surrounding the two headed eagle on the face side of the seal there are 12 emblem-seals [162], p. VIII and [568], p.161. See fig.84, fig.85.

2) The depiction of the coat-of-arms on the throne of Mikhail Fedorovich.

3) The coat-of arms on the silver plate of the Czar Aleksey Mikhailovich.

Fig.86

4) The depiction of the coat of arms of the Empire from the diary of Korb (Joanne Georgio Korb 'DNEVNIK PUTESHESTVIYA V MOSKOVIYU'- "A Diary of the Travel to Moscovy [Russia]") (1698 and 1699)) who in 1698-1699 accompanied the Austrian ambassador of the Habsburgs, sent to Moscow. Here are already depicted the 32 coat-of-arms of the Czardom, not including the Moscow coat-of-arms, fig.86.

Let's look at the national coat of arms of the Horde Empire of the XVI century, fig.84. It is considered to be the earliest of the four previously mentioned. The 12 regions-kingdoms surrounding the two headed eagle on this emblem are intriguing. They are listed in the inscription [161], p.VIII:

'Grand Sovereign Czar and Grand Prince of All Russia Ivan Vasilyevich ,Czar of Vladimir, Grand Prince of Moscow, and Novgorod; Czar of Kazan; Czar of Astrakhan; sovereign of Pskov; Grand Prince of Smolensk; Grand Prince of Tver; Grand Prince of Yugra region, Grand Prince of Perm, Grand Prince of Vyatka, Grand Prince of Bulgaria and the other territories, Sovereign and Grand Prince of Novai Gorod (New Town) of the Nizovskii Zemli (Nizovskii Lands); Sovereign and Grand Prince of Chernigov'.

It turns out that the entire Empire consisted of 12 Czardom-regions, reflected in the Bible as the 12 tribes of Israel [6]. It was exactly the 12 Israeli tribes = files who set off for the conquest of 'The Promised Land'. As it is shown in [6v1], ch.5, it took place in the XV century. These 12 tribes originated in Russia and the Ottoman Empire and settled across the world. I.e.in Southern and Western Europe, Africa, Asia and America.

Among the 12 kingdom-regions there were also the indigenous Russian-Hordian ones. For example, Velikii Novgorod, which in the coat-of-arms is rightly combined with Moscow and Vladimir. Or,for example, the Kazan Czardom, the Astrakhan kingdom, Smolensk Grand Duchy, etc.

An interesting question arises. Shouldn't there also be the territories of Western and Southern Europe as well as Constantinople conquered by the Ottomans comprising the 'Mongol' Empire? I.e. Asia Minor, Egypt and other neighbouring countries. Where are they in the coat of arms of the Russian-Horde Empire of the XVI century? Could it be that we have stumbled across a contradiction? No, it turns out that everything is fine.

12 Tsardom - tribes in the Russian coat of arms of the 16th century on the map of Europe[edit | edit source]

Fig.87

In [4v2], ch.2, we were able establish – which territories of the Empire corresponded with the emblems specified on the state seal of the XVI century. We will mark those places on the map of Europe where the capitals of the 12 Czardom -regions indicated on the face side of the seal were situated, fig.87. The dots and figures in bold represent the 12 Czardoms-tribes positioned around the two-headed eagle.

1) Velikii Novgorod, including Vladimir and Moscow. I.e. Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. 2) Czardom of Kazan 3) Astrakhan Czardom. 3) Pskov republic = Prussia, Central and North Germany. 5) Grand Principality of Smolensk. 6) The Principality of Great Perm = Tiverian Principality with its capital in Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus. 7) Grand Principality of Yugra = Hungary 8) The Principality of Great Perm = German-Austrian. 9) Grand Principality of Vyatka = Spanish-Vatican. 10) Grand Principality of Bulgaria. 11) Grand Principality of Nizovye = Nizhegorodskoye Principality. 12) Grand Principality of Chernigov.

In fig.87 you can see that these Biblical kingdoms-tribes are arranged in groups. Except for the last two tribes, added to the Coat of Arms after the words 'and the other territories'.

1st group – are the Czardoms along the Volga river: Velikii Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan.

2nd group – is West Russia: Pskov or Pleskov = Prussia, Smolensk = White Russia (Belya Rus) or Blue Russia (Blue Rus).

3rd group – is West and South Europe: Czar-Grad, Hungary, Austria, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria.

4th group – two more Russian Princedoms – Nizhnii Novgorod and Chernigov.

Thus in the coat of arms of Russia-Horde of the XVI century there is depicted a significant part of the Empire. But not all of it. Some of the Northern provinces were not included (Sweden, for example), distant Eastern lands (Japan, for example) and the distant Western territories (England, for example). The overseas colonies in America also were not included [6v2], ch.6. However, England and Sweden are included in the other Russian emblems.

In fig.86 we see the Russian emblem of the Romanov epoch of the end of the XVII century [162], p.XI. On the eagle's wings from left to right there are the Coats of Arms of: Kiev, Novgorod, Astrakhan, Moscow, Siberia, Kazan, Vladimir. Inside the oval clockwise from the top are the Coats of Arms of: Pskovsky, Tverskoi, Podolsky, Permsky, Bulgarsky, Chernigovsky, Polotsky, Yaroslavsky, Udorsky, Kondiisky, Mstislavsky, Iversky, Kabardinsky, of Chersky and Gorsky Territories, Cartalinsky, Sveisky, Vitebsky, Obdorsky, Belozersky, Rostovsky, Ryazansky, Novgorod-Nizovsky, yatsky, Yugorsky, Volynsky, Smolensky.

Here the number of the Coats of Arms is significantly greater than in the 'Mongol' emblem of the XVI century. There appear mysterious Czardoms, such as Udorsky, Kondiisky and Obdorsky. Besides, the princedoms Iversky and Cartalinsky are named. One of them - Cartalinsky Czardom is, possibly, Georgia. In which case Iversky Czardom is Spain. We don't mean to say that at the end of the XVII century Spain still belonged to the Russian Empire. The Romanovs, quite simply, took the old Hordian Coat of Arms, where among others were named the distant Czardoms which used to belong to Russia-Horde in the XV-XVI cc. This 'Mongol' emblem was more detailed than the one we have discussed earlier.

That is why we can see here such well-known Czardoms as Sveysky, i.e. Swiss (Sweden). It is followed by Iversky, i.e. Spain. Then there is Yugorsky Czardom, i.e. Hungary. Then - Bulgarian. And lastly there is Permsky, i.e. Austrian Czardom.

Let's go back to the three new, at first glance unclear names in the 'Mongol' emblem: Udorsky, Kondiisky and Obdorsky princedoms. As we show in [4v2], ch.2, the answer is as follows: The mysterious Udorsky Prinsdim is 'the Mongolian' lands on the border of the present day Germany and Poland, where the river Oder flows.

The British Isles = England, or the Isle of Crete are named as Kontiisky island on the coat of arms of Russia-Horde.

Mysterious Obdora is a town and may be even the entire territory in Spain. Or in Thrace. And it could also possibly be in France, if we remember that THRACE and FRANCE are just the two versions of the same name. Latin C would read as TS or K.

On the history of England[edit | edit source]

As we have shown in [4v2], the 'ancient' chronicles in existence today describe the Czar-Grad Czardom of the XII-XV cc. and the Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. The historians erroneously date these chronicles as deep 'antiquity', earlier than the XII century. Roughly speaking the 'ancient' English chronicles are the Romaic and 'Mongol' chronicles transferred to England during its conquest by the Horde and interweaved into the insular English history.

The actual written history of England which provides the accounts of the events SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ISLAND, begins only in the XI century. There are very few fragments of the XI-XIII century which survive. Then on top there was applied a layer of the events telling us about Czar-Grad and the Great Empire. The combination of the insular-English and Romaic-'Mongolian' layers gave us the modern textbook of the history of England of the XI-XVI cc.

Fig.88

The history of England as we know it today which truly reflects the native English insular events, only begins with the XVI-XVII cc. i.e. unalloyed with the Czar-Grad or Mongolian' events. Roughly speaking beginning with the XVI-XVII cc. the Scaligerian version of the history of England is more or less correct, see fig.88.

In the XIII century the waves of the Crusades overwhelm Romea. The Crusader states emerge here. Both the local population and the crusaders get mixed up in them. Cultural life flourishes, the chronicles are written.

At the beginning of the XIV century the 'Mongol' conquest takes place. Then, in 1453 under the attack of the Ottomans who came from Russia-Horde, Constantinople fell. Byzantium is destroyed; crowds of its people leave the country. Many rich people, intellectuals and aristocrats leave for Europe, including for the island of England. These fugitives of the XIV-XV cc. take with them the Czar-Grad chronicles as a memory of the true history of Romea and Horde. In the XIV century a gigantic Horde Empire emerges. On the island of England appears another of its provinces with its governors subordinate to Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The chronicles which are written during this time on the island reflect not so much the local events, as the life of the whole Empire and its Hordian metropoly.

Some time passes. They start writing THEIR OWN history on the island of England, and in the XVI-XVII cc. the 'new' history of 'ancient' England is created. This is a part of global 'Reformation'. The old chronicles are being re-written in England as well. A lot of the true history of the XIV-XVI cc. has been forgotten. The English historians of the XVI-XVII cc. declare the old Romaic and Hordian-Ottomanian chronicles edited by them to be the documents of the allegedly insular English history. They make them the basis for the 'ancient' history of the British Isles. Big chunks of the history of Romea and the 'Mongol' Empire which unfolded on the vast territories of Eurasia, are transferred on paper to the comparatively small British Isles and their surroundings. Many major events inevitably become smaller, as if shrunk in size. The Hordian Czars of the Empire turn under the quill of the English editors into the local island rulers. The Great Empire disappears from the pages of the edited chronicles. And those accounts which they didn't succeed in destroying, are moved to the past with the aid of the false chronology, transforming them into the 'most ancient myths'.

As a result in the XVI-XVII cc. there emerge the English chronicles in the style of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 'The History of the Britons' by Nennius, etc. Soon this fresh version of the 'ancient' English history solidifies like a monument. In the XIX-XX cc. it becomes only slightly clarified and lacquered over. And today, when discovering with the aid of mathematical methods astonishing duplicates inside the 'English textbook', we begin to understand that the actual English history is considerably shorter [4v2].

It is possible that the Reformers moved the stolen treasury of the Empire to England. They didn't want to take a chance of keeping it in Europe, weary of the restoration of Russia-Horde. At first they tried to create a new metropoly in Vienna, Austria by installing their string puppets there under the pompous name of the 'Habsburgs'. Nothing came of it. This 'Empire' was short-lived. That is why the Hordian money was taken as far away as possible to the distant English isles (where under Ivan the Terrible Elena Voloshanka = Esther = Mary Stuart was exiled to and executed). Having seized the vast treasures of the Horde, the English rebels acquired influence and created the 'English Empire', which existed for some time.

How the later Western Europeans began to depict the Hordians[edit | edit source]

Fig.89

In the XVI-XVII cc. they began re-writing the history. The attitude towards the 'Tatar Mongols' also changed. They were now painted purely with black colours. In fig.89.there is shown an illumination from The Chronica Majora by Matthew Parris, allegedly of the XIII century. It depicts a leisurely dinner of the 'Tatar Mongols'. Under the picture there is a caption: 'The Tatars are eating human flesh'. They are roasting a human corpse on a turnspit. Next to it there are cut off human heads and arms. Indicating that such are the 'Mongolian' customs. Savages, cannibals. A far cry from the enlightened and sensitive Western Europeans [4v2], ch.6.

Just about the same was said about the 'Tatar Mongols', calling them the Scythians. Thus, for example, Solinus Gaius Julius reasons with confidence: 'The Scythians of the inland regions lead a rough lifestyle, they live in caves… They love battles. They drink blood from the wounds of the slayed. Glory grows with the number of murders, and not to kill anyone is a disgrace'. Quoted from [953], p.219.

All such provocative leaflets like these are the Western European propaganda of the Reformation epoch. Among the same kind of 'horror stories' is the creation of the character of a wicked Russian bear intimidating Europe. In regards to the name of URSUS under which the bear is depicted in the old maps, the historians inform us: 'The Hereford Mappa Mundi could probably shed the light onto the origin of the English stereotype of the 'Russian bear' which was widely spread during the Elizabethan epoch… There were attempts to raise this Elizabethan stereotype to the symbolism of the early Christian tradition, WHERE BOTH THE NORTH AND THE BEAR WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE IDEA OF EVIL… Finally, both filthy beasts (a bear and a monkey – Author) are the components of the diet of the 'TURKOMEN OF THE GOG AND MAGOG DESCENT [953], p.230. The very name of the bear itself – URSUS is just one of the versions of the pronunciation of the word RUSS, Russian.

When the works attributed to Durer were created[edit | edit source]

In [5v1], ch.14:3, we show that the works of art attributed to the artist of allegedly the XV-XVI cc. Albrecht Durer were most likely created a century later – in the XVII century. It appears that EXACTLY IN THE XVII CENTURY OCCURS THE PEAK OF DISCOVERING BOTH THE ORIGINAL WORKS OF DURER AND THE NUMEROUS 'COPIES' AND 'IMITATIONS'. They write: 'Not long before 1600 the demand on Durer's prints (his engravings – Author) became so great, that the market was swamped with the engravings and other imitations. This copying carried on almost continually during the 18th century' [1117], p.130. It emerges that the first list of Durer's graphic art appears only in the XVIII century (!) by (Heinrich Hüsgen, 1745-1847).

The Reformers of the XVII century were destroying not only the state structures of the Horde Empire, but its manifestations in art, sculpture, literature and science. A sweeping blow was also dealt on the legacy of the Imperial artist A.Durer. Something similar was inflicted on the cartographer Gerardus Mercator [7v1], ch.7.

Later the fire of the coup died down, emotions were placated. Following the success of the Reformation there was a need in the new Germany of the XVII century to create the 'great German history', allegedly independent from the former one – the 'Mongolian'. They decided also to create a new history of art, literature and architecture. Free of the 'detrimental' tradition of the Horde Empire. They remembered of A.Durer and decided to create on the basis of the glorious, but already forgotten name, a 'new Durer of the Reformation'. His earlier paintings perished. Burnt in the fires of the Reformation. Oh well, said the Reformers, it's for the best, as they were improper. We will paint the new – proper ones. 'Durer's second birth' was naturally cleared of the memories of the 'Mongol' Empire. As envisioned by the Reformers Durer was supposed to become a 'typical European' in the 'progressive' meaning of the XVII century. So Durer was declared the 'great supporter of the Reformation' [1117],p.104. They kept repeating it until present day. But is it true? Durer, the Empire's artist of the XVI century, hardly supported the anti-government coup, aimed primarily against the Empire, which he served faithfully all his life [5v1], ch.14:3.

The Almagest by Cladius Ptolemy[edit | edit source]

Of course as it has already been said, the important result of the New Chronology is as follows. The star catalogue of the famous 'Almagest' by Ptolemy was created in the interval between year 600 to year 1300, and by no means in the II century [3v1].

The dating method which we suggested was successfully tested on a number of the well-known star catalogues, in particular those of - Ulugh Beg, Al-Sufi, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Hevelius. In all cases the traditionally known dating of the old catalogues – with the exception of the Almagest catalogue – were confirmed by our method. The Almagest catalogue turned out to be the single exception. It means that the traditional dating of Ptolemy's life contains an error of several hundred or even more, a thousand years.

Almagest is an encyclopaedia, where several hundred years' worth of astronomical observations are collected. The earliest of them date to the epoch not earlier than the X century. The observations up until the XVI century could have been included in the Almagest. This encyclopaedia reflects the current and changing state of astronomical science. The final version was published in the XVI century.

Editions of the Almagest prior to the XVI century, even if they existed, didn't reach us. In the XVII century, during the falsification of history, the Almagest, which was important for the chronology, was significantly re-worked. It was published 'post factum', listing erroneous dates. It included the fabricated 'ancient observations', which in fact were the results of the THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO THE MEDIAEVAL ASTRONOMICAL THEORY OF THE XVII CENTURY. It is presented in the Almagest. Thus one of the whales of the Scaligeraian chronology was created.

The coordinates of the planets, position of the Sun, the Moon and etc. were calculated into the past. Then the calculated astronomical phenomenon were declared to be 'observed' and were included into the Almagest: 'A such-and-such astronomer in a such-and-such (calculated!) year observed this and that'. But as the astronomical theory of the XVII century was not so precise as today, the evaluations made according to the modern formulas reveal the fraud. As was discovered by the well-known astrophysicist Robert Newton [3v1].

So, THE ALMAGEST AS WE KNOW IT TODAY WAS CREATED IN THE XVII CENTURY. Its creators presented this book to be 'ancient' in order to lay it as a foundation of the Scaligerian chronology which was in the process of being created in precisely that very epoch. THAT IS WHY THOSE ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENA WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED INTO THE PAST ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF THE XVII CENTURY WERE DATED IN THE ALMAGEST ALREADY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHRONOLOGY OF SCALIGER. Naturally, with the precision which could have been achieved with the flawed astronomical theory of the XVII century. That is why it is necessary to refer to Almagest data with great caution, when we wish to use it for the purpose of chronology. Only the data which could not have been computed in the XVII century should be used. For example the solar eclipses, the precise phases of the lunar eclipses, the star positions. However, the falsifiers of the XVII century naturally did their best so there were no such possible data left in the Almagest at our disposal. For example, 'for some reason' no solar eclipses are mentioned in the Almagest.

Going forward. The famous 'classical' astronomer Hipparchus, who lived allegedly in the II century BC [797], p.307 – is, to a great extent, a phantom reflection of the famous astronomer Tycho Brahe, who lived in the XVI century. In the beginning of the XVII century, when filling the 'distant antiquity' with the phantoms of the Mediaeval events, the historians 'split' Tycho Brahe into two as well. One of the versions of his biography was cast away into the past and there was created the 'great astronomer Hipparchus'. Besides, in [VAT], part 1, ch.1. we show that the life description of Hipparchus also includes the ancient information about the astronomer from the XI century.

Ptolemey's Almagest was finally edited and finished only AFTER Tycho Brahe, in the epoch of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). I.e. the Almagest, including its star catalogue, was being edited up until the beginning of the XVII century. As a result the following picture is forming.

  • At first there emerged a comparatively small catalogue of Tycho Brahe – the most ancient among the star catalogues which survive to the present time.
  • Followed by – a more complete 'ancient' catalogue of Claudius Ptolemy, to be more precise – its surviving version.
  • Then – the even more complete catalogue of Johann Hevelius.
  • And finally the even more complete catalogue of John Flamsteed.

The catalogue of Tycho Brahe appears to be the earliest and therefore the most sparse from the point of view of the quantity of stars recorded in it. Then Ptolemey or the editors of his catalogue increase the number of the observed stars. And only after that an even larger quantity of stars appear in the catalogues of Hevelius and Flamsteed.

Can we date the Almagest based on the Ptolemy's descriptions of the 21 lunar eclipses? They allegedly were observed by the astronomers in the duration of 850 years. The serious analysis of these lunar eclipses was conducted by Robert Newton [3v1]. He discovered a lot of evidence supporting the fact that MOST OF THEM ARE FORGED. Therefore we cannot consider the lunar eclipses from the Almagest to be trustworthy material for astronomical dating. Most likely this forged 'ancient list' was manufactured in the XVI-XVII cc. in order to lay the grounds for the Almagest's 'antiquity'.

THE CONCLUSION. The surviving version of the Almagest was created not by some single author-observer, but is a collective 'textbook on astronomy'. It is a collection of many individual observations, various theories, calculations and exercises on chronology belonging to different astronomers of the XI-XVII cc. The star catalogue could have been compiled by one observer in the epoch of the X-XIII cc. But the final text of the Almagest is by other authors of the XVI-XVII cc.

The flourishing, stagnation and reflourishing in the history of Astronomy[edit | edit source]

The Scaligerian history claims that 'ancient' astronomy enjoyed an unprecedented rise. However later, 'during the next three centuries after the death of Hipparchus, it was as if the history of astronomy became enshrouded in darkness' [65], p.63. Purporting that the epoch of the greatest stagnation has started. Practically the only outburst during 300 years in the 'darkening' Greek astronomy is considered to be Ptolemy's Almagest. Today he is regarded as the 'last chord of ancient astronomy'. IT IS FOLLOWED BY A PERIOD OF PROFOUND SILENCE AND DARKNESS IN THE SCALIGERIAN HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY.

They write: 'CLASSICAL CULTURE IN DECLINE'. After the breath-taking rise of the classical culture there began a PROLONGED PERIOD OF SOME STAGNATION AND, IN SOME CASES, REGRESSION in the European continent – a timespan of more than 1000 years, which is commonly referred to as the Middle Ages… AND OVER THESE 1000 YEARS THERE WAS MADE NO SIGNIFICANT ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERY' [395], P.73.

Our thought is simple. These 'dark ages', 'dips', 'centuries of complete silence', 'global catastrophes' appear only because the historians of the science use the incorrect chronology. In which there exist the 'ancient' mirage-reflections and the 'dark ages' between 'Classical Antiquity' and the 'Renaissance'. The new chronology removes these 'gaps' and 'sinusoids' in the development of the science and culture. So.

In the Scaligerian history of astronomy there occurs a strange phenomenon: a magnificent blossoming of the 'ancient classical' astronomy, followed by a deep millennial regression, followed by the repeated rise beginning with the XIII century.

We are assured that practically all the main breakthroughs in astronomy of the XIV-XVI cc. have been 'already discovered' more than 1000 years prior to that, in the 'Classical antiquity'. But later in some mysterious way were forgotten. Let's list the fundamental ideas allegedly discovered a long time ago by the 'classical ancient' astronomers.

Ecliptic and equatorial coordinates, methods of their calculation. Determination of the principal elements of the relative planetary inter-motion in the Solar system. Heliocentrism - essentially the heliocentric theory of the planetary system. Calculation of the relative distances in the Solar system – Earth – Moon – planets – stars. The forecast of the Lunar eclipses. Compilation of star catalogues. Celestial globes design. Discovery of precession. Professional astronomical instruments: astrolabe, etc. Computing the length of the sidereal year and the tropical year. Allocation of the constellation of stars, recording of their 'image'. The question of the existence of proper motion stars.

These discoveries were made in the XII-XVII cc. But later their duplicates were dated back into the past by the incorrect chronology. There were no major 'regressions' in the history of science and culture.

Geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system and the heliocentric system by Tycho Brahe (and Copernicus)[edit | edit source]

Fig.90

The World system according to Tycho Brahe is shown in fig.90. In the centre of the world there is the Earth around which revolves the Sun. However, the rest of the planets are already revolving round the Sun. This is the reason why today Tycho Brahe's (Tychonic) system is called Geo-Heliocentric [395], p.132. BUT IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR, THAT IT DIFFERS FROM THE 'COPERNICUS SYSTEM' ONLY BY THE CHOICE OF THE ORIGIN OF THE COORDINATES. That's all! For, as we know from school, change of origin does not change the system of bodies in motion. Only the coordinate system changes, the point at which the observer is placed. The 'picture' changes, but not the core of the matter [3v1], ch.11.

From the point of view of kinematics, the system of Tycho Brahe (Hipparchus) is quite heliocentric. But only the centre of the coordinate system is placed at Earth. After all, the centre of the coordinates can be connected with any astronomical body of the system. IF WE MOVE THE STARTING POINT OF THE REFERENCE SYSTEM ON TYCHO BRAHE'S CHART INTO THE SUN, THEN WITHOUT ESSENTIALLY CHANGING ANYTHING WE WILL GET A 'COPERNICAN' SYSTEM'. Earth will start revolving around the Sun. Where all the other planets, according to Tycho Brahe, already revolve around the Sun. All that's missing to complete the picture according to Kepler is only the mild orbital ellipticity. Brahe still has his planets' orbits as circular. As, incidentally, does Copernicus. But this is the 'second order' effect. That is why, we will repeat, Tycho Brahe's system is in fact as good as the Copernican system. But with a different starting point of the reference system. The observer is placed at Earth, but not at the Sun.

It is clear that the idea by Tycho Brahe (Hipparchus) preceded or co-existed with the idea by Copernicus. The 'Copernican system' evolutionally follows the system by Tycho Brahe or is contemporary to it, but not at all preceding it. The final 'model' of the heliocentric system was most likely suggested only AFTER TYCHO BRAHE, in the epoch of his student Johannes Kepler. And Copernicus of the XV-XVI cc. was accredited with its invention post factum. Thus the true chronological order of the 'world system' is as follows.

First – the Ptolemy's geocentric system. Its complex model of epicycles was formed most likely in the XV-XVI cc. Earth was placed at the centre of the universe. Based on the idea of the epicycles, stating that Earth is a fixed point, it was necessary to create a complex model of the epicycles in order to explain the movement of the planets visible from Earth. This world system was based on the 'royal' star catalogue of the XII century. Its creation is connected with the Birth of Jesus Christ in the XII century and with the flaring up of the supernova circa 1152, i.e. the Star of Bethlehem. It is possible that the first astronomers created the star catalogue in honour of Jesus. Hence the origin of the great authority of the catalogue. It existed in its more or less unchanged form until the epoch of the XVI century.

The star catalogue included by Copernicus in his book and called 'Copernicus' star catalogue', IS IN FACT THE VERY SAME PTOLEMAIC STAR CATALOGUE, HOWEVER MODIFIED FOR ANOTHER EPOCH BY CHOOSING A DIFFERENT LONGITUDE REFERENCE POINT. The Astronomy historians became aware of this fact a long time ago [395], p.109. This indicates that the astronomers of the Middle Ages kept shifting zero longitude, moving the 'catalogue date according to precession' into the epoch they required, for one reason or another. In the XV-XVI cc. the astronomers made the next step and began to develop the theory of the planets' motion, Earth and the Sun. The 'Ptolemaic system' appeared. The historians of astronomy note, that 'according to its composition the book by Copernicus GREATLY RESEMBLES the Almagest' [395], p.105. It's all correct. It was in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. when the final edition of the Almagest was created.

1) Simultaneously with Ptolemy's concept, in the second half of the XVI century the system of Tycho Brahe = 'ancient Hipparchus'. It is practically heliocentric. The planetary motion, apart from the Moon, is circular with the Sun in the centre. The coordinate origin is connected to Earth.

2) And finally, the heliocentric system with the coordinate origin in the Sun. There is a new idea here, but it has nothing to do with the crux of the matter. The idea is that it is not necessary to place the coordinate origin at the very same point where the observer is located. I.e. on the Earth. It could be the Sun. For the public and school education the 'picture' was simplified.

This system entered the astronomical practices possibly in the XVII century, in the epoch of Kepler. It was attributed post factum to the astronomer of the XV-XVI cc. by the name of Copernicus. He was most likely a remarkable astronomer. He could have been the first to express in its 'raw' form the heliocentric idea with the zero point at the Sun, and not at the Earth. However, today it is very difficult to be sure what exactly he was doing. The only thing to go by on Copernicus' life and work are the XVII century texts, i.e. written 60-100 years after his death.

Most likely, both systems – by Claudius Ptolemy and by Tycho Brahe – belong to the same epoch. The systems were in competition with each other and were discussed by the astronomers. Until finally they realised that the heliocentric system by Tycho Brahe is the only correct one. However the historians unceremoniously took this fundamental discovery from Tycho Brahe and attributed it to the 'earlier' Copernicus.

In the 14th-16th centuries Europe respectfully "looked up to" the distant and mighty Tsar-Khan of the Horde[edit | edit source]

We were taught that allegedly in the XIV-XVI cc. – as indeed always – Western Europe looked at Russia in a condescending manner. And allegedly deservedly so. Indeed, in the West – there is civilization and culture. And Russia is a backward and ignorant country, only having crawled out from under the Tartar and Mongol yoke with great difficulty. Of course, there is a lot of honey, bread, bacon and hemp. That is why they sometimes succeeded in luring in some skilful overseas artisans here, so they could relent and mercifully build something extraordinary in this, backward, dim Russia. The cathedrals, the palaces, the factories and the ships. The Russians naively marvelled at the craftsmanship of the foreigners, realising that they would never be able to reach such dizzy heights in those skills. Only after Peter I (the Great) the Russian mechanical and industrial arts started to develop at last, generally still being second rate. Not to mention that the Western Royal courts gazed condescendingly at the Moscow Czar, the Asiatic barbarian on the throne.

However, it was quite the reverse. In the XIV-XVI cc. there emerged the 'Mongol' Empire which included, in particular, all the West-European territories. The local rulers were the vassals to the Horde Czar-khan. The traces of their subservient state survive in the testimonies of their contemporaries [6v3], ch.1:16. Despite the fact that they underwent tendentious editing in the XVII-XVIII cc.

The remote regions of the Empire were in a different situation from the metropoly, i.e. Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The centre of the Empire was generally occupied with military matters and the development of military capability necessary to keep the vast territories under its rule. It was necessary to supress, appease, and arbitrate. A big army was necessary for this. A lot of energy was required to maintain the routes of communication. It was required to collect taxes, to regulate trade between the Imperial territories. That is why generally the metropoly required military servicemen and civil servants and a large administrative apparatus.

The life of the remote provinces was different. The Hordian Czar-Khan was far away. The governors ruled as his representatives. The Cossack garrisons were located nearby to maintain order. The focus was not only on the local issues, but the necessity to win favour from the metropoly. A lot depended on that. For example, the superiority over a neighbour could be achieved not only by crushing it's military detachment, but also by sending fine gifts to the Horde. If the gifts were fine, than the Czar-Khan could graciously allow seizure of the neighbour's land. Especially if the latter didn't please the 'Mongol' Khan. For example, either the tax was not paid regularly by that neighbour, or the gifts he sent were unsatisfactory.

In Western Europe they were developing arts and sciences. Including those aimed at entertainment. Their industry was being created especially in the resort provinces of the Empire where the climate was favourable. In Italy, France and Spain. In Italy there developed: architecture, literature, history and singing. In England – shipbuilding. In France – its own palette. And so on (etc.)

The Hordian court of the Czar-Khan considered all of it to be its own, at their disposal. If the building of a new fleet was required, the request was sent to England. From there the best ship builders were sent to Russia. Otherwise the Imperial ships were built in England outright. If a skilful physician was required – they would call for a Frenchman, for example. If there was an urgent need to build a cathedral in Moscow – the architects from Italy were called for, as it was during the construction of the Moscow Kremlin. The architects would come straight away. Refusal was not an option. Having received the Imperial order they would answer 'Yes, Sir!' execute the order and send the specialists to the metropoly. From Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England, Africa, Asia…

At the Czar-Khan's court in Yaroslavl and later in Moscow there were probably parties of representatives from various provinces: of Englishmen, French, Germans… They fought for the right to be the first to gain the lucrative contracts. Vouching to the great Khan and his administration that their specialists were the best. The victorious party would rejoice. The significance of that province in the eyes of the Khan administration would thus increase.

Following the split of the Great Empire, when the Western territories declared themselves independent, the efforts of the local governors were aimed at 'proving' that 'it was always the way it is today'. As if purporting that the Western rulers were always independent. They wanted to wipe out the memory of the revolt, about the fact that they came to power by illegal means from the point of view of the ideology of that time. They came up with a false chronology which has cast into the past the 'Mongol' conquest under the name of the Great Transmigration of Peoples, the Slavic conquest of Europe allegedly of the IV-V cc. The recent Europe was hastily wiped out off the world map. They appropriated for themselves the history of the 'Mongol' dynasty of the XIV-XVI cc. under the name of the 'Western-European Habsburgs' [7v2], ch.3. Here, they said, are our former emperors. And we were altogether never under the authority of Moscow. Such an absurd and politically detrimental idea should not even enter one's head.

This activity coincided with the desire of the pro-Western Romanovs, who had seized the power in Russia. That is why the actions of the Romanovs and the new rulers of Europe were coordinated. And against the Ottoman Empire which was in the way of this civilizing process, it was necessary to organise the Crusade. With Russian hands and Russian blood.

The revision of the texts, chronicles and memoires was carried out. Many foreigners visited Russia in the XIV-XVI cc. That is why there still remained many original documents in Western Europe. They were sought, destroyed, edited. Then they were printed. The 'old dates' were put onto them in order to vindicate the new perspective.

But many things survived. Various details escaped the attention of the editors. Not all of them understood the task equally well, not all of them were astute. And indeed the perceptions themselves of how history should appear 'in reality' were only gradually developed by the falsifiers. That is why much of the stuff the later historians of the XIX-XX cc. would decisively cross out from an old document, the earlier editors of the XVII-XVIII cc. could have missed. Which they did!

That is why some of the works of the Western Europeans of the XVI century about Russia seem today somewhat strange. Even after being edited they do not fit the ideas which are instilled in us. Such as, for example, the well-known 'Notes on Russia' by Jerome Horsey. See details in [6v3], ch.1.

What are the "seven wonders of the ancient world" and where they were located[edit | edit source]

The famous seven wonders of the world are often recalled. We are persuaded that they, with the exception of the Egyptian pyramids, were destroyed in the Middle Ages. 'The seven wonders' are [572], p.135:

1) The PYRAMIDS OF Egypt: survive. 2) Hanging Gardens of Semiramida, i.e. Hanging Gardens of Babylon: destroyed. 3) Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: destroyed. 4) Statue of Zeus at Olympia: destroyed. 5) Mausoleum at Halicarnassus: destroyed.6) Colossus of Rhodes: destroyed. 7) Colossus of Rhodes in Pharos: destroyed.

What wonders of the world did the 'ancient classical' authors speak of? They wrote, as we understand it, in the XVI-XVII cc. We managed to identify the 'seven wonders' with the constructions of the Middle Ages. For example, the 'Hanging Gardens of Semiramida, created in Moscow in the XVI century, already existed in the XVII-XVIII cc [6v2], ch.2:4.14. It appears that the rest of the 'wonders of the world' either exist until today, or were destroyed quite recently. So.

1) PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT

In regards to the Egyptian pyramids we do not have any differences with the Scaligerian version. Except for the dating, of course. These gigantic constructions rightfully head the list of the 'Seven Wonders of the Ancient World'.

2) THE HANGING GARDENS OF SERMIRAMIDA.

We spoke about the 'gardens of Semiramida', or about the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, in [6v2], ch.10:4.14. They are – THE FAMOUS ROYAL GARDENS ARRANGED ON THE ROOF OF THE KREMLIN PALACE IN MOSCOW (XVI-XVIII cc.). The historians and archaeologists cannot present us today with any remnants of the 'hanging gardens of Semiramida' in Asia, where Biblical Babylon was erroneously placed. They were searched for long and hard. But in vain. Having come to a standstill they declared several semi-covered earth trenches near a small town in modern Iraq to be the remains of the 'gardens of Semiramida [572], p.41. By the way, what do the hanging gardens have to do with it? Given that the gardens of Semiramida were 'hanging in the air', but did not grow in the ground.

3) TEMPLE OF ARTEMIS AT EPHESUS.

It is considered that this enormous temple, whose glory echoed throughout the ancient world, was built in Ephesus, a city in Asia Minor. But this hypothesis is erroneous. It's no coincidence that the historians and archaeologists cannot point out any distinguishable traces of the famous temple close to a place in the south of Turkey, which was precariously declared in the XIX century to be 'the great ancient Ephesus' -572], p.58. In the end, having found no remnants of the temple of Artemis projected above the surface of the ground the archaeologists began excavating.

Frankly, in seven years they haven't found much. They write this: 'THE REMAINS OF THE BEST OF THE EPHESUS BUILDINGS – ARTEMISIONA – APPEARED TO BE INSIGNIFICANTLY SMALL … The statue of the goddess did not survive either, its appearance is being reconstructed based on the image on a coin and using a copy found in 1956. The archaeologists and architects recreated only the plan of the famous temple with any certainty' [572], p.59.

The idea occurs to look for the famous temple of Artemis in a different place. Could it still exist? As well as the great trading city of Ephesus itself. It is likely that THE TEMPLE OF ARTEMIS AT EPHESUS IS THE FAMOUS GIGANTIC TEMPLE OF HAGIA SOPHIA IN ISTANBUL. This magnificent construction, as we have explained above, was the first experiment in massive temple building. The huge Sophia built, most likely in the XV-XVI cc. made a strong impression on contemporaries [6v]. Even today the magnificence of the temple is striking. It is possible that in the name EPHESUS there might be the sound of the name SOPHIA if read backwards: EPHESUS – SOPHIA.

There is one other possibility to determine the place of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, which was also called the Temple of DIANA. It is cape Fiolent near Sevastopol. Legends circulated about the Temple of Diana in Crimea. In the beginning of the XIX century A.S.Pushkin was searching for its traces and found them near Saint George Monastery in Cape Fiolent. As we have found out, the genuine Grotto of the Nativity is located there [XP]. In 1152 Christ was born there. Pushkin, naturally, did not know anything about it. But it was near Saint George Monastery where he found the remains of a large 'pagan' temple and suggested that it was the Temple of Diana. In light of our discovery, the Pushkin hypothesis is even more plausible. It is precisely here, in the birth place of Christ where the majestic temple of the Blessed Virgin Mary should have stood. It is highly unlikely that the Czar-gods of the Great Empire, Christ's relatives, wouldn't have erected an appropriate temple to Diana-Mother of God near the Grotto of the Nativity. To remind you, Diana was one of the names of the Mother of God in the times of the 'Royal' Christianity.

Today there are no remains of the Temple of Diana found near the Saint George Monastery. There are only the legends left that here once upon a time there used to be the Temple of Diana and also her grotto. Notably Diana's Grotto really exists. It is the Grotto of the Nativity, where she gave birth to Christ. Today there is the Church of the Nativity situated in the grotto. It's altar, according to the legend, was set by Apostle Andrew the First-called (St. Andrew the Apostle). I.e. by Christ himself. [TsRS].

4) THE STATUE OF ZEUS AT OLYMPIA.

What is Olympus and what kind of gods dwelled there, we discuss in [4v2], ch.2:22. 'The Olympic gods' are the Czars of the 'Mongol' Empire = Biblical Assyria = Israel. In the distant provinces people made up legends about their distant and mysterious rulers. Thus emerged the 'Ancient' Greek myths about the Olympian gods.

The 'Ancient' Greek Olympia is Velikii Novgorod = Yaroslavl of the XIV-XVI cc. Therefore the 'statue of Zeus' in Olympia is some holy object situated in Yaroslavl or nearby. The legends about this 'statue' most likely originated from the stories of the Western merchants and travellers, who visited the trade-fairs of Velikii Novgorod.

It is thought, that the 'main relic of Olympia was the legendary Temple of Zeus with the statue of the supreme god, created by one of the most genius Greek sculptors – Phidias (i.e. a certain Feodor, Fedya – Author)' [572], p.62. We would like to draw your attention to the fact, that the 'statue' was situated inside the temple. This simplifies the answer to the puzzle. The interior decoration of the Russian churches indeed contained an object which was known only in Russia and made the Russian cathedrals different from all the other ones. It is the iconostasis. In a large cathedral it is a huge construction. It rises in height to the cathedral vaults. Iconostasis separates the altar – approximately one third of cathedral's length – from the rest of a cathedral. Some of the Russian iconostases were exuberant. The iconostasis surface, free of the icons, was covered with golden engraving – leaf-gold on wood. In the main Russian cathedrals the lower rows of the icons had the golden icon plating with the precious stones, wrought silver, filigree work, gold seeded into enamel.

In the other countries the chancel screens were either not made at all, or, like in Greece, for example, it was the iconostasis which served as a chancel screen, but a rather low rising wall or a simple SCREEN (ZAVESA in Russian). There are Holy doors made in an iconostasis furnished with a SCREEN (ZAVESA). Hence the entire iconostasis could have been perceived as a STANDING SCREEN (ZAVESA) OR STATUE-ZAVESA. Which could have easily in the telling the legends turned into the STATUE OF ZEVESA, i.e. STATUE OF ZEUS.

The historians put forward a hypothesis, that the 'Ancient Olympia was located in Greece'. However, 'there were no remnants of the legendary statue of Zeus discovered among the numerous architectural and sculptural pieces in Olympia. And nor indeed could they have been found, as it is well-known that the statue of Zeus was completely destroyed in the fire' [572], p.64.

But if the statue was completely destroyed in the fire, then, most likely, it was wooden. It is all correct. The iconostases were made of wood and adorned with gold over the wooden carving. During the fire the iconostasis could have been completely incinerated.

5) THE MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS

It is thought that this enormous temple-mausoleum was built in the city of Halicarnassus on the coast of Asia Minor as the family burial chamber for the King Mausolus and his wife Artemisia. 'Mausolus accumulated great wealth. This overabundance allowed him to build a tomb-temple for himself, it was so magnificent that it survived in the people's memory until the present day as THE UNSURPASSED EXAMPLE OF FUNERARY ARCHITECTURE. Its reputation was so great, that the Ancient Romans called all the grand monumental constructions – mausoleums… As envisioned by the architects the burial tomb of the King Mausolus WAS THE MOST LUXURIANT AND REMARKABLE STRUCTURE IN HALICARNASSUS HAD TO BE SITUATED IN THE CENTRE OF THE CITY AND BE ITS MAIN ADORNMENT' [572], P.78-79.

It is thought that the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus was destroyed. And the 'most wealthy and beautiful city' itself indeed turned into wasteland [572], p.77. Later 'in place of the ancient Halicarnassus and the mediaeval fortress-castle of St. Peter – there emerged the Turkish fortress of Bodrum' [572], p.85.

So, in the XVIII century the historians suggested that 'ancient Halicarnassus' was located somewhere in Asia Minor. They began their search. There are a lot of 'ancient classical' ruins. They declared one of such places, namely Turkish Bodrum to be 'the ruins of ancient Halicarnassus'. They began to 'dig up proof'. However without much luck.

Could it be that the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus is the gigantic temple-reliquary of the Magi, Cologne Cathedral in the German city of Cologne [6v1], ch.3.? It was built as a mausoleum for Balthazar, Melchior and Caspar. The first two were the Magi-Kings and Caspar was inferior in rank so to speak. Could it be that Balthazar and Melchior were Mausolus and Artemisia of the 'ancient classical' writers? Incidentally the name HALICARNASSUS or HALICARNASSUS (as R and L converted into each other) is close to HALI-COLOGNE. It could have meant HOLY COLOGNE = COLONY or LIGHT COLOGNE = COLONY, as in German 'Heilig' means Holy, and 'Hell'- light, clear, bright. Alternatively HALI-COLOGNE meant GALLIC COLOGNE, or GALLIC COLONY.

It is also quite possible, that the mausoleum in Hali-CARNASSUS is a colossal Ancient Egyptian temple at KARNAK [6v3], ch.1. The temple comprises three parts, the middle of which occupies an area of approximately 30 hectares! It is possibly the largest temple in the world. According to our findings, the Temple at Karnak was the MAIN FUNERARY TEMPLE OF THE GREAT EMPIRE [6v3]. That is why it fully deserved to be called a wonder of the world. The name HALICARNASSUS or HALI-CARNASSUS itself might mean 'Sunny Karnak'. To clarify, HALI = HELIOS is the name of the God of Sun. The name of CARNASSUS can convert into KARNAK on account of the ambiguity in pronunciation of the letter 'C', which could be pronounced as [S], [K] or [Ts].

6) THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES

According to the descriptions of the 'ancients' the Colossus of Rhodes is a gigantic structure cast in bronze. The word COLOSSAL, i.e. very big, originated from the word COLOSSUS.

The Colossus was made like this. At first a large mould of clay was prepared in an EARTHEN PIT. 'Creating cast bronze statues was a very labour intensive process requiring great mastery and technical skills. At first the sculptor moulded in clay… an exact copy of his bronze statue. The clay figure was a kind of nucleus, the basis of which was covered by a layer of wax, the thickness of which the sculptor wished his bronze to be… When the wax surface was ready it was again covered over with clay in such a way that the upper layer closely adhered to the wax and matched the inner nucleus exactly … After which the mould would be heated up, causing the wax to flow out through the outlets which were left open… Bronze flowed inside the clay filling the space freed by the wax and evenly enveloping the clay nucleus… It took 500 talents of bronze and 300 talents of iron, i.e. approximately 13 tonnes of bronze and 7,8 tonnes of iron to make the Colossus' [572], p.94-95, 101.

Our thought is simple. 'The Colossus of Rhodes' is RADNY (RADA) BELL, i.e. VECHE BELL. The word RADA = assembly is the same as VECHE = assembly. The 'ancient classics' turned the word Rada in to Rhodes. All the details of casting the Colossus perfectly correspond with bell casting technology. And indeed the word 'COLOSSUS' itself is probably a slightly distorted Russian word KOLOKOL (OR COLOCOL) (meaning BELL in Russian – Translator's note). As the Latin C was pronounced both as K and as Ts, C.

The fact, that an enormous veche bell (watch bell, radny bell) Russian bell amazed the foreigners, is understandable. It was in Russia, in the metropoly of the Empire where the cast the largest bells in the world. It is clear why 'ancient' Philo of Byzantium, who probably wrote his works in the XVI-XVII cc., pays main attention to the installation of a bronze giant. It is very difficult to remove a large bell from a pit and raise it high. For example, they failed to fit the gigantic Czar-bell on display in the Moscow Kremlin, though the casting itself was successful. But the other huge bells were successfully lifted and smoothly installed.

7) LIGHTHOUSE OF ALEXANDRIA IN PHAROS.

The seventh wonder of the world is a lighthouse on the island of Pharos, allegedly not far from Alexandria in Egypt. It is thought that it was built under the Ptolemaic Kings and was later destroyed. 'The lighthouse was simultaneously a fortress, where a large military garrison was located. An enormous cistern with drinking water was housed in the underground part of the tower in the event of a siege. The lighthouse was also an observation point, as the ingenious system of metallic mirrors allowed to keep the ocean space under surveillance from the tower's apex and to detect enemy ships long before they appeared in close proximity to the city. The octagonal tower was adorned with the bronze statues (bells? – Author)… Allegedly there also was a statue which pointed with its hand or arm towards the sea in the event of the emerging hostile fleet and produced a warning signal when the enemy was approaching the harbour (a bronze bell or a cannon? – Author) … This incredible structure stood until the XIV century… This monument excited the admiration of the Arabic writers, who noted the beauty and grandeur of the ruins of this grandiose construction' [572], p.111-112, 118.

As we have already said earlier, the famous 'ancient classical' Pharos (Etrusscan) Lighthouse is the well-known Ivan The Great Bell Tower in Moscow [RI], ch.7. So this wonder of the world indeed exists in present day. The Moscow 'Pillar of Ivan the Great' was described by the 'ancient classics' as well as the 'Ancient' Roman Military Column and as the famous Tower of Babel.

Above ground and underground Moscow in the time of the Romanovs[edit | edit source]

The remains of the vast underground city called 'underground Moscow' still exist. Throughout several centuries this construction has been surrounded by legends. Numerous underground corridors, tunnels, ample chambers, storage facilities, wells, staircases, connecting passages, hiding places, caved chambers, walled-up doors, flooded passages… Many of them were lined with white stone. It is thought that somewhere about here there is hidden the famous library of Ivan the Terrible and that it is possible to travel long distances along the underground tunnels below Moscow. That having entered under the ground in the city centre, it is possible to exit it far outside of Moscow. There exists a specialised occupation – Moscow diggers. They have been exploring the underground city for many years.

TODAY THE OLD PLANS AND CHARTS OF UNDERGROUND MOSCOW ARE MISSING. More importantly the Romanovs didn't have them either. It appears that to begin with the first Romanovs HAD A VERY VAGUE IDEA ABOUT THE MASSIVE SCALE OF THE UNDERGROUND CITY [851:1]. Only later the exploration and speculative excavations were begun in hope to stumble across either the treasures buried there or the royal archives, or the library of Ivan the terrible. The history of underground Moscow is described in the book by I.Y.Stelletsky [815:1].

According to our results, the Russian Czar-Khans of the XIV-XVI cc. were the Egyptian pharaohs of the Bible. Ivan the Terrible's capital in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda was presumably called Alexandria of Egypt. That is why the information about the famous 'ancient classical' (Alexandriiskaya) library of Alexandria could have been connected with it. Namely about the widely known library of Ivan the Terrible, which probably for some period of time was kept in Aleandrovskaya Sloboda [6v]. In which case the destruction of the 'ancient classical' library of Alexandria in the fire could be reflecting the true event of the destruction of Alexandrovskaya Sloboda in the Romanov epoch of the XVII century. Most likely Ivan the Terrible's library was destroyed, burnt down during the Romanov rule.

Moscow's construction as the new capital of Russia-Horde began only in the XVI century, under Ivan the 'Terrible'. Prior to that a small settlement was located there, which emerged in the place of the Battle of Kulikovo [4v1], ch.6. The battle site was considered to be holy. Here, near the mass graves of the warriors, monasteries and churches were probably initially built to commemorate the battle. The people would come here to worship. The emerged settlement didn't develop that much. There was no capital here for a long time. Over time various cities acted as such.

The Imperial capital was moved here either from Yaroslavl (Novgorod, Biblical Nineveh) or from Suzdal (Biblical Susa or Shushan) in the middle of the XVI century due to the deep split within the ruling class of the Empire [6v1], ch.6-7. The location choice was not accidental. As the place of the Battle of Kulikovo it was considered to be holy. Here, 'over the spilt blood', on the Moscow river bank, they decided to erect a new mighty capital of the Third Rome = Israel.

Most likely they began with using the open-mining or cut and cover method, they dug out 'deep cut and cover' tunnels, arcades, service areas, chambers, wells, etc. The construction was grandiose. When the huge bulk of the soil was removed, they began to build floors. They stoned the walls of the construction pits – the future premises - with white stone. Above the stone floor - ceilings were erected. Above them the next underground storey with rooms lodgings was constructed. And so on. The underground ant-hill was growing. Its 'roof' gradually rose up until it reached ground level.

In the first place the builders pursued defensive goals. It was possible to hide in the underground city during a war or a siege. As the enemies did not know the exits from the underground passages, the appearance of the Hordians 'from beneath the earth' was completely unexpected. The system of the underground pathways was most likely top secret. The architects-creators disappeared 'into nowhere'. So they didn't breathe a word of this. The maps-plans of the underground city were a state secret. During the seizure of power by the pro-Western-Romanovs the plans were either lost during the Times of Troubles, or the Hordians destroyed them in order to leave the enemy with no advantage. In the XVII century the underground Moscow was engulfed in the gloom of oblivion. Having come into power the first Romanovs had a vague idea about underground Moscow. A chance discovery of a part of the Horde archives there was a complete revelation to them.

Having finished with the underground labyrinth the builders started the construction of the above ground 'visible' Moscow. In the centre there was erected the stone Kremlin surrounded by a mighty triple band of walls (today only one row survives). Some distance from it, surrounding the Kremlin, was the second row of strong fortifications of Kitay-gorod. The third row is known as Bely Gorod (White Town) (there is Bulvarnoye Koltso (Boulevard Ring) in its place). Then the fortifications of Zemlyanoy Gorod ("earthworks town") were created, which encompassed all the previous ones. Nothing survived from the walls of Zemlyanoy Gorod; today there is Sadovoye coltso (Garden Ring) in its place [6v3], ch.3.

Today over ground Moscow has changed a lot in comparison with the way it looked in the XVI-XVIII cc. The system of the ring defensive constructions was entirely razed. Only their names and the old plans are left.

Nothing of the kind has been done before. The capital of the Great Empire which encompassed Eurasia, Africa and America was being created. The capital which was described in the Bible as the New Jerusalem, which was restored after the destruction of the first Gospel Jerusalem [6v2], ch.2.

Underground Moscow of the 16th century is the famous Egyptian labyrinth described by "ancient" Herodotus and Strabo[edit | edit source]

The intricate underground construction of Moscow clearly was perceived by contemporaries as a miraculous and mysterious Labyrinth, having entered which it was impossible to leave. It was dangerous to travel along the underground passages without some kind of map. The legends about this constructions spread all over the world at that time. It was underground Moscow which was described by the 'ancient' authors as the 'Egyptian Labyrinth' [6v3], ch.3. We will remind you, that Biblical Egypt is Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc [6v1], ch.4.

'Ancient' Herodotus considered the Labyrinth as the most grandiose construction in Egypt, surpassing even the pyramids. As we are starting to understand, he was right. Herodotus describes underground and above ground Moscow of the XVI century. Its scale exceeds everything which was erected in the Empire before. [6v3], ch.3.

Later they started to construct their own 'small labyrinths' in some remote regions of the 'Mongol' Empire imitating the metropoly. The Hordian governors could have demanded from their builders the creation of something similar to the Main Labyrinth of the Empire. In [6v3], ch.3 we have talked about one such imitation in African Egypt. It is possible, that in the XVII-XVIII cc. they indeed constructed something 'resembling the Main Labyrinth'. But not a very strong resemblance.

Another imitation was constructed on the island of Crete. Today it is thought, that the ancient palace in the town of Knossos was built 'in the likeness of the Labyrinth'. Notably the Greeks called it specifically the 'Labyrinth'. The historians date its construction as the deepest antiquity – the XXI century BC. There is nothing resembling the vast unground constructions of Moscow whatsoever. Indeed there was less money in the province of the Empire than in the metropoly. And anyway it's not befitting to construct in the periphery anything more impressive than in the capital. The Khan could have been very surprised by such pompous provincial pride. So the 'Mongol' governors were cautious.

There were also some other imitations-labyrinths in the provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire. For example, the Egyptian Labyrinth (near Faiyum in North Egypt), Labyrinth of Samos, Italic Labyrinth (cuniculi) in a town of Clusium (modern Chiusi). Strabo also mentions some other labyrinths: 'Close to Nauplia there were caverns with the LABYRINTHS built in them, which were called Cyclopia' [819], viii: 6:2, p.351.

They were all built as pale imitations which couldn't hold any comparison with the capital's Main Labyrinth.

What is "the construction of the Tower of Babel" described in the Bible?[edit | edit source]

This 'composite' topic is concise and is of a generally symbolic character. Therefore we will give just a hypothesis.

The Biblical legend about the construction of the Tower of Babel is known to everyone. It is dated by the historians as deepest antiquity. In the books [2v1], ch.5 and [6v2], ch.1:10, ch.3:5 we pointed out that the mediaeval events are partial; reflected in this legend. In the Book of Genesis it intertwined into one 'knot'.

Firstly here is reflected the Trojan War of the XII century.

Secondly, here it is reminiscent of the 'Mongol' conquest of the world in the XIV century and the second Ottoman conquest of the Promised Land in the XV century.

Thirdly, these are the events of the Reformation of the XVI-XVII cc.,the Times of Troubles in Russia and the split of the 'Mongol' Empire.

In the Scaligerian history of the XVIII-XIX cc. the Biblical Babylon (Babel) was 'lost'. They write the following: 'In the beginning of the X century (allegedly – Author) to the Arabic geographer … Babylon was known JUST AS A SMALL SETTLEMENT WHICH EMERGED IN PLACE OF THE ONCE MAGNIFICENT CAPITAL. For the scholars Babylon became merely a name, some kind of symbol, the location of which they, apparently, had the vaguest idea about [391:1], p.29.

In the New Chronology, having identified the Biblical 'Tower of Babel' with the Heops Pyramid in Egypt and Moscow-Labyrinth, we present the largest constructions of the Middle Ages which exist today. Of course, they are partially damaged.

The book of Daniel tells us the "story of Esther" in Russia-Horde of the 16th century[edit | edit source]

Apparently the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, under which the prophet Daniel is acting, is the Czar-Khan Ivan IV the Terrible. Thus the Book of Daniel gives us an account of the turbulent events of the XVI century in Russia-Horde, the metropoly of the Empire. The famous sun eclipse described in the Book of Daniel which rang the death knell for Belshazzar (aka Balthazar)¸ the king of Babylon, is a comet appearing before Ivan the Terrible's death in 1584.

It appears that all the paintings, frescos, miniature pictures on the subject of the Book of Daniel were created not earlier than the second half of the XVI century. Here, for example, 'Hartmann Shedel's 'World Chronicle' allegedly of 1493 [1396:1]. In it we see three Jewish youths burning in the furnaces and the prophet Daniel [1396:1], list LV, on the reverse side, meaning that the 'Chronicle' was not written until the XVI century.

The famous writing on the wall (cited in the Book of Daniel): 'Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin', ringing the death knell for Belshazzar, is probably a distorted Slavonic expression 'Znameniye Gorysheye P-Rusinam' The main word here is ZNAMENIYE (meaning sign of things to come, portent in Russian)(Mene, Mene). The letters 'Z' and 'M' differ only in the line placement : ZNA-MENIYE = Mene-Mene. It is specified that the sign is burning (fakel – meaning 'torch' in Russian) = Tekel) and it was given to P-rusinam (Upharsin). The portent-comet was 'burning' and appeared to the Russians. There survive some depictions where the sign is reproduced in short form : 'Mene, Mene'. For example a German picture allegedly of the beginning of the XVI century [6v3], ch.4.

It appears, that the German painter of the XVI century depicting a Slavonic word ZNAMENIYE as slightly distorted MENE, MENE, knew Slavonic. Therefore Slavonic language was also understood by the spectators, the connoisseurs of his art. Could it be that the majority of the wider public spoke Slavonic? From the point of view of Scaligerian history it is strange. But according to the new chronology it is only natural. In Western Europe of the XIV-XVI cc. Slavonic language was the state Imperial language.

Next Belshazzar ordered the vessels of gold that were taken from the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar in Jerusalem to be brought to the banquet (for a thousand of his lords so that everyone can drink wine from them). The order was carried out and the Holy relics were set forth for all to see. At that point God was enraged and punished Belshazzar with death. So, the Jerusalem's treasures of Nebuchadnezzar are the richest treasures of Ivan IV the Terrible, displayed by him to his guests and the public before his death [6v3], ch.4.

The fighting of the Babylonian priests with the Prophet Daniel and his supporters – is the fighting of the Russian Orthodox Church with the heresy of the Judaizers under Ivan the IV=III the Terrible.

The Book of Daniel also mentions the 'Story of Esther', i.e. the heresy spreading in the Russian-Hordian court in the XVI century. In the Book of Daniel it is the 'Story of Susanna'.

To remind you, the wife of the Czar's son turns out to be a secret Jewess and astrologer. The Czar-Khan himself becomes very fond of her. Family conflict erupts. The Czar sends away his first wife. Her place is taken by Esther, aka Elena Voloshanka, aka Elena Glinskaya, aka Biblical Judith, aka Biblical Jael. The Czar's son dies. The throne is surrounded by a tight ring of Esther's supporters – the Judaizers, Protestants, 'Latini'. The Czar takes their side in supporting heresy. The Russian Orthodox Church strongly opposes it. The ecclesiastical conflict grows and turns into a state revolt. In the second place in the state, next to the Czar-Khan appears one of the heretics. The split in the society emerges. It is the well-known Oprichnina of the XVI century. The Czar is compelled to leave the former capital of Russia-Horde and move it to a new place. Moscow is built, described in the bible as the New Jerusalem (in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Enjoying the support of the Czar-Khan, the heretics crush the enemies, named in the Bible as the 'Persians', i.e. P-Russians, the White Russians. In honour of their victory the famous Jewish celebration of Purim is established. But later the Hordian Czar-Khan repents. The Church Council is held where the heresy is condemned. The main heretics are captured, burned and exiled. The Khan's court returns to the Russian Orthodoxy. However there were serious consequences after the coup d'état in the court of Czar-Khan. In the beginning of the XVII century Rus-Horde descends into the Time of Troubles. Horde loses its control over Protestant, 'Latin', Western Europe. In the centre of Empire the pro-Western Romanovs are eager to cease power. The Empire breaks up. The Russian-Hordian dynasty is being cut down at the grassroots. In Europe, Asia, Africa, South and North America ferocious internecine feuds flare up between the Imperial governors and between the fragments of 'Mongolia'.

The Book of Judith recounts the same events, but through the eyes of the Western 'Mongol' governors. The punitive troops of the Assyrian king lead by Holofernes invade the West in order to quell the unrest. The Jewess by the name of Judith (i.e. simply the 'Jewess') arrives to the Assyrian camp. She penetrates Holofernes' tent and, having put him off his guard by deceit, decapitates him. The Assyrian army is demoralised and is defeated. The countries of the West are saved. Just about the same thing is told in chapter 4 of the Book of Judges in the story about the commander Sisera (i.e. simply a Czar and Jael (i.e. Elena), a woman who treacherously slayed him [6v1], ch.8:13.

The Book of Daniel also describes a story of Esther (as a story of Susanna), however from the ecclesiastic, religious point of view. Roughly speaking we can say that the Book of Daniel is an 'ecclesiastic' one, the Book of Esther is an 'inter-court' one, and the Book of Judith is a 'military' one. They highlight the same exceptionally important event from the different points of view.

It appears that under the name of Daniel here is presented DANIEL, metropolitan of Moscow and of all Russia. Understandably the Book of the Old Testament pays great attention to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. As in the basis of the events lay the religion-church conflict. The role of a women-heretic was muffled.

One of the famous stories in the Book of Daniel is an attempt to burn three Jewish youths in the 'fiery furnace' by the Babylonians. What event in Russian history can this refer to? Apparently this refers to the three main heretics burnt in a cage in Moscow in the epoch of fight against heresy of the Judaizers. These events of the XVI century with a shift of approximately a hundred years are artificially 'spread thinly' along the entire XVI century and even made it into the end of the XV century [6v1], ch. 7.

The burning of specifically three people and specifically in a 'furnace' for their faith under Ivan the Terrible is among most famous events in Russian history of the XV-XVI cc.

The peak of the struggle of the Russian Orthodox Church against heresy was the sobor (church council) in 1504. 'The main denunciator of the Judaizers was Joseph (Volotsky –Auth.). THE CHIEF PERPETRATORS Feodor Kuritsyn diak (secretary) Volk Kuritsyn, Dmitry Konoplev and Ivan Maksimov were given in charge of civil court AND THEN BURNT AT THE STAKE IN A CAGE on the 28th December in Moscow ' [578], book 2, v.3, p.211.

This burning of the THREE HERETICS IN A CAGE also reflected in the Book of Daniel as 'burning in the fiery furnace of the three YOUTHS (OTROK – IN Russian)' (HERETICS?).

Besides the main burning at the stake of the three leaders of the heresy in 1504, there were also other executions of the minor sectarians. But they were less striking. 'The blow against heresy delivered by church council in 1504 was very strong, but however didn't root it out terminally' [578], book 2, v.3, p. 211.

Describing the burning of the three Jews, the Book of Daniel insists on all three of them allegedly miraculously surviving. The flames did not touch them, though the fire was burning all around. So how was it possible? Could it be that the Biblical authors feeling compassionate towards the three youths symbolically depicted the matter in such a way, as if God helped them? However, it is most likely that here the two events were intertwined in the Russian history of the XVI century. We have talked about one of them. To clarify which other event is mentioned in the Bible, we will go a little bit back, to the end of allegedly XV century.

Venerable St. Joseph Volotsky (Joseph of Volokolamsk) and metropolitan Gennady of Novgorod opposed the emerging heresy of the Judaizers. That said Ivan III the Terrible and a part of his court practically sabotaged the struggle against heresy standing in the way of the investigation. However under the pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church the inquiry was pushing forward albeit with difficulty.

'After such a great noise raised around the affair of the uncovering heresy, the prosecutor and investigative network was able to catch MERELY NINE PEOPLE in the whole of Novgorod and Moscow', v.1, p.496.

The Sobor's (Council's) verdict was seen considered as strangely mild. The Czar himself intervened on behalf of the heretics. Instead some kind of showcase, theatrical performance was organised. This time no one was burnt. Just several 'heretical hats' were symbolically singed onto some heads. Most likely they did their best so that no one came to any harm. It is not difficult to do. As the hats were made of birch bark. Birch bark burns fast. It's enough to dampen the hair or to put some kind of a cap under the birch bark hat so the head remained unharmed.

But the show itself gave a handle to colourful literary descriptions. One of them is in the Biblical Book of Daniel. The burning hats turned into the 'fiery furnace' (gluing this storyline onto a later one, the real burning of the three heretics in the scorching cage). But having done so it was rightly stated that the fire was burning AROUND THE CONDEMNED. In fact the birch bark was burning around the head. The fire kind of surrounded the people. And they 'walked inside it without being burnt'. The literary image was later heightened. Purporting that the fire which surrounded the youths burnt the 'bad people', Babylonians, who had stirred the flames. Those who opposed the heresy. That's what Bible says as well.

The Book of Daniel's benevolence towards the prophet and his supporters contrasts with the negative position of the Russian Orthodox Church towards the heresy of the Judaizers in Russia. It is possible that the Book of Daniel was created by the heretics surrounding the throne of the Hordian Czar-Khan, who supported the heretics for quite a long time. To put it plainly 'The Book of Daniel' was written in Russian by the Judaizers in (of) the XVI century.

As we've already said under the name of Daniel there was described Daniel the Metropolitan of Moscow and All of Russia. He occupied the highest post in the Imperial church hierarchy of the Empire and, so to say, the second place after the Czar-Khan. The metropolitan Daniel's activities correspond well with the description in the Bible [6v3], ch.4.

'The story of Esther' 1553-1584 is reflected in the past in a phantom like way. Her main duplicates are: the epoch of Ivan III the Terrible (and Elena Voloshanka) 1462-1505, and the epoch of Vasili III (and Elena Glinskaya) 1505-1533. Metropolitan Daniel's activities fall exactly to (at) the time of Vasili III.

Let's discus the 'story of Susanna' in the Book of Daniel. This book is ecclesiastical and describes the struggle of the Russian Orthodox Church with the heresy of the Judaizers in the XVI century. The canonical part of the Book of Daniel doesn't say anything about Esther = Elena Voloshanka = Elena Glinskaya. There is no sexual story in the 'official' twelve chapters of the Book of Daniel at all. It appears that the ecclesiastical authors considered the 'female storyline' as an inter-court one, domestic, concerning only the private life of the Hordian Czar-Khan. Nevertheless the trace of a 'woman Esther' in the Book of Daniel is still present. The 13th chapter (13) about Susanna which was not considered canonical is included in the end of the Book [936], v.1, p.461. At a first glance it has nothing to do with the main theme of the Book. However here is told, although in a distorted way, a part of the story of Esther. Where the storyline had a distinctly sexual emphasis.

Susanna refused to fulfil the erotic desires of the two old judges. As a revenge they tried to smear her reputation in front of the people and declared that allegedly 'a young man came to her … and lay with her. We were in the corner of the garden… and saw them lie together' (Book of Daniel 13:37-39. However the young boy Daniel intervened on behalf of Susanna to defend her honour, uncovered the secret scheming and lies of the old judges. Both of the corrupt judges were condemned and executed.

Thus the 'female aspect of the story of Esther' is reflected in the Book of Daniel, though very vaguely. Nevertheless here is presented one of the main storylines of the family drama of the XVI century at the court of the Hordian Czar-Khan and his co-ruler son. The sexual scene in secluded lodgings where both rulers found themselves in the young woman's bedroom in an ambiguous situation in an effort to possess her.

The particular attention of the Bible commentators towards Susanna is rather strange. What could be so especially attractive in this story? The two judges-rulers lusted after a young woman. They entered by stealth inside her place, then they besmirched her reputation, for which they were justly punished. But there are other much more important stories in the Bible which nevertheless didn't favour such close attention from the artists and authors of the XVII-XVIII cc. But for some reason they loved the story of Susanna. Now it is clear why. She was a part of the 'story of Esther' famous in certain circles, which played an important role in the split of the 'Mongol' Empire. Thus the West European artists painted the 'noble Susanna' fighting the two 'very bad' old judges. At first the commentators remembered the true meaning of the story. Then it was forgotten, but they were still obediently continued to praise Susanna by force of habit. The congregation was made to forget that in the image of Susanna there was the celebrated heretic Esther, aka a Jew Elena Voloshanka.

The Scaligerian historians date the Biblical Book of Daniel as 605-536 BC [936], v.1, p.461. They were mistaken by approximately 2100 years. The correct dating is the end of the XVI century.

Thus within the basis of the Old Testament Book of Daniel are the events in Russia-Horde of the XVI century. This is consistent with the fact that precisely in the XVI century the Russian Orthodox Church for the first time introduced the ceremonial rite of 'peshnoye deystvo'– a grand spectacular theatrical production held in a church celebrating the miraculous salvation of the three Jewish Youths from the fiery furnace.

Everything now falls into place. As we have already said the three leading Judaizing heretics were burnt at the stake on the 27th (28th) DECEMBER of allegedly 1504 [372], v.1, p.500. That is why the church connected the theatricalised 'burning of the three young men' with the Nativity of Christ also celebrated in DECEMBER. The fact that 'peshnyie' performances (costume devotions) originated exactly in the XVI century can be also explained very well. It was the time when the 'story of Esther' and the struggle of the Russian Orthodox Church against heresy has unfolded. The Church decided to commemorate it its rites 'pesnyie deistva' (Costume devotion of Fiery Furnace before Christmas Liturgy in Russian Orthodox Church). Originally the meaning of those pageants was austerely instructive. Via them in the XVI century the Russian Orthodox Church, which temporarily won, was warning its congregation in all the churches of the Empire against the re-emergence of heresy. They demonstrated punishment for state rebellion and the derogation from Orthodoxy. Punishment by fire in a cage! But later, when the Romanovs usurped the throne they reversed the meaning of the 'peshnyie deistva'. The pageant remained, but now they began to highlight the miraculous element of the salvation of the Jewish youths from the fire as God Himself was on their side. Black became white.

(The word 'Youth in Russian – 'otrok' can sound like the Russian word for Heretic 'Eretik', translators note) Under the Romanovs 'The Book of Daniel' which had just been written was considered as giving an account of the events in Russia-Horde, which practically brought the new dynasty into power. Namely (i.e.) about the events pleasant to the Romanovs. In the XVII century The Book of Daniel was edited, in the required key, as important propaganda material which should be impressed on the minds of the congregation. The evaluation of the events of the XVI century were swapped. The heretics were declared good and the representatives of the Imperial Orthodox Church who were fighting against the heresy of the Judaizers were cast in a negative light.

As time went by in the XVIII-XIX cc. the relevance of the story faded. The 'story of Esther' became a thing of the past, forgotten. Today they don't perform 'peshnyie deistviya' in the Orthodox Church. But the instructive tableau and illustrations to the Bibles on the theme of the 'fiery furnace' were painted up until the end of the XIX century.

Gothic cathedrals and Hordian temples and mosques[edit | edit source]

Fig.91

In [4v2], ch.2:47 we talk about how the style of temples which today are known as 'gothic' are based on the architecture of the old Russian-Horde cathedrals of the XIV-XVI cc. which formed later in Western Europe. Fig.91 shows the Church of Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Nicholas Cathedral on Ladoga. We can see that the Hordian tradition to build cathedrals in the old 'Mongol' style, i.e. in a form of a long building with a gable roof on one side out of which rises a tower, was still alive in Russia for a long time. Some of the Islamic mosques are still built in this style, for example in Tatarstan. And also the Western 'Gothic', i.e. Goth cathedrals. They were modelled on the cathedrals of the metropoly, i.e. Russia-Horde. However, after the Romanov take-over the style of the Russian churches was replaced by a new one – the domed style, which was called the 'old Gothic' style. But in Western Europe the old Hordian style survived. Under the name of the 'Old Gothic'. Thus its initial 'Mongol' origins were obscured. Following the split of a united Christianity into several branches these architectural styles began to be considered independent. It is not true. They date back to the mutual Hordian source.

Once more about Herodotus[edit | edit source]

Fig.92

Here is an important conclusion we arrived at while analysing the 'Ancient' Greek chronicles and above all the famous 'Histories' by Herodotus. It turns out that there we find a vivid reflection of the epochs numbered 1,2,3,5 in fig.92 [GR].

1: The epoch of Andronicus-Christ of the late XII century.

2: The epoch after Christ, when Russia-Horde and the regions of the Romaic Empire allied with it and took revenge on Czar-Grad = Jerusalem and its inhabitants = the residents of Judaea, for the crucifixion of Christ in 1185. This is the time of the Crusades of the early XIII century followed by the 'Mongol' conquest of the late XII- early XIV cc.

3: The epoch of the second Baptism of Russia-Horde and of the entire 'Mongol' Empire at the end of the XIV century, following the Battle of Kulikovo. In this battle the Apostolic Christianity led by Dmitry Donskoy, aka Emperor Constantine I the Great, won a victory over the Royal Ancestral Christianity led by Khan Mamai – aka Ivan Veniaminov or Velyaminov.

4: The Ottoman conquest is reflected exceptionally sparingly in the 'ancient' sources.

5. The epoch of the Reformation of the late XVI century – early XVII century, when the split of the Great Empire began. The unsuccessful Livonian War; the coup d'etat in the capital of the Empire, i.e. the story of Esther-Judith; the separation of Western Europe from the metropoly of the Empire.

In fig.92 between the epochs 3 and 5 there is the epoch 4 – the Ottoman conquest. The curious thing is that the 'ancient' Greek authors – Thucydides, Herodotus, Plutarch and some others – omit it. They sparsely, 'through gritted teeth' speak of this second conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Empire and Russia, i.e. about the conquest of the Promised Land according to the Bible. The Western authors, which were later called 'Ancient' Greek ones, didn't like recollecting the events which were too painful for them.

These five epochs cover the main written history of the European part of the Horde Empire from the XII to the XVII cc. The epochs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are described in detail by the 'Ancient' Greeks. They were more reticent about the 4th epoch. However the 'ancient classical' authors speak effusively of the 5th epoch of the Reformation and the break-up of the Empire. As of the victory of the 'Eastern Barbarians', which they were rather happy about. That is exactly how Thucydides, Herodotus and the other 'classics authors' called the Persians (P-Russians) – THE BARBARIANS.

In fig.61, fig.62 and fig.63 there are depicted the main parallels between the 'ancient classical' and mediaeval history. In the right column there are listed all the chapters of the 'Histories' by Herodotus. On the left there are recorded some of the various important events of the XI-XVII cc. The arrows show which of Herodotus' books they are described in.

Herodotus' descriptions of King Cambyses' desecrations of the Egyptian kings' mummies also point to the more recent origin of the text. The matter we refer to is the epoch of the Reformation. The Empire was descending into the Times of Troubles. The weakening of the central authority led to the beginning of disintegration of traditional customs and morality among the clerical workers, public servants of the Royal necropolis in African Egypt far removed from the metropoly. The former reverence of the great Khans' and their governors' mummies started to give way to contemptuous attitude. The fading of the disciplinary fear coming from the metropoly led to the desecration of the royal burial vaults. Vast treasures were searched for and found. Gold, silver, precious stones. The holy remains were brutally discarded when rummaging through the sarcophaguses and burial shrouds. This is already the XVII-XVIII cc. When Europe broke away, the rebellious governors, having arrived to Egypt, could have mocked the royal mummies on purpose in order to erase from the people's memory the recollection of the 'Mongol' Empire.

The Western European authors of the XVI-XVII cc. and the Romanovs attributed to Ivan the 'Terrible' many atrocities. The true picture of events was dramatically different. It is, of course, difficult to fully grasp the bloody tangle of the story of Esther, Oprichnina, St.Bartholomew's night massacre of the mid XVI century. Truth and lies become entwined in the furious struggle during the break-up of the Empire. The Empire tried to supress the revolt. But later, in the epoch of the Reformation the victors including the Romanovs shifted all the atrocities onto the defeated. They claimed that the Hordians and the Czar-Khan the 'Terrible' (Cambyses according to Herodotus) were solely to blame. They declared Russia-Horde to be the empire of evil and attached other negative labels. When the Imperial lion weakened, they with joy began to blacken the past of Russia-Horde. It will just suffice to mention the work of A.Schlichting 'A Short Tale About the Character and Cruel Government of the Moscow Tyrant Vasilevich' for example [ZA], ch.5. Fifty pages are filled with abominations which allegedly took place under Ivan the Terrible. The details of tortures and executions are savoured. They have created a 'bogeyman story for grown-ups'. Similar horror stories are told to us by Herodotus when writing about Ivan the Terrible and calling him the Persian Cambyses: 'And on another occasion he ordered without good reason the seizure of twelve of the most noble Persians and buried them alive' [163], p.149.

The temporary victory of the 'good Greeks' over the Barbarian Xerxes (Ivan the Terrible) was agreeable to the Western European Herodotus and his colleagues, the 'ancient classics'. Western Europe is positively described in their works as 'beautiful Hellas', and Russia-Horde – as the 'barbarian Persia'. The attitude of the chronicler can be heard even in the choice of terminology. On one hand there are Hellenes Greeks, gallant and sophisticated, but extremely poor. On the other hand there are savage and rough, but very rich Persians. And the modest nobility of the first defeated the magnificent savageness of the second! The 'ancient' classical authors wanted to write about this subject again and again. Having already spoken about the Western-European joy of liberation in his previous books, Herodotus couldn't help it and repeatedly poured out his admiration of the victory over the 'savage East' onto the pages of the three voluminous books at the end of the 'Histories'.

We have discovered a good correspondence between the famous 'ancient' battle of Thermopylae between the Spartans and the Persians allegedly in 480 BC and the Battle between the Russians and the Germans in 1560 during the Livonian War at the town of Fellin. The historians were wrong in the dating of this well-known event by two thousand years [GR].

Hence the historians are mistaken when presenting some ravine in Greece as the famous 'annalistic Thermopylae'. This passage was called 'Thermopylae' later, in the XVII-XVIII cc. having moved here – on paper – the events of the 'ancient' war with King Xerxes = Cossack Czar = Kaiser. Numerous tourists, who wish to bow to the memory of the 300 legendary Spartans should be taken not to modern Greece, but to the German town of Fellin or the Livonian town of Wenden.

In Herodotus' work we come across traces of the famous correspondence between Prince Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. To remind you, after the Prince fled to Lithuania, they exchanged a number of letters. Much research has been dedicated to them. As we have shown, this correspondence is also reflected in the Old Testament, in the Book of Judith, which also gives an account of the Livonian war of the XVI century [6v1], ch.8.

Thus Herodotus began his writing with Emperor Andronicus-Christ and drove forward the narration until the beginning of the XVII century, having talked about the Time of Troubles, about Dmitry the Imposter and Czar Vassili Shuisky. The Horde History (i.e. the Empire of the XIII-XVII cc.) has unfolded before us. The name of 'Herodotus' itself probably originated from the word ORDA (HORDE – Translator's note), in the West-European pronunciation HORDA : Horda - Herodotus.

It is quite possible that Herodotus lived either in Southern Europe or in the Mediterranean, as he had never seen a snow storm and didn't understand what it was. When narrating about Scythia, i.e. Russia-Horde, Herodotus says: 'As the extent of their land (Scythia) is very great, Colaxais, according to the Scythians, gave each of his three sons a separate kingdom, one of which was of ampler size than the other two: in this the gold was preserved. Above, to the northward of the farthest dwellers in Scythia, the country is said to be CONCEALED FROM SIGHT AND MADE IMPASSABLE BY REASON OF THE FEATHERS WHICH ARE SHED ABROAD ABUNDANTLY. THE EARTH AND AIR ARE ALIKE FULL OF THEM, AND THIS IT IS WHICH PREVENTS THE EYE FROM OBTAINING ANY VIEW OF THE REGION'. [163], P.188-189.

It is obvious that the matter he is talking about is the snow storm here. Everything is clouded over with twirling snow. Nothing can be seen even up close . A person who had never seen a snowstorm and who uses only the travel notes of the others, could have decided, that the snowflakes flying around were white bird feathers. Or he could have confused the Russian words PURGA (SNOWSTORM, BLIZARD – in Russian) and PERYA (FEATHERS – in Russian).

When the great Italian artists of the renaissance lived[edit | edit source]

In [1v] and [2v] we mention numerous accounts of the life dates of various famous Renaissance painters are in fact closer to us by approximately 100-150 years. We are speaking here in particular of Leonardo da Vinci: allegedly 1452-1519; Michelangelo: allegedly 1475-1564; A.Dürer: allegedly 1471-1528. The same conclusion results from entirely different reasons – the astronomical ones. In [GR], in the introduction, we show, that the zodiac on the ceiling of Sala dei Pontefici in Vatican was created in 1670. I.e. 150 years later, than we were led to believe. We are told, that the fresco was created in 1520-1521 by the artists Perino del Vaga and Giovanni da Udine. Notably these artists are famous not only in their own right, but also in connection with the other famous painters of allegedly early XV - late XVI cc. Therefore this constellation of the Renaissance masters shifts upwards on the timeline and finds itself in the epoch of the XVII century.

Most likely such reputed artists as Rafael, Pinturicchio, Signorelli, Botticelli and many others lived not in the XV-XVI cc., but in the XVI-XVII cc. And some – even in the XVIII century.

The dates like 'year 1520' which we encounter in old works of art could be read as follows. As it is shown in [1v], number (figure) 1 earlier meant letter I, the first letter in the name of IISUS (JESUS in Russian – Tr.). In other words the date I520 earlier meant 'year 520 from Jesus (AD)'. But Jesus Christ was born in in 1152. Calculating from year 1152 up 520 years we get year 1672. Therefore in some documents the dates like 'year 1520' could have referred to the second half of the XVIII century, and not at all in the XVI century as it is thought today.

What Shakespeare really wrote about[edit | edit source]

In the book [SAK] we show that such extraordinary Shakespearian plays as 'Hamlet', 'King Lear', 'Macbeth', 'Timon of Athens', 'Henry VIII', 'Titus Andronicus' (the time of which is erroneously dated today into the distant past and placed in the wrong geographical regions) in fact give an account of real and important events. Of the XII-XVI cc. unfolding mainly in the metropoly of the Great Empire. Here we were also guided by other original sources, telling us about the very same events as Shakespeare does. In particular, upon the chronicles by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Saxo Grammaticus and Raphael Holinshed. As the result the following has emerged:

  • Prince Hamlet appears to be a reflection of Andronicus-Christ (Andrei Bogolyubsky) and John the Baptist from the XII century.
  • King Lear is the reflection of Khan Ivan the Terrible from the XVI century.
  • King Macbeth is the reflection of the Biblical King Herod from the XII century.
  • Timon of Athens is the reflection of Judas Iscariot from the XII century.
  • The English King Henry VIII is another reflection of Ivan the Terrible.
  • The English queen Catherine of Aragon is the reflection of the Czaritsa Sophia Palaiologina, the wife of Ivan III=IV the Terrible.
  • The English queen Anne Boleyn is the reflection of Elena Voloshanka = Biblical Esther from the XVI century.
  • Emperor Andronicus-Christ (Andrei Bogolyubsky) is reflected on the pages of Shakespeare under the names of: Prince Hamlet (in 'Hamlet'), McDuff (in 'Macbeth'), philosopher Apemantus (in 'Timon of Athens) and Titus Andronicus (in 'Titus Andronicus').

All of this may sound unbelievable. If you recall the events described by Shakespeare, it would seem you will not discover anything resembling Shakespeare's writing in the story of Christ or Ivan the Terrible. Indeed, having arrived at a modern theatre or cinema and listening attentively to a tragedy performed by distinguished actors, it is difficult to imagine, that in fact they, not understanding it themselves, narrate about the events of not such a distant past and of famous heroes, whose connection with Shakespeare's writings, was apparently forgotten long ago.

The reason for such a psychological fog is clear. Often we do not realise how far from the original (purely on the surface) its literary interpretation might move. A dramatist and a poet add to the ancient chronicle some made-up details and emotionally decorate a scanty plot. The literary emotions take centre stage and conceal the true essence. It gets covered by a thick dust. A rather complex analysis is required to 'wipe the dust off'. It is necessary to behave like the criminologists who untangle crimes. Moreover, without the objective guiding milestones – the New Chronology – it is often impossible to understand what was based on what, and where to look for the original.

Calendar - astronomical dating of the first council of Nicaea and Christ's nativity[edit | edit source]

When computus (Paschal cycle) was determined[edit | edit source]

We will cite the summary of research by G.V.Nosovsky [6v3], ch.2. We are talking here about the two major milestones of the traditional chronology – the Nativity of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, often called the Council of Nicaea. The Scaligerian version is largely based on these dates. The fact is that Scaliger built the chronology primarily as the chronology of the history of the church. Secular chronology is presented in his works as secondary, based on the synchronisms with ecclesiastical events.

Apparently both dates – The Nativity of Christ and the Council of Nicaea – were dated by Scaliger absolutely incorrectly.

In [6v3], ch.2 it is described how exactly these dates were calculated by the Mediaeval chronologists and which errors were made. What's most interesting is – WHAT DATES COME UP AS A RESULT, IF THESE ERRORS ARE CORRECTED. Also it gives an account of the true reason for the famous Gregorian calendar reform of the XVI century, after which there were two styles developed in our calendar – 'old' and 'new.

It is thought that at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 the church calendar was determined compiled and approved. The Christian Church always believed this calendar, called the PASCHAL CALENDAR, to be of great importance. The Church paschal calendar-computus consists of two parts – immovable and moveable.

THE IMMOVABLE part – is a civil calendar called 'Julian Calendar' as its compilation is associated with Julius Caesar. In it the year consists of 12 months. Every fourth year an additional day is added – 29 February. The Julian calendar is closely connected with the Christian Liturgy. The 'immovable' Christian holidays are allocated according to the dates of the Julian calendar. Every year they fall on the same day of the same month of the Julian calendar.

THE MOVEABLE part of the church calendar determines the dates of the observance of Easter and some other holy days which are calculated relative to Easter. The Christian Easter and the feast days which are counted from it are MOVEABLE, as their places in the Julian calendar change from year to year, moving according to the date of the Christian Easter. The day of Easter moves within the dates of the Julian calendar according to a definite rule. This rule – 'Computus' is quite complicated and is connected to astronomical concepts.

This combination of the immovable and the moveable parts of the church calendar is called the Paschal calendar or simply Paschalia.

Thus both parts of the Paschal calendar-Computus determine the order of the church service for every day of any year. That is why the canonisation of the Paschal calendar-Computus had a pivotal significance for the church. It was Computus which provided the uniformity in the church service in many diverse locations. All the chronological problems connected with the dating of the Nativity of Christ and the history of the church calendar play an important role in our perception of not only the history of the church, but also about the entire Mediaeval Eurasia.

The two main apostolic canons of Easter are as follows:

1) Not to co-celebrate Easter together with the Israelites.

2) To celebrate Easter only following the vernal equinox.

Then, when compiling the Paschalia, the Holy Fathers of the Council of Nicaea who have established Paschalia, added two more canons. The fact is, that the first two apostolic canons do not yet clearly determine the day of Easter unequivocally. The two new canons are:

3) To celebrate Easter only after the first Vernal Full Moon. i.e. following the Jewish Passover, which in the Christian patristic literature was sometimes called the 'Law Passover'- i.e. Passover according to the Law of Moses, and sometimes – the '14th Lunar month of Nisan'.

4) Besides, to celebrate Easter not on any week day, but precisely on the first Sunday following this full moon, i.e. following the Jewish Passover (Pesach).

STATEMENT 1. The Council which established Paschal (it is thought to be the Council of Nicaea) could not have taken place earlier than 784, as only beginning with this year, due to the slow astronomical shift of the moon phases, the concurrencies of the calendar (determined by Paschal) Christian Easter and the 'lunar'('Cynthian') Jewish Passover-Full Moon had ceased. In 784 such a concurrency took place for the last time and then the dates of the Christian Easter and Jewish Passover diverged forever. Therefore the Council of Nicaea a priori could not have canonised The paschal calendar in the IV century, when the calendar Christian Easter would have coincided with the Jewish Passover eight (!) times – in the years 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374 and 394 and five (!) times would have even fallen two days EARLIER than it (which is explicitly forbidden by 4th canon of Easter, namely – in the years 306 and 326 (i.e. allegedly in a year after the Council of Nicaea!), and also in the years 46, 350 and 370.

STATEMENT 2. The reasonable concurrence (give or take 24 hours) of the Paschal calendar Full Moons fixed at the Council of Nicaea, with the observed astronomical full moons, existed only during the period of time from circa 700 until circa 1000. In the epoch prior to the year 700 the calculated full moons occurred always later then the Paschal ones, and after the year 1000 it was the opposite, the calculated vernal full moons, i.e. the days of the Jewish Passover according to the Paschal determination, began to take place earlier than the Paschal full moons. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877) falls EXACTLY AT THE TIME OF THE IDEAL CONCURRENCES OF THE PASCHAL AND ASTRONOMICAL FULL MOONS.

This means that Computus could have been compiled only during the epoch from the VII to XI cc. AD. Therefore the dating of the Council of Nicaea which determined the Paschal calendar is possible only as the VII-XI cc., and the most likely dating is the epoch of the X-XI cc., after the year 877.

The result of the datings of the council of Nicaea[edit | edit source]

In [6v3], ch.2, it is shown, that Computus could have been compiled:

- Not earlier than year 784 – by definition of the Christian Easter;

- Not earlier than year 700 – according to the concurrence of the paschal and astronomic Full Moons;

- Not earlier than year 700 – according to the 'Damascene palm' 'the hand of John of Damascus';

- Not earlier than 743 – according to Matthew Vlastar (lived in the XIV century), and therefore, according to the ecclesiastical tradition of the Orthodox church and the entire Russian-Byzantine tradition, the voice of which was Vlastar's.

Thus, Paschalia was not established earlier than the second half of the VIII century, and not at all in the II-V cc., as we are told. In the light of the new chronology it becomes clear, that the canonisation of Paschalia at the Council of Nicaea dates to the epoch of the XI-XIV cc. The Paschal calendar could have also easily comprised of some old astronomical formulations of the VII-XI cc., which however by that time had firmly entered ecclesiastical tradition.

The main conclusions[edit | edit source]

  • Paschalian calendar based on the events of the astronomical nature 'contains' the date of its compilation, i.e. allows the objective independent dating.
  • This date appears to be significantly later than it is previously believed. It is at a distance of at least some centuries from the Scaligerian year of 325.
  • It is this date in particular, and not the one accepted today (325), which was known to Matthew Vlastar in the XIV century and, therefore, is a part of the old tradition of the Orthodox Church.

The nativity of Christ and the beginning of "current era (a.d.)"[edit | edit source]

It is well known that since the beginning of A.D. (Anno Domini, 'Current Era') or 'era since the birth of Christ', there was no continuous yearly calculation until the current year. The first year 'A.D.' was calculated much later as the year of the Nativity of Christ. It is widely believed that originally this year was calculated by the Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus in the VI century, i.e. more than 500 years after the event he dated. Whereby Dionysius at first calculated the date of Christ's Resurrection, and then used the ecclesiastical legend, that Christ was crucified in the 31st year of his life. The Resurrection date according to Dionysius is the 25 March 5539 from Adam, and the year of the Nativity of Christ is consequently 5508 from Adam (according to the Byzantine era).

Dionysius' calculations were controversial in the West up until the XV century, and in Byzantine were never canonized.

The calendar hypothesis of the resurrection[edit | edit source]

The ecclesiastic traditions according to the Gospels claims, that Christ was resurrected on Sunday the 25 March the next day after the Jewish Passover. Which, accordingly, fell on Saturday 24 March on that occasion. It was these very calendar-astronomical 'Paschal conditions', which we call the 'conditions of the Resurrection', that Dionysius had in mind when while calculating the dates of Christ Resurrection and Nativity. The full set of the calendar conditions associated with – the stable church tradition – the Resurrection of Christ, can be found in the 'Collection of the Holy Father's rules' of Matthew Vlastar (XIV century). He gives the following calendar regulations for the year of Christ's Resurrection:

1) circle for the Sun 23,

2) circle for the Moon 10,

3) the previous day, on the 24th March, the Jewish Passover took place, which is celebrated on the 14th day of the Moon (i.e. Full Moon,)

4) The Jewish Passover took place on Saturday, and Christ was resurrected on Sunday.

The combination of these four points we will call the calendar 'conditions of the Resurrection'. The Question: is it possible to restore the date of the Resurrection using the dates above? The answer: Yes, it is.

The dating of the resurrection of Christ according to the total number of the "conditions of the resurrection"[edit | edit source]

G.G.Nosovsky conducted the computer-based calculations for each year for the period from year 100 B.C. to year 1700 A.D. The day of the vernal Full Moon (14 Moon (Nisan), or Jewish Passover) is calculated according to the Gauss algorithm and the Christian Easter, circle for the Sun and circle for the Moon – according to Computus. In the same way that Dionysius and Matthew Vlastar, we assume that the day of Resurrection was the Paschal (Easter) day according to Computus.

Statement 3. The calendar 'conditions for the Resurrection' 1-4, associated by the consistent church tradition of the XIV century with the date of the Passions and Resurrection of Christ, occurred ONLY ONCE: in 1095.

The very fact of the existence of the exact solution is absolutely crucial. If the listed conditions were the result of pure fantasy, then, most likely, we wouldn't have been able to find any exact solution throughout the historical era at all.

CONCLUSION. The Nativity of Christ (according to the erroneous traditions of the XIV century chronologists) was dated circa 1064 – 31 years before 1095.

The date of 1095 corresponds with the dating of the life of 'pope Hildebrand' ('Pope Gregory VII', born Hildebrand of Sovana – Tr.) (the phantom reflection of Christ from the XII century). This dating (the result of the erroneous mediaeval calculations) was originally restored by A.T.Fomenko with entirely different methods in [1v] and [2v1], ch.4. Thus we discovered the mediaeval tradition of erroneously dating the life of Christ to the XI century. The final dating of the Nativity of Christ which we arrived at in [TsRS] gives us the middle of the XII century, i.e. a century later. When correlating this date with the dating of Computus we can see that Computus was compiled, at least in its original version, way before Christ. Is it contradictory to the ecclesiastical history and legend? It appears to be a difficult question. In the old church text both arguments 'for' and 'against' can be found. The absolute contradiction occurs only with that outlook upon the history of the church which took shape not earlier than the XVI-XVII cc. i.e. by that time under the influence of the Scaligerian chronology.

That is why it is no probability that the dates of Resurrection and Nativity of Christ were calculated in the VI century based on the calendar situation of the year 563. Besides, as it is shown in [6v3], ch.2, the calculation, which was used by Dionysius, itself was compiled not earlier than the XVIII century and was canonized only the IX century.

Therefore the computations of Dionysius Exiguus (Dionysius the Small), or possibly attributed to him, were carried out not earlier than the X century. And therefore 'Dionysius Exiguus' himself could not have lived earlier than the X century.

In the chapter of the 'Collection of the Holy Father's rules' by Matthew Vlastar which is related to Easter (Passover), it says that 'at present' equinox falls on the 18th March [6v3], ch.2. In fact the vernal equinox in the times of Vlastar in the XIV century fell on the 12th March. It fell on the 18th March in the VI century.

This means, that when dating Vlastar's text according to the vernal equinox we will by default arrive at the VI century! It appears, that the same later-mediaeval text was included both into the 'Rules' of Matthew Vlastar and the writing of Dionysius the Small. It is possible that this is text written by Vlastar himself or by someone of his immediate predecessors in the XIII-XIV cc. It includes the dating of the Resurrection of Christ, but nothing is said about the date of the Nativity of Christ. It is feasible, that it is the text by Vlastar which 'Dionysius the Small' used very soon after, who deducted 31 years from the date of Christ's Resurrection, arrived at the date of the 'Nativity of Christ' and presented his new era. If it took place in the XIV century, then the beginning of the systematic use of this era specifically only just since the XV century (from 1431) in the West is understandable. Subsequently, possibly in the XVII century, Dionysius' text was dated by the equinox as the VI century and there emerged the above mentioned reconstruction of his computations. The name 'Dionysius the Small' itself (Small = Exiguus in Latin), according the hypothesis expressed by A.T.Fomenko (in) [1v], ch.6:17, is simply the name of the XVII century chronologist Dionysius Petavius, who completed the construction of the Scaliger chronology. Scaliger and his students lived in France. There the name 'Small' translated as 'petit' and turned into 'Petavius'.

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

1. (1638) THE ROMAN ZODIC LV FROM LOUVRE. 'Ancient Rome', allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 12-17 June according to the Julian Calendar 1638 [DZEE].

2. (1661) ZODIAC FS IN THE SCYTHIAN CHAMBER OF THE DUKES D'ESTE. Fresco on the wall of the duke's palace (Palazzo Schifanoia – Tr.) Italy, Ferrara, allegedly XV century. In fact: 24 June according to the Julian calendar 1661 [GRK], ch.4.

3. (1664) THE ROMAN ZODIAK RZ ON 'MARCUS AURELIUS GEMMA. The embossed red jasper. Europe, allegedly 'Ancient' Rome. In fact: 8-9 December according to Julian calendar 1664 [DZEE].

4. (1667 or 1227) ZODIAC P1 FROM THE TOMB OF PETROSIRIS, OUTER CHAMBER. Colour image in the tomb ceiling. 'Ancient' Egypt, Dakhla oasis, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact – first solution: 5 August 1227; second solution: 2 August according to Julian calendar 1667 [NKhE].

5. (1670) ZODIAK ZP CHAMBER PONTIFEX SALA. Grand frescos fully covered the ceiling of an ample chamber in one of the Vatican castles. Italy, Vatican, allegedly 1520-1521. In fact: 24-30 June according to the Julian calendar 1670 [GR], Introduction.

6. (1680) ZODIAC FR IN DUKES D'ESTE SCYTHIAN CHAMBER. Fresco on the wall of the duke's castle. Italy, Ferrara, allegedly 1468-1469. In fact 19 May according to Julian calendar 1680 [GRK], ch.4.

7. (1682) BRUGSCH ZODIAC, horoscope of the demotic postscripts (adscripts) BR1. Depicted on the internal surface of the wooden coffin lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly antiquity. In fact: 17 November 1682 according to Julian calendar or 18 November 1861 according to Julian calendar [NKhE].

8. (1686) ZODIAC FT IN DUKES' D'ESTE SCYTHIAN CHAMBER. Depicted on the fresco of the Virgin Mary, on the wall of the duke's castle. Italy, Ferrara, allegedly XV century. In fact: 15 October 1686 according to Julian calendar [ERIZ].