How It Really Was/Reconstruction of genuine history/18th century

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The division of the remains of Russia-Horde between the Romanovs and the USA, which occured in the wreckage of the American territories of the Empire immediately after the Romanovs' victory over "Pugachev"[edit | edit source]

Up until the end of the XVIII century there still existed a vast Moscow Tartary – a gigantic fragment of the former Empire. Whereby according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1771 Moscow Tartary WAS THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD [1118], v.2, p.683. It is depicted on various maps of the XVIII century [4v1], ch.11. Moscow Tartary originated in the middle reaches of Volga, from Nizhny Novgorod. Thus Moscow was not far from the border with Moscow Tartary. The town of Tobolsk was pronounced its capital, the name TOBOL was underlined on several maps. A reminder that in the Bible mediaeval Russia was referred to as ROSH, MESHEKH and TUBAL, i.e. Ros, Moscow and TOBOL.

Moscow Tartary spanned the Urals, Siberia, Central Asia, The Far East, Alaska and North America. The conflict between Moscow Tartary and Romanov Russia (originally small in size) ended in the second half of the XVIII century with the famous, allegedly 'peasant', war against 'Pugachev'. The Romanovs succeeded in agreeing peace separately with Turkey and defeating the Great Tartary. Only after this the European emigrants who had settled on the Atlantic seaboard of North America, ventured West, inland over the continent. For decades they seized the North-American territories of Moscow Tartary left without any governmental authority. Today this has been beautifully, but incorrectly narrated on in the Hollywood movies about 'the very noble' white frontiersmen and the 'very bad' Indians.

As a result, in 1776 (straight after the defeat of 'Pugachev') the United States of America emerged. With the Romanovs they voraciously and speedily sliced and diced the vast territories of Moscow Tartary. Ural, Siberia, the Far East. In America – Alaska and Oregon was ceded to the Romanovs. The rest of North America – to the USA. After failing to maintain these bountiful lands, distant from St.Petersburg, and unwilling to obey the usurpers, both Oregon and Alaska were given away to the USA for a notably paltry sum. The very fact of the existence of Moscow Tartary up to the end of the XVIII century and the division of its vast territories between the conquerors was wiped clean from the history textbooks – both in the Old and the New Worlds. Up until now the native Russian population of America is being persistently forced to forget their language and their past.

In the XVIII century there existed another 'Tartar' state – the Independent Tartary with its capital in Samarkand [1118], v.2, p.682-684. It was another large 'splinter' of Russia-Horde. Unlike Moscow Tartary, the fate of this state is known. It was conquered by the Romanovs in the middle of the XIX century. Samarkand, the capital of the Independent Tartary, was seized by the Romanovs army in 1868 [183], part 3, p.309.

Before the defeat of Pugachev the entire Siberia was on the whole a country independent of the Romanovs. As a matter of fact there were a number of states.

Only after the victory over 'Pugachev' the Romanovs began to 'place' on the map of Russia the countries' names famous in old Russian history – the countries-provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire [4v2], ch.2:20. For example, Perm and Vyatka. In fact mediaeval Perm is Germany, and mediaeval Vyatka is Italy. These names of the old Imperial provinces were on the Russian coat of arms. After the break-up of the Empire the Romanovs began the re-writing the history of Russia. In particular it was necessary to relocate these names from Western Europe to some place far off, into the wilderness. Which was done. But only after the victory over Pugachev. Notably, it was done rather quickly. The Romanovs began to replace the coats of arms of the Russian cities and regions only in the second half of the XVIII century. On the whole in 1781 [4v1], ch.10:2 and [4v2], ch.2:20. The change of the coats of arms began 6 years after the victory over Pugachev – the last independent Hordian Czar, or the military commander of the Czar of Moscow Tartary.

According to the maps of the XVIII century, the border of Moscow Tartary was very close to Moscow. Such a dangerous proximity greatly concerned the Romanovs. It is possible that it was the reason for Peter the Great to make a decision to relocate the capital further away, to the swampy coasts of the Gulf of Finland. Here the new capital was built – St. Petersburg. This location was convenient for the Romanovs. Now the capital was far away from the Hordian Tartary. Besides, in the case of an invasion from the Siberian-American Horde, it would be easier to flee to the West from St. Petersburg than from Moscow. Mind you, for some reason they didn't fear invasion from the sea to the WEST. In St.Petersburg it is possible to board a ship made ready at the doorstep of the Czar's castle and quickly embark to Western Europe - to friends and relatives, to the historical motherland of the Romanov house.

The official explanation of the Romanovs for relocating the capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg was not very convincing. They said, that Peter I was 'cutting a window through to Europe', since it was easier to trade from there. But it was possible to trade from the shores of the Gulf of Finland without moving the capital there. They could have simply built a large trading port, and a city next to it. But why did they need to make it the capital of the country?

Furthermore, Siberia becomes a place for the exiled only after the Romanovs' defeat of Pugachev at the end of the XVIII century. Prior to this they exiled people to Solovki, i.e. Solovetsky Archipelago. In any case to the North, but not to Siberia. Let us see when the regular exiles to Siberia began. In particular, Tobolsk became a place of exile only since 1790, when A.N.Radishev was exiled there [797], p.1092; [4v1], ch.11.Since then Tobolsk has become the PERMANENT place of exile. For example, the Decembrists were exiled there. But prior to 1790 over almost the entire XVIII century nobody was exiled to Tobolsk for some reason [4v1]. Ch.11. The vast governmental system of Siberian exile and Siberian hard labour was created only in the XIX century.

Everything is clear. Until the end of the XVIII century the Romanovs could not exile anyone to Siberia simply because SIBERIA DID NOT BELONG TO THEM YET. But it was part of the Russian-Hordian Tartary hostile to the Romanovs. Only having defeated 'Pugachev', the Romanovs got an opportunity to exile the convicts further – to cold Siberia. And even further – to the Far East, to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, to Sakhalin island.

Let's go back to the question of when and how the USA was established. 'During the War of independence of North America in 1775-17983… an independent state – the USA was formed' [797], p.1232. And here we realise, that it SURPRISINGLY COINCIDES WITH THE END OF THE WAR WITH 'PUGACHEV' IN RUSSIA. 'Pugachev' was crushed in 1775. Everything falls into place. 'The War of independence' in North America was the struggle with the weakening Russian Horde. The Romanovs attacked the Horde from the West. And from the East in America - it was attacked by the Americans 'fighting for independence'. Today we are told that the Americans purportedly fought for their 'independence from Britain'. In fact it was a battle for the parcelling of the vast American land of Moscow Tartary left without any central administration. In order not to miss the carve-up, the American troops were eager to get to the West and North-West. George Washington became the first president of the USA in 1776 [796], p.1232. It appears that he became the first new ruler in the American lands of the Russian Horde. The facts of the war with the 'Mongol' Horde were wiped clean from the pages of the textbooks on the American history. As was the fact of the existence of Moscow Tartaria on the whole. The war between the USA and the remains of the Horde continued up until the second half of the XIX century. Alaska, which remained Russian for a particularly long time, was 'bought' from the Romanovs by the Americans only in 1867 [797], p.1232.

Thus, the USA was established in 1776 from the American splinter of the 'Mongol' Empire.

The cities of the urals of the, allegedly, bronze era are the traces of Moscow Tartary, i.e. of the Siberian and American state of the 15th-18th centuries[edit | edit source]

Relatively recently many settlements were discovered in the Southern Urals, of which Arkaim became the most famous [4v1], ch.11. The historians called them proto-cities and dated them to the Bronze era, allegedly to the XVIII-XVI cc. B.C. [33], p.9-10. They inform us that: 'Arkaim is not alone now. The archaeological explorations … brought to light a LARGE GROUP OF SIGNIFICANT SITES SIMILAR TO THE ARKAIM COMPLEX, tentatively noted as a 'COUNTRY OF CITIES' [33], p.11. And further: 'The urbanized character… of the Sintashta-Petrovka settlements was acquired primarily as the centres of manufacturing and distribution of the METAL GOODS… a large percentage of the findings comprised the metalwork instruments and the remains of the METAL PRODUCTION. Almost all the sites have the FIXED METALURGICAL FURNACES, despite the comparatively small uncovered areas [33], p.31.

The great 'antiquity' of these settlements was proclaimed quite recently. As it turns out, the original point of view of those, who discovered those cities, was different. The discoverers considered the cities to be more recent, i.e. closer to us on the timeline [33], p.9.

A clear picture emerges from all this data. The locals didn't see anything particular mysterious in these settlements. They thought them to be the remains of some not very old cities. They are made of wood and compacted soil, so their good preservation itself indicates that not so many years have passed since their creation. It is only later that the enthusiastic worshipers of antiquity baselessly announced the enormous antiquity of these settlements. Pilgrims and tourists became frequent visitors. I.V.Ivanov informs, that 'three to four thousands sightseers, tourists-psychics, members of religious sects, people hungry for knowledge and sometime even seeking cures of ailments, visit the conservation area on a yearly basis, during spring and autumn and make a pilgrimage to Arkaim' [33], p.13.

Most likely, these are the old Cossack settlements-fortresses of the XV-XVIII cc. which were a part of the military fortifications of Moscow Tartary. For a reason they write thus of Arkaim: 'The fortification is worthy of a MEDIAEVAL FORTRESSES' [33], p.25. The comparatively good preservation of Arkaim located in the open steppe, where the winds and the rains raze to the ground the remains of the clay, mud and wooden walls (built of earth packed into timber frames), comes into strong contradiction with the 'heralded antiquity' of these constructions [33], p.24. See [4v1].

It appears that "Pugachev" was defeated by Suvorov. Later on this fact was concealed[edit | edit source]

It turns out that A.V.Suvorov's distinguished title of 'Count of Rymnik' is not related to the geographical name of 'Rymnik' in Romania, which, as we have discovered, appeared on the map only AFTER Suvorov's victories, but to the old name of the Yaik River (at present the Ural River). It can be seen on the old maps that Yaik also used to have a second, now forgotten name – Rymnik [ShEK], ch.8. And the Urals were also called the Rymnik mountains [ShEK], ch.8. This factor radically changes the traditional belief about A.V.Suvorov's participation in the Pugachev War. It turns out that it was he who defeated Pugachev. The picture of the historical falsification carried out by the Romanovs together with the Western ruling houses becomes increasingly clear.

The history of war against 'Pugachev' as it is known today is a pure invention of the victors – the Romanovs. 'Pugachev's rebellion' was a brutal war between the Romanov Russia and the Siberian-American Russian State. This Kingdom retained the old Russian-Horde customs and had its own czar with his capital in Tobolsk. The Siberian czar was hostile towards the Romanovs, considering them illegitimate rulers of the Western part of Russia.

The Romanovs strived to possess Siberian Muscovy at all costs. They understood very well that the Russian people on the whole didn't support them and many would rather prefer the regime of Tobolsk to the Romanovs' St.Petersburg. That is why the Romanovs turned the very existence of their Siberian neighbour into a national secret. To preserve this secret, the infamous Secret Police was created, where the executioners tortured and hanged those who 'knew too much'.

At the end of the XVIII century a major war began between the Romanov Russia and Siberian Moskovia. At first Ottoman Turkey marched out as an ally of Tobolsk. The Romanovs found themselves in a difficult position: they had to fight on two fronts at once. However on the 10 July 1774 after a series of defeats Turkey signed the peace Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca with the Romanovs which marked their defeat. Essentially it betrayed its ally – the Czar of Tobolsk. Seizing this opportunity in 1774 the Romanovs urgently mobilised their troops from the Turkish front to the Eastern Front.

A.V.Suvorov, who had recently distinguished himself in the battles with the Turks, stood at the head of these troops. With Suvorov's help, count P.I.Panin, the commander-in-chief of the Eastern Front, defeated the Siberian army of 'Pugachev'. Suvorov personally convoyed the captured 'Pugachev' from Yaik to Simbirsk. He was later brought to Moscow and executed there, after purporting that he was a common Cossack who had rebelled against the rightful rulers – the Romanovs. Most likely, it was in fact some common Cossack who was brought for the execution, but not the real Siberian war chief. It is possible that he was called 'Pugachev'. The true identity of the Siberian leader was probably kept secret by the Romanovs. The two SECRET PANELS which were set up in Kazan and Orenburg in 1773-1774, were in charge of the misrepresentation of the Pugachev war history [988:00], the article 'Pugachevshina'.

Most likely that following their defeat the remnants of the royal court at Tobolsk and its faithful troops fled to China, where they were warmly received by the Emperors of Manchuria, the distant relatives of the Hordian czars of Tobolsk, see our book 'Pegaya Orda'. The Romanovs occupied Siberia, having at first annexed it to the province of Kazan and pretended that 'it had been always been this way'. But soon they began to divide it 'after suddenly realising that it was too big'. Many old Siberian cities were wiped off the face of the earth. The majority of the names present on the maps of Siberia in the XVIII century are not there in the XIX century anymore. When the archaeologists unearthed the remnants of the Siberian cities destroyed in the XVIII century, instead of reconstructing the true history of Siberia, they declared their findings to be extremely ancient. The perfect example of this is Arkaim in the Urals, (see above).

In 1775 for the victory over Moscow Tartary Suvorov was presented with the most luxurious and expensive award among those he had received – a diamond encrusted sword. Much to everyone's delight, it was not held a secret at that point. The Romanovs happily celebrated their victory over their severe Siberian neighbour. The victory came to the Romanovs at a price and they spared neither expense nor rewards for their victorious generals-victors.

Later however, the time came when they had to give an account of the history of the war on paper, to canonize the version for the posterity. And here they faced a difficulty. As the Romanovs were persistently hiding the very existence of their Siberian neighbour, depicting that Siberia had always belonged to them. That is why a decision was made to present the war with Tobolsk as an allegedly comparatively easy fight of government troops with a rebellious mob. Purporting, that the rebels' ringleader was a common Cossack Yemelyan Pugachev. When presented in such a light, Suvorov's achievements in defeating 'Pugachev' were an obstacle. It was clear, that a great military commander should not be fighting a crowd of ignorant peasants. He had much greater tasks, and the suppression of peasant revolts was a responsibility of the second-rate military commanders. That is why they presented the matter the following way.

Allegedly 'Pugachev' was defeated by an unknown lieutenant-colonel Michelsohn, who was made promoted to colonel for his achievement. Suvorov, they said, had nothing to do with it. He was called to the Eastern front by mistake, due to P.I.Panin's panic. Suvorov, they said, had absolutely nothing to do there. So in the end he did not fight against Pugachev.

The precious sword received by Suvorov for defeating Pugachev was clearly an obstacle to the falsifiers of history. As it bore witness to the fact that it was Suvorov who defeated Pugachev and that his victory was not came at a price. That is why they presented it as if the sword was awarded to him as reward for the success in the Turkish war and not for the victory over Pugachev. And they preferred to forget altogether about Panin's sword [ShEK], ch.8.

Some might ask why did Suvorov receive the title of Count of Rymnik rather than 'Count of Yaik' or 'Count of Ural' for the victory at Yaik=Rymnik. As Rymnik is the OLD name of Yaik. During the times of Suvorov this river was already called the Yaik river, and after 'Pugachev's' defeat it was renamed into the Ural river.

The probable reason is that in the Suvorov's epoch, under Catherine the Great, it was the 'ancient' geographical names that were very much in fashion. Thus after the annexation of Crimea in 1787 Grigory Potemkin started to be called Potemkin-Tavricheski, and not Potemkin-Crymski. Though Crimea in those days was already called Crimea, but not Tavria. But for the honorary title they used the 'ancient' name – Tavria. Incidentally in those times many cities in the Russian Empire were either called or re-named in the 'ancient style'. For example, Feodosia (instead of the Mediaeval Kaffa), Sevastopol, Odessa, etc. It's not surprising that Suvorov also received his title 'Count of Rymnik' according to the 'ancient' name of the place, where he won his victory.

Some might like to object. They might say that the old name of the Yaik river as Rymnik is just a random coincidence with name of a small river Rymnik in Moldavia (present day Romania). Purporting that this coincidence proves nothing. Everyone knows that Suvorov became the Count of Rymnik precisely for his victory by the Romanian river Rymnik, and not at Yaik.

However, is it true, that the battle of 1789 in fact took place at Rymnik? Such is the exact coincidence in the names of two rivers in a different place – where both of the rivers are closely connected with Suvorov – seem to be improbable. Of course, it is impossible to argue the fact that nowadays there is in fact a river there called Rymnik in the place where Suvorov won his victory in 1789. It is marked on the modern maps. The question is – WAS IT CALLED THAT DURING THE BATTLE ITSELF? Or was this name craftily attached to some obscure river flowing through the battlefield ALREADY AFTER THE BATTLE. Aiming to replace the true reason for awarding Suvorov with the title of 'Count of Rymnik', and to pretend that he received this title not for the victory over Pugachev at Yaik=Rymnik, but for a different victory?

Our suspicion increases by the fact, that the Austrians who fought together with the Russians against the Turks and took part in the same battle 'at Rymnik', as it turned out, referred to it not as the 'Battle of Rymnik', but the 'Battle of Martinesti' [668:1], p.148.

Let us turn to the old maps of the XVII-XVIII cc. and see what geographical names were there at that time in the location of the 'Battle of Rymnik' of 1789? Is there any 'Rymnik' among them?

We examined hundreds of various maps including those from the book [912:2a], containing the reproductions of over 300 old maps of Russia and its vicinities of the XVII-XVIII cc. It turned out that NONE OF THE OLD MAPS KNOWN TO US CONTAIN ANY TRACES OF THE NAME 'RYMNIK' IN THE LOCATION OF THE BATTLE OF RYMNIK IN MOLDAVIA. But Fokshany, situated very close, where another important battle of 1789 took place and where Suvorov also gained a spectacular victory, was indeed marked on some of the maps of that time. Fokshany was indicated, but Rymnik was not! Notably, in the location of contemporary 'Rymnik' a number of old maps indicate another name close to that of 'Rymnik', but still essentially different from it – 'RYBNIK' [ShEK], ch.8.

But then we begin to understand the 'cookery' of the Rymnik forgery. It was carried out by the Romanovs' historians rather intelligently. They have studied the geographical situation in the vicinity of Suvorov's victories of 1789 trying to find a name similar to 'Rymnik'. It turned out that on some old maps not far from those locations, the town of 'Rybnik' was indicated. That was sufficient to publicly announce that Suvorov, 'Count of Rymnik' received his title precisely for the victory of 1789. The indication on the old maps for the place 'Rymnik' illustrates only a slip of the pen by cartographers, they say. For greater authenticity a small river flowing through the battlefield was renamed as 'Rymnik' [ShEK], ch.8.

Thus, the name 'Rymnik' emerges on the map of Moldavia (present day Romania) only due to the Romanov's forgers. They made sure to depict Suvorov's battle with the Turks in 1789 as that very Battle of Rymnik for which he received the important title of 'Count of Rymnik'. But the real battle took place in 1744 at Yaik=Rymnik. During this battle Suvorov and Panin defeated 'Pugachev's' Siberian army, and by doing so they rendered an invaluable service to the Romanov dynasty. Hence the title and many other honours they generously showered Suvorov with. For example, they began to erect the monument to Suvorov in Petersburg by royal authority of the Emperor Paul I of Russia during the lifetime of the commander. Suvorov was buried in the most important place of honour - in Alexander Nevsky Lavra, in a special burial vault designated only for relatives and close friends.

The Romanovs endeavoured to bring Moscow down[edit | edit source]

During the epoch of Peter I the relations between Romanov Russia and the vast Moscow Tartary became especially tense. Fearing the restoration of the Horde's regime in Central Russia, the Romanovs transferred their capital to distant Petersburg, which was especially built by Peter I for this purpose. The former capital – Moscow, which was still associated in the minds of many people with Horde of the XIV-XVI cc., was assigned the role of a second-rate city [4v].

Peter I and his circle didn't like Moscow and everything connected with it. Here is an interesting detail conveyed by the French courtier Leboise. He accompanied Peter's court in Paris 1717. In his report to the French King, Leboise wrote: 'The word 'Muscovite' and even 'Muscovia' are deeply insulting for this entire court' [514], v.2, p.283.

It is clear, that a heavy political gloom was to descend onto Moscow and Moscow Kremlin. This is the exact picture that emerges from the documents of the XVIII [TsRS], ch.9.

The Romanovs not only abandoned the old Russian-Horde Kremlin of Moscow=Jerusalem, but decided to mock deride it as 'Mongol' relics. For example, they sent their jesters with their 'weddings' into the Palace of the Facets (Granovitaya Palata). Let them have fun, they said. Let us see how exactly the Romanov's buffoons and their friends danced, drank and joked in the heart of the former capital of Russia-Horde = Biblical Israel.

The old documents, which came to light after a long period of obscurity thanks to the efforts of Zabelin, inform us: 'THE PREFECT OF THE LATIN SCHOOLS AND THE PHILOSOPHY TEACHER HIEROMONK JOSEPH ARRANGED ORGANISED PLAY ACTING. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT DURING THE ARRANGEMENT OF THESE COMEDIES THERE THE FRESCOS OF THE PALACE CHAMBERS, WHICH WERE ALREADY QUITE DILAPIDATED, WERE LIME WASHED' [282:1], part 1, p.117-118.

Everything is clear. The West European 'scholars' who had swarmed across Romanov Russia (especially after Peter cut a window through into enlightened Europe, which was impressed on all of us multiple times) not only clowned around in the Russian Horde cathedrals, but also were destroying the vulnerable Hordian relics of antiquity, revelling in impunity. In particular they lime washed the old frescos in Kremlin. Later, post factum, they declared them to be extremely dilapidated. Purporting that there was nothing left to do but to lime wash them. It became clean and beautiful there. The old Russian pictures ceased to annoy the delicate Latin taste.

It is astonishing that the Romanovs abused the Moscow Kremlin up until the beginning of the XIX c inclusively. Hence one can see how great was their irritation with the former Hordian traditions and memories connected with Moscow and its Kremlin. It came to a point where in the beginning of the XIX century the Romanov administration practically exposed Kremlin to thieves and cheats! IN KREMLIN THERE APPEARED 'NESTS OF THIEVES' AND 'HOUSES OF DEBAUCHERY' [TsRS], ch.9.

About the "most ancient" Chinese history[edit | edit source]

There are a lot of preconceptions attached to Chinese history. Today it is thought that it is exceptionally ancient, that its dating is absolutely reliable, that in many ways it precedes European history. The common misconception is that allegedly Chinese chronology is solidly based on various 'Ancient Chinese' astronomical notes, which allow us to unequivocally date the 'Ancient Chinese' events.

We analyse the Chinese astronomy and history in [5v2], [PRRK], PVAT]. We show that dating the first astronomical observations in China to allegedly the sixth millennium BC is a serious error, as the alleged reference to the sunspots on the Chinese crockery of allegedly the fourth millennium BC. The Chinese astronomy of allegedly the second millennium BC on the shells and turtle shells also belong to the same phantoms. As it becomes clear, the FIRST observatories and astronomical permanent service appeared in China not earlier than the XIX century.

THE MOST ANCIENT Chinese horoscope of the grandson of the Yellow (Huangdi) Emperor Xuanyan-shi (who allegedly ruled in 2637-2597 B.C.) in fact dates to the 6th March 1725 according to Julian calendar, i.e. the XVIII century!

It appears that the EARLIEST Chinese Yellow Emperor who introduced the epoch of the 'Great Beginning' in China is the first Manchurian dynasty Shì-Tzu-Zhang-Huángdì Shun-Chih (1644-1662), i.e. lived in the XVII century, and not at all in the 'deepest antiquity'.

The astronomical facts prove, that the MOST ANCIENT (Chinese 60-year calendar cycle) was in fact introduced for the first time not until the XIII century.

It turns out that the MOST ANCIENT Chinese solar eclipse under the Emperor Zhòng Kāng in the beginning of the Xia dynasty (who ruled allegedly in 2100-1600 B.C.) occurred on the 1st September 1644, the year of the accession of the Manchurian dynasty. Which means that the history of the Chinese solar eclipses begins only from the XVII century, and not at all in the 'deepest past'.

Furthermore, it turns out that the data about the Chinese lunar eclipses fails to either affirm, or contest any kind of chronology of China. It is absolutely useless for the purpose of the astronomical dating.

We have devoted a large section in [5v2] to the Chinese comets – the most important backbone of the Chinese chronology. We have studied the Chinese comet catalogues in detail. To conclude:

1) The only comet, based on which it could have been possible to try and attempt to prove the validity of the Chinese chronology, is Halley's Comet. The rest of the comets are absolutely useless for the verification of the chronology of China as well as of any other ancient chronology.

2) The information about the appearances of Halley's Comet in the Chinese chronicles earlier than the XV century turned out to be falsified. We have shown that they were fabricated in the XVIII-XIX cc.. This is not just our hypothesis, but a firm statement [5v2], ch.5. However we do not claim that all the Chinese records referring today to Halley's Comet were falsified. It would be enough to fabricate just ONE or TWO OBSERVATIONS of Halley's Comet for the indicated forgery. The forgery was carried out most likely between 1759 and 1835.

The early history of China up until the XV century is in fact the history of Europe, Mediterranean, including Byzantium. The historical chronicles narrating about Europe were brought to China by the Hordian conquerors not until the XIV-XV cc.

Later, after the XVII century, in China these chronicles were erroneously understood as giving an account of allegedly 'ancient Chinese history'. It was easy to make a mistake particularly because in China for writing they used hieroglyphs, i.e. simply pictures.

This type of writing was apparently brought to China from Egypt, possibly as early as in the XII-XIII cc. The understanding of the pictures-hieroglyphs intrinsically depends on the language. The same hieroglyphs are read entirely differently depending on who is reading them: a Chinese, a Japanese, a Vietnamese, etc.

The proper nouns are represented by the hieroglyphs by way of finding similar sounding hieroglyphs IN THE APPLIED LANGUAGE. Hence the spelling, and therefore the reading, contemporary to us, of an old Chinese name considerably depends on who exactly translated ORIGINALLY into the hieroglyphic script: a Japanese, a Chinese or a Korean …

Besides, the language evolves too. A name which used to sound one way would acquire a completely different sound in several hundreds of years in the evolved language – even if the HIEROGLYPHS, which it was written with, remained the same.

When and why the Great wall of China was built[edit | edit source]

Today it is thought that construction started on the Great Wall of China in the III century B.C. for the purpose of defence against the Northern nomads [5v1]. We would like to suggest the following idea.

The Great Wall of China was most likely built as a construction defining the BORDER BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES: China and Russia. It could have certainly been intended as a military fortification, but it is hardly true that the wall was used in that particular capacity. It is pointless to defend a 4000 kilometres wall [5v1], ch.6 from the attack of an enemy. Even if it stretches over 'just' one or two thousand kilometres. The wall in its present form falls short of four thousand kilometres.

The wall was built first of all to MARK THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES, notably when they came to an agreement about the border. Presumably, to eliminate any boundary disputes in the future. And such disputes most likely did occur. Today agreed parties draw the border on a map i.e. on paper. And consider it to be sufficient. In the case of Russia and China the Chinese placed such an emphasis on this agreement that they decided to cement it not just on paper, but also 'afield', constructing the wall according to the agreed boundary. It was safer this way and, according to the Chinese, would eliminate any boundary disputes for a long time. The length of the wall itself speaks in favour of our hypothesis. Four or one-two thousand kilometres is normal for the border between two countries. But as for the purely military construction – absolutely pointless.

But the political border of China changed frequently over the duration of its allegedly more than two thousand years history. The historians are telling us so. China has united, then broke into separate regions, then lost and acquired some lands.

We can date the construction of the Wall. If we succeed in finding a political and geographical map, where the BORDER OF CHINA GOES EXACTLY ALONG THE GREAT WALL, this would mean, that IT WAS EXACTLY THAT TIME, WHEN THE WALL WAS BUILT.

Fig.93
Fig.94

Let us try to find such a map. Such maps do exist. There are a lot of them. These are the maps of the XVII-XVIII cc. For example, the map of Asia of the XVIII century, produced by the Royal Academy in Amsterdam [1019]. We can find two states on the map: Tartary – Tartarie and China – Chine. See fig.93 and fig.94 [5v1], ch.6. The Northern border of China follows approximately the 40th parallel. THE WALL OF CHINA PRECISELY FOLLOWS THIS BORDER. Moreover, on the map the Wall is marked with a thick line and signed Muraille de la Chine, i.e. the 'tall wall of China' - translated from French.

In [5v1] we present a number of such maps. It all means that the Great Wall of China was built in XVI-XVII cc. as the political boundary between China and Russia = 'Mongol Tartary'.

Some may object: on the contrary, the border between Russia and China in the XVII century was drawn along the ancient Wall. However in this case the Wall should have been referred to in the written Russian-Chinese agreement. We haven't found such references.

So when was the Wall=Border constructed? It appears as precisely in the XVII century. It is for a reason considered that its construction 'completed' only in 1620 [544], v.6, p.121. And it might be even later [5v].

Did the Wall exist earlier than the XVII century? Most likely not. The historians tell us that China was conquered by the 'Mongols' in 1279. It became a part of the Great Empire. According to the New Chronology this took place in the XIV century [4v1], ch.2. In the Scaligerian chronology of China this event was marked in the XIV century as the MING dynasty ascending to power in 1368, i.e. the very same MONGOLS.

As we understand it now in the XIV-XVI cc. RUSSIA AND CHINA STILL COMPRISED ONE EMPIRE. Therefore there was no need to erect a Wall = Border. Such necessity emerged after the Time of Troubles in Russia, the defeat of the Russian Horde dynasty and the seizure of power by the Romanovs. They have changed the political course of Russia, subjecting the country to the western influence. Such orientation of the new dynasty led to the break of the Empire. Turkey broke off, the severe wars began with Turkey. In fact control over a substantial part of America was lost. In the very end even Alaska was lost, the last Hordian splinter in America.

China became independent. The relations between China and the Romanovs became tense and the border conflicts began. It was necessary to erect the Wall, which was carried out, most likely during the boundary disputes of the XVII century. The military conflicts flared up since the middle of the XVII century. The wars proceeded with variable success [5v1], ch.6. The descriptions of the wars survive in Khabarov's letters.

The beginning of the certain history of China (on its present day territory) falls only in the epoch of the Manchurian dynasty coming to power. I.e. the Mongol dynasty originated from Russia. The dynasty was either Russian of Tatar.

As late as in the XVIII century it was common to write MANZHOURY [5v1], ch.6, and not the 'Manchu' of today. I.e. MANGURY or MANGULY, as in China the sounds 'L' and 'R' are often indistinguishable. Thus the very name of MANZHOURY points to their origin. They were the 'MONGOLS' = the magnificent.

Incidentally, this border – the XVII century separating the epoch of the Manzhourian domination in China from the 'purely Chinese' period preceding it – coincides with the dating of the most ancient Chinese manuscripts which survive until the present day. To remind you, they date to not earlier than the XVII century [544], v.6, p.119.

The Manzhourian = 'Mongolian' rulers of China are known to consider themselves the successors of the vast Empire, which according to them spanned the entire world. If their kingdom was the splinter of the Golden Horde, then such a perception is understandable. But from the Scaligerian point of view, that before conquering China, the Manchu was a savage peoples who lived somewhere near the Northern Chinese border, the absurd pomposity of the Manchu sovereigns becomes not just strange, but without parallel in world history either.

Piebald Horde[edit | edit source]

When was 'ancient Chinese history' written and who by? It appears that in the XVII-XVIII cc., in China, under the Manchus, a great deal of history writing was undertaken. [151]. This activity was accompanied by disputes, whitch-hunts, persecutions and the obliteration of books. The history of China was practically written under the Manchus. And it took place in the XVII-XVIII cc. [151].

In [5v2] we show, that THE CHINESE HISTORICAL LITERATURE WHICH EXISTS TODAY WAS WRITTEN AND CONSIDERABLY EDITED AFTER 1770. A lot was edited. The chronicles, lists of comets, the history of dynasties and the entire Chinese history in general.

Thus, following the Romanovs seizure of power in Russia and the crushing defeat of the Russian Horde, the surviving representatives of the Horde dynasty fled in different directions. In particular to the East. Some, however, made attempts to return to the Moscow throne. It appears that the Stepan Razin and Yemelyan Pugachev 'uprisings' were among such attempts.

But some fled to the East. The most Eastern Horde was the Piebald Horde, situated at that time along the borders of present day China. Possibly the territories occupied by it were called KITAI. And is now modern day CHINA, according to Afanasy Nikitin.

The escaped group of the Hordians was not great in number. They were the Manchus = 'Mongols'. It was probably them, who had with them a minor prince. Incidentally, the mysterious (for the historians) prince Alexei was also involved in the Razin uprising. Having rounded up troops in the Piebald Horde, they conquered China, settled there and took all the necessary measures not to be absorbed by the Romanov Russia. For that purpose, in particular, the Wall of China was created either in the middle or at the end of the XVII century.

In 1644, as they tell us, the Manchus seized, but most likely FOUNDED the city of Peking. Or as it was called then – PEZHIN from PEGAYA (means PIEBALD in Russian) Horde. A minor prince SHIH(-zu), who was brought with them from The Golden Horde, i.e. from Volga (where Stepan Razin was fighting at the time), was proclaimed the Emperor.

The conquerors forces marched off almost without any women. That is why to continue a pure Manchurian = 'Mongol' bloodline was possible only for the Emperor's court. And even then only just. In the very end the bulk of the Manchus became integrated. It happened approximately a hundred years later. Consequently the nature of the Manchurian army completely changed. By the end of the XVIII century the 'Manchurian soldiers … have long lost their former military efficiency' [151], v.5, p.318. The Manchurian language is the language of Piebald Horde. Naturally, it is nothing like Chinese.

To conclude, THE MANCHURIAN GOLDEN HORDE IN CHINA OF THE XVII-XVIII CC. IS THE SPLINTER OF THE RUSSIAN GOLDEN HORDE. The Manchus are those 'Mongols', Russians and Tatars, who in the XVII century fled from the Romanovs.

About the historical sources of the present day Mongols[edit | edit source]

They can tell us: but there are present-day Mongols. Living on the territory of Mongolia. What is the story of their ancient history? They must have their chronicles and annals…

Most likely, the present-day Mongols are the vestiges, the descendants of the Piebald Horde, which had conquered China in the beginning of the XVII century. Their very name speaks of it: Mongols = Manguls = Manchurs. Therefore it is interesting to have a look at their historical sources. It is thought that there are many of them, but ALL OF THEM, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE HISTORIANS, WERE CREATED, OR TO BE MORE PRECISE, FIRST WRITTEN IN THE PERIOD FROM THE XVII TO THE XIX CC. [5v1], ch.6.

As a rule, the Mongolian chronicles, despite the fact that they were created in the XVII-XVIII cc., are brought to the Manchurian conquest. THEY CONTAIN THE OLD LEGENDS ABOUT THE QING DYNASTY. And also about Genghis Khan and his descendants ruling in 'Mongolia' [5v1], ch.6.

But these are once again the legendary recollections about the Golden Horde and famous Russian Grand Prince Georgii Danilovich. The chronicles were brought to the territory of the present-day Mongolia by the Manchurs – the natives of the Golden Horde. That is the reason why the chronicles end with the Manchurian conquest. Following that the Mongols themselves as a rule for some reason didn't compose any historical writings.

We are aware that it might be immensely difficult for our reader to part with a myth of the archaic antiquity of China and the Eastern civilisations in general. However, the impartial analysis shows that the age of the Eastern civilisation is approximately the same as the Western one.

But the written accounts in the East are in a much worse state than in the West. If in the West the majority of the surviving manuscripts and books were produced not earlier than the XVI-XVII cc. and they convey to us European history beginning with only the XI century, than in China the situation is worse. There practically all the documents were produced not earlier than the XVII-XVIII cc. That is why we would hardly be able to learn anything about the Chinese history prior to the XV-XVI cc. We would like to repeat that its final version was created only at the end of the XVIII – beginning of the XIX cc.

Japan[edit | edit source]

The second wave of the 'Mongolian-Chinese', i.e. Scythian colonisation of Japan belongs to the XVI-early XVII cc. During this time they began to break the 'Mongol' Empire into pieces. Japan, which has already been safely absorbed by The Horde earlier in the XIV-XVI (the first wave), has unwillingly become one of such splinters countries in the XVII century. Japan of that time remained faithful to the idea of the Horde Empire. As a result, in the beginning of the XVII century various demographics among the European Cossack population of Horde (and first of all of the East Piebald Horde) moved to join their brothers on the far away Japanese islands, escaping the invasion of the pro-Western Romanovs. The unyielding Hordians-Samurais had left the mainland for ever. It is for a reason that there survive Japanese records of exactly the time the shogun Tokugawa IEYASU (1542-1616) arrived to Japan [1167:1], p.20. They possibly refer to the appearance on the Japanese islands of a new wave of Christian Cossacks under the banners of JESUS Christ, i.e. crusaders samurais-Samarians (natives of Samara).

The period between 1624-1644 is referred to in today's version of Japanese history as 'Kan'ei period' [1167:1], p.20.I.e.the period of the KHANS. It is curious, that during this epoch Japan completely shuts itself from the outside world. Presumably, the Hordian khans, the rulers of Japan, were striving to isolate their country and to save it from the 'progressive reformers' of the XVII century, who were greedily dividing at that time the vast heritage of Horde in Eurasia and America.

Today it is thought that in the XVI-XVIII cc. in the history of Japan and particular its central region, metropoly Edo, an important role was played by the RUSUI [1167:1], p.6. The Japanese historians say: 'We should not forget about the RUSUI (Auth.), who were present in Edo from every feudal province (of Japan-Auth.). THE RUSUI HAD A HUGE INFLUENCE on the culture of both Edo metropoly, and in each regional district… The Rusui from different feudal districts cooperated with each other' [1167:1], p.6.

Speaking of the Rusui with deep respect, the contemporary Japanese historians do not specify here – who are these Rusui. Our idea is simple. The Japanese sources have preserved the records that the Japanese islands colonised by RUSSIA-Horde. The descendants of the Cossacks-Hordians were called Rusui in Japan for a rather long time. And the samurais as well.

The military regime of the samurais headed by Shogun lasted until the middle of the XIX century. The historians report that the 'Chinese cultural influence on Japan was enormous, especially in the epoch of Edo' [1167:1], p.11. As we have already pointed out, in the XIV-XVI cc. the name Kitai (China) referred to Scythia.

It has already been stated that in the samurai epoch of the XVII-XIX cc. the Japanese islands isolated themselves from the outside world. They wished to protect themselves from the Western rebels. However, by the middle of the XIX century the division of the heritage of the 'Mongol' Empire in Eurasia and America was over and the greedy gazes turned to the faraway Japanese islands, which remained the pillar of the Imperial samurai spirit. Japan's turn had come.

In the middle of the XIX century the European military ships (elusively referred to as 'merchant' in the textbooks) appeared at the shores of Japan carrying a large deployment of European troops. A military coup was underway, which led to the fall of the samurai rule. This period was later cunningly called 'the Meiji RESTORATION', i.e. meaning the return to former values [1167:1], p.104. In reality they referred to the barbaric invasion of the Hordian-Samurai Japan by the European Reformers. The last outpost of the samurais – the headquarters of the shogun in the North of Japan, in the city of Aizu-Wakamatsu was seized and savagely destroyed. The contemporary Japanese historians usually speak sparingly of this turbulent and dark era.

Thus in 1868 the Hordian-Samurai epoch came to an end. In the second half of the XIX century the Reformation swept through the vanquished country, i.e. sublimating Japanese life to the Western and American way. [1167:1], p.104. The samurais were crushed.

Over time in Japan there emerged a nostalgia for the epoch of the samurais: 'The people look back to the Edo era with much nostalgia' [1167:1], p.10. The mediaeval samurais (the Samarians) until now remain the object of admiration and respect in Japan [5v1].

The map of the global Horde Empire[edit | edit source]

The major conquests of Russia-Horde and the Ottoman Empire –Atamania are not at all reflected on the Scaligerian map in any way. That is the reason why we had to draw the present map of the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. ourselves.

Fig.95
Fig.96

The Mighty = 'Mongol' rulers thought that the entire world should be conquered. And this plan was fully realised. Let us highlight the contours of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the XX c. on the world map with a thin red line, fig.95. Let us add to it the territories which, according to the historians, were a part of the 'Mongol' Empire, or as it was called in the XVII-XVIII cc. – Great Tartary, fig.96 [5v1], ch.1, ch.8.

As you can see, the Great Tartaria and the domains of the Mighty 'Mogols', i.e. 'Mongols', cover practically all of Asia and a significant chunk of Europe. It includes, in particular, the biggest part of modern China, India, Persia and Korea. Let us add to this Great Tartaria the following countries:

  • The United Ottoman Empire = Atamania which was later given the name of Turkey, conquered by Tamerlane-Timur.
  • A part of Egypt conquered during the 'Mongol' yellow Crusade allegedly in the XIII century.
  • Eastern Europe, colonised by Baty-Khan.

These are the countries which fell under the rule of the 'Mongol' Empire according the historians themselves.

But that is not everything. Let us add the countries which according to the mediaeval records, essentially considered themselves to be the vassals of the Great Empire. Without showing any significant armed resistance. Such as Germany, France, Italy, England, Spain, Scandinavia, i.e. virtually the whole of Western Europe. The result is indicated with the continuous bald line in fig.95. These are the contours of the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV century epoch.

Later in the XV-XVIcc. the Empire significantly expanded once again during the Hordian and Ottoman conquest of The 'Promised Land'. The overseas territories in the North and South America were annexed. These territories are included in fig.95 with a dashed line [6v2], ch.6.

Inside the Empire of the XIV century (thick contour) you see the Russian Empire of the early XX century (thin contour). Here could also be added the countries which were a part of the Russian zone of influence (USSR) from 1945 to 1985. How does the territory of the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV century differ from the territory of the Russian Empire, let's say, of the early XX century?

Not more than twice. And to think that this is several hundred years later, following the break-up of the Empire. And if we compare it to the 'zone of influence' of Russia (USSR) of the XX century in Eurasia, then the difference would be reduced to only several per cent. Not to mention that Alaska, leased out by the Romanovs to USA in 1867 under Alexander II, is comparable to Western Europe. Though it was sold so cheaply – for 7.2 million dollars [4v1].

The Great Empire was rigidly centralised. In those times the creation of such a vast monolithic Empire with real longevity was impossible – due to the inadequate means of communication, for example. That is why the Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. fell apart having existed for about 300 years. But the very idea of a multinational Empire remained appealing and lived long in certain parts.

Division of the religious heritage of the Empire[edit | edit source]

The religious and political heritage of the Empire was divided between: the WEST, with the Catholic Rome in Italy; the EAST, with the Orthodox Third Rome = Moscow; and ASIA, with the Muslim Istanbul. Moscow, Rome and Istanbul were the religious centres. Thus in the XVII-XVIII cc. the three religions, which emerged from the sole Christianity of the XII-XIV cc., divided the spheres of influence.

The city of Jerusalem in Palestine was given its name and identified with the evangelical Gospels Jerusalem not very long ago [6v2], ch.2:10. Following the break-up of the Empire the main ecclesiastical forces of the Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Islam and Judaism could not agree on how to keep the former name of JERUSALEM for Czar-Grad = Troy = Istanbul.

There were too many political, historical and religious conflicts there. Following the split of Christianity none of the newly formed religious branches could agree to leave the old holy Jerusalem in the hands of one of the 'sisters' as its religious centre.

In the end in order to avoid offending anyone, it was tacitly agreed to strip Czar-Grad of one of its famous ancient names – Jerusalem. And it was bestowed upon the small settlement of Al-Quds in what is todays Palestine. Where notably the very name PALESTINE, - i.e. Bely Stan (White Camp) or Babel, Babylonian Camp, - was also transferred not long before.

It took place most likely in the XVIII century. The construction of the 'Jerusalem antiquities' dates to the early XIX century, when Egypt was conquered by Napoleon and Western Europeans for the first time arrived in Palestine [6v2], ch.2. At the end of XVIII-XIX cc. Al-Quds was quickly turned into the centre of the religious veneration, to where all the corresponding Gospel and Biblical events were transferred to – on paper.

The famous mediaeval name of Troy was also taken away from Czar-Grad and declared to be 'very ancient'. However the name itself didn't travel too far. Today we are told that Homer's 'classical' Troy was in fact situated close to Istanbul. Namely on the Eastern shore of Turkey, near the southern entry to the Dardanelles. Near a town of Kum Burun [2v1], ch.5.

Rewriting and "fragmentation" of the ancient history[edit | edit source]

To sum up. Among the Imperial splinters, which for an especially long time remained true to the idea of the united Empire, were, for example, Spain, Samurai Japan, Manchurian China and some Hordian-Cossack civilisations of America – Maya, Aztec and Inca in particular. The Hordian governors who ruled in the XVII century in China decided to break away from the usurpers-Romanovs. For that purpose in the XVII century The Great Wall of China was erected as the borderline marked point to point with low-rise walls and occasional towers.

In the XVII-XIX cc. all these pockets of resistance of the old 'Mongol' dynasties were suppressed. The Samurais-Hordians in the XIX century were crushed by the Europeans who invaded Japan. The Hordian civilizations in America were drowned in blood by the West-European reformers who intruded there in the XVII-XVIII cc. Later on all these atrocities were shifted by the historians approximately 200 years down back to the XV century and retrospectively accredited it to the rather peaceful colonisation of America by Horde-Ottoman Empire. Cunningly having called it 'the bloody Spanish Conquista'. Painted – on paper - white into black. Projected their own atrocities onto someone else.

In the XVII-XVIII cc. in West Europe the reformers fiercely suppressed the Russian = Scythian population and Slavic culture. Today textbooks evasively describe these punitive wars as the 'wars with Cathars' and are dated to several hundred years back to the XII-XIII cc.

In the XV-XVI cc. Russia-Horde = Biblical Israel and Ottoman Empire-Atamania = Biblical Judaea were the integral parts of the sole united Empire. After its break up in the XVII century the Western rebels tried to drive a wedge between Russia and Turkey, the heiress of the Ottoman Empire. They succeeded in doing so. The meaningless Russian-Turkish wars began, exhausting the brotherly nations. In doing so the rebellious Western Europe succeeded in breaking free from the rule of Russia and the Ottoman Empire. In 1826 the rebels managed to draw over the Turkish Sultan Mahmud II. He ordered to abolish the famous Janissary corps – the former Slavic guards of the Ottomans-Atamans. They were treacherously shot down at point-blank with cannon buck shot. Sultan Mahmud II demonstratively swapped his Ottoman clothing for Western-European garments and Turkey openly set its course for Western Europe. Though their 'friendship' was never to be.

The memory of the 'Mongol' Empire recedes into the past. The important part was played by the historians of the XVII-XIX cc. fulfilling the order of the new authorities, had a vested interest in preventing the restoration of the Empire. It was necessary to destroy the very memory of it as quickly as possible. The order to rewrite the entire history in the requisite key followed purely political objectives, vital both to the Western reformers and their henchmen in Russia – the Romanovs. This explains the concurrence of historic falsification practically applied according to a unified programme across different countries. The 'Imperial idea' itself began to be denounced as a 'chauvinistic' one. Russia in particular endured a great deal, as it was constantly a suspect in the attempts to restore the Empire. They didn't like Turkey either.

As a result a distorted picture of the past was created, which was being forcefully indoctrinated into the peoples psyche in the XVIII-XX cc. Scaligerian chronology which dated many events of the XI-XVI cc. back into the distant past became the main instrument of this falsification. Some of the epochs of the X-XVI cc. were submerged into a fictitious obscurity: the 'dark Middle Ages' materialised. Classical antiquity in its turn, on the contrary shimmered with the phantom reflections of the events of the XI-XVII cc. which were declared 'very ancient'. For example, the Russian civilisation in Italy was declared to be Et-ruscan and was 'consigned' into the past. As a result the surviving records of the true history are perceived today with bewilderment and sometimes even with petulance. The topsy-turvy picture of the past was perpetuated even in the mind set. Some of our contemporaries, for instance, in Russia and Turkey, perceive our reconstruction with unease and awkwardness, according to which Russia together with Ottoman Empire at some point comprised the metropoly of the global Empire. The people feel somewhat awkward in front of the citizens of other countries who forgot more profoundly their own, in fact not so distant, past.

Now, when the true picture of the XIV-XVII cc. becomes clearer, the history of the new time appears in a different light. Primarily – the history of Russia and Turkey. The role of the ideological method used against them is clear. The Reformation would have remained unfinished without the falsification of ancient history. Sooner or later in Russia and in Turkey there could have appeared the idea of the restoration of the Empire. In order to prevent this, with the aid of the skilfully developed ideological method – the false historic and chronological version – the Russian troops were dispatched into war with Turkey.

In the regions of the Empire which gained independence the memories were becoming increasingly blurred. The local historians fabricated many allegedly independent chronicles of their own 'local Empires' from virtually one and the same chronicle of the global empire. The Arabs started to think that they had THEIR OWN Arabic Empire. The Germans happened – on paper – to have THEIR OWN whole Empire of the German nation. The Chinese – THEIR OWN Heavenly Empire. The Italians – THEIR OWN Roman Empire. And so on. All these empires were allegedly different, existing in different epochs. Thus one Great Empire 'spawned' several 'small paper' Empires.

Let's discuss in more detail. We discovered multiple duplications which identify the main 'Empires of the distant past' with the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. There appeared to be 12 such major overlaps [1v], [2v]. There is nothing surprising here. The Great Empire embraced practically the entire civilised world. Its history was written down by the chroniclers of various cities including those far from the metropoly. In Europe, Asia, America and Africa. The collective history of the Empire was the 'spine' of all the local chronicles, and especially the events in the metropoly, in Russia-Horde. The local events were then superimposed upon this 'common skeleton'. They were different for different regions, but the 'skeleton' was common – the Hordian one. The sole history for the sole Empire was shattered into multiple fragments, in which however, as in a hologram, the reflected history of the entire 'Mongolia' remained frozen.

The question is under what names the czar-khans of Russia-Horde were reflected in the 'distant past'? They had many names. Every Hordian emperor is reflected in the regional chronicles under different names: biblical, 'Ancient' Roman, 'Ancient' Germanic, 'Ancient' French, 'Ancient' Italian, etc. It is of course difficult to keep in mind all the parallels which we discovered and to remember which ruler is 'identified' with another. In [KR], Appendix 2, we organised this data. It resulted in a most interesting list of the main 'phantom names' of each Hordian 'world' Emperor from the XIV-XVI cc.

The old chronicles of the Empire of the XII-XVI cc. usually started with the epoch of Andronicus-Christ, i.e. from the XII century. Following the collapse of the Empire and the artificial multiplication and division of the very same main chronicle into numerous 'provincial' ones, Andronicus-Christ 'appeared' at the beginning of the written history of various newly-emerged states. But already as, allegedly, 'their own, local' czar. He was even known by different names. However in the 'biography' of each such 'local first czar', traces of the life description of Andronicus-Christ inevitably survived. Sometimes they were more obvious than at other times. As time went by they faded from memory. The fantasies of latter day chroniclers embellished these old accounts with elaborate and inventive detail.

To conclude, the purpose of the 'history reformation' was to prevent the restoration of the Horde Empire. People were to forget the location of its centre. It was declared that allegedly the centre was situated in 'ancient' Italy. Thus the centre moved – on paper! – to Western Europe. After that all the attempts to widen the borders of the Russian czardom, - and such attempts were often based on the subconscious striving towards the restoration of the peoples' unity, - started to look like 'Russian aggression'. The analogous attempts of Turkey – looked like the 'Turkish aggression'. Imposing false beliefs on the enemy, which to themselves were advantageous, was a rather effective technique.

The peoples of the XVII-XVIII cc. fought not only on the battlefield, but also on the pages of the history textbooks. And this is understandable. 'The historical arguments' are often launched to substantiate immediate political ideas. Unfortunately, the historical science is intertwined with the politics including that of today. This interferes with the peaceful scientific discussion of the paradoxes accumulated over time. Today it is high time to turn away from the political aims of the XVII-XVIII cc. and to adopt mutual efforts to restore to true picture.

Why in the 17th - 18th centuries they admired classical antiquity[edit | edit source]

The Scaligerian-Romanov history taught us the following interpretation of the past. They say that once upon a time in small rocky Greece there lived the eminent 'Ancient Greeks', and in the centre of the small Italic Peninsula – the wonderful 'Ancient' Romans. And in a small desolate Palestine – wonderful biblical characters. Overall they were all common people. The Biblical heroes for example lived a simple life, tended the flock, ruled the tribal clans, herded cattle from place to place, etc.

Then later the biblical and 'classical' characters allegedly exited the stage of the Middle Ages. And were forgotten for many centuries. However the 'subconscious memory' of them proved to be allegedly so persistent that after many dark centuries the entire Western Europe and even barbaric Russia 'unexpectedly remembered antiquity' and started to worship the obscure shadows of the distant past. Moreover they developed such deeply 'ancient' Greco-Roman and Biblical memories that motivated them in their social and religious life and even in everyday life. All of this looks strange.

Our idea is simple. Russia-Horde of the XVII century and the territories of Western Europe which had just broken off (where the new state were forming: France, Germany, Italy…) were the successors of the 'Mongol' Empire, i.e. of 'Ancient' Rome = Biblical Israel. Having buried the Empire in oblivion and having declared it the kingdom of Horde-Tatar evil, at the same time its successors cherished the memories of it as of some ANCIENT beautiful Kingdom under the names of: 'Ancient' Great Rome, 'Biblical Israel'… And began to idolize the 'ancient archetypes', already forgetting that in fact these great ancestors lived quite recently (and not at all where the Scaligerian history has exiled them to). Hence the veneration with which the examples of 'Ancient' Rome and Biblical Israel began to be surrounded with from the XVII century. This is the exact reason why the palaces of the Russian czars and Western rulers of the XVII-XVIII cc. were filled with depictions of Biblical and 'classical' scenes. That is why the XVIII century is considered to be a century of worshiping 'classical antiquity'. They worshiped not some dilapidated country-pastoral fairy tales, but the recent and turbulent history of their own ancestors. Which they rightfully considered themselves to be involved in. And of which they were proud. But (in view of the changed policy) not under its true name – Great 'Mongolia' (Great 'Mongol' Empire), but under nicknames which were made to sound older – 'Ancient' Rome and 'Biblical Israel'.

The following vivid facts become clear. 'The favourite and almost exclusive subject of interior art of the XVIII century… was an emblem, an allegory, which MOST OF THE TIME were used to express the ready-made pre-fabricated images and forms of ANCIENT CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY. This, of course, was fully established by the GENERAL NATURE of education of the XVIII century, MOSTLY BROUGHT UP ON THE CLASSICS OF THE ANCIENT AND ROMAN WORLD. The plafonds and walls in the palaces and chambers of the noblemen were covered during that time with mythological images, where the pagan deities (in fact the distorted reflections of the Horde Khans of the XIV-XVI cc. – Author), half naked… were to embody the sacred thoughts and ideas of the contemporaries. NO MONUMENT, FESTIVITY, TRIUMPHAL ENTRANCE, ILLUMINATION OR FIREWORKS, WOULD FAIL TO BE INVESTED WITH THE ALLEGORIC IMAGES SO BELOVED BY THE SOCIETY OF THAT TIME. Such was the taste which characterised the epoch.' [282:1], part 1, p.154.

The following significant facts fit together. On the vaulted ceiling of the Kremlin Golden Chamber 'there were depicted KINGS OF ISRAEL standing upright, first there is David by the doors, then is Solomon and Rehoboam by the doors into the Golden Chamber, then Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat and finally, the busts … - of Uzziah, Jehoahaz and at the Dining Chamber door arch – there is Ahaz. These depictions of the standing kings somewhat served as an unmovable support for the images depicted in the heavens, in the chamber's vault, where a young czar (Ivan Vassilievich – Author), whose head was crowned with a royal wreath from from on high, from the hands of an Angel, WAS ALSO AT THE SAME TIME RECEIVING THE ROYAL STATURE FROM THE HOST OF THE ANCIENT KINGS OF ISRAEL' [282:1], part 1, p.161.

Everything is right. The ancient Kings of Israel depicted on the ceilings and walls of Moscow Golden Chamber were in particular the following Russian-Horde czars-khans:

  • Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi, aka Biblical King David;
  • Suleiman the Magnificent, the Sultan of Judaea = Ottoman Empire, aka King Solomon);
  • Georgy Danilovich = Genghis Khan, aka Biblical King Asa.

Thus the early designers of The Moscow Kremlin understood everything correctly. And accurately painted not just some hazy allegory, but the true history of Russia-Horde = Biblical Israel of the XIV-XVIII cc.

And so, there was a lot that was unusual in Moscow Kremlin from the point of view of the Scaligerian-Romanov history. But during the epoch of the XVII-XVIII cc. occupation almost all of the Horde's traces were extinguished.

Today we are being told about Kremlin of the XVI-XVII cc., mainly using the words of foreign travellers, diplomats, writers and merchants who visited Moscow and left some kind of notes. But where are the Hordian authors and documents? Much fewer of those survived. It was driven into our minds that in poor Russia they were allegedly bad at writing history down. May we question it. The Hordians wrote well and a lot. For example, they created the significant part of the Old Testament including the Pentateuch [6v]. But in the epoch of the Time of Troubles and the Romanovs pogrom-occupation they could not hold on to the major segments of their history. They took it away from us and attributed it to others. Instead they invented for us and bequeathed to us the 'gloomy Tatar yoke'. Which is still taught at school.

The public ridicule of some selected books of the Hordian Bible organised by the western reformers with the Romanovs[edit | edit source]

As we have shown in [6v], the significant part of the Old Testament was created in Russia-Horde in XIV-XVI cc. Moreover, some of the books of the Old Testament were reworked in Moscow in the first half of the XVII century. However, in the epoch of the break-up of the Empire, a struggle ensued between Horde and the Romanovs. The Bible, as a holy Imperial book was also implicated in this conflict. The Romanovs alongside their Western allies did their best to obscure the true meaning of the Old Testament books to conceal the fact that contained in them was a description of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. It was necessary to change the attitude towards the Old Testament, to edit it with a new viewpoint. That is why alongside the rewriting of many fragments of the Bible behind the false mask of the 'ancient text restoration' the Romanovs struck a blow upon the former Hordian-Biblical beliefs from an unexpected angle. A decision was made to ridicule the original books of the Old Testament which were being destroyed at that point in order to set the way for a new edition of the same books (under the same names) in people's consciousness. To put this important plan in action, foreigners - 'Germans', were summoned to Moscow.

'Under Czar Alexei (Mikhailovich – Author) there emerged in the palace theatrical performances… Our past … quite unexpectedly found itself centre stage in a comedic spectacle, in a programme of similar mockery, only presented in a different way, the czars way, BESIDES IT IS OF GERMAN ORIGIN, which consequently meant that it was somehow more excusable to appear before the old piety. The Germans acted their plays from the Bible. IT SEEMED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE NOTIONS OF THE PAST. But such was the force of the general movement in our life (Zabelin thinks naively not understanding the very essence of the events – Author), which carried us closer and closer towards the European world… The impossible and rejected (by the severe Hordian Domostroy – Author) in one way, seemed possible and accepted by another; and during heated discussions JUST ABOUT THE LETTERS OF SCRIPTURE, THE BIBLE WAS PERFORMED IN A COMIC FASHION ON A PALATIAL STAGE. However the matter didn't seem to be particularly heinous mainly because it was PERFORMED BY THE GERMANS, i.e THE STRANGERS, UNORTHODOX, ALSO REJECTED. FOR A RUSSIAN HIMSELF IT WAS SOMEHOW UNNATURAL TO START SUCH AN UNHEARD OF THING. How would he even dare: what would the tough authorities of Domostroy said to and do to an innovator' [282:1], part 2, p.317.

We see how subtly the Romanovs acted. The blow to the old Hordian Bible was carried out at the hands of the 'Germans', purporting that you can't expect too much of them. They are not Orthodox, they are outcasts. Let them mock the 'not so correct' Bible. It is even interesting how the Germans did it. You see what fun it is, because it is a comedy. In the end scepticism and mistrust towards formerly sacred things were successfully and surreptitiously embedded into society. Instead they quickly replaced it with new ones, having edited the Biblical text in the required key. And then they made a loud statement, that: now everything is in order. We will allow no one to mock this 'reconstructed' Bible. Even the Germans. As now the reconstructed Bible suits us, i.e. the Romanovs and the Western reformers, very nicely. In particular, all the 'Northern traces' are now removed from the Old Testament and hardly anyone could guess that many biblical books are in fact telling us about Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. And in order to kill any doubts before they could grow, as some among the not so well informed were outraged and argued, it was loudly declared that not only we have edited the Bible, but finally reconstructed its old, forgotten, definitive text written many-many years ago. On the shores of the desolate Dead Sea in Palestine, long before the beginning of our era (BC).

This shows how the Romanovs foisted their new outlook on the Biblical history. Presumably not everyone liked that at the time. Many still remembered the true history of Russia-Horde, they could see what the Biblical books of 'Esther' and 'Judith' were in fact telling them. They did not want to watch the buffoonery and ridicule which the former history was subjected to at that time. In order to break down this covert but persistent opposition, the Romanovs ORDERED THAT IT WAS OBLIGATORY FOR ALL THEIR ATTENDANTS TO BE PRESENT AT THE PERFORMANCES. Chances are that when the czar's messenger knocked on the door and politely invited you to attend 'a comedy', few would dare to refuse. The bare fact of the czar's ORDER TO TURN UP WITHOUT FAIL clearly indicates the depth of discrepancies which were tearing the society apart during that time.

It was probably considered a matter of courtesy not only to attend the biblical comedies, but also to demonstratively laugh at the grotesque Assyrians and rightly vanquished Persians. I.e. at the XVI century Hordians, recent ancestors of whom were among the audience. It was unpleasant to some of the courtiers of the XVII century Moscow, but they had to publically demonstrate their loyalty.

The underlying struggle surrounding the biblical comedies at the czar's court was intense. The Hordian opposition did its best to get its former influence back. There were grounds for hope. To remind you, at that time and up until the middle of the XVIII century, before the defeat of 'Pugachev' in the East there existed a vast Hordian state – Moscow Tartary, which the Romanovs feared so much [4v]. It is not inconceivable that the Hordian opposition in the Kremlin hoped for the restoration of the Horde in the very heart of Russia, in Moscow. After all, the boundaries of Moscow Tartary were just a short distance away.

In any way, as soon as Alexey Mikhailovich died, THE COMEDIES CEASED AT ONCE, and the jokesters fell from grace. Domostroy and Stoglav raised their heads. But later the supporters of the horde still lost. (Domostroy - Domestic Order; Stoglav - The Book of One Hundred Chapters is a collection of decisions of the Russian church council of 1551 that regulated canon law and ecclesiastical life in the Russian Church, especially the everyday life and mores of the Russian clergy – Translator's note)

The Radzivill chronicle was tendentiously edited[edit | edit source]

Today's version of the Russian history was created in the XVIII century based on the sources written and edited in the late XVII – early XVIII cc. This version was written in the epoch of Peter I, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna. Following the publication of 'History' (History of the Russian State – Translator's note) by N.M.Karamzin this view point was disseminated among the public. Prior to this only a narrow circle of people were familiar with it. Gradually it was incorporated into the school curriculum.

The story of the 'most ancient' Russian Radzivill manuscript is roughly as follows. It was made in Königsberg in the early XVIII century, apparently due to Peter I visiting the city and immediately prior to this visit. Most likely some truly old chronicle of the XV-XVI cc. was used. BUT THIS ANCIENT RECORD SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION, before it became a part of the Radzivill chronicle [4v], ch.1. The old original was destroyed.

Königsberg 'Nestors' of the XVIII century adhered to mainly the Romanov version of the old-Russian history, outlined in the official 'Synopsis' of the XVII century. The idea was to create, or rather to forge the missing primary source, an allegedly authentic manuscript, confirming the Romanov version. Peter approved of the Königsberg job and since then the Radzivill chronicle started to be referred to as the 'most ancient Russian chronicle'. The primary source on the Russian history has 'emerged at last'.

But the activities on laying a 'scientific foundation' underpinning the court version did not end there. To fulfil the order 'according to the European standards' the historians from overseas were invited: Bayer, Schlözer, Müller and others. Fulfilling the order they were given they wrote a 'smoothed down' variant of the Romanov version meeting the requirements of contemporary science. Thus the Romanov version from the court one transformed into the 'scientific' one.

Still there were left the traces of alternations in the Radziwill manuscript [4v1], ch.1. This could have prompted unwanted questions. That is why it was necessary to keep the original manuscript away from prying eyes. Only more than hundred years later they finally published the Radziwill chronicle. Forgetting that it shouldn't be done by any means. As at that point the secret was out.

An overview of the history of Bulgaria[edit | edit source]

Fig.97

The real Bulgarian history is known to us only since 1280. Today the years between 1396 and 1700 are considered to be the dark period of the brutal Ottoman domination. Even before 1878, fig.97. Prior to 1280 there are phantom reflections of the period 1280-1700. The factitious transferral of the documents into the past denuded the epoch of years 1396-1700 and turned it into a purportedly dark time. But it has shined an eerily illusive light into the distant past. Later the allegedly dark period of 1396-1700 declared the 'grim Ottoman yoke in Bulgaria'. Many Bulgarian chronicles perished or were deliberately destroyed [6v2], ch.9.

Both in Russia and in Bulgaria the full blooded history of XIV-XVII cc. Horde named the epoch of the infinite suffering. Thus by shifting the emphasis' the history was turned on its head. The Bulgarian history of 1280-1700 should be called the khans and Ottoman's = Attaman's epoch. At that time Bulgaria was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The list of the Bulgarian khans includes both the local rulers, the Imperial governors and the khans-emperors of the entire Great Empire. This includes Batu Khan and George (Terter – Tr. note).

The period of the pro-Bulgarian khans of allegedly years 145-581 is the duplicate of the Ottoman Bulgarian epoch of years 1280-1700 which is furthest pushed back into the past. Batu Khan, for instance, was dated into the phantom VII century, i.e. 600-700 years into the past.

Another 'dark period' in Bulgarian history – the 'rule of Byzantine' in 1018-1186 – is also a phantom reflection of the Ottoman = Attaman epoch.

When the absurd wars between Romanov Russia and Turkey-Atamania began, Bulgaria turned into one of the battle grounds. The invented myth about the 'grim Turkish yoke' which was allegedly prevailing over Bulgaria since XIII century was put to good use by the European and Romanov diplomats to split Turkey into the Muslim and Christian Orthodox parts. Muslims and Orthodox Christians were set against each other.

Next we discovered that the old Bulgarian texts, for example 'The Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans', were written in exactly the same language as OLD-RUSSIAN texts (not to be confused with Church Slavonic). They are practically identical in both the language and the shape of the letters! Without a prior warning of what text it is – Old Bulgarian or Old Russian – it is unlikely one could tell them apart [6v2]. We had no problem reading it using our knowledge of Old Russian language. But it is difficult for us to understand later Bulgarian texts. Unfamiliar endings, distorted use of prepositions, a lot of new words.

It is clear. Having originated from the Old Russian in the XIV-XV cc. the Bulgarian language with time deviated from it and began to develop more or less independently. It did not get very far, however as there appeared some noticeable differences. The Bulgarians of the XIV-XVII cc. still spoke the Old Russian language. Aka – the Old Bulgarian or the former language of the 'Volga population'. The language of Russia-Horde. Practically unchanged, it was used in Bulgaria UP UNTIL THE XVIII CENTURY. The grammar was slightly changed. Very soon the new Bulgarian language began to differ from the Russian language. Though they remain close until today, complete equivalence has gone.

Why was this done? In order to draw the 'ethnically-linguistic' boundary between the Bulgarians and the Russians. They strived to deepen the split in the Empire. The fact that up until the XVIII-XIX cc. there were practically identical languages in Bulgaria and Russia clearly contradicted the Scaligerian history. Which claimed that the Bulgarians and the Russians allegedly lived as separate nations for many hundreds of years. But how then did they manage to keep similar languages for such a long time? As living separately they should have quite quickly started speaking in different ways. That is why we insist that the reform of the Bulgarian language was conducted consciously. The 'new world order' was being secured and the glaring inconsistencies in the 'Reformist' history of the Balkans was being smeared over.

The Bulgarians after arriving to Balkans among the Hordian-Ottoman army in the XIV-XV cc. were simply Russian. Up until the XVII century the ties between the Balkans and Russia remained very close. Hence the language was practically identical. As incidentally we see in some of parts of Russia rather distant from each other.

For the remote regions of the 'Mongol' Empire which found themselves more isolated from Russia-Horde the picture could have been rather different. The language changes most slowly on the territory of its native land. There is a large homogeneous population there. But a comparatively small group of people who found themselves far from their fatherland - for instance, the Horde-Ottoman army – land in a strange linguistic environment. The language of the conquerors begins to transform significantly faster due to the foreign language setting. Probably, something of the kind happened to the Cossack troops who in the XIV-XV cc. came to Egypt, the remote regions of Western Europe, Asia and China, Japan, America and etc.

Where the Ottomans came from[edit | edit source]

Today the term TURKS is tangled up in the Scaligerian history. To simplify we should say that the indigenous population of Asia Minor is called the Turks. It is thought that the Ottomans are also the Turks, as the historians trace them from Asia Minor. Allegedly they at first were attacking Constantinople from the South of Asia Minor, and then, following their unsuccessful attempts, crossed over to Europe, to the Balkans and conquered the developed European countries [455]. In the end, they turned back and succeeded in conquering Constantinople in 1453. According to our results the alleged origin of the Ottomans=Attamans from Asia Minor is the historians' error. The Ottomans came from the North, from Russia-Horde and the majority of them were Slavs, and some of them were Russian Turks. I.e. those very Turks, who still live in Russia in the Volga region.

As the Ottomans-Attamans invaded Turkey-Byzantium from the Balkans in the XV century, the contemporary population of the Balkans are primarily the descendants of those very Ottomans. This is exactly why the famous Turkish Janissaries were Slavic [5v]. It is difficult to imagine the strange picture, which today is being imposed upon us, purporting that the GUARDS – JANISSARIES, the hand-picked elite unit was entirely comprised of the 'foreigners' – the Slavs. Moreover this lasted for several centuries. Based on the structure of the ROYAL GUARD it is possible to estimate which people had the leading role in the multinational army. For example, Napoleon's guard consisted of the French.

Later, as we have already said, in the XVIII-XIX cc. the Sultan court forgot about its Slavic past. They came to terms with the disintegration of the Great Empire and preferred to orientate themselves towards the West. Dissenting guards of the Slavs-Janissaries – 30 thousand people – were slaughtered in 1826 [336], v.5, p.176.

About the Gypsies[edit | edit source]

The Gypsies are a nomadic people, who to this day do not recognise national borders. Today, of course, there are also domicile gypsies, however the traditional way of Gypsy life is perennial travel. The existence of such people makes you think that sometime in the past all the places where they wandered were once a part of a one sole state. But then the Kingdom should have covered vast territories of Eurasia and Africa. It seems likely that its borders roughly match the borders of the Eurasian and African parts of the Great Empire. The Gypsies call themselves THE ROMANY, THE ROMAI, i.e. the citizens of the Roman Empire. Most likely, the gypsies are the surviving 'living trace' of the Empire. There was a time when a lot of people were required to maintain the numerous long caravan tracks connecting the remote territories. The contemporary gypsies are the descendants of those, who maintained those tracks. The very nature of this service suggested the constant relocation together with the caravans. Their entire existence was defined by travel. At least until the early XX century the life of nomadic gypsies was closely connected with the horses. This is some kind of reminiscence about the 'service as horsemen' on the caravan tracks. Following the split of the Empire the professional social class turned, over time, into a separate nation.

The idea of the Great Empire proved to be resilient[edit | edit source]

Russia occupied by the Western Europeans in the XVII century nevertheless 'digested' the pro-Western regime of the Romanovs. The first Romanovs controlled only a small part of Central Russia. But subsequently, after the war with 'Pugachev' in 1773-1775, having secured their position on the throne and being at the head of a vast country, the Romanovs felt themselves to be the real masters of a large and wealthy state. They 'got out from under control', lost the piety towards their former owners and decided to revive the Russian Empire in the broad sense of the word. As vague recollections of the 'Mongol' Empire still existed in Russian state circles and appealed to many. Suffice to recall the famous 'Testament of Peter the Great' in which he puts forward an ambitious program of conquering the world [4v2], ch.2:7. It is not certain for sure whether this document was written by Peter himself. Some historians dispute that. But the very fact that this 'Testament' originated from Peter's court and therefore reflected the mentality of the time is enough. Though Peter's I programme was not realised in full, however the Romanovs succeeded in reviving a part of the former Horde Empire, although on a much smaller scale. By the early XX century the Russian Empire acquired an enormous influence. Western Europe was naturally bothered by that. So maybe it is not a coincidence that the revolution, resembling the Time of Troubles in the early XVII century, took place in Russia in the beginning of the XX century.

After a prolonged global indoctrination of the people with the distorted history, an image of 'aggressive Russia' was formed, who due to its purportedly congenital malignity constantly strives to expand the sphere of its influence all over the world. The new chronology clarifies many accrued misconceptions. It becomes clear, for example, that historically the union of Russia and Turkey was the closest. Pan-Slavism and Pan-Turkism – is essentially the same thing. The Slavic conquest of allegedly the IV-V cc. and the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIII-XIV cc. are the Slavic-Turkic conquest which commenced from the banks of Volga-river. The Slavs and the Turks always found common ground in the Russian-Horde Empire.

Russia and China once had a long shared history. In the epoch of the Great Empire China was a part of it. It became independent only after it collapsed, under the Romanovs. China's animosity towards Romanovs' Russia during the Manchurian epoch can be attributed to the fact that the Manchurians left Russia-Horde. Only later the Manchurians assimilated with China and became Chinese in the modern sense [5v1], ch.6.

Vague recollections of the former Empire still exist in Western Europe. Although today people do not fully realise it, the 'Mongolian' legacy greatly influences modern life. This was vividly illustrated by the events of the XX century, when the idea of the ancient Great Empire was used by various politicians. For example, in Germany and Italy. It turned out that this idea appeals to many. On this occasion it was aimed at the war against the USSR in 1942-1945. But this leant heavily on the erroneous understanding of history.

In the reconstructed picture of the past we discovered a curious effect which we can tentatively refer to as 'the swing of the pendulum' or the 'pulsation' of the Great Empire. The 'Mongol' Empire was either expanding toward the vast borders, or temporarily diminished. There are several such pulsations which can be traced back. At first – the ancient Czar-Grad Kingdom which ended with the revolt in the XIII century. Then – the Horde Empire of the XIII-XVI which collapsed during the Revolt of the XVII century. Then – the Romanovs Russia which once again spread significantly in many different directions. Followed by the uprising in the early XX century. Then the emerging of the USSR with a vast sphere of influence. Then a new revolt and the collapse of the USSR in 1990s…

Fig.98

We will repeat that the main result of our research is not the reconstruction, fig.98, but the innovative approach of dating of the events. It is the chronology that forms the 'Backbone' of history and lies at the heart of the reconstruction.

The double-headed eagle - the symbol of the "mongol" empire. Why later it turned into the single-headed eagle on the Western Europe's emblems[edit | edit source]

Two-headed eagle is featured in numerous monuments in Eurasia[edit | edit source]

The two-headed eagle - the emblem of the Great Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. – spread all over its territory which at that time covered Eurasia and the significant parts of Africa and America. But later, during the falsification of ancient history, the imperial eagle was 'pushed back into the past' and declared to be the symbol which allegedly existed long before the XIV century. As a result beginning with the XVIII century the historians and archaeologists when stumbling across here and there onto the mediaeval depictions of the two-headed 'Mongol' eagle were compelled to date many of them 'to the deepest past'.

The 'Mongol' eagles can also be seen on the monuments of 'ancient' Egypt [7v1], ch.5. For example the images of the eagles on the temples of Karnak in Egypt. Sometimes in Egypt the heads of the eagles were depicted as the heads of snakes. This shouldn't surprise us. In Russian-Horde heraldry the eagles' heads sometimes resemble those of a snake. They even depicted a long snakes' tongue from its beak. Here, for instance, the Imperial eagle on the state seal of Ivan the Terrible, fig.86 [4v2], ch.2. Two eagle-snake heads on the long necks, looking to the East and to the West.

So the images of the Imperial eagle with the snakes' heads on the temples of 'ancient' Egypt and on the seals of Russia-Horde of the XV-XVI cc. are essentially the identical. It is possible that on the early Hordian emblems which didn't survive to our day the similarity between the Russian and Egyptian heraldry was even more apparent.

The two-headed eagles on the Mediaeval and 'ancient' monuments are the Imperial symbolism of the XIV-XVI cc. All the documents, coins and seals everywhere were adorned with a two-headed eagle. Its two heads looked East and West, which symbolised the unity of the East and the West.

The two-headed eagle reigned practically on every main mediaeval emblem in Europe. 'It is possible to list the NUMEROUS ARTEFACTS of sphragistics and numismatics of Mediaeval Europe (XII-XV cc.) on which we can see the two-headed eagle: the coins and seal of Ludwig of Bavaria, the counts of Wurzburg and counts and dukes of Savoy, the seals of King Wenceslaus of the House of Luxembourg and his seals as the Czech King Vaclav IV, the confidential seals, the coins of Bertrand III of Baux in France, the seals of the Archbishops of Cologne and Main in Germany, as well as the Fribourg coins of the city of Palermo, Savoy and Netherlands' [134], p.13. Etc.

Following the reformation revolt the majority of the Western European eagle-emblems' east facing were "cut off"[edit | edit source]

After the collapse of the Empire some of the split territories of Western Europe kept the eagle as their national symbol. As if claiming back a part of the legacy of the Horde Empire and its history. However the right head was removed. I.e. they cut off the East head of the imperial eagle, which was indicating the Eastern metropoly of the Empire. The Western Europeans only kept 'their own Western head' of the eagle-emblem. They were striving to forget as soon as possible that very recently there existed a UNITED EAST-WEST Kingdom. As a result, since the XVII-XVIII cc. the majority of the Western European 'national eagles' look Westwards with their one remaining head. For example the contemporary German eagle-emblem. In [7v1], ch.5, we can see the transformation, for instance, of the German eagle from a two-headed one in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. into the one-headed one, after the uprising of the XVII century.

We can see the two-headed eagle on the old emblem of the German city of Cologne [7v1], ch.5. Incidentally there are turbans and pagri depicted on the eagles' heads. There is something of the kind also on the emblems of the Emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Conrad. Later these Hordian-Ottoman 'turbans' would turn into the royal crowns. We can see such 'Reformist' crowns on the eagles on the coat of arms of the Romanovs and on the coat of arms of the Habsburgs since the XVII century. The depiction of a turban or a pagri on the old emblems of the empire was natural. The Hordian and the Ottoman czar-khans, as eventually did the Turkish sultans, often wore a turban or a pagri on their heads.

On the German map of Tyrol of 1662 we can already see a one-headed eagle looking West [7v1], ch.5. The separation of Germany and Austria from the 'Mongol' Empire became a factor and gradually it was expressed in the national symbols. It was then when the 'reformed' German one-headed eagle appeared.

Fig.99

At first the old symbols were 'corrected' carefully and discretely. Initially the two-headed 'Mongol' eagle was sort of cut in half to emphasise the split of the Empire in the Western and Eastern regions. There is an interesting depiction of the four eagles on the coat of arms of Berlin of 1740, fig.99. The Eastern eagle remained unchanged for some time as a reminder of the former unity of the Empire. But the central, i.e. the main eagle is already confidently looking only West. 'To emphasise' above it there was depicted another Western eagle. The meaning is clear. Germany and Western Europe are breaking away from the metropoly. Eventually the Eastern eagle was removed altogether. When the danger of the revival of the Empire was considered quite slim. Out of the four Berlin eagles only one remained – the present day one-headed German eagle looking West.

There are Western-European emblems, though very few, where a one-headed eagle looks East. For example, on one of the German barons' (similar to 'barin'? – 'nobleman' in Russian – Translator's note) coats of arms [7v1], ch.5. It may be that this very family wanted to stress their devotion to the idea of the 'Mongol' Empire. Among the military Bavarian coats of arms of the barons = barins (noblemen) we can see the Ottoman crescents [7v1]. But eventually all these Imperial, loyalist factions were crushed by the rebels. Those who survived accepted the new rules of life. 'The cutting off of the eagle-emblems Eastern heads' was only one element of the 'new ideology' in Europe.

Fig.100

There is an interesting coat of arms on the map of year 1634 of the city of Geneva and Lake of Geneva. The one-headed eagle is looking West. But it is clear that THERE USED TO BE A HORDIAN TWO-HEADED EAGLE IN ITS PLACE BEFORE. In order not to spend too much time on alterations the reformers simply painted over the right half of the eagle and painted a key, fig.100. It very well could be that it was done this way not only in the province of Geneva, turning the two-headed eagle into a one-headed one by violently cutting it in half. Then, when the rebellious emotions calmed down, they simply began to paint the 'Western eagle'.

As far as we could find out while analysing the coats of arms, maps and etc., the reformers always covered just the right, i.e. the eastern half of the eagle. I.e. they covered the unpleasant East. They kept only the good West for themselves.

Fig.101

On the map of Poland, Silesia and Bohemia of 1634 we can see a one-headed Polish eagle looking East and a one-headed Bohemian eagle looking West, fig.101. On the Western eagle floating above Bohemia and Moravia RIGHT ON ITS CHEST THERE IS STILL SHINING AN ENORMOUS OTTOMAN CRESCENT [7v1], ch.5, [4v1], ch.10:2. It is possible that eventually the Bohemian and Polish reformers changed their minds and the imperial crescent which displeased them was removed. In order to forget the recent past when the Ottoman-Hordian crescent was reigning over the entire Europe. And not just Europe. It is hardly the case that anyone in today's Bohemia would remember that some time ago this country was shielded by the wings of an eagle with the Ottoman crescent on its chest.

In the symbolism of the Western Europe of the XVIII-XIX cc. amongst other things there survived in some places the two-headed eagles, but the one-headed Western eagles are still prevalent. We don't know any official Western-European emblem of any significant state of the XVII-XIX cc. where a one-headed eagle would look East. If such do exist, there must be very few.

The Romanovs kept the two-headed eagle as a symbol of their new Russia. They cherished the idea of restoring the vast Empire, but this time under their rule. In any case such intentions are being attributed to Peter I [4v2], ch.2:17.

In the epoch of the reformation an image of the "ship of fools" was created, which all of Europe was induced to laugh at. The reformers ridiculed the Horde empire[edit | edit source]

In the epoch of Reformation in Europe there was created a dramatic image of the 'Ship of Fools' [KAZ]. Of course in society the theme of the 'intelligent people and the fools' was widely discussed. But only in the epoch of Reformation this theme was elevated to 'national importance'. It was instilled into the public consciousness in the form of an allegory. Allegedly in 1494 a book by Sebastian Brant 'The Ship of Fools' was published. Where Brant sometimes is 'speaking of a 'ship of fools' and sometimes about the entire 'FOOLS FLEET'. [93:1], p.683.

The book is well illustrated and not just by anybody, but by A.Durer himself. However, we have shown that the works attributed to him were most likely created a hundred years later, in XVII century. But nevertheless the illustrations for 'The Ship of Fools' were made by remarkable masters.

The book by Brant itself was chosen only as an excuse to publish a large number of the woodcuts on a topic concerning 'The Ship of Fools'. As they have little in common with the contents of the book, their meaning was reflected in the captions.

The book owes its resounding success to the woodcuts. It is clear now what 'fools' were held up to ridicule. The Great Empire, its institutions, its Christian Orthodox Faith, the Cossack = Israeli troops - which still had garrisons in Europe of XVI-XVII cc. The rebels and provocateurs still feared them. That is why they veiled the satire without pointing directly at the target of their abuse, as if they invited mockery of 'fools in general'. Indeed, there are plenty of fools around us – the 'progressive writers', the destroyers of the Empire kept saying. Officially it was difficult to accuse them of insulting the Empire. As soon as anyone was summoned to the local Imperial court (which was incidentally already submerged in the atmosphere of unrest) and told that mockery of the Hordian army for example, was unacceptable, the reformers would then evasively answer: - We didn't have anything like that in mind. This is the way we castigate 'fools in general'.

The empty rhetoric was calculated. The books, etchings, brochures, the propaganda leaflets all successfully played their role. Stealthily embedded scepticism and thinly masked appeals to defy the Empire were actively spread amongst the population. Shattering the former unity, cultural affinity, language and religion. The attempts of the remote central power to obstruct all of this would only whet the appetite of a part of the Western population towards the 'forbidden fruit' and met with the resistance of the Western governors, already infected by the idea of the revolt. It was possibly then, when this rule was firmly embedded in people's minds: if something is being forbidden, it means it is interesting. The subtext was as follows: We, the Hordian governors, so to speak 'ban' you from reading the rebellious slogans against the Empire, printed by ourselves. In fact this is the 'correct literature'.

The war against the state was concealed with the motto of 'fighting stupidity'. They counted on the fact, that they won't oppose the metropoly of the Empire if some of the Western officials would begin fighting such an obvious vice as stupidity. As it became clear later on the rebels were slowly eroding the foundations of the state. They were trying to sink the 'Ship' of the Empire. To start with they declared it the 'Ship of Fools'. The called the Empire itself – 'foolish'. And therefore there was no point in keeping it. Let the majority of the population of Europe still be faithful to the Imperial idea, all the same the Kingdom should be split.

The image of the Ship as the symbol of the Empire sailing across the rough sea of events and controlled by the czars-khans – the 'helmsmen of the Ship' appeared probably in as early as the XIV-XVI cc. Today they sometimes speak of a Ship of a state led by the firm hand of the Ruler. About a wise helmsman who stands at the helm of the Ship. About the worthy people who firmly stand at the wheel.

'The Ship of Fools' was a GREAT SUCCESS. THE SATIRE WAS REPUBLISHED MANY TIMES AND WAS TRANSLATED INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES… The Book served as an EXAMPLE to the other satirical and didactical works of so called 'LITERATURE ABOUT FOOLS' SPREADING IN GERMANY IN THE XVI CENTURY' [93:1], p.10.

When the Empire was split and the subversive appeals like 'The Ship of Fools' had lost their edge, they decided to properly obscure the former rebel-rousing meaning. At first subtly and then with increasing volume they were arguing that 'The Ship of Fools' was just a mediaeval joke, a collection of caricatures used by the wise authors to scourge human vices. Purporting that they were educating people in the spirit of honour and dignity. The descendants of the reformers soon forgot the past meaning of the propagandist pogrom actions and began to study them in the scholarly works as some odd expression of 'folk customs'. Here, for example, in the XVI-XVII cc. the Western Europeans all of a sudden and for no apparent reason took a fancy to contemptuously urinating over the Ottoman crescent. This custom even passed into a proverb. Why so?

The content analysis of 'The Ship of Fools' reveals some interesting facts. It appears that it is possible to lift the veil off the true essence of things by engaging the materials of the mediaeval carnivals which at first glance have nothing to do with it. Today we are being told that allegedly the Western European carnivals of the XVI-XVII cc. were regular celebrations where people simply relaxed and had fun. However, it was not like that at all. At least in the beginning. You can judge for yourself.

Apparently in the epoch of the Reformation 'The Ship of Fools' was declared to be a symbol of Hell! They were urged to take it by storm in a deadly assault [415:1], p.152-156. I.e. the 'Mongol' Empire was denounced as 'Diabolical', as the 'Empire of Evil'. Under such slogans they began to perform the propagandist shows, and then after the collapse of the Empire – the cheery carnivals as a token of the liberation of Russia from the Ottoman Empire. 'The Ship of Fools' as a symbol of Hell is depicted on a great many pictures [KAZ], ch.2.

Incidentally, Martin Luther after all was probably the supporter of the 'Mongol' Empire, though today they reckon he was one of the reformers. His ideas and popularity was probably skilfully used after his death, having distorted and directed it to their own ends. In response to orgiastic political carnival in allegedly 1539 'Luther in his pastoral message from Wittenberg described Schembartlauf (carnival – Author's note) as A PARTICULARLY UNGODLY SHOW EXPRESSING DISREGARD TO THE GOSPELS AND THEREFOR UNDESIRABLE TO GOD. The historians note the remarkable role of the carnival of 1539 in the history of Schembartlauf. It involved not just the CURRENT RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ASPECT, but also an incredibly spectacular and skilful decoration of the SHIP and the entire procession' [415:1], p.153-154.

Who was placed onto the 'Ship of Fools', symbolizing the Empire? Here is the answer: 'In the buffoon house which stood on the sledge runners of the 'hell wagon' in 1520 there were … a dancing devil, fools, women (according to a different account – a devil, a TURK-PAGAN, a jester and a naked woman)'[415:1], p.149. The organisers paraded the naked women, so it was more interesting for the crowd to watch and to gather as many spectators as possible. The main characters were intended to be the 'Turks-pagans'. They were pointing their Reformist finger at the truly 'evil people' – the Ottomans and the Hordians, who had to be banished from Europe.

So, the Ship of Fools = Hell Wagon was STORMED and seized in battle during the Western orgies. Thus, they attached politico-military meaning to the Ship = Hell. The Reformers were open and didn't hide the purpose of the propaganda which was to take up arms and destroy the 'Mongol' Empire.

Considerable funds were invested in the exuberant execution of the show - lessons. Talented directors, artists, actors, writers and politicians were summoned. Supposedly it was becoming dangerous to avoid such ideological farces. They could have accused you of 'sympathy to the Empire'. As the result these gatherings were steadily growing.

Following the collapse of the Empire the show-lessons became unnecessary. They had already played their destructive role. That is why they were abolished. 'Instead of the pagan Schembartlauf in 1649 there was introduced a special Christian day of penitence, fasting and prayers… Some element of Schembartlauf survived in the contests and the processions of the various guilds, but as one unit it was never revived… But as early as in the XVI, XVII and XVIII cc. there still continued to be created the illustrated chronicles of Schembartlauf , WHICH COMMEMORATED ITS MISCHIEFS AND GLORY FOR ETERNITY AND WHICH HONOURED THE PATRICIANS OF NUREMBERG' [415:1], p.156.

It's all clear. The weapon which fulfilled its destiny and became unwanted was sent to a museum and was vaguely called 'sweet mischiefs and glory' purporting that they were only enjoying themselves and had some fun. Now we shall celebrate our recent past, now we have successfully burnt 'the Hell Wagon'. The Empire collapsed 'by itself' anyway. We had nothing to do with it.

How the "correct art" was created[edit | edit source]

We showed that the reformers of the XVII-XVIII cc. sometimes used the well-known names of the old artists and writers of the epoch of the Empire in order to, after the ruin (or purposeful destruction) of their works, which were declared 'wrong', attribute these reputable creators to the later 'correct masterpieces' which were already created in the spirit of Scaligerian history. They did this to the works of the artists Albrecht Durer and Raffaello Santi (Raphael), cartographer Gerardus Mercator, etc. [7v]. Something of the kind was done with the playwright 'William Shakespeare' [ScHEK].

After clearing the XVI century in particular of many authentic originals, the reformers were compelled to inhabit it with phantoms. Employing 'Durer', 'Raphael', 'Mercator', 'Shakespeare' as an example… it turns out that several groups of anonymous authors worked, amongst whom there were some very talented ones. 'Ancient works' were created away from the public eye, the dating of which were deliberately moved back into the past. Anonymity was important for the success of the project. They surrendered their authorship (but not the money) for the idea which they considered very important. They created a list of 'their own geniuses', wrote 'true biographies', painted 'true portraits', declared the findings of the 'priceless relics' (a lock of hair of a great writer, the 'authentic' alabaster death mask, etc.). A big propaganda campaign was launched. Stories about 'our true geniuses' were injected into the school program and popular literature. The artists created paintings 'on the required themes', the composers created operas and oratorios. Using the modern language 'the correct authors were hyped up in any possible way'. A whirlpool of advertising was bubbling around them. They were turned into the symbols of reformation used in the ideological struggle. As well as for the 'correct' education of young people.

The newly formed Western elites which emerged from the rebellion and take-over strived to proclaim and reinforce their independence and significance as soon as possible. Not only in politics, but in fine art, literature, music, science and the military arts. Having created a required 'foundation', they immediately declared Western Europe to be the 'centre of absolutely everything'. The works were generously paid for. The money was available as after the collapse of the Great Empire the provinces stopped paying tax to Russia-Horde and the Ottoman Empire – Attamania. Besides, vast riches were moved out of Russia during the Times of Troubles in the XVII century.

Today researchers here and there stumble across the traces of this backstage activity of the reformers. For example in the case of 'Shakespeare'. But not understanding the core of the matter any longer they count the discovered facts of mystification or falsification merely as separate and isolated against the background of 'on the whole true history'. It is incorrect. The problem is much deeper. This very problem we are exposing.

The method of word-match between the languages: we discover words from different languages similar in sound and at the same time similar in meaning[edit | edit source]

After we have reconstructed the framework of the true chronology using the mathematical and astronomic methods it is interesting to look at the evolution of the languages and writing. In the 'Mongol' Empire the main languages were Slavic and Turkic. The national language was Slavic. After the collapse of the Empire the reformers decided to create new languages in the splinter regions in order to be independent of the metropolis linguistically as well.

Before then in the XVI-XVII cc. the new rulers summoned the special people who were assigned to 'invent the new languages'. That's what the science of linguistics was created for. At that point it served a practical purpose. However the hastily created languages ('ancient' Latin, 'ancient' Greek, French, English, German, Spanish, Italian, etc.) inevitably formed the basis from the Slavic language in its broadest sense. The reformers simply did not have different material. Therefore the invented languages were to bear the 'Slavic stamp' on them. In [7v2] we provided various evidence of this. Earlier the 'Slavic traces' were either ignored or played down, as the people in the XVIII-XX cc. were used to inaccurate chronology. The very thought of 'ancient' Latin originating from the Slavic language was impossible. The new chronology removes this taboo.

What methods did the reformers-'linguists' use? We have discovered several techniques. They turned out to be quite simple. We will list some of them.

  • In the old times the spelling of some of the Slavonic letters was not yet established, even their position on a line was not fixed. The same letter, Ш (Russian letter 'Sh') for example could be spelled in different ways: on its side (it would turn into E or Э), turned upside down (it would become 'm' or handwritten 'te'). In the different regions of the Empire there also existed slightly different ways of spelling of the same Slavonic letters. At that time it didn't cause any difficulty in reading, as the population had a good command of the Slavonic language and the varying orientation of the letters did not get in the way of people understanding each other or the written texts. The linguists 'froze' many of these diverse spellings of the letters and announced them to be 'ancient' and having nothing in common with the Slavonic ones. The tradition of reading the old texts in Slavonic was thus broken. The next generation of young people who were taught in the reformist schools in a new way did not know anything about the previous rules of reading. Their parents would pass away and the carriers of the old linguistic heritage gradually disappeared. Thus the young people were quickly re-taught. And their children were certainly growing up in the atmosphere of the new reading rules. Many old texts became incomprehensible and were forgotten. For example the Et-ruscan inscriptions. You don't need a long time for such a 'progressive reform'. Just one or two generations.

Later on, when by the XIX century the openly political task of creating the 'new languages' was achieved overall, the linguists lost their national status of the reformers. In the XIX-XX cc. their role was reduced to merely preserving the newly invented languages. The linguistic science concentrated on solving their domestic issues. In the XIX-XX cc. they began the 'reconstruction of the history of the ancient languages' erroneously dating their origin (Latin for example) into the deepest antiquity. Having forgotten that all of this took place relatively recently, just 150-200 years ago.

  • Another 'reformist technique' of the XVII-XVIII century is clearly seen from the example of the French language. The population was forced not to vocalize some of the letters or combinations. A present-day example: instead of Peugeot you ought to pronounce 'Pego'. As a result the spoken text became different from the old original. Such 'progressive technique' was effective as it submerged into oblivion the former Slavonic sounding of many old words.
  • Previously they used to have two ways of reading: left to right (as the present-day Europeans do) and right to left (as the Arabs and the Jews do). The reformers used it proactively. In many cases they changed the direction of reading. As a result the old Slavonic words became difficult to recognise.
  • According to the Russian custom the affirmative nodding of the head meant and means now agreement and the shaking of the head left and right means denial. In the epoch of the Reformation they changed the meaning of those gestures on the territory of Bulgaria and now they nod to disagree and shake their head when agree.

We discovered various parallelisms between the SLAVONIC LANGUAGE AND LATIN. At present there are nearly 3570 Russian words in our Vocabulary of Parallelisms. Apparently at least nearly 3500 of the 'semantic groups' of the Latin words, around 2700 groups of the English words and around 1170 groups of German words originated from them. We paid particular attention to Latin which is today considered to be the foundation of many Western-European languages. Altogether there turned out to be 15800 words in our Dictionary which are presently thought to be foreign (Latin, English, et.). I.e. a total of nearly 15800 'foreign' words originated from 3570 semantic Slavonic groups in the Middle Ages. Therefore on average, approximately 4 'foreign' words originated from each Slavonic group (15800: 3570 = 4,4).

Such an amount of primary words – around 2800 or even 3570 semantic groups, which ended up in our Vocabulary – was apparently quite sufficient for the meaningful communication between people in Mediaeval Times. That said such parallels go well beyond our discoveries.

The comparison principle which we suggested as the basis for our Dictionary of Parallelisms, is rather simple, although most likely, is quite new. We searched for the words SIMULTANEOUSLY SIMILAR IN MEANING AND SIMILAR IN SOUND, i.e. we suggested a 'method of semantic equations'. Let us specify our idea.

FIRSTLY: Looking through, for example, the Russian-Latin dictionary, we were looking for Slavonic words and Latin words, which would MEAN THE SAME THING, i.e. would HAVE THE SAME MEANING, which are usually given in the dictionary as translations of this Russian word. In other words, the 'parallel' Slavonic and Latin words should be APPROXIMATELY SIMILAR SEMANTICALLY and SOUNDING SIMILAR. We have then also processed the Latin-Russian dictionary. I.e. moving step by step through the Latin words we analysed their Russian translations, finding the parallels –SEMANTIC SIMILARITY AND AT THE SAME TIME SIMILARITY IN SOUND.

SECONDLY: having discovered the words-synonyms (Russian and Latin and vice versa Latin and Russian) which HAD THE SAME MEANING AND AT THE SAME TIME CLOSE IN SOUND, we compared their spelling, i.e. the letters and the sounds expressed by them. As a result those transitions which at some point transformed Slavonic words into Latin became more apparent. At the same time it became clear which sounds exactly transformed into which sounds, which letters 'turned upside down', which of them 'mirrored' each other, etc. As a result we often succeeded in reconstructing the transformations of the Slavonic words into Latin.

In other words, by 'equating' two words 'semantically', i.e. a Russian word and a matching Latin word, we acquire a 'semantic equation', from which we can clearly see which transitions of sounds and letters took place. The method of the semantic equations is useful when analysing the origins of many modern languages from the Slavonic root in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc.

Some of the parallelisms were noticed by the linguists earlier, but the Scaligerian chronology which virtually banned such comparisons prevented them from assessing them and carrying out work on a full scale, similar to ours.

We paid special attention to the Slavonic-Latin parallels. As the Latin roots are present in many European Languages. THUS HAVING ESTABLISHED THE ORIGIN OF THE 'CLASSICAL LATIN' FROM THE SLAVONIC ROOT, WE ALSO AUTOMATICALLY PRESENT A NUMBER OF SLAVONIC ROOTS IN OTHER WESTERN-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.

The slavonic language and Latin[edit | edit source]

It follows from the New Chronology that writing emerged more or less simultaneously with the creation of the languages. People communicated with each other not only verbally, but also in writing. The conversationalists perceived the words not only by the way they sounded, but also through their spelling. However at that time the lettering could get mixed up. This distorted the words and the sounds. People were unfamiliar with 'suffixes', 'prefixes', 'roots', etc. then. They perceived the word AS A WHOLE, the way it sounded. Only later in the XVII-XIX cc. there emerged the linguistic theories which studied the 'constituent parts' of the words.

A LARGE NUMBER OF THE SLAVONIC-LATIN matches we have discovered is of a particular importance. As both historians and linguists claim in unison that Latin is extremely ancient. Purporting that at the time, when the 'most ancient' Romans were exquisitely discussing mathematics, poetry and the fate and fortunes of the universe in the silver-tongued Latin, the rest of Eurasian peoples (with the exception of the even more 'ancient' and exquisite Greeks) still lived cooped up in the cold caves by smoking fires. Exchanging awkward gestures and guttural sounds. Allegedly there was no mention of any Slavonic languages, let alone any Slavonic writing. This picture is fundamentally incorrect.

The linguistic theories of the origins and evolution of the languages are entirely based on the presupposed and known Scaligerian chronology. With the change of the chronology the 'theories' also radically transform. Using its own internal methods the linguistics fails to determine not only the absolute dating, but in the majority of cases – even the relative ones.

Thus in the Latin-Russian dictionary we analysed every Latin word and all the Russian translations-synonyms. Usually there are several of such translations. In a large number of cases directly amongst them we would discover a Russian word, the distortion of which sometime before had led to a corresponding Latin word. Notably, WHEN COMPARING THE RUSSIAN ORIGINAL AND ITS LATIN REFLECTION (which had the same meaning and similar sound), we discovered the typical transitions of the consonants. Such distortions can be attributed to the variation in the spelling of some letters. In the XIII-XVII cc. There were several alphabets in use, where the same letters-consonants were depicted generally in the same way, but their position on the line sometimes varied. A letter 'p' could be written as 'b', 'q', 'd', which later led to the transition of the sound 'p' into the sounds 'b', 'q', 'd'. Following the solidifying of the new Western languages originating from the Slavonic language, such variations 'ossified' and were recorded in the textbooks.

Here is an example. The Latin word 'mixtio' means 'mixture', 'mixing'. Its Slavonic original word was probably 'мешать' (sounds 'meshat', means 'to mix' in Russian). Comparing МЕШАТЬ and its Latin reflection MIXITO we discover that the Russian letter 'Ш' (Sh) transitioned here into the Latin 'X'.

Another illustration. The Latin word 'moenia' means 'city walls', 'fortification', 'tower', 'wall'. This prompts an idea that the Slavonic original here was the word 'ТЫН' (sounds like 'TYN' in Russian), where incidentally the Russian word 'СТЕНА' (sounds like 'stena', means 'a wall') originates from. When comparing ТЫН with its Latin reflection MOENIA we see that the Russian T transformed here into the Latin M. It is clear why. As the Russian 'т' spelled the same way as 'm', i.e. in a form of three sticks with a bar above, which is virtually identical with the Latin 'm'. In such form the consonant 'm' (the Russian 'т' with three sticks) became a part of some Latin words.

The same word could be read in different ways[edit | edit source]

The philologists brought up on the Scaligerian Chronology think that the transitions and confusion of sounds took place mainly in the pre-writing epoch. I.e. they were determined only by different pronunciation by different people, by 'different voice-boxes'. That is why, they said, we can't speak about the possible transitions of the sounds because of the mix up in letters due to their close spelling. At the heart of this opinion is the hypothesis that the languages were formed before writing.

But according to the new chronology many languages emerged already during the epoch of writing. That is why the transitions of the sounds often appeared due to the mix up of the letters depicted on paper. The same letter written in a different way on a line could have led to the confusion of the sounds.

Such transitions of the consonants is not only possible in theory, but was discovered by us when 'solving the semantic equations'. The Scaligerian chronology turned many things upside down, including the linguistic matters.

A large number of parallels we noticed between the main, primary words of the Russian language and Latin cannot be considered accidental. A question arises: who borrowed the words from whom? What language originated from what language? Did the Latin word PEDESTAL form by merging two Russian words PIATA (heel of the foot in Russian) = PEDE and STOL (table) = STAL? Or vice versa the two old Russian words PIATA and STOL were formed by splitting a mysterious foreign PEDESTAL which appeared in Russia? In our view in this case, as in a great number of other cases, it is obvious that the Latin is borrowing from Russian.

Having said that, the meaning on the whole remained. For example, the Latin MUSCERDA = 'myshinyi pomiot' (mouse droppings), most likely formed by fusion of the Slavonic words MYSH+SRAT' (MOUSE+CRAP). Improbable that the process was in reverse: that the 'ancient' Latin sweetly sounding MUSCERDA split later into two Slavonic words МЫШЬ and СРАТЬ, which began their independent lives.

Fig.102

We discovered another fact. Sometimes the Slavonic words turned into the 'foreign' ones as the result of rearranging the consonants inside a word when reading it incorrectly. The fact is that in the XI-XVI cc. The letter order in a word was not exactly fixed. The letters were written not strictly in sequence along the line (as we do it today), but sometimes one under the other, to the side, above or underneath each other, varying in size and slanting differently. The letters were 'put on their side', turned around and mirrored. A word was 'drawn' in a form of a little heap of letters, the order of reading could vary. Every method of reading of a 'heap'-hieroglyph was determined by the trajectory of the eyes movement, by the order of the transition of your glance from letter to letter. Therefore it was possible to 'read' different words 'out' of the same one 'word-hieroglyph', fig.102. The zigzag lines consecutively passing through the white points show various ways of reading the very same 'heap of letters' [7v2].

Here we come across the traces of the old way of recording of words in the form of the pictures-hieroglyphs, like in the Ancient Egypt. If the meaning of the text was forgotten then the complex picture could be read in different ways, which led to confusion.

We'll remind you that a word could be read both left to right and right to left. For example the Russian word КОЛОС (spike) and the Russian word ЗЛАК (cereal) could have been derived from each other when read in revise order and exchanging S into Z (С-З). Besides, they used to write the words without vowel marking, just with the consonants. That is why the latest vowel markings of the same 'frame of consonants' could vary: kolos = KLS ---> ZLK = zlak.

Most likely, the Christian Book of Psalms and the 'Ancient' Egyptian Book of the Dead are virtually the same book, or, which is more precise, they both date back to the same primary source [5v2], ch.4:8. The people, who were probably writing the Book of Psalms in its more or less modern form, had in front of them an old Hieroglyphic text, inscribed with 'pictures'. Their reading was ambiguous, not mono-semantic, and besides the meaning of the text was almost forgotten. Hence the intense imagery of the Book of Psalms and its continual repetitions. The same picture is described with words several times. The Book of Psalms looks unusual in comparison with the later texts, which were by then written using letters aligned in an orderly fashion. That is why today the Book of Psalms is difficult to understand in places.

The Book of Psalms was probably partially written by Christ himself. It conveys Christ's inner turmoil at the time of his persecution, then his enthronement and the last days before his execution. Some of the Psalms from the Old Church Slavonic Book of Psalms are possibly not the translations, but the ORIGINALS. We have already said that Christ for a long time lived in Russia and spoke the Slavonic language very well [TsRS], ch.3.

Paganism[edit | edit source]

Let us show an example of how the confusion in regards to the words led to some serious repercussions. The words DOL, DOLU mean: underside, lowland, valley, lower hem in a dress. According to Vladimir Dal (Explanatory Dictionary – Translator's note): DOLU means beneath, on the ground, downwards. Let us also remember the Church expression: DOLU is below, down, low; for example POKLONITSA DOLU (to bow to the ground). It is probably from here the word IDOLOPOKLONNIKI (worshipers of idols) originated, i.e. those, who 'bow low', DOLU+POKLONNIKI (those who bow low to the ground), DOLU POKLONITSA (to bow to the ground). Originally all the believers were referred to in this way, were bowing low when praying, touching the floor with their hand, and sometimes even head or forehead. Even today Muslims getting on their knees, as in the original Christianity of the XII-XV cc., when bowing touch the ground with their foreheads. The same low bows, but in a slightly different form, survive in the Russian Orthodox Church until present day. But following the religious schisms in the XVI-XVII cc. in Romanovs Russia, and in Western Europe (where the Slavonic language was still in use, though it was being forced out by the new languages like Latin) the formerly neutral word IDOLOPOKLONNIKI (idol worshipers) acquired a negative meaning. In Russia the Romanovs changed the style of the churches and the character of church life [4]. In the parts of the Great Empire which split off from it some of the original Orthodox customs were also changed in order to separate from the metropoly in the religious sense as well.

Today Catholics rarely do low prostrations. In the Western-European churches the custom of getting onto their knees during the service has disappeared. Instead long benched-seats were made in front of which there is placed a step-like panel. In the certain moments during the prayer you have to slightly touch it with your knee remaining seated. Having separated in the religious sense the Western priests condemned and changed some former Orthodox Catholic rituals. Including the direction of the sign of the cross. The Muslims, who also split off from the original Christianity, annulled crossing altogether.

The reformers used the fact that the Russian word DOLU also meant 'vile' and 'low' and tendentiously interpreted it in a negative way. As a result in the XVII-XVIII cc. the word IDOLOPOKLONNIKI in some church circles began to be disapproved of: purporting that it was they who worship the bad gods. The same was done to the word IDOL, i.e. virtually DOLU, which today is perceived as something primitive, some kind of 'wrong' deity, idol. Thus they swapped white into black and vice versa.

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

1. (Year 1725) Horoscope dating to the time of the rule of the grandson of the very first Yellow Emperor of China Huangdi. Allegedly the first half of the third millennia BC. In fact: 6 March Old Style (Julian calendar) 1725, see [3v2] or our book 'Pegaya Orda' ('Piebald Horde').

2. (Year 1741) ZODIAC FZ del FALCONETTO from MANTUA. Fresco decoration on the walls of the so called 'Sala dello Zodiaco del Falconetto' (Hall of the Zodiac) in the Seconda Palazzina gia Dalla Valle. Italy, Mantua, allegedly 1520. In fact: 3-4 Julian calendar 1741 [GR], Introduction.

3. (Year 1741) ROMAN ZODIAC FA OF JUPITER. Allegedly the 'classical' stone carving. In fact: 5 June Julian calendar 1741 (ERIZ].

4. (Year 1781) ZODIAC OF URANUS RP1 IN CHAMBER OF THE COURT JUSTICE IN PADUA (Palazzo della Ragione). Frescos on the walls of the upper chamber. Italy, Padua, allegedly 1315-1317. In fact: 23-25 April 1781 [GRK], ch.4.