How It Really Was/Reconstruction of genuine history/19th century

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Critique of Scaliger's chronology[edit | edit source]

There is a long tradition of doubt in the accuracy of today's accepted version. Let us name just a few of the scientists who criticised the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius and who thought that the true chronology of ancient times was fundamentally different.

De Arcilla – XVI century, the professor of the University of Salamanca. The information about his research is vague. It is only known that de Arcilla argued that 'ancient' history was invented in the Middle Ages [1v].

Isaac Newton (1643-1727) – the great English scientist, mathematician and physicist. He studied chronology for many years. Published a large manuscript 'The chronology of ancient kingdoms amended' [1v].

Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) – the important French scientist, the author of a great many manuscripts on philology, theology, history, archaeology and numismatics. The director of the French Royal Library. Wrote a number of books on chronology in which he strongly criticized the entire structure of the Scaligerian chronology. According to him the majority of the 'ancient monuments' were made significantly later or are even forgeries.

Petr Nikiforovich Krekshin (1684-1763) – personal secretary of Peter I the Great. He wrote a book in which he criticized the version of the Roman History recognised today. At the time of Krekshin it was still 'very fresh' and was not perceived as something obvious [4v2], ch.2:30.

Robert Baldauf – a German philologist of the second half of the XIX – early XX cc. Private docent at the University of Basel. The author of the book 'History and Criticism' in four volumes. Based on philological grounds, he came to the conclusion that the monuments of 'ancient' literature have much later origin than it is believed and were created in the Middle Ages [1v].

Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) – the English historian. In his work he strongly criticized the Scaligerian chronology. He believed that it should be significantly shortened [1v].

Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854 – 1946) – outstanding Russian scientist-polymath. Created a breakthrough in research on chronology. Launched an extensive critique of Scaligerain chronology and history. Proposed the ideas of several new scientific methods of analysis of chronology [1v], ch.1.

Wilhelm Kammeyer (the end of the XIX century – 1959) German scientist and a lawyer. Developed methods to determine the authenticity of the old official documents. He discovered that almost all the classical and early Mediaeval Western-European documents were the later fakes or copies. Arrived at a conclusion about the falsification of the ancient and Mediaeval history. Wrote a number of books on this subject.

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) – Doctor- psychoanalyst. He was born in Russia and lived and worked in Russia, England, Palestine, Germany and the USA. He wrote a number of books on the subject of ancient history, where relying on the research conducted by N.A.Morozov (but not citing him anywhere) he pointed out some contradictions in the history. Attempted to explain them by using the 'theory of catastrophism'. In the West he is considered to be the founder of the critical school in chronology. However, fundamentally I.Velikovsky was trying to protect the Scaligerian chronology from too many major reconstructions. The fact that in Western Europe I.Velikovsky's work on history was known better than significantly earlier and more profound works by N.A.Morozov, impeded the development of the New Chronology in the West.

To summarise, the inconsistency of the Scaligerian chronology was clearly indicated by the scientists of the XVII-XIX cc. A thesis on the falsification of the classical texts and ancient monuments was formulated. But no one except N.A.Morozov could find a way to build the correct chronology. Even he failed in creating it. His version turned out to be half baked and inherited a number of significant errors of the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius.

Even in the 18th century the Romanovs' rule in Russia remains in many ways the occupation of Russia by foreigners. A list of the active members of the Russian academy of sciences in the 18th-19th centuries[edit | edit source]

When the Romanov dynasty came to power the ruling class in Russia largely consisted of foreigners. The Romanov historians evasively invented a slippery 'explanation' for this. They said that the Romanovs, in good faith, summoned the learned foreigners to Russia to enlist their help in pulling the country out of the swamp of backwardness and ignorance. To turn the Russian beasts into people, as Peter I the Great used to say [336], v.5, p.569-570.

The foreign stranglehold in Russia, continuing for the first 200 years of the Romanovs' rule, was an occupation of the former metropoly of the 'Mongol' Empire. The serfdom law was introduced by the Romanovs and was a straightforward enslavement of the native-born population on the Russian lands seized by the foreigners.

Let us address the history of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It was created in 1724 on the order of Peter I [736], book 1, p. V. We are told that Peter I 'not having found any talents in Russia' summoned the Western-European scientists, so they could enlighten the barbaric Russia and raise up successors worthy of them out of the poorly educated local young people. Amongst the scientists invited from Europe there were indeed outstanding thinkers, for example the brilliant mathematician Leonhard Euler. However they usually draw a veil over the fact that ALL the members of the Russian Academy, since 1724 up to 1742 were entirely foreign, except for Adadurov Vasili Yevdokimovich, elected to the Academy in 1733 [736], book 1. Thus PRACTICALLY THROUGHOUT THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS ONLY FOREIGNERS WERE THE RUSSIAN ACADEMICS. But even after that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE ACADEMICS WERE FOREIGN UP UNTIL 1841, when the situation eventually changed [736], book 1, p.50.

Fig.103

In 1841 the new 20 academics were elected. There were no foreigners among them anymore. To understand the picture on the whole we made a graph, fig.103 [7v1], ch.1, where we show the percentage of foreigners among the academics of the Russian Academy of science from the moment of its founding in 1724 up to 1917. The time axial coordinate shows all the years of Academy elections. For each year we calculated the percentage of foreigners who became academics that year. In the diagram this variable is constant until the next year of elections. The question of who among the academics is foreign and who is not is solved very easily: in the edition [736] there is registered the original foreign name of each foreign member of the Academy.

Fig. 104

In fig.104 we give a smoothed graph. It is obtained from the previous one by averaging over the decades.

It can be clearly seen that predominantly up until 1841 it is foreigners who become the academics. This important fact is being 'explained' to us somewhat like this. They are saying that over the period of more than a hundred years the foreign members of the Russian Academy couldn't raise worthy successors from the Russian scientists. With great difficulty the well-meaning and considerate foreigners searched for rare talents in the vast territories of Russia. But they found 'catastrophically little'. The barbaric Asiatic country. The forests, the snow, the bears. And so again and again they had to turn to the enlightened Europe and bring scientists of merit from there.

But the problem was not the lack of talents in Russia. At the beginning of the XVII century Russia was conquered by the foreigners who were far from being interested in the restoration of the Empire.

In [4v2], ch.2:31-32, we published materials about the difficult struggle that M.V.Lomonosov began against the academics-historians who were foreign. That is why it is so useful to understand how many academics-HISTORIANS in the Russian Academy of Sciences in the XVIII-XIX were foreign. Who created the Romanov-Miller version?

IT APPEARS THAT ALL OF THE ACADEMICS-HISTORIANS BEFORE M.V.LOMONOSOV WERE FOREIGN. There are eleven of them. Among them are such 'creators of the Russian history' as the already known to us Gerhard Friedrich Müller and Gotlib Bayer or Theophilus Siegfried (Gotlib=Theophilus Tr.Note). Thus over the first 18 years of the existence of the Academy of Sciences THE RUSSIAN HISTORY WAS WRITTEN EXCLUSIVELY BY THE FOREIGNERS-ACADEMICS. It was them who laid its fictitious foundations. Only in 1742 M.V.Lomonosov was elected an academic [736], book 1, p.14. He was the first home grown academic who was not only a naturalist, but also a historian. Having found himself in the Academy he very quickly realised what was going on. Instantly a fierce fight flared up between him and the academics-foreigners about the correct interpretation of Russian history. The resistance shown to M.B.Lomonosov was cohesive and furious.

Fig. 105

In fig.105 a graph is presented showing what percentage of the academics-historians in the Russian Academy of Sciences was comprised of foreigners. Over the period of more than a hundred years this diagram almost remains at a 100-percent. It starts falling only in the middle of the XIX century reaching zero by 1900.

Over the period of 117 years from 1724 to 1841 OUT OF THIRTY FOUR ACADEMICS-HISTORIANS THERE WERE ONLY THREE RUSSIAN ACADEMICS in the Academy of Sciences. They are – M.V.Lomonosov, J.O.Yartsov and N.G.Ustrialov [736], book 1. All the rest of the 31 academics were foreign. Thus up until the middle of the XIX century the proportion of the foreign historians in the Russian Academy exceeded ninety percent!

Over the period of more than a hundred years foreigners were in full control of the writing of the Russian history. It was them who decided which Russian documents ought to be destroyed, which – to re-write and which to preserve. The home historians were shown the door, prohibited from the archives and primary sources.

Only beginning with 1841 there started to appear a substantial numbers of home grown scientists amongst the academics-historians. But it was too late. The false foundation of the 'Russian history' was already laid and firmly imbedded in concrete by the foreigners.

The results of the 'activities' of the foreign historians is known only too well to us. Today their followers tell us with conviction that there was no navy in Russia before Peter I the Great. They allege that Peter FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER gave the order to build in Russia simple little 'boats' to start with and big ships afterwards. The historians hired by the Romanovs completely wiped out from history the colossal naval expeditions of the XV-XVI cc., when the Russian-Hordian and Ottoman=Ataman fleet colonized America for instance. And not just America. Moreover the Hordian army crossed the ocean not in some rickety canoes, but in ships with several rows of heavy artillery [6v2], ch.6. The entire Russian history prior to the XVII century was declared by the foreign historians to be the cave dwelling Middle Ages. We are being taught this way ever since. They implant this lie into young people's heads. Fortunately many traces of the truth survive.

The financial structure, the casts of the Great Empire, the medieval Judaism[edit | edit source]

Let us address an interesting question about the financial system of the Empire and about the social class of the financial treasurers. The new chronology fundamentally changes our perceptions, for example, about the place of the Hebrews in the Middle Ages. This question was of interest to many before and still is now. The common view point, that the Hebrews are the religious community which under some ill-defined circumstances scattered around the world, is hardly satisfactory. Why this and only this community dispersed and did not disappear? If the ancient Jewish state was somewhat very large, than the picture would have been clearer. Than the Jews could have survived by virtue of its multiplicity. But no, we are told that the Jewish state was very small. But so many of such small kingdoms died out. However the Hebrew community survived. Moreover it is spread over all the civilized countries. And occupies a prominent place in the social and political life, science and culture. And of course in the finance.

Let us turn to the history of the Great Empire. What place did the ancestors of the present day Jews occupy in it?

In the Empire there can be seen the idea of the ant heap or a beehive. There were established social classes, hereditary clans, which were occupied by a specific line of work. The traces of the cast Imperial system survive in India with its casts of warriors, workers, priests, etc. In recent Russian history we know at least one such an example. This social cast is a cast of priests. Until the second half of the XIX century only a son of a priest and a priest's daughter could become a priest in Russia. This law was abolished only in the XIX century. This fact was widely discussed in Russian society.

Presumably, there were casts, the professional divisions in the Russian-Horde Empire. In particular a professional class of the financial, so to say, bank officials. They operated the accounts of the Empire dispersed about Europe, Africa and America. The life of a vast Kingdom in not possible without a smooth-running financial mechanism. It comprised of not only the financial apparatus of czar-khan in Yaroslavl = Veliky Novgorod, but also the multiple accounting offices scattered all over the world from America to China [5v1], ch.12:4. It included the settlement of trade between the East and the West, the collection of taxes, the payment of salary, the control over the flow of the precious metals, the financial support to the army, etc. The work demanded a great attention to detail, specific qualification, accounting skills, suggested certain severity towards the violators of the financial regulations. Hence a tendency to build complex systems of rules which is most pronounced in the Talmud, for example. And of course the money was the 'blood' of this entire enormous Imperial system. The people who from one generation to another 'handled money' of the contemporary world developed an aspiration to always be around it. Among the people related to the monetary system of the modern world there are probably many descendants of the old imperial financial stratum. There must be many of them in the banking sphere.

It is quite possible that within one professional guild there could have formed a religious community. Which later became a part of the contemporary Judaism. In the Empire there prevailed religious tolerance and none of the religions were persecuted. They can ask us: why then there didn't emerge, for instance, 'the military religion', which all the warriors of the Empire would follow? Our answer is as follows. The kind of activity played an important role. As it is clear that the internal connections within the social stratum of the Hordian financiers, the officials in the Imperial monetary system, was considerably stronger, than, let's say, the professional ties in the social cast of the Hordian warriors. The bankers of America of that time and the bankers of Europe of that time were connected closer than the soldiers in America and soldiers in Europe. There is nothing strange in this. Just the different nature of the activity. That is why the financial stratum was particular amongst the Imperial system. The other social stratums could have been infused with different religions. But the financial guild turned out to be more homogeneous in the religious sense. However the Jews had before and still have now the religious differences.

It is clear why the Imperial financial guild didn't need any special separate state. In one sense they already had it. It was the entire Horde Empire. The present day cosmopolitism is to some degree the legacy, the memory of a vast field of financial activity spread over all territories from America to China. Hence – a slight attachment to their birthplace, the land of their ancestors, ease in the relocation. In the epoch of the Empire all of this could be attributed to the occupation of the Imperial treasurer. The officials of the Imperial treasury often moved from one place to another, they could be assigned to work in the most remote territories. At the same time inevitably there appeared the drive for solidarity, a certain aloofness.

And so, in the XIV century the 'Mongol' Empire emerged. Its founders – the Russian-Horde czars-khans started to order the life in the immense territories. In particular, they created the monetary system of the Empire and the social stratum of people attending to it. In the XVI century Judaism was the prevailing religion within this financial stratum. Possibly not just in this social group, but within it was universal or almost universal. Due to the specific of their activity – the control over the Imperial finances – this social stratum obtained power, which was not anticipated by the founders of the Empire.

The czars-khans of that time did not realise in time the danger hanging over them. In the XVI – early XVII cc. The Empire was destroyed. The power of money blossomed on its ruins.

It becomes clear why after the collapse of the Empire in its European splinters-states, revolutions started. The implication of the events is simple. The Empire was ruined at the hands of the military Imperial governors. In Germany, France, etc. They immediately acquired absolute power on the ground, having turned into the independent kings, dukes, etc. Naively thinking that it was them who had won. They were mistaken. Now they began to deal with them one by one. Some were decapitated, some were swept away by the 'outraged people'. The driving force behind all such revolutions was money. As a result they openly declared the domination of money over noble rank, over ancestry. This was the motto of the French revolution and of the English revolution. In the Horde Empire there ruled a principle of ancestry and gentility. Nobility was respected and entitled to power. After the revolt of the Reformation, wealth acquired precedence. Nobility withdrew into the shadows, and in some places was declared to be a negative attribute.

Our idea that the mediaeval Jews or their significant part originated from the treasurers of the Empire is supported by some sources. For example, it is said about King Wenceslaus: 'According to one of the verdicts of the Nuremberg Sejm in 1390 the King ordered the Jews (we should not forget that THEY ALL AND ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS WERE A PART OF THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE TREASURY OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE) to give away all the securities and debt liabilities which they had in their possession… The Jews had to conform with the governmental order and they did: but needless to say some time later on following that financial turnaround the affairs returned back to its previous state' [304], v.2, p.449.

It is all clear. The Imperial government ordered its treasury to waive the debts of their knights. It takes place after a prolonged war. The treasury waives the debts. But it doesn't become poorer for that. Not before long everything returns to its former status quo. The Empire did become impoverished.

The situation when a Mediaeval knight demands money and not from anyone but from a Jew in particular, became a part of classic literature. Let us recall Pushkin's 'The Miser Knight'. The Knight is convinced for some reason that the Jew's money is his own, the knight's money. At the very least he has an uncontested share in it. But the Jew assures him that 'there is no money left'. A usual conversation with an accountant or a treasurer who at all costs tries to limit cash withdrawal. The knight however firmly insists on receiving the Imperial payment due to him.

It is peculiar that intrinsically the persecution of the Jews in Europe began straight after the collapse of the Horde Empire. In the Lutheran Chronograph of 1680 we read that in 1615 'the old brotherhood between the countries is restored: the Jews are ordered to leave Wormatia. It might mean some kind of segregation or banishment of the Jews in 1615, i.e. immediately following the Times of Troubles. Here it is very interestingly a passing reference to the ANCIENT UNION OF THE COUNTRIES of the Western Europe. As we understand it now the union was being a part of the united Empire.

Following the collapse of the Empire the majority of its officials and military, also including the frontline workers of the Imperial treasury (the Jews), found themselves under suspicion in the Reformist Western society. There emerged the notorious ghettos in Europe.

Why is it widely thought that it is the Jews who wrote the Bible? As we see it now it is not quite right. Here we encounter the terminological confusion typical to the Middle Ages. The Biblical books were written by all sorts of different people. For example, the Old Testament was mainly written by Those Who Praise the Lord (this is the translation of the word 'Jew' into Russian) – the priests who worshiped God, who marched with the army of Horde-Atamania to conquer the world, the Promised Land. The word 'Jew' used to mean simply 'priest'. It is a modification of the Greek word Nereus (Hiereus). It easily transforms into a word Yevrey ('Jew' in Russian) due to the two way reading of the Church Slavonic letter Izhitsa. The Bible was written by the Hordian priests, i.e. the Jews. Or by Those Who Praise the Lord i.e. by the Jews.

How the Empire was ruled[edit | edit source]

  • There still remain the psychological traces of the fact, that Russia-Horde was the metropoly (parent state) of the Great Empire. The peoples of Russia until now are 'bad at being tamed', they still have the spirit of former liberty' alive in them, the spirit of the 'masters of the Empire'. They have quite a strong common sense, and a rather sceptical attitude towards statutory law. Striving to 'live by their own customs', 'like their ancestors'. This is only natural: as the laws were written by the Empire for the others, i.e. for the conquered provinces. On the other hand, the Russian love of freedom is combined with a deep sense of royalism which also manifested itself in the XX century. In Russia they are always ready to die for the czar, for the idea. In other civilised countries the people more readily accepting of statutory law. Possibly due to the fact that they are the descendants of not only the conquerors = the 'Mongols', but also the native subjugated population, who at some point were forced to comply with the orders of the metropoly, i.e. Russia-Horde and the Ottoman Empire.
  • How did the Empire operate for 300 years, from the XIV to the XVI cc? How on earth did Russia-Horde manage to mobilise so many soldiers to colonise such vast lands? One thing is to quickly conquer the territories. To achieve this – due to the low level of population in many regions of Eurasia and America – small, well-armed and well trained army units were often enough. But it is quite a different matter to maintain the order afterwards for a lengthy period of time and to educate the local population of the entire continents. Besides, how was it possible without delay to pass on the orders to the remote troops, administration and the bankers from the centre of Russia-Horde? As in those times there were no fast means of communication like the telegraph, the radio or the telephone. How then did a khan-czar rule the gigantic Eurasian + African + American Empire, 'over which the sun never sets'?

Firstly, beginning with the XV century there were two concurrently ruling centres established in the Empire. One was in Russia-Horde, which was also called Israel, and the other was in Czar-Grad, the capital of the Ottoman Empire (Atamania) which was also named Judea. Besides sometimes the entire Empire was called Israel or Judea, when the matter concerned respectively either the military aspects of its activities, or its hierarchic, religious aspects. Mainly Russia controlled the Western Europe and Asia, and the Ottoman Empire – the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Africa. America, which was colonised at the end of the XV century, was under the mutual control of Russia-Horde and the Ottoman Empire–Atamania.

Secondly, the important bonding agent was the common Christian religion spread by the Horde Empire = Israel all over the world at that time. The 'Mongolian' missionaries marching amongst the Israeli armies of the Crusaders = the Hordians created the affiliated Catholic branches of the Orthodox churches on colonised territories, by which they provided the spiritual unity for the Empire. The religious unity is one of the cornerstones on which the Imperial power was based over the duration of several hundred years. The united Christian church fulfilled an important state function. It was the exact reason why the Western rebels of the XVI-XVII cc. delivered the first strike on Christianity [6v2], ch.1.The 'progressive religious reform' helped to divide the czardom into bits, each of them 'got' so to say 'their own new religion': Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, etc.

Thirdly, in the foundation of the Empire lay its professional military organisation, i.e. the Horde = Rat'. We should not assume that in every town and settlement of the Empire from China and Europe to Africa and America there was necessarily stationed a military post of the Hordians-Cossacks. There was no need for that. The small, but well-armed military units were stationed only in the major centres from which time to time they would march to the remote regions to collect taxes or for the punitive actions. Such form of control, when the professional troops appear seldom, but act fast, publicly and firmly, was particularly effective. The subject's fear of the remote central power was also of importance. The permanent presence of the Horde unit in every settlement was not necessary. There would never be enough soldiers and weapons for that. The rulers understood that a remote but imminent threat is more effective, than the permanent lodging of the troops in sight of the population.

The descendants of the Hordian conquerors formed the core of the nobility which was established locally, for example in Europe, Japan and China [5v1], ch.12:12.

The stability of the Empire rested on the extreme military superiority of the Horde which established in the XIV century and provided the very opportunity of such a grandiose colonisation of the world, the equivalent of which never took place again. In the early XIV century in Russia-Horde there commenced the industrial production of iron and gun-powder, which created the weaponry including cannons. The Cossack cavalry raised in the vast Russian steppes was an important factor. There was nothing like it outside of Russia. In fact the 'Mongol' cavalry armed with muskets and accompanied by the artillery didn't meet any resistance. As we know from the seizure of Czar-Grad in 1453, i.e. the Old Testament Jericho, [6v1], ch.5:3, when required, the heavy artillery which could quickly break any stone walls, immediately advanced upon the walls of the cities that grimly held together. However, in the majority of cases it was enough to merely demonstrate their might in order to crush any attempts at rebellion.

The speed of the delivery of the military and administrative orders was of course limited by the transportation facilities of that time. But, as the chronicles tell us, the Horde first created an effective road network with equestrian posts along them [4v1], Introduction: 3. Secondly the main task of the 'Mongol' governors from America to China was to provide order, to collect tax and to send a part of it to the metropoly. All of this didn't require petty regulations from the centre and was achieved by the local administration without having to be supported by daily orders from Moscow or Czar-Grad. The messengers were sent on matters of a grand scale and of special nature. In those cases, we can imagine, the couriers moved fast.

The falsification of history in the 17th-18th centuries[edit | edit source]

The Romanov archaeologists-pogromists[edit | edit source]

In [1v], ch.1:13.1 and [TsRIM], ch.9 we tell about the excavations in Central Russia conducted by the Romanov archaeologists of the XIX century. In particular in 1851-1854 count A.S.Uvarov, who today is mistakenly called an archaeologist, in the land of Vladimir and Suzdal excavated 7729 mounds. SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE! It is reported: 'On entering the items to the Rumyantsevsky museum (re: the excavations of 1851-1854 – Author) they presented all in all a CHAOTIC PILE OF STUFF, as there was no accompanying inventory notes specifying which mound each item originated from. Mr.Uvarov AT A LATER DATE compiled an inventory of the entire collection, however using just the excavation reports and PARTIALLY BY MEMORY. The grandiose excavations of 1851-1854 in the Suzdal region WILL BE GREATLY MOURNED BY SCIENCE FOR A LONG TIME and will serve as a dreadful premonition for all the enthusiasts of MASS EXCAVATIONS. So much sadder is the LOSS OF THE VLADIMIR MOUNDS in that they present the ONLY material to answer the question about which Russian tribe in particular laid the foundation of the Velikorossy (The Great Russians – in the Pre-Soviet time the Russians were officially called Velikorossy (Great Russia), the Ukranians – Malorossy (Little Russia), the Belorussian were called the same name as today the Belorussian (White Russia) – Translator's note) … THE LOSS OF THESE MOUNDS CANNOT BE COMPENSATED BY ANYTHING' [305:0], p.89-90.

There were some days, when UP TO 80 OR MORE MOUNDS WERE OPENED UP. That was not the scientific research, but a deliberate demolition. Our analysis allows us to state the following:

  • Count A.S.Uvarov and P.S.Saveliev over a period of at least four years in the middle of the XIX century organised and headed a deliberate destruction of the old Russian-Horde mounds in Central Russia, authorized by the Imperial Edict. I.e. at the very heart of the former 'Mongol Empire'.
  • The Russian-Horde mounds were mercilessly razed to the ground and the burials inside them were destroyed there and then. Hundreds of workers were summoned for the purpose. There was no trace of any 'scientific research' there.
  • Almost no detailed documents reporting on this pogrom survive. They 'disappeared' mysteriously. A few of them which are presented to us today were written post factum.
  • A small amount of unearthed items were preserved for the museums. So there was something to demonstrate and to give an account for. Purporting, that these were the results of their meticulous scientific activities. Alleging, that they have found something nonetheless, though really not a lot. Most of the genuine findings which could tell us a lot about our history, were destroyed straight away in the field. Or hidden in the deep storages.

Today we cannot even imagine how many mounds turned out to exist in Russia. THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS were destroyed by the Romanovs administrators. Nevertheless in the XIX century there was still a lot left. For example, 'Mr.Nefyodov who opened up one mound in the same area and reporting that he counted up to 200 mounds over the distance of 3 versts (0.6629 mile – Tr.)' [305:0], p.93. But soon they got to them too. Needless to say they were all ruthlessly razed to the ground.

Only vague rumours reached out time and recollections of some numerous mounds along Tver downstream of Volga, the mounds of Uglich, the mounds of Murom, etc. [305:0], p.94-95. Where are they now? They are gone. No trace of them. Not afield, not in the documents. Where are the findings unearthed from them?

CONCLUSION. In the second half of the XIX century the Romanov administrators, archaeologists and historians destroyed many thousands of the Russian-Horde burial mounds. Most likely they were razed to the ground deliberately in order to conceal the traces of the true history of the XIII-XVI cc. Today we are being cynically told with a wry smile: you see, there are no mounds and opulent burials in Russia, our history is poor, doesn't come close to the history of the West, the East, the North or the South.

They write "the new ancient history"[edit | edit source]

To support the version of Scaliger-Petavius in Europe there was created a 'scientific school of history', which 'adjusted accordingly' all the documents that came to its attention. After the main body of the conflicting documents were either destroyed or edited, the 'odd' documents emerging from time to time were interpreted as 'Mediaeval ignorance'. Until now the main body of the documents which the modern historical version is based on are comprised of the Western-European texts. They have all undergone the editing of the XVII-XVIII cc. – a fact which is often concealed. On the other hand the Old Russian, Turkic and Arabic primary sources occupy only a supportive secondary place in the history science. They allegedly contain 'a lot of nonsense'. We are told that you should approach them carefully. In fact they are not being edited as thoroughly.'

Most thoroughly the reformers worked on the history of the XV-XVI cc. Due to the clear reasons – this is the epoch of the rise of the 'Mongol' Empire. There is almost nothing left from the true history of that epoch in the history textbooks. The empty space which was freed up was to be urgently filled up. This filling was taken place in the offices of the historians of the XVII-XVIII cc. That is why it is not surprising that the epoch of the XV-XVI cc. to a great extent is populated by phantoms, the reflections of the events descended here from the XVI-XVII cc. Any falsifier either consciously or subconsciously uses imagery from the surrounding reality. The books of the allegedly XVI century were printed or re-printed in the XVII-XVIII cc. The false dates of the XVI or even the XV cc. were deliberately stamped on them. The great examples of this are the Bibles, see in [6v]. Another great example is Ptolemy's Almagest [3v1], and also his Geography [6v2], ch.7. Many of the authentic books of the XV-XVI cc. had a clear 'Imperial stamp' on them. For example the dedication to the Russian Emperor-Khan. Naturally it was all eliminated in the re-prints of the XVII-XVIII cc. Everything concerning the former Imperial history was edited in the texts.

The history of Western Europe was presented this way. The Russian-Horde khan was declared exclusively the Western-European 'Habsburg Austrian Emperor'. Thus the many deeds of the entire Great Empire was automatically attributed only to Western Europe. The major historical facts – for example, the existence of the Emperor in Europe, the former unity of Europe under his rule, a strong Slavic presence in Europe, etc. – partially remained on the pages of the textbooks. But their presentation was significantly distorted [7v1], ch.1.

Fig.106

The Western rulers of the XVI century, remaining faithful to the 'Mongol' Empire were declared reactionary. For instance, Duke of Alba (Fernando A'lvarez de Toledo, duque de...; 1507-1582), the 'Spanish commander, the Governor of Netherland' [797], p.44. is treated as a monster, who 'drowned the progressive liberation movement in blood'. This 'Dyak Belo-Rus' (whose name was later on pronounced as Duke Alba-Rus, i.e. Duke Alva-Rez) was most likely one of the governors of the Empire fighting the Reformation. In fig.106 we show the title page of a book called 'THE MIRROR OF THE SPANISH TYRANNY' allegedly first published in 1596. The Duke of Alba and Don Juan of Austria were depicted as the main tyrants 'brutally supressing progress'. On top above them the publishers placed a portrait of a 'very bad king' Philipp II. The book represented a very important study guide for the education of the Europeans of the XVI-XVII cc. in the required spirit. On the title page there is a clear picture of the bad rulers torturing the good people. The book was re-published in 1620 and 1638 [330], v.3.

Here is what the Encyclopaedia says of the King Philipp II of Spain (1527-1598): 'His policy promoted the strengthening of the Spanish AUTOCRACY'. HE INTENSIFIED OPPRESSION IN THE NETHERLANDS. He supported the inquisition' [797], p.1406. On the whole, a bad ruler. A great oppressor.

They compose "the ancient sources"[edit | edit source]

Where do we know the works of the 'ancient' writers from? Here is a detailed review by professor V.V.Bolotov in the 'Lectures on the history of the ancient church' [83]. Technically he touches upon only the sources concerning the history of the church. But the great majority of the mediaeval texts, in one way or another concerned church history. In general the Scaligerian version is built primarily on the church sources [72], [76].

In the history of the print publications of the 'ancient' sources, what stands out is the fact that from the very beginning they were not disconnected or random, the way it should be under the normal course of events when, with the rise of publishing, certain books which were copied beforehand, began to be published. In one place someone should have published one book. In another place another publisher should have independently printed another book. And so on. Only later there appear digesters who collect separate publications and on that basis publish the FUNDAMENTAL MULTIVOLUME COLLECTIONS. Contrary to that, if the ancient falsified history and the old texts are edited and forged accordingly, then the picture of the published editions most likely will be the reverse. I.e. immediately there would be published multivolume editions of the 'correct books'. Where they would be published in one or two centres, but not randomly. Each centre would focus on one strand. In order to easier control the falsification. And then, based on such an officially approved body of publications, there would emerge isolated editions, which would be reprints of certain individual books allowed by the censors.

It is the second scenario that we witness when we see the publishing of the 'ancient' texts of the XVII-XIX cc. [83]. As it's clear now, we see an organised forgery. For example, 'the writings of the holy fathers and the ecclesiastical writers FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WERE PUBLISHED AS MULTIVOLUME EDITIONS' [83], v.1, p.118. In the middle of the XIX century came out 'The Patrologia' by the French priest J.P.Migne comprising of several hundred volumes: 221 volumes of the Latin writers and 161 of the Greek writers. Since then all the researchers mainly use the Migne's publication as the manuscripts and earlier publications as a rule are either inaccessible or 'inconvenient' [83], v.1, p.119.

A logical question is: based on what sources did priest Migne publish his 'The Patrologia'? Apparently he simply republished the editions of the XVII-XVIII cc. produced by the Benedictine order [83], v.1, p.120. He republished it in a more convenient, contemporary format. 'The value of Migne's 'The Patrologia' first of all is that it is practical and easy to use. Migne freed the world from the tomes of the Benedictine monks, which were very uncomfortable to use, incidentally due to the enormous format… He would usually take the best Benedictine edition ... when necessary adding the works (published by the later scientists) lacking the Benedictine holy fathers which was published by the later scientists' [83], v.1, p.120.

Consequently, the PRIMARY SOURCE is not Migne's publication, but the Benedictine one. Migne simply republished it. The Benedictines on the other hand didn't just reprint the ancient manuscripts. It is well known that THEY FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECTED IT. For example, 'if a holy father cited a place from the Scripture DISCORDANT with the Vatican canons, the Benedictine considered such a place to be an error and 'CORRECTED IT PEACEFULLY' either according to the Sistine edition of the Bible (in the writings of the Greek Fathers) or according to Vulgata versio (in the writings of the Latin Fathers)' [83], v.1, p.121.

To conclude, in the XVII-XVIII cc. in one and the same centre, and only there, the Benedictines fundamentally edited and published all the writings of the holy fathers of the Church. In particular, the Benedictines would check all the quotations according to the Bible. When the quotations differ from the contemporary Bible they would 'adjust them'. It is not surprising that when opening today any edition of the old text quoting the Bible we will see that the quotations correspond to the contemporary Biblical canon. And we begin to think that the canon existed exactly like this for a very-very long time. As it is being quoted so accurately by the 'ancient' authors. BUT IN FACT IT IS A FAKE. As we read not the original old text, but its adaptation by the Benedictine monks. If not altogether a forgery of the XVII-XIX cc. This refers to not just one or two, but THOUSANDS of the old texts. The amount of the volumes itself published by Migne 'based on the Benedictines' – there are almost 400 of such volumes! – shows the scale of 'activity'.

If the manufacturing of the writings by the holy fathers was assigned to the Benedictines, then the publication of the Lives of the Saints was entrusted to the Jesuit order of Bollandists. These are the 'Flemish Jesuits headed by Bolland, who died in 1665' [83], v.1, p.136, 137. From 1643 to 1794 there were 53 volumes of 'The Lives' published. I.e. one central monopoly was established in regards to this ecclesiastical historical direction.

As we can see 'the manufacturing of the true history' was assigned to several departments simultaneously. One was specialising in the history of the church. Another – in the descriptions of the lives. And so on. Supposedly they would have meetings of the 'historic departments' where their work would be coordinated. The further instructions would be given…

The leaders of the 'historic project' would work on the most important cases themselves. For instance, 'The Chronicle' by Eusebius Pamphili for which 'the Greeks ACCORDING TO THE TRADITION LOST the Greek original' [83], v.1, p.145, was 'reconstructed' by Scaliger personally. Though the historians say, that Scaliger only 'attempted to restore' the Chronicle. But he allegedly failed. So he gave it up. But later in 1787 the Chronicle by Eusebius Pamphili was 'found' anyway. In the Armenian translation. I.e. it was found a hundred years later after Scaliger 'attempted to restore' the text by Eusebius Pamphili. It is most likely that in 1787 they found a text written by Scaliger himself. And immediately declared it the 'original' Chronicle by Eusebius Pamphili. The suspicions of forgery increase by the look itself of the 'discovered Chronicle'. It was written allegedly on parchment which was very valuable due to its high cost. At the same time the chronological tables by 'Eusebius Pamphili' look exactly like the tables published by the Scaligerian school in the XVII-XVIII cc. The pages take the form of numerous vertical columns. Each of them related to the chronology of a single country or a certain 'stream of events'. Notably almost all the space on the parchment remained apparently EMPTY, as there were few known events. As Bolotov points out, the scribes could hardly correctly copy the text in such a format over the period of 600 years [83], v.1, p.145. It's all clear. Such a format of the tables emerged only in the XVII century. The genuine Chronicle by Eusebius Pamphili (which did probably exist, but in some other form) was most likely destroyed. And in its place they offered us a forgery of the XVII century.

This 'activity' is by no means inoffensive. Apparently 'around THREE QUARTERS OF THOSE DATES WHICH THE HISTORIANS HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION FOR THE CORRESPONDING PERIOD OF TIME ORIGINATE FROM THE CHRONICLE BY Eusebius Pamphili [83], v.1, p.151. I.e. as we understand, they are based on the dating which was suggested by Scaliger in the XVIII century without any proof. Today these dates remain unfounded.

After the Empire[edit | edit source]

History and chronology turned into a powerful ideological weapon with lasting effect, successfully used against Russia and Turkey. It disorientated, disabled the opposition, changed the value system, and imbedded an inferiority complex. In the XVII century there was made an attempt to divide Russia-Horde into many small states. But afterwards many of them still merged around the former centre. The Romanov Empire appeared. Starting from the XVII-XVIII cc. the idea of the cultural superiority of Western Europe over Russian and Turkey is being enforced. For example the German historians of the late XIX century, the authors of the multivolume 'History of humankind' openly write in a chapter under the eloquent name (expressively called) 'The Russian antagonism towards civilization': 'The mistake of the (Russian – Author) people was that it WAS ACCUSTOMED TO ROUGHNESS, accepted it as its NATIONAL IDENTITY and stopped understanding the value of culture… Russia, who should have had hundreds of Higher Schools, doesn't want to do anything for itself and purposefully kept its population in ignorance… The foreigners who find themselves in Russia look down on the Russian people due to their cultural backwardness…The Russian people were poor and always remained this way as they were uneducated. ..Russia desperately needs another Peter the Great who could forcibly TEAR IT AWAY from the primordial gloom. Russia, instead, due to its ANIMOSITY TOWARDS CULTURE earned itself more than one fierce enemy' [336], v.5, p.599-601.

Pan-Turkism has deep roots in the very same Great Empire. This is the memory of the peoples of the Turkic languages that at some stage, not so long ago, they were a part of the united Empire. The Turks left Russia-Horde and on the wave of the 'Mongol' conquest settled all over Eurasia. In Russia the Turkic, Tatar language was spread much wider than today, but the Romanovs supressed it heavily. Despite that there still remain many Turkic speaking peoples in Russia now.

The question frequently arises – where does Russia refer to: Europe or Asia? Both Europe and Asia were in their time conquered by Russia-Horde. That is why many 'purely Eastern' customs are simply the forgotten Russian-Hordian ones. Both Europe and Asia were a part of the Russian-Ottoman Empire. The population of the provinces to a great extent – the native nobility in particular – consisted of the descendants of the Russian-Hordian conquerors of the XIII-XIV cc. Russia-Horde successfully oriented towards both West and East. Trade was organised between the East and the West, which took place in Russia. The taxes from this trade went to the treasury of the Empire. Such was the indirect, gentle way of tax collection of the entire Empire. This is one example of how Russia manipulated its geographical position between the East and the West and its influence over them to its advantage. Russia is neither the East nor the West. Russia has its own history which greatly differs from the history of its neighbours. Having been, together with the Ottoman Empire, the master of the Eurasia and the significant part of America, it had close connections with both the East and the West. It's not a coincidence that the two-headed eagle was always a Russian emblem. It looked both to the East and to the West.

The idea of the wars of religion emerged in the epoch of the Reformation as a concept of destroying a unified state. The visionaries of the split in the XVI-XVII cc. understood it very well and used it 'in practice'. They began to advocate the separation from the 'Mongol' Empire, referring allegedly to the religious tensions. But the religious policy of the Empire formerly was very different. There reigned the principle of religious tolerance and state's non-interference into the sphere of the religious matters. In the czardom there co-existed various branches of the original unified Christianity, each being under the protection of the czar-khan. But this didn't lead to the religious wars until the Reformation revolt erupted at the end of the XVI-XVII cc. Religious slogans were used for the first time to split the united czardom.

Orthodox Christianity and Islam split later than it is common to believe. These two branches of the originally united religion retained their close affinity the longest. The various traces of their closeness in the XV-XVI cc. can be found in many documents. Particularly, in Turkey and Iran. Opposing Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism on one hand to Islam on the other is a manoeuvre successfully used in order to play off Russia against Turkey in the XVII-XVIII cc. Once again a form of the west's struggle against Russia-Horde.

Here is an example of the role of the language and culture in the history of a nation. As we understand it now the contemporary population of Germany are descendants of the Slavs who were the conquerors of the XIII-XIV cc. They spoke Slavonic at some point, but now they speak a different language. It is impossible to preserve a people, having changed its language and its culture. This will become a different people. The more the new language and the new culture would be removed from the former ones, the more the new nation would differ from the former one. Such programs are being realised via educating the youth at school.

The Tsar-Grad kingdom of the 11th-12th centuries and the Horde Empire of the 13th-14th centuries are the archetypes of all the main "ancient kingdoms" in the Scaligerian history[edit | edit source]

We discovered that the 'emperors of the Western-Roman Empire', i.e. the Habsburgs up until the XVI century turned out to be merely the phantom reflections of the Great Russian czars-khans who ruled until the end of the XVI century in Western Europe. All the Western-European rulers were the vassals of them in particular. Only after the victory of the Reformation the Western governors found themselves at the head of the independent states which formed in Europe (Germany, France, England, Spain, Italy, etc.).

Of course, it was impossible to completely wipe out the 'former' dependence from the Russian czars-khans. Noticeable traces remained in Western history purportedly as purely formal vassal dependence of all, or nearly all the Western rulers from the Habsburg, the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. It is true though, that a certain oddity remained. This dependence which lasted several hundred years suddenly disappears in the XVII century without a trace. And this is understandable. The Austrian rulers were simply 'appointed' by the rebellious Western Europe of the XVI-XVII cc. to play the part of an old Imperial dynasty. Though in the XVII century the status of the Austrian Habsburg was no different from, let's say, the French or the English Kings.

The Habsburg of the XIV-XVI cc. was on the other hand the almighty Russian czar-khan ruling in Veliky Novgorod – Yaroslavl. He truly was the Emperor for all the governors – the kings and the dukes of the West. And not just formally – as it is presented today in the Scaligerian history of the Habsburgs – but the real sovereign of the single superpower. Only the late Habsburgs: from the late XVI to the early XVII cc. are the Western rulers of Austria. Which emerged as one of the splinters of the 'Mongol' Empire.

Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. and the Czar-Grad kingdom of the XI – the early XIII cc. are crucial for practically all 'ancient' Scaligerian history. Here is a list of the main phantom reflections of the Russian czars-khans of the 1276-1600.

1) The 'ancient' Russian history of allegedly the X-XIII cc.

2) The Habsburg Empire of 1273-1600.

3) The Holy Roman Empire of allegedly the X-XIII cc.

4) The 'ancient' Kingdom of Israel, according to the Bible.

5) The 'ancient' Kingdom of Judah, according to the Bible.

6) The Third Roman empire allegedly of the III-VI cc.

7) The Second Roman Empire allegedly of the I century BC – III century.

8) The Czar Rome = The First Roman empire allegedly of the VIII-VI cc. BC.

9) The 'Zero' Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 330-553 and the first half of the First Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 553-700.

10) The first half of the Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 830-980.

11) The first half of the Third Byzantine Empire allegedly of 1150- 1300.

12) The history of Mediaeval England allegedly of the 400-1327.

13) The Empire of the Carolingian Empire allegedly of the 680-890.

The proponents of today's accepted version of history react angrily to the evidence that many well-known 'classical' heroes were Russian. Or the'ancient' Et-Ruscan, i.e. once again Russian [5v]. The surviving facts are sorely received, facts which indicate that 'Ancient' Rome is actually Russia-Horde XIII-XVI cc. I.e. the 'ancient' Roman emperors were in fact the Russian-Horde czars-khans.

The cause of such an acute reaction is clear. After the collapse of the Great Russian-Horde Empire in Western Europe and some other former imperial provinces there formed a hostile and at the same time fearful attitude towards Russia. See the reasons for that above. The clearly surviving 'Russian footprint' in the Scaligerian history (surviving despite numerous attempts to 'cleanse' the documents) has been presently removed from scientific circles. The historians pretend that there is no 'Russian footprint' at all. But if somewhere such information still breaks through, they disregard it.

"Russia - the homeland of elephants"[edit | edit source]

Sometimes it is asked whether it is a coincidence that our reconstruction, according to which for a long time Russia was the metropoly of the Great Empire, appeared specifically in Russia. Could it simply be a consequence of the authors' unnecessarily patriotic view of ancient history? Is it possible they believe in a reconstruction created in Russia? If it was thought of in England, France or, even better, in America – then it would be a different matter. It goes without saying that in that case it should have been received with great respect, and they would have begun studying it immediately.

We will answer this. It is not surprising that the correct reconstruction of the epoch of the 'Mongol' Empire emerged specifically in its former metropoly. As it is in the metropoly that the memory of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. survived for longer than anywhere else. Here there more old books, documents and monuments, somewhat dilapidated remains of the old traditions. Here survive the traces of the view 'from the inside', from the centre of the Empire. However in the other countries, the former provinces of the Empire, only the traces of the view 'from the outside' remained. Also undoubtedly valuable, but insufficient on their own. That is why it is easier to create the true reconstruction in the former metropoly. It is not surprising that it appeared specifically in Russia. This does not prove that the authors of this book are biased or that our theory is invalid. And it is not a reason for dismissing it out of hand. In other words, if we are right, then it should have happened exactly this way: the reconstruction should have appeared specifically in Russia. That is what happened.

Another objection from the people who don't want to get to the heart of the matter, in short can be formulated like this. This contemptuous statement can be heard often. Again, they say, you have Russia as the homeland of the elephants. But ultimately it contains some manipulation. There are certainly no elephants in present day Russia. But the word 'Russia' radically changed its meaning over the past several hundred years. Sometime before the entire 'Mongol' Empire was called RUSSIA (RUS' or ROSSIA), i.e. RASSEYANIE (DISSIPATION – Russian). Where elephants were certainly not unusual. For example, India and Africa were a part of the Empire.

That is why, strictly speaking, Russia was indeed the homeland of the elephants. However odd it might sound today.

Such sardonic slogans were first heard in the epoch of the XVIII-XIX cc., when to a great extent the memory of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. was eliminated. The purpose of these contemptuous statements was to eradicate from the conscience of the Russian people the last memories, which were no longer supported by neither documents nor the Romanov history. These memories still existed, and in order to extinguish them they used ridicule.

The Russian history in its now recognisable form was first published by N.M.Karamzin. The 'History' by Prince M.Sherbatov, written slightly earlier, was fundamentally different. But it was not republished since the middle of the XIX century and today it has been ultimately withdrawn from circulation. Is it a coincidence that the 'History' by Karamzin saw the light only after the Moscow Tartary was crushed? I.e. following the victory over 'Pugachev'? Most likely, it is not. Only when it became clear that there was no going back, the composing of the final version of the 'correct Russian history' commenced.

The gunpowder and the cannons[edit | edit source]

As we understand it now, the gunpowder and the cannon were invented in Russia-Horde = Scythia = China in the XIV century. This added even more power to the Cossack = Israel troops. The Horde corps (the Biblical tribes) for a long time achieved an overwhelming advantage in the battle fields. The mortar guns, howitzer weapons, harquebuses, blunderbusses, muskets, hand cannons, etc. decimated the enemy and spread panic. The Russian field artillery batteries spread, together with the troops, all over Europe. That is why all the cannons of the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. across the Empire were Hordian. This being said the imperial masters could make them not just in the metropoly – in Russia-Horde, but also 'locally', i.e. in Western Europe, Asia, Africa, America, etc.

After the collapse of the Empire all of this Horde weaponry was seized by the rebels of the epoch of the Reformation and proudly (though erroneously) declared to be 'their own invention'. Thus, in particular, there emerged (on paper) the genius 'Western European Berthold Schwartz' – the phantom reflection of St.Sergii Radonezhsky (Bartholomew) [ShAKh]. Today in many museums of Eurasia there are exhibited the old firearms of the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. declaring the cannons to be 'locally-made' or 'of local invention'. Having forgotten that some time ago (though not that long ago) these cannons were a part of the Horde Cossack armies which were stationed all over Eurasia and America and under the control of the central command. We will repeat, that at the same time many imperial weapons were in fact manufactured 'on site', i.e. where the Cossack troops were stationed. In this sense they can be called the 'locally-made weaponry'.

Later on the information about the Horde cannons 'multiplied' under the quills of the chroniclers and were partially cast back into the remote past. These phantoms were called by the historians, for instance, 'the Greek fire'. In fact it was 'the Christian fire'. I.e. the weaponry created by the Apostolic Christians.

The first firearms were made from wood [KR]. This great invention by Sergii Radonezhsky was handed to Prince Dmitry Donskoy, i.e. the 'classic' emperor Constantine the Great, before the Battle of Kulikovo. In [ZA], ch.3 we cite a vivid description of a cannon by 'classic' Thucydides which today is considered by the historians some mysterious 'liquid fire', erupting from a wooden barrel (allegedly in the V century BC).

Best of all the historians like to discuss the mysterious 'ancient Greek fire', forgetting the true past of the XIV-XVI cc. The old chroniclers fascinated and daunted by the cannons by often missed the point (which in the beginning was strictly confidential). That is why the 'classical authors' coloured the reality with bright fantasies: fire breathing dragons, flying fiery snakes, etc. The modern historians do their best to interpret these 'visions' and give them some common sense, but are afraid to pronounce a word 'cannon', categorically banned by the Scaligerian chronology in regards to 'antiquity'.

With the collapse of the 'Mongol' Empire the Horde workshops were destroyed during the rebellion of the Reformation in its former provinces and the art of producing good quality cannons was lost for some time. Many Horde-Imperial weapons were destroyed during the rebellion. Europe was engulfed in the flames of the bloody feuds. The Horde = Israel artillery production was in ruins. All this led to the return of the wooden cannons in some areas. The weapons were also made in haste out of different kinds of materials, depending on what was available. The rebels fiercely shredded to pieces the legacy of the Horde Empire. Everyone desperately needed the cannons.

In the XVII century the Russian artillery pool was badly damaged. Very little is left. But even that which survives is impressive. We recommend visiting the interesting Museum of Artillery in St. Petersburg, where in particular the old Russian weaponry is exhibited.

To conclude, when analysing the history of firearms, it becomes clear that it is waste of some contemporary publication (like the fundamental and interesting book by U.Karman [336]) to tendentiously allocate just several patronizing paragraphs to the Russian artillery, giving the main attention to the Western-European armament. In fact the picture was the opposite. The centre of the cannon production was in Russia-Horde.

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

1. (1821) The HOROSCOPE in the 'ancient' Iranian Epos Shahnameh dating to the reign of Shah Kay-Khosrow, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. The horoscope has four solutions, but the following date fits the best: 17-19 April according to Julian calendar (Old style) 1821 [ShAKh], ch.5.

2. (1841) THE ZODIAC OF BRUGSCH, a horoscope 'without the staffs', BR2. It is depicted on the inside of the wooden coffin-lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. In fact: 6-7 October according to Julian calendar (Old Style calendar) 1841 [NKhE].

3. (1853) THE ZODIAC OF BRUGSCH, a horoscope 'in boats', BR3. It is depicted on the inside of the wooden coffin-lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. In fact: 15 February according to Julian calendar (Old Style) 1853 [NKhE]. 4. (1861) THE ZODIAC OF BRUGSCH, a horoscope of the demotic scriptures, BR1. It is depicted on the inside of the wooden coffin-lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'classical antiquity'. In fact: 18 November according to Gregorian calendar (New Style) 1861 or 17 November according to Gregorian calendar (New Style) 1682 [NKhE].

To conclude, we completed a brief overview of the reconstruction. Finally we would like to repeat an important thought which we began this book with and which lies in the basis of our research: 'THE TRUTH CAN BE COMPUTED'.