How It Really Was/Reconstruction of genuine history/13th century

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The mighty Trojan war as a revenge for Christ. Russia-horder launches crusades to Tsar-Grad, and within a short time the centre of the empire is transferred to Vladimir-Suzdal Russia[edit | edit source]

In 1185 on the Beykoz mountain near Yoros the Emperor Andronicus-Christ was crucified. The outraged provinces, led by the Russia-Horde, started a war the goal of which was vengeance and 'the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre', i.e. capture of Czar-Grad = Jerusalem, the Empire's capital. This was the Trojan War also reflected in various documents under the names of: the Tarquinian War in 'ancient' Rome (allegedly in the VI century BC), the Gothic War in Italy (allegedly of the VI century), the Nika revolt in Czar-Grad (allegedly of the VI century), etc. See [2v].

The Trojan War was one of the biggest events in the history of Europe and Asia. The war was described by Homer, Herodotus and other 'ancient' classical authors, as well as by the Mediaeval Dare, Dictys, etc. 'Ancient' Titus Livy describes it under the name of 'Tarquinian War. While Prokopi Caesarian uses the names 'War with the Goths' and 'the Nika revolt', for example.The same war is well known under the collective name of the Crusades of the XIII century, seizure of Czar-Grad in 1204, and then the fall of Czar-Grad in 1261. The Trojan War was essentially represented in a series of bloody battles. And as such it was described by 'ancient' Homer who lived in the epoch of the XV-XVI cc. Today in place of 'ancient' Czar-Grad = Troy there survive the ruins of the Yoros fortress on the Bosphorus, where the strait enters the Black Sea, 35 kilometres from Istanbul [\u0417\u0418]. Czar-Grad was captured in 1204 during the Crusade which today is erroneously called the Fourth. The city was ransacked and burnt by the Horde-Cossacks crusaders and their allies. They are the same 'ancient' Achaeans-Greeks described by Homer in 'The Iliad'. The Achaeans were led by 'ancient' Achilles, aka Russian-Horde prince Svyatoslav [\Uffffffff\u041e\u0420]. Those responsible for Andronicus-Christ's crucifixion were captured by the Hordians and were brutally executed. The fall of Czar-Grad was reflected in many chronicles as the fall of 'ancient' Troy allegedly in the XIII century BC; also as the seizure of the biblical Jerusalem by the Roman army allegedly in the I century; and as the seizure of 'most ancient' Babylon, etc. Modern history attaches a great importance to the Crusades. In our reconstruction their role will grow in significance. The Trojan War of the XIII century was the FIRST WORLD WAR OF THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES. Its outcome predetermined several centuries of the course of world history.

The crusades advanced on to Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad not from the west, as we are being told today, but from the east[edit | edit source]

In [\u0426\u0420\u0421] we quote the Church-Slavonic book 'The Passion of the Christ'. As it happens, according to church tradition in order to capture Jerusalem the armies marched not from the WEST, but from the EAST. In other words, from Russia-Horde. Also the fact, that the great = Mongolian' conquest started shortly after, supports this view. The Scaligerian history later began to claim that The Crusades allegedly advanced to the Holy Land from the West. This is just another distortion of the true history and geography. In [v1] and [v2] there are given many examples when the ancient maps were turned upside down, i.e. North was drawn in the bottom and South - on the top. Consequently East and West were changed places. It is quite possible that on account of this confusion Eastern crusades 'turned into' Western ones and vice versa.

Helen of Troy and Mary Mother of God[edit | edit source]

Everyone knows the legend of Helen of Troy, wife of Menelaus. She is one of the main characters in the Trojan War. Between the three 'ancient' goddesses a dispute breaks out - which of them is most beautiful. Each of them praises herself [851], p.71. This seemingly innocent dispute gives rise to the vicious Trojan War. The chronicles tell us that in the forest of Mount Ida (the forest of Judaean mountains?) the famous Judgement of Paris took place. Paris, a son of a Trojan King, judges the contest of 'beauty' between three goddesses presenting a prize of an 'golden apple' to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, who promised him the hand in marriage of the world's most beautiful woman Helen of Sparta [851], p.93. A war breaks out. We would like to point out that the Bible often identifies 'wives' with different types of RELIGIONS [544], v.1. It is possible that the legend of the Judgement of Paris describes a dispute between several religions, which were nominally called 'women-goddesses'. The Trojans chose a Bacchic 'ancient' religion. From three wives-religions they chose the religion of love, Aphrodite.

So here 'ancient' Paris is possibly medieval Paris (Paris, francs, France) and choses for himself the most 'pleasant' goddess-religion Aphrodite. It's worth remembering the erotic cult of the Western European Bacchic Christianity, which blossomed particularly in France in the XII-XV cc. This adoration of the 'Christian Aphrodite' was depictured in various erotic sculptures and drawings which adorned Christian French temples [2v1], ch.1. Something similar to the "religious choice' of Paris is also known to us from the history of the Ancient Russia. Prince Vladimir who baptised Russia also listened to the representatives of several religions and chose Orthodox Christianity to be the state religion of Russia. Was this choice of Vladimir not reflected in the 'ancient myth' of the choice of Paris, in other words "Prus" (which means P-russian) ? Possibly it's not a coincidence that it concerns Aphrodite, whose unvowelled name FRDT or TRDT could have originated from the word Tartars, Tartar. The following famous storylines are the phantom-duplicates.

  1. "Ancient' Greek Paris and Helen or Venus.
  2. Biblical Adam and Eve (and the sly serpent).
  3. 'Ancient' Perseus and Andromeda (and the sly serpent /sea monster).
  4. 'Ancient' Jason and Medea (and the sly serpent (sleepless dragon)
  5. Medieval St. George and the Princess (and the serpent/dragon of the sea).

At the same time, the Trojan War and all its duplicates (Tarquinian War, Gothic War\u2026) are described as the 'wars to avenge the dishonouring of a woman' [2v]. But is it possible, that because of a woman, even one as distinguished and beautiful as this, that such a vicious war could break out? Here quite naturally occurs a thought which puts many things in their place. As there existed a medieval tradition to nominally call different religions 'wives', i.e. women, then the cause of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic war could have been a RELIGIOUS DISPUTE: whose religion or 'wife', was better. The grounds to war was the offence to a religion or 'wife'. There survive sculptural depictions of Religion in the form of a woman, and also Christian Faith is represented in the female form [2v1], ch.5. Our reconstruction corresponds well to the essence of the Crusades, which primarily and officially, were RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED ACTIONS TO AVENGE THE OFFENCE GIVEN TO THE RELIGION. In other words revenge for insulting the Mother of God for the execution of her Son Jesus Christ. Then the Trojan myth acquires a natural explanation it tells us about an important religious Cross bearing war. So, the central narrative of the Trojan War is a legend about the offence given to some distinguished woman, which resulted in either a war, or a state coup. The Trojan version tells us about the abduction of the Greek Helen of Sparta, the Tarquinian version of Titus Livy about the rape of the Roman Lucretia, the Gothic version about the murder of the Gothic queen Amalasunta. An equivalent story we find in the description of events allegedly of the VI century B.C. told by 'ancient' Herodotus. King Candaules, tyrant of Sardes, 'argues' with Gyges claiming that his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. A conflict erupts.

On account of Herodotus' [163] famous 'Story' we say the following: this work, as the works by other 'ancient' authors, is by no means a falsification. Herodotus describes the real events of the XII-XVI cc. He himself lived in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. Then the later chroniclers erroneously cast him and his writing many centuries back. However, Herodotus' writing was 'carefully edited' according to the recently introduced Scaligerian history. The same was done with the other 'classics'.

The Trojan Horse[edit | edit source]

A famous legend about The Trojan Horse is associated with the Trojan War. For the seizure of Troy the Greeks used 'something resembling a grey horse' [851], p.76. Different chronicles describe the 'horse' in different ways. For example: 'The magi proclaimed that it is impossible to seize Troy in a battle, but to conquer it only with subterfuge. So the Greeks constructed a wooden horse (?Author) of UNPRECEDENTED SIZE and hid brave warriors in its womb\u2026 The Trojans decided to 'DRAG THE HORSE INTO THE CITY (?-Author). Having dragged the horse in, they indulged in a joyous feast\u2026 and then fell asleep\u2026 Meanwhile the warriors, hidden inside the horse, quietly crept out and set fire to the Trojans' houses\u2026 Countless myriads of Greek forces flooded through the gates which had been open by their comrades who were already inside Troy\u2026. Thus fell strong-towered Troy. [851], p.76.' So:

1) For the seizure of Troy the Greeks used a GREY LIKENESS OF A HORSE. 2) The gigantic size of this 'horse likeness' is mentioned. 3) Inside a few hundred soldiers could have been placed. 4) The 'horse' stands on enormous legs, on wheels and it's been wheeled. 5) According to some chroniclers the 'horse' is wooden; the others think it was made of brass. Alternatively it was made of glass, wax, etc. [2v]. There is clearly an obvious variety of opinions here. 6) The 'horse' somehow 'entered the city'.

The chroniclers of the Gothic war, allegedly of the VI century, make no mention of a horse. They inform us about the following: during the military assault of the New City (Naples, duplicate of New Rome = Czar-Grad) the general Belisarius used a cunning strategy indeed [196], v.1. Naples' thick walls were penetrated from outside by an old half destroyed AQUEDUCT, i.e. an enormous stone pipe. At some point the aqueduct delivered water to Naples. An opening of the mouth of this water-pipe was sealed off with a stone plug at the walls' level. The aqueduct was inactive for a long time [196], v.1.

A Greek-Romans squadron of several hundred soldiers secretly infiltrates the enormous pipe from outside of the city. Having walked through it up to the wall the Greeks unseal the plug and make their way at night into the New City = Naples. Early the next morning the Greeks emerge from the aqueduct, signal to the main body of the troops outside and open the gates from the inside. Belisarius' troops burst into Naples. A massacre ensues. Half-sleeping defenders don't have enough time to even reach for their weapons. This is how Naples = the New City falls. It is possible that the half-destroyed aqueduct 'entering' Czar-Grad was poetically perceived as a 'huge animal'. The famous Trojan Horse is a poetic image of an enormous construction of stone aqueduct-water pipe, successfully used by the Greeks for the seizure of the New City.

Besides, in Latin the word 'horse', 'mare' is spelled EQUA (equae). And the word 'water' is spelled AQUA (aquae) [2v1], ch.5. In other words WATER and HORSE are spelled practically the same! That is why, WATER-PIPE AQUEDUCT (aquae-duct = channelling water, aquae-ductio) could have turned into HORSE by the later authors who could have mixed up one vowel. That could have become the birth of a bouquet of legends of an 'enormous likeness of a GREY horse'. Its grey colour could have been explained by the colour of an aqueduct covered in dust.

Or it could be that the question at hand concerned a portable siege tower on wheels covered with wet skins to render it inflammable from the fire missiles launched by the besieged. Such medieval wooden towers were indeed mounted on wheels and pushed towards the walls of the town under the siege. It is for a reason the horse was often depicted standing on wheels and was referred to as wooden. It was called a 'horse' because the tower was moving. It is quite possible that such a siege construction was first used in the XIII century and contributed to whole host of legends about the Trojan Horse [\Uffffffff\u041e\u0420] ch.1.

Schliemann's false Troy[edit | edit source]

Here it is relevant to mention the ruins of a poor medieval fortification (approximately 120 by 120 metres) on the mound at Hissarlik in Turkey, which Heinrich Schliemann mistakenly declared to be the 'remains of Homeric Troy'. The truth is that 'having lost' 'ancient Greece' in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. the historians started to look for it all over again [2v1], ch.5. Why did they start searching for 'Homeric Troy' in that exact area? The matter is, as it seems, that there still remains a vague memory of Troy situated somewhere 'near the Bosphorus'. But the historians of the XVIII century could no longer point New Rome out directly in Bosphorus, i.e. Czar-Grad, as it was safely forgotten that Czar-Grad was exactly 'ancient' Troy. In fact the Scaligerian history as early as in the XVII century altogether 'forbade' even thinking of Czar-Grad as 'Homeric Troy'. However there remained all kinds of medieval records which have luckily escaped destruction, and persistently suggested that 'ancient' Troy is situated 'somewhere near the Bosphorus'. That is why the historians and enthusiasts started searching for the 'lost Troy' near Istanbul.

Turkey is awash with ruins of medieval settlements, military fortifications, etc. It was not difficult to 'pick out appropriate ruins'. The ruins on the mound at Hissarlik were also considered as one of the possible candidates. But both historians and archaeologists alike understood very well that it was necessary to dig up some kind of 'proof' that it was indeed 'Homeric Troy'. This task was 'successfully fulfilled' by H.Schliemann. He started excavation on the mound at Hissarlik. The ruins that were unearthed showed that there indeed used to be some kind of settlement [2v1], ch.5:11. There was nothing "Homeric' of any kind here of course. Such ruins in Turkey can be seen at every step of the way. It is most likely that here used to be a small Ottoman fortification. Presumably, Mr.Schliemann understood that something outstanding was required to draw the public's attention towards these scant remains. So in May 1873 he 'unexpectedly finds' a cache of gold, which he immediately publicly declares to be 'Priam's ancient treasure. Purportedly 'the very same' Homer speaks of.

  1. However, Schliemann did not specify the place, the date and the circumstances of the 'discovery of Priam's treasure', bringing a peculiar ambiguity into this matter. Schliemann never presented any conclusive, proof of his discovery of 'Homeric Troy'.
  2. There are grounds to suspect that Schliemann simply ordered Parisian jewellers to fabricate 'ancient golden jewellery'. Schliemann was an extremely wealthy man.
  3. It is quite possible that after that Schliemann secretly brought the jewels to Turkey and announced that he 'found' them in the ruins in the mound at Hissarlik. In other words, exactly in the place where a

little earlier some enthusiasts 'had located ancient Troy'. Schliemann didn't even trouble himself with searching for Troy. Backed up by his gold he simply 'substantiate' a hypothesis previously put forward by Choiseul-Gouffier and Frank Calvert.

  1. Many skeptics as early as in the XIX century didn't believe a word he was saying. But the Scaligerian historians remained satisfied overall. At last, they said in discordant chorus, we have found legendary Troy.
  2. The historians decided to deal with 'Priam's treasure' the following way: to affirm that it was indeed the treasures of Homeric Priam would have been careless. As a retort the sceptics immediately asked: 'But,

how do they know?' They had no answer. Everyone concerned with 'Schliemann's Troy' understood that very well. On reflection, they found an elegant way out. They said this, without any proof: True, it is not Priam's treasure. But it is much more ancient than Schliemann himself had previously thought.

  1. But what if Schliemann didn't deceive us and in fact did find at Hissarlik some ancient golden jewels? It still remains completely unclear why this treasure should be considered proof of 'ancient Troy' and be

situated exactly in this spot? As the golden objects 'found' by Schliemann do not bare ANY LETTERS OR SYMBOLLS [2v1], ch.5:11.

  1. After some time when the sceptics got tired of pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in the 'discovery of Troy', eventually an 'orderly scientific stage' began. Serious scientific journals 'about Troy' started to appear and were regularly published. Numerous articles and dissertations sprang up. However nothing from 'Homeric Troy' on the mound at Hissarlik was ever found to this day of course.

Exodus of Trojans from Troy = Tsar-Grad[edit | edit source]

FemaDistricts.jpg

With the fall of Jerusalem = Troy and downfall of the Romaic Empire, the exodus-flight of various groups of people from the capital began. The diagram of Romaic femas are nominally shown in fig.3. In hot pursuit of the fugitives follow the avenging Horde-Crusaders seizing and colonizing new territories. They settle in different countries of Europe and Asia. This picture is well-known from the Scaligerian 'ancient' history of 'transmigration of peoples'. The fugitives from Romea are called Trojans, i.e. descendants from Troy = Czar-Grad. They were also confused with the Argonauts (i.e. cossacks-Hordians), who, according to the 'ancient' Greek myths, after the Trojan War embark on a voyage, seizing and colonizing various lands.

The establishment of Russia as the centre of a new empire, successor of the previous one[edit | edit source]

As a result of the decline of the old regime and the capture of Czar-Grad by the Horde-Crusaders in 1204, Russia-Horde, which used to be one of the provinces of the Romaic Empire, comes to the fore. It takes an active part in the Trojan War.

After the collapse of Romea the representatives of the Royal dynasty flee to the provinces. Some of them didn't want to accept the loss of supreme power and began their battle for world domination. According to the Romaic kings' beliefs, which were based on firmly rooted religious principles, the right to possess the world belonged to their Royal family. And not only the lands already known, but also all of those yet to be discovered. This right they regarded as the sacred ancient legacy belonging to them, which under some temporary circumstances happened to be unlawfully taken away from them. Therefore it was imperative to retrieve it.

As a consequence there appeared several states which considered themselves the legal successors of Romea. For example, Empire of Nicaea. Ancient Nicaea is the modern town of Iznik in Turkey. Other kingdoms also appeared. One of them was Vladimir and Suzdal Russia with its capital Rostov Velikii (Rostov the Great), and later in Yaroslavl = Novgorod. Here arrived the Trojan king Aeneas, whose ancestors, as it happens, originally came from Russia. In the Russian chronicles king Aeneas reflected as the famous 'variag' ('Varangian') Ryurik. He unites isolated Russian dominions into a united kingdom [\Uffffffff\u041e\u0420] Thus the first czars of Vladimir and Suzdal (at first Rostov and Novgord ones) were the heirs of the Romaic dynasty driven out of Czar-Grad in the beginning of the XIII century. They began their fight to restore the Empire. Aeneas-Ryurik succeeded in creating a powerful multinational state, which initially included encompassed the Volga Region and North Black Sea Region. Ample manpower, horse and economic resources proved to be sufficient to achieve the world dominance by military means. In the XIV century Ivan Daniilovich Kalita started the Western campaign, i.e. 'Mongolian' = great conquest. It is possible that the name 'Kalita' is one of forms of a famous title of Calif or Khalif.

Unification of Slavic and Turk peoples under the Horder rule[edit | edit source]

HistoryOfMainEmpires.jpg

Hereafter turbulent political and military events take place. The 'Mongol' invasion from Vladimir and Suzdal Russia begins. The success of the occupation-colonization was based on the unification of numerous peoples on the territory of Russia-Horde into one sole state under the military, i.e. Horde rule. In the late XIII early XIV cc. For more than three centuries Russia-Horde establishes its domination over the West, Eurasia, Africa and eventually its complete world domination including, across the ocean, America. The czars of Russia-Horde, who were also called Khans, Khagans, Grand Princes of all Russia, by virtue of dynastic reasons considered themselves the sole rightful heirs of the Romaic Empire, ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF SUCCESSION TO OWN POSSESSION THE ENTIRE WORLD. From the surviving odd bits of information we can see that they regarded all the other rulers not yet subjected, as unlawful, temporary usurpers of various territories of the world which belonged to them. THE OPENLY DECLARED AIM, THE MILITARY DOCTRINE OF THE RUSSIAN-HORDE CZARS-KHANS WAS THE SUBJUGATION OF THE ENTIRE WORLD BY MILITARY FORCE. In other words, the retrieval of the ancient legacy. See the diagram of the history of the main empires - The Czar-Grad Empire and the Russian-Horde Empire on picture.

Thus after the fall of Troy = Czar-Grad one of the representatives of the Romaic dynasty 'antic' king Aeneas-John, the disciple and comrade of Andronicus-Christ, one of his apostles, leaves the destroyed Czar-Grad = Jerusalem and heads with his companions to Russia. His royal ancestors originally came from Russia. This journey was described in particular by 'ancient' Virgil in his famous epic poem 'The Aeneid'. Having arrived to Russia king Aeneas-John finds here a powerful and rich wealthy kingdom which however is split into principalities ruled by rival princes-khans. Being the descendant of the esteemed Russian people, Aeneas-John takes power in his own hands and establishes a new dynasty in Russia. He unites the Russian lands under one rule. This most important event reflected in our chronicles as 'invitation of variag Ryurik', and the foundation of Veliky Novgorod (Great Novgorod) allegedly in the IX century. It concerned turning the city of Yaroslavl on the river Volga into a capital. In the Latin literature these events were reflected in 'Books since the city's founding' ('Ab urbe condita libri') by Titus Livy as the founding of the city of Rome and the state with the same name in the land of Latinia=Ruthenia by Romulus and Remus (the descendants of Aeneas = Ryurik). Thus famous Royal Rome appeared in the interfluve of Oka and Volga rivers (the land between the meeting point of these two rivers) in the XIII century [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c]

By the end of the XIII century a strong czarist reign arises based on the vast natural wealth and resources of the country, and also on the strong and large army - Horde, the backbone of which was made up of the horse cavalry Cossaks. The word HORDE is, probably, a variation of a modified Russian word RAT', meaning army. The 'ancient' and Medieval word RUTHENIA, which Rus' (Russia) was called, meant RATNAYA - MILITARY country. Some sources call RUTHENIA LATINIA by way of confusing letters 'R and 'L'. The name LATINIA could have also originated from a Russian word 'LYUDNAYA' meaning 'POPULOUS' (country). The advantageous strategic location of Russia played a significant role. Thus in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia there emerged the metropolis of a new Empire, heiress to the Romaic Empire. We call it Russia-Horde or Great = 'Mongolian' Empire.

What did this word 'MONGOLIA' mean? It probably originated from a Russian word 'MNOGO' meaning MANY, many (people), MULTItudinous army, and also from the Russian words MOSH' meaning STRENGTH, MOG meaning CAN, CAPABLE or ABLE, MOGUSHESTVO meaning MIGHT or POWER (hence Magog), MNOGO meaning MANY. N.M.Karamzin and various other authors thought that MONGOLIA is simply a Greek word MEGALION, i.e. GREAT. But the word MEGALION itself most probably also originated from the Slavonic word MOG (i.e. CAN), MNOGO (i.e. MANY). In [4v1], Introduction, we cite the photographs of old mosaics in the Chora Church in Istanbul. Here the word MONGOLIA is spelled as MUGULION, i.e. virtually the same as MEGALION. Until now East Russia is called Veliko-Rossia, i.e. Velikorossia meaning Great Russia. So the "Mongolian' Empire is the Great Empire. In the Russian sources the word Mongolia or Mogolia does not occur. On the other hand the GREAT Russia does come up. The foreigners would call Russia Mongolia. This name is an equivalent of the Russian word VELIKII meaning GREAT.

Russia-Horde becomes a powerful empire[edit | edit source]

At the end of the XIII the beginning of the XIV cc. the great Slavic conquest of the world begins. The historians call it 'Mongolian' and date it in the XIII century, a hundred years earlier. The conquest originates in Russia and is carried out by the Russian czars-khans, direct descendants of king Aeneas. Aeneas was a relative and a follower of the czar Andronicus-Christ (Andrey Bogolyubskiy). In the Gospels Aeneas-Ryurik is presented as John, Christ's favourite disciple, whom he chose as a son to Mary Mother of God in his place: 'Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "Woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.' (John 25:25-27). According to the biblical legend this disciple's name was John. We will note that Aeneas and John is intrinsically the same name.

Let us look at the matter of Russia-Horde rise in more detail. As we said earlier, after the victory in the Trojan War the leaders of the Crusaders entered the struggle amongst themselves for power. Aeneas-John, who didn't take part in the Crusade of 1204 and fought on the losers' side (although he was a Christian), could not stay in conquered Czar-Grad. He fled to Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, which was, most likely, the motherland of Mary Mother of God, who at the wish of Christ himself became the adoptive mother to Aeneas-John. Hence the 'ancient' legend that Aeneas' mother was the GODDESS Venus. The capital of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia at the time was Galitch Kostromskoi. Neither Vladimir, nor Suzdal, or any other ancient Russian cities were yet to be built.

Aeneas-Ryurik establishes a new Royal dynasty and builds a new fortified capital Yaroslavl on the Volga, described in the chronicles as Novgorod Veliky (Novgorod the Great). To be more precise, the city of Yaroslavl was a famous YAROSLAVOVO DVORISHE (YAROSLAV'S COURT) OF VELIKY NOVGOROD. Veliky Novgorod was the name used in its broadest sense for the entire Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. Present day Novgorod on the Volkhov River was cunningly given this famous name much later, in the course of the distortion of the Russian history at the time of the first Romanovs. It bears no relation to the Veliky Novgorod of the Chronicles [4v].

Rostov Veliky (Rostov the Great) became the royal headquarters of Aeneas-Ryurik. This place was not chosen coincidentally. Rostov Veliky was situated in a place hard to access upstream of the river Kotorosl, the turn into which from the Volga was protected by the fortifications of Yaroslavl.

The descendants of Ryurik-Aeneas correctly evaluated the advantages of Russia compared to the old imperial centres in the Mediterranean. In the XIII century they carried out the most important reforms in Russia which turned it into a world power and prepared it for the great Slavic conquest of the world in the XIV century. The reforms were as follows.

1) In the XIII-XIV cc. Ryurik-Aeneas and his successors introduce in Russia 'slash and burn' agriculture, based on the cutting down ('slash') or burning down the forests followed by turning them into the agricultural land. Such methods allowed MASS HARVEST WITHOUT FERTILIZATION for the first several decades. This caused an explosive increase in the population of Russia in the XII-XIV cc, which in its turn allowed the new state to have the advantage in military confrontations. To clarify. It is well-known that in Russia prior to the XV century 'the original and predominant agricultural system was slash and burn. To break new ground, plot, parch and INCINERATE THE FORESTS was largely customary in Russia as early as in the XIV and XV cc'. [988:00], article - 'Agriculture'. Such a method could not last indefinitely, as it was based on the VAST DEFORESTATION AND IRRETRIEVABLE EXPLOITATION OF THE BENIGN LAYER OF SOIL ACCUMULATED OVER CENTURIES. When the forests began to run out, and the soil in their place started to run dry this method ceased to be effective...

We know that the first agricultural tools in Russia were designed particularly for the 'slash and burn' farming on the site of the burned out forests. 'In Russia such tools were soha (Russian plough) and borona (harrow made of chipping of the tree trunks with the branches 35 to 50 cm long) - two kinds of tools adapted to the stony fields and adapted to the Northern region of Russia, to the REGION OF SLASH AND BURN FARMING' [988:00], article - 'Agricultural equipment and machinery'. It was for a reason that in Ancient Russia there were so called OGNISHANYE, i.e. the proponents of the 'slash and burn' farming, WHO BURNT THE FORESTS DOWN AND PLOUGHED UP THE BURNT SITES (OGNISHA) WHICH EMERGED IN THEIR PLACE [988:00], article - 'Ognishanye'. Only in the XV century, approximately 200 years after the burning of the forests started, they began to think, for the first time, about the necessity of LETTING THE LAND REST. 'The three-field system WAS ALMOST NON EXISTENT BEFORE THE XV CENTURY, the first allusion to it occurs in one judicial scroll of 1503.

It became significantly widespread by the middle of the XVI century [988:00], article - 'Agriculture'. Thus the necessity of the multiple field system (when a part of the land was left fallow) appears in Russia only in the XV century and becomes ubiquitous in the XVI century. The initial stage, which consisted of TOTAL DEFORESTATION AND CONVERSION INTO PLOUHGLAND, had to be swift, as while huge harvests were gathered the population grew fast, spread out in all directions and consumed more and more forests. It is known that the speed of such processes is exponential, i.e. alike to an explosion. That is why it cannot be sustained. The time, spent on burning the forests out in Central Russia and then turning them from the solid wild forest into an agricultural country with vast fields and meadows, amounted to approximately 200 years. Tentatively speaking, from the mid of the XIII to the mid of the XV cc.

The ability of gathering large harvests from the vast spaces WITHOUT CARING TO FERTILISE OR WATER THE FIELDS (in contrast to many Southern regions, in Central Russia the fields are watered by the rain, with no human intervention), which gave the new state a huge advantage over its enemies. It was possible to raise a strong and healthy population. All of which made it possible to create a huge army - Horde, and what's more important, allowed them to constantly nourish it. Such a 'slow start' at the beginning of Horde Russia took around a hundred years: from the beginning to the end of the XIII century.

2) The Russian Horde was an army of a completely new fashion. Unlike all the previous armies Horde was predominantly HORSE CAVALRY. Most likely the horses were tamed by humans and for the first time were used by the military in the XII century, as early as in the times of the Romaic Empire. Originally the horse cavalry didn't exist. Only noble and wealthy people could afford a war horse. A horse was considered to be a precious commodity. The great majority of the ordinary soldiers were foot soldiers. In order to supply an ordinary soldier with a horse it was necessary to have many herds of horses. For that you would need vast steps, where these herds could graze. There are no steps like that in the Mediterranean. In Russia they do exist. It was the Southern-Russian steps between the Volga and Don rivers which served as a basis for the creation of an enormous army of a completely new kind horse Horde in the XIII-XIV cc, where each warrior-Cossack would have not one, but several horses, which would allow the Horde to accomplish long-distance marches over the endless vast lands of Eurasia. Moreover it allowed them to move quite fast. As the horses needed pasture, the army was nomadic out of necessity. It would constantly move from place to place. Before the creation of the horse Horde in the ancient Romaic Empire the mode of travel was predominantly aquatic. That is why the expansion of Romea on the X-XII cc. was carried out mainly by water. In the first place the shores of the Mediterranean and Black seas were dominated. Later the banks of the big rivers running into these seas: rivers Danube, Dnieper and Don. From the Don River they would haul over to Volga river and end up in Russia, and also in the Caspian Sea and Iran. Thus the ancient Mediterranean community and the Romaic culture appeared. At its heart were the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. All the capitals were here in the Mediterranean. At first in the lower reaches of the Nile in African Egypt. Later the capital moved closer to the Black Sea, to the Bosphorus, to Czar-Grad. Without the sufficient means of transportation on land the ancient Romaic Empire could not develop the inland territories of Eurasia. The vast spaces of the continent distant form the waterways remained inaccessible and unexplored. Only with the advent of the Russian Horde in the XIII-XIV cc., they began to be gradually explored. Unlike ancient Romea, The Russian-Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. became mainly a land state with ground communications. Naturally, the aquatic means of transportation were also used, but overall the Empire was expanding along the land routs which it created itself.

3) In the XIII-XIV cc. in Russia for that time unprecedented PRODUCTION OF IRON AND IRON WEAPONRY was up and running. Iron ore can also be found in the South, not exclusively in Central Russia. However smelting of iron requires a lot of fuel. In those times only firewood and charcoal were used for fuel. Black coal and oil (petroleum) were yet to be discovered. That is why Central Russia had an important advantage over the South. There were forests and consequently firewood and charcoal in greater quantity than in the Mediterranean. Let alone that exactly at that time in Russia the TOTAL BURNING OUT OF FORESTS was taking place, please see above. This as a matter of fact was providing an unlimited amount of charcoal, which most likely, allowed Russia-Horde to quickly take the lead in the field of iron smelting and the manufacture of the iron weapons. The Russian czars-khans were able to equip the Horde with iron weapons, which in the Mediterranean were quite expensive and unaffordable to many. This also gave a huge advantage to the Russian Horde over its enemies.

4) Ryurik-Aeneas and his successors, the Russian czars-khans, skillfully used the GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF VLADIMIR-SUZDAL RUSSIA, I.E. IN BETWEEN THE RIVERS OKA AND VOLGA, as an enormous natural fortification. From the North, West and East it was parted off by the swamps and harsh woods. Besides from the West the wide Oka River served as a natural barrier. There was one other significant factor. At that time there was a big difference between the rout from Russia to the Mediterranean and the way back from the Mediterranean to Russia. They were not completely the same. The route from Vladimir-Suzdal Russia to the Mediterranean ran alongside the Volga River, then they went by traction (carried or pulled the boats over ground) onto the Don River, and then along the Don River to the Azov and Black Seas. This was the ancient and the only direct route from Russia to Czar-Grad and back. This is the route well-known from the historical sources. There was also a different route to Vladimir-Suzdal Russia up the river Dnieper and then East by land. But prior to the Russian forest clearing it was not suitable for the troops to march through, as they couldn't move through the virgin forests.

The Russian czars-khans quickly understood the GREAT ADVANTAGE OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION OF VLADIMIR-SUZDAL RUSSIA IN ANY MILITARY CONFRONTATION WITH THE SOUTH. Please see the map. If a Russian army set out on the march to the South it would move along the Volga and Don rivers DOWNSTREAM. By doing so the warriors could conserve their energy and increase their speed of movement. Having reached their destination quickly, the soldiers would enter the battle and in the case of victory and destruction of the enemy, they could comfortably in the leisurely manner return back home, now moving upstream. Quite the opposite with the enemies' army, who, if marching from the Mediterranean towards Russia, FROM THE VERY START WOULD HAVE TO MOVE UPSTREAM ALONG THE DON AND VOLGA RIVERS AGAINST THE CURRENT, which dramatically decreased their speed and allowed the Russian troops time to prepare.

It is not surprising that from the chronicles we know of MULTIPLE CRUSADES BY THE RUSSIAN PRINCES IN CZAR-GRAD, MANY OF WHICH WERE SUCCESSFUL, BUT WE DON'T KNOW ANY OPPOSITE EXAMPLES - A MILITARY CAMPAIGN FROM CZAR-GRAD TO RUSSIA WHICH ACHIEVED ITS AIM.

5) Ryurik-Aeneas and his successors established in Russia an order aimed at world domination. The state was divided into two parts - civil and military. A social class of Cossacks was created, who were picked for military service in their childhood. They were never to return home. Those Cossacks who lived to a certain age would either retire to the monastery or, if they managed to serve until achieving a high enough rank, would leave the Horde to become civil dukes. Prior to the XVII century the Cossacks didn't engage in farming, it was strictly forbidden to them. They were fed by the rural peasant population who were paying taxes. The peasants also provided manpower to resupply the Horde: the children of the peasants were drafted into the army as Cossacks. The Cossacks themselves at that time neither married, nor raised children. They knew only how to fight. They did not do anything else. But they fought very well. Only eventually, after the collapse of the Great Russian Empire in the XVII century the Cossacks were left to their own devices and were forced to begin to independently cultivate farm land, set up a household, marry and raise children. Only then the Cossack states started to emerge, and the Cossacks started turning into a self-reproducing independent social class distinct from the peasant one. But all this would take place in the XVII century, much later than the events we are describing here.

In the latter chronicles, written in Western Europe after the great Slavic conquest, the creation by Ryurik-Aeneas and his descendants in the XIII-XIV cc. of the Old Russian State RUSSIA-HORDE, was called THE CREATION OF ANCIENT ROME BY THE DESCENDANTS OF AENEAS ROMULUS AND REMUS, and was incorrectly dated to many hundreds of years B.C. In the Middle Ages the epic poems by Virgil and, in particular, The Aeneid, were considered as CHRISTIAN WRITING. It is all correct. Virgil most likely was creating his work in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. and described the events which took place after the crucifixion of Christ in 1185. However the commentators prefer to talk about Virgil's Christianity as a 'Christian-allegorical interpretation', purporting that Virgil himself was certainly not a Christian, but he is interpreted in 'that way'. It is clear why they keep repeating it. The reason is that the Scaligerian chronology erroneously referred Virgil and his work to the I century B.C., i.e. allegedly before the birth of Christ. It resulted in the artificial contradiction, which has been tirelessly researched, by several generations of historians since the XVIII century.

Everyone is familiar with a legend of the foundation of Rome by the descendants of Aeneas - Romulus and Remus. As we now understand this means the rise of Russia-Horde in the end of the XIII the beginning of the XIV cc and the emergence of the 'Mongolian' Empire. The famous she-wolf who suckled Romulus and Remus, is a partial and symbolic reflection of the Russian river Volga which 'raised' the brothers Ivan and Georgiy Danilovichi, the founders of the Great Empire. At the same time the image of the Roman she-wolf is also a partial reflection of Mary Mother of God who raised baby Jesus next to whom on the icons is often depicted baby John the Baptist [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c]

Two brothers who found Rome are Georgiy and Ivan Danilovichi. Georgiy Danilovich is also known as Genghis Khan and Ivan Danilovich as Batu-Khan. Genghis Khan is also known as Georgiy the Victory-bearer (The Conqueror) and Ryurik. It turns out that Georgiy and Ivan, i.e. Romulus and Remus, were the descendants of the Royal dynasty which emerged on the shores of Volga River after the fall of Troy and who moved the metropolis of the Empire to Russia-Horde. We would like to repeat that Aeneas journey to Russia was not accidental. His royal ancestors originated in Russia DARDAN, i.e. Horde-Don; then JASIUS (or IASIUS) i.e.Jesus Christ; and ASSARACUS, i.e. Russian.

Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ = 'ancient' Romulus, described by Livy as Larentia, a woman by the name of 'She-Wolf'[edit | edit source]

The infants Romulus (partially Christ) and Remus (partially John the Baptist) having happily escaped death, despite the order of the 'evil king', live alone, secluded from the rest of the world, suckled by the she-wolf. Sometime later a certain shepherd finds and rescues Romulus and Remus. Titus Livy communicates the opinion of the ancient authors that 'THE SHE-WOLF WAS IN FACT A WOMAN'. A shepherd 'brought the children home and LET HIS WIFE LARENTIA RAISE THEM UP. Others think that Larentia was called a 'SHE-WOLF' amongst the shepherds.[483], v.1, p.13. A historian Sextus Aurelius Victor says that the twins were given to 'a woman Acca Larentia, and this WOMAN was called SHE-WOLF for selling her body\u2026 Thus are called the women who sell themselves for profit, that is why a place where they live is called LUPANAR' [726:1], p.176.

Baby Jesus, aka Romulus, was but of course suckled not by a she-wolf, but a woman Mary, his mother. Only the later authors began to be confused in the description of the biblical events. Why was the story of a she-Wolf, suckling the infants Romulus and Remus, so popular? The she-Wolf with two infants even became in a sense a symbol of 'ancient' Rome. I the book [\Uffffffff\u041e\u0420] we have analysed a famous 'ancient' story- king Aeneas carries out on his back his father Anchises, holding a relic, and leads his son Ascanius by the hand from burning Troy. His wife Creusa is walking by Aeneas' side. In fact this is a vague reflection of the biblical flight into Egypt of Joseph with his wife Mary and the Baby Jesus. Notably Jesus and Mary were traveling on donkey's back. It appears that later writers called Mary Mother of God Anchises. A man Joseph was recast as a woman Creusa. The biblical donkey was renamed Aeneas. At that the total number of characters was left unchanged. There were four of them originally, and four of them remained. But the writers mistakenly mixed up their names.

The 'most ancient' Roman story of the Capitoline Wolf (i.e. a woman called Larentia), her husband and two babies (Romulus and Remus) is another distorted version of the same biblical story of the flight into Egypt of Joseph with Mary and Jesus travelling on donkey's back. Except that the biblical donkey was transferred under Titus Livy's pen into the Roman SHE-WOLF. The later 'ancient' authors heatedly discussed the reason A WOMAN Larentia, i.e. Virgin Mary, as we understand now, was called A SHE-WOLF. They purported that in Latin LUPA means a she-wolf, and in common parlance it also meant 'a whore' [483], v.1, p.507, meaning a woman who according to Titus Livy 'gave herself to anyone' [483], v.1, p.13. However, it is possible that the Latin LUPA originated from the Slavonic LEPO, LEPYI, LYUBO, meaning BEAUTIFUL. Then everything becomes clear. The Virgin Mary was called BEAUTIFUL, i.e. LEPAYA, LEPO. Later, when the core of this matter was forgotten, the 'ancient' authors of the XVI-XVII cc. tendentiously changed the respectful Slavonic LEPAYA, LEPO into 'Latin' = a she-wolf, a whore, after which they began to seriously analyse the 'transformation' of a woman into a she-wolf. The fact that in Russian the word LEPO, if read backwards (from the right to the left), as do the Arabs or Jews, for example, could have been confused with a word LECHERY, and cold have led one to believe that the subject they referred to was a wanton and immoral woman, could have played its part in the cunning blackening of the woman's reputation.

Titus Livy's 'story' in its spirit turns out to be rather close to the style of the Old Testament [2v]. But then it is worth remembering that in the Judaic version of the biblical events it was insistently repeated that Mary Mother of God was a victim of rape. Many authors discussed 'the Jewish version of the illegitimate birth of Jesus from a certain philanderer' [307], p.302. Generally the Judaic tradition cast Christ and Virgin Mary in a negative light [307], [\u0426\u0420\u0421] So Titus Livy's words that a woman Larentia = She-Wolf, who suckled Romulus (and Remus) was a whore giving herself to anyone, fit the negative Judaic reflection of the biblical events well.

The Roman legends of Romulus and Remus partially absorbed the biblical details about Christ and John the Baptist. According to the Gospels they were second cousins [298:1], p.14, were childhood friends, grew up and were raised together. They were often depicted in the Mediaeval paintings next to each other in the form of two infants [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c] ch.1. On many old pictures apart from Virgin Mary and the two infants next to her (i.e. Jesus Christ and John the Baptist) THERE IS NO ONE ELSE THERE [\u0426\u0420\u0418\u041c] ch.1. Possibly that is why an 'ancient' myth about a 'She-Wolf' and the infants Romulus and Remus - raised by her, has emerged. The Virgin Mary was symbolically presented as a 'She-Wolf'. Romulus is the reflection of Christ, Remus is the reflection of John the Baptist.

In [\Uffffffff\u041e\u0420] we suggested that a legend of a 'She Wolf' absorbed into itself an image of the Russian Volga River which 'nursed' Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome ('with its own milk'). In a figurative, but very clear sense. As Volga 'nursed' Yaroslavl, a new capital of Russia-Horde on its banks, and also it 'raised' two of its founders. It is also appropriate to remember a famous Biblical expression: 'a river flowing with MILK and Honey' (The Exodus 3:8). In the Russian fairy tales 'land of MILK and honey' (MILKY rivers Land of Milk and Honey) is often mentioned. For a good reason it is said in the Christian tradition: 'The Blessed Virgin Mary, who brought forth for us the bread of life, is the true promised land, FROM WHICH FLOW HONEY AND MILK' [298:1], p.9.

So there prevailed an image of a river flowing with milk. From this image it is not too far to arrive at the 'river feeding with milk'. At the beginning of the XIII century Ioann-Aeneas fled to Russia, the motherland of his ancestors. During the same epoch Andronicus-Christ (aka Romulus or Remus, aka Andrey Bogolyubskiy) repeatedly stayed in Russia with his mother Mary Mother of God, the symbol of whom was a 'She-Wolf'. Mary originated from Russia, that is why in times of danger she and her son returned there, to her motherland, possibly with a young John the Baptist = Remus. Mary could have also been called the 'She-Wolf' because in the Russian language the words 'VOLGA=VLAGA' meaning (VOLGA RIVER = MOISTURE or WATER) and VOLK (meaning WOLF) sound similar and could have been confused.

CapitolineWolfSculpture.jpg

On picture. it is shown a famous sculpture of the Capitoline Wolf. In [5v2], ch.3:9, we explore when this Et-ruscan stature was made. The historians refer it to the V century B.C. Under the she-wolf there are bronze figurines of the two twins Romulus and Remus sucking her milk. But such depiction could have not appeared earlier than the XV century. It turns out, as the historians acknowledge themselves, that the figurines of the twins are made between the years 1471 and 1509! So the She-Wolf, most likely, is also made in the XV century. At the same time as the figurines of the children, and not two thousand years before they were made.

The tree of Jesse (Eshai, Yishai or Yisay) in the Russian pre-Romanovs churches[edit | edit source]

After the Romanovs assumed power they destroyed almost all the frescos, having replaced them with new ones. In those rare cases where the old frescos survived, they reveal incredible things. For example, 'the tree of Jesse', the depictions of which have survived in the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin and partially in the Aleksandrova Sloboda (Aleksandrov Village) [4v], [\Uffffffff\u041e\u0420], ch.4. In the time of the Romanovs these frescos were painted over with some other ones, but they were uncovered later. 'The Tree of Jesse' represents THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN PRINCES AS THE RELATIVES OF CHRIST. On the walls are depicted the 'ancient' philosophers and poets. 'It is very interesting that THE RUSSIAN GRAND PRINCES: DANIIL ALEKSANDROVICH, DMITRY DONSKOI AND VASILIY I were included in the frescos. It is a kind of a genealogical tree of Moscow rulers interweaved into the branches of the tree of Christ' [107], p.148-149.

Thus, the Russian princes are shown descending from the family line of Christ, and the 'ancient' philosophers as associated with Christianity. Everything is correct. Aeneas, a relative of Christ, founded the Russian Horde dynasty. We spoke about Virgil and Homer above. They wrote about the events in the times of Christ and the subsequent Trojan War of the XIII century, i.e. the events having a direct bearing on the history of Christianity.

There was no foreign 'Tatar-Mongolian' conquest of Russia[edit | edit source]

The Medieval Mongolia and Russia is simply the same thing. No foreigners conquered Russia. Russia was originally populated by the peoples who lived on their land from the time immemorial - the Russians, the Tatars, etc. The so called 'Tatar-Mongolian Yoke' is simply a specific period in the history of our state. In that time the population of our country was divided into two parts. One part - a peaceful civil population ruled by the princes. The other part - a regular army-Horde under the leadership of military commanders, who could have been Russian, Tatar, etc. At the head of the Horde-Army was a czar or a khan. The supreme power belonged to him. In this way the two administrations acted hand in hand: military - in the Horde and civilian - in towns and villages.

We all know that Russia paid taxes to the Horde - a tenth of its property and a tenth of its population. Today it is considered to be a testimony of the Tatar Yoke and the slavish subordination of Russia. However, we refer to the tax that existed in reality - 'TAX FOR THE UPKEEP OF ITS OWN REGULAR RUSSIAN ARMY - HORDE, AND ALSO ABOUT CONSCRIPTION OF YOUNG PEOPLE INTO MILITARY SERVICE. In that time they drafted the children into the Horde before adulthood. The recruited warriors - Cossacks did not return home. It was this military conscription, that 'tagma', blood tribute, which the Russians allegedly paid to the Tatars. Such an order, by the way, also existed in Turkey, at least up until the XVII century. But this was not at all the 'tribute paid by the enslaved people to their evil conquerors', but 'THE STATE PRACTICE OF COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE. For refusal to render the tribute the military administration would punish the population with a punitive expedition to the offending regions. These are the operations which are presented by the historians allegedly as 'Tatar raids' on the Russian territories.

There was no so called 'Tatar-Mongolian' conquest. I.e. there was no foreign invasion to Russia. What today is declared as the 'Tatar-Mongolian conquest of Russia' was an internal unification of the principalities and the reinforcement of the czar-khan power. The remainders of the Russian forces-Horde survived until now. They are the Cossack forces. The new chronology greatly alters the history of the Cossacks. The historians assure us that the Cossacks are the descendants of the 'fugitive serfs', who have fled to the Don River (or were forced to flee in the XVI-XVII cc.) and other remote areas in order to lead there a 'free and easy life'. In other words, that they were, allegedly, the descendants of criminal gangs. This is not true. As early as in the XVII century the Cossacks were spread throughout THE ENTIRE TERRITORY OF RUSSIA. The sources of that time speak of the Cossacks OF YAIK, DON, VOLGA, TEREK, DNIEPER, ZAPOROZHIA, MESHERIA, PSKOV, RYAZAN, and also URBAN COSSACKS, i.e. situated in TOWNS. They also mention the Cossacks of HORDE (ORDYNSKI), AZOV, NOGAI, etc. See [4v].

It turns out that DNIEPER or ZAPOROZHIAN COSSACKS until the XVI century were called HORDE (ORDYNSKIYE) COSSACKS. More than that Zaporozhian Base was considered to be a yurt (meaning 'homeland') of the Crimean Cossacks [4v]. This proves our point once more that the COSSACKS (from the word 'skok', 'skakat'? in Russian meaning 'hop', 'skip', 'gallop') WERE THE TROOPS OF THE MONGOLIAN HORDE-ARMY. That is the exact reason why the Cossacks were spread all over the Empire, and not just along its borders, as it was from XVIII-XIX cc. With the change of the state structure the Cossack regions of the Empire to a greater degree kept their original military order. For example, the samurais in Japan, Mamelukes (or Mamluks) in Egypt, etc.

The Royal dynasty of Ivan Kalita=Khalif of the XIV-XVI cc. is the dynasty of the khans-czars of the Horde. That is why it can be tentatively called the Horde dynasty. This it is our term. We would like to repeat that this was RUSSIAN, not some foreign dynasty. The unique Horde period in the history of Russia spans over the XIII-XVI cc. It ends with the famous Great Strife of the early XVII century. The last ruler of the Horde dynasty was the czar-khan Boris 'Godunov'. The Great Strife and the Civil War of the early XVII century ended with accession of a fundamentally new Romanov dynasty, which originated in West Russia, allegedly in Pskov. THE HORDE DYNASTY WAS HEAVILY DEFEATED in the Civil War of the XVII century. The Horde epoch ended. However, the independent Horde states continued to exist up until the end of the XVIII century. A new stage in the history of Russia began. Thus the end of the epoch, which was later declared 'the famous Tatar-Mongolian Yoke' was in the beginning of the XVII century, but not anywhere near the end of the XV century, as it is considered today.

The new Romanov dynasty had to strengthen its position on the throne, as at that time the surviving descendants of the former Horde czars still existed. They made claims the throne. Most likely both the Crimean khans and some of the Cossack tribes were amongst them. That is why it was so important for the Romanovs to present the khans as the long-standing enemies of Russia. To this effect the theory of the military conflict between Russia and Horde, the Russians and the Tatars, was created. The Romanovs and their historians called the preceding Russian Horde dynasty 'Tatar'. Having attached a completely different interpretation to the ancient Russian history, the Romanovs introduced a concept of an 'enemy', whom it was necessary to fight. Without intrinsically changing the historical facts, they massively distorted the entire meaning of the history of Russia-Horde. Of course then, as is now, there were the Tatars living in the country. However the opposition of the Tatars and the Russians, the depiction of some as the conquerors and others as the conquered, is the 'invention' of the historians of the XVII-XVIII cc. It was them who distorted the Russian history and presented it in such a way as if in the Middle Ages there existed two opposing forces 'the Russian Rus' and 'the Tatar Horde' and that allegedly Russia (Rus') was conquered by the Horde.

The division of Russia and Mongolia into the three kingdoms, referred to in the chronicles, is in essence the same sort of division. Specifically:

1) Velikaya Rus' (Great Russia) = Golden Horde including Siberia = Tobol (capital of this province was Tobolsk) aka the Biblical Thubal and Volga Kingdom = Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. In the 'Mongolian' terminology it is probably Novyi Sarai (New Sarai) = Veliky Novgorod = Yaroslavl.

2) Malaya Rus' (Minor Russia) = the Blue (Kok) Horde = Severkaya Zemlia = Malorossiya (Small Russia), i.e. modern Ukraine = Biblical Rosh, i.e. Rus'(Russia) or Kiev Rus' (Kiev Russia). The Russian sources often called Chernigov as its capital, or Novgorod Seversky [161], p.140, and the Western sources name Kiev. The name BLUE came from The Blue Waters. For example, the Synjucha River, the left tributary of the Southern Bug was previously called THE BLUE WATERS [4v].

3) White Rus' = White (Ak) Horde = Lithuania = Smolensk principality = North-West Rus' (Polotsk, Pskov, Smolensk, Minsk) = Biblical Meshech. Today's Belorussia comprises only the Western part of this mediaeval state, and the latter day Catholic Lithuania is a part of old White Russia. The LITHUANIANS of the Russian chronicles are simply latinyane (latini), i.e. the RUSSIAN CATHOLICS. In the 'Mongolian' terminology it is, most likely, Sarai Berke, i.e. Sarai Belyi (meaning 'White' in Russian) as the sounds R and L often interchanged.

The border between Velikaya Rus' (Great Russia) and Malaya Rus' (Little Russia) was probably passing approximately in the same place as today, between Russia and Ukraine = Malorossiya (Little Russia). The border between Belorussia = Lithuania and Velikaya Rus' (Great Russia) ran in the mediaeval times much more to the East, between Moscow and Vladimir to be more precise. I.e. Moscow belonged to White Rus' = Lithuania. They remembered that even in the XVII century, in the times of the Great Strife [4v1]. It is quite possible that this border survived until now in the form sub dialects of the Russian language still in existence today (retaining the unstressed 'o' and failing to differentiate unstressed vowels. In Great Russia = Golden Horde they pronounced 'o' whereas in White Rus' they would pronounce 'a').

In the process of the distortion of the ancient Russian history some geographical shifts of various names known in the mediaeval times took place. The name Mongolia 'moved' far away to the East and overlapped the territory which today is known to us by this name. The peoples who lived there were effectively 'designated to be called the Mongols'. On paper. The historians are still convinced that the ancestors of the modern Mongols are those very 'Mongols' who in the mediaeval times conquered Europe and Egypt. However on the territory of the modern Mongolia was not found even one ancient chronicle which would tell us about Batu-Khan's campaign to a faraway country Rus' (Russia) and about its conquest. Following the name MONGOLIA = GREAT the name SIBERIA also shifted to the East. The geographical names in the Middle Ages were shifting around the map due to various reasons. With the beginning of the epoch of book printing the drift of the names stopped with the emergence of maps and books which were multiplied on a mass scale and which fixed the geography and the names of the peoples, cities, rivers and mountains. Only then in the XVII-XVIII cc. the geographical names were generally consolidated. In this way they became part of the textbooks.

When the 'ancient' eclipses took place and when the astronomical Zodiacs/Horoscopes were created[edit | edit source]

The ancient chronicles contain many descriptions of the Solar and Lunar eclipses. It became clear that being under pressure from the pre-existing Scaligerian chronology, the astronomers of the XVII-XIX cc. were compelled, while dating the eclipses (and the chronicles), to consider not all the results of the astronomical dates, but only those that fell into the interval of time which was designated in advance by the Scaligerian chronology for the eclipse that was being researched and the events connected to it. As a result, in many cases, the astronomers did not find any eclipses 'in the required century', which would accurately correspond with the description in the chronicle and were compelled, without questioning the Scaligerian chronology - to resort to stretching the facts. For example, they would point out an eclipse which would only partially match the description in the chronicles.

Further still, there are obvious signs of the fact, that some eclipses in the chronicles were calculated post factum i.e. calculated backwards, into the past, by the mediaeval chroniclers of the XVI-XVII cc. in order to support the Scaligerian chronology which they were creating at the time. Having calculated into the past some Lunar eclipses, for example, the chroniclers of the XVI-XVII cc. would then insert them into the 'ancient' chronicles created by them to 'firmly substantiate' the erroneous chronology. Our research has shown that all the eclipses, which were thoroughly and well described, when celestially dated in an unbiased way, would date far from the Scaligerian ones (situated in the interval between year 1000 BC and the year 1000 AD), but considerably later (sometimes even by many centuries). In fact all of these new exact solutions fall into the interval between the years 900-1700 AD.

So, the effect of shifting the dates of the annalistic eclipses, discovered by N.A.Morozov in [544] for the 'ancient' eclipses, also refers to the eclipses which are usually dated as the years 400-1000 AD. It means that either there are many equal celestial solutions and as a result the dating is multiple-valued, or there are only a few solutions one or two. But then all of them fall in the interval of the years 900-1700 AD. Commencing only approximately from year 1000 AD, but not far from the year 400 AD, as suggested by N.A.Morozov in [544], the congruence between the Scaligerian eclipses dates, which were listed in the celestial canon by Gintzel for example, and the results of the modern methodology becomes satisfactory. And only since 1300 AD it becomes more or less reliable. We will give an example: the three eclipses (two Solar and one Lunar) described by 'ancient' Thukydydys as taking place during the epoch of the famous Peloponnesian War. Traditionally they are referred to the distant V century BC. However the unbiased astronomical dating reveals that the true dates are entirely different, where there are only two exact solutions. The first one was discovered by N.A.Morozov in [544], v.4, p.509, and the second one was discovered by A.T.Fomenko during re-analysis of the 'ancient' mediaeval eclipses. [1v], ch.2.

The first resolution: the 2nd August 1133 AD (full Solar); the 20th March 1140 AD (full Solar); the 28th August 1151 AD (Lunar). The second resolution: the 22nd August 1039 AD (full Solar); the 9th April 1046 AD (partially Solar); the 15th September 1057 AD (Lunar). We will point out that the first part of the Peloponnesian War narrated by Thukydydys includes, as it happens, the story of Andronicus-Christ and the events of the XII-XIII century which followed it. I.e. the Crusades which were the revenge for the crucifixion of Christ. Whereupon in the Thukydydys' version he describes mainly Czar-Grad under the name of Athens, aka 'ancient' Troy, Jerusalem [GR]. Russia-Horde and its allies are mainly described under the name of Sparta. In [GR] we show that Thukydydys' description of the allegedly second phase of the Peloponnesian War = Sicilian Battle are much later events of the end of the XIV century, namely the Battle of Kulikovo.

The 'Ancient' city of ATHENS is denoted as various cities in different ancient texts. In the history of the 'ancient' Battle of Marathon by the name of ATHENS the chroniclers meant the city of TANA, the city of DON, i.e. the city which stood on the river DON. We would like to remind that the name of DON earlier was referring to any river in general from a Russian word DNO, DONNY (meaning 'bottom' or 'bed' of the river or ocean). Most likely in this given place in the 'History' by Thukydydys the 'city of Tana'= Athens is understood to be Moscow situated on the Moscow river. In [4v1], ch.6, we showed that the Moscow river in those times was called DON. The words 'TANA' and 'ATHENS' are close as the letter Fita was pronounced both as F and as T. On the 'ancient' maps the region of modern river Don in Russia (Rus') sometimes was denoted as the 'country of TANA' [5v]. Besides, the old NAME FOR THE RIVER Don is TANAIS. A slight distortion of these names is the 'ancient' ATHENS. In particular the ATHENIANS are, at least in some old texts, the DONTSI, i.e. inhabitants of the DON river.

But let us return to the astronomy. The analogous picture of the shifting of the dates was discovered when dating the ancient horoscopes. It turned out that all the ancient zodiacs known today as a result of the unbiased celestial analyses are dated to the epoch of the X-XIX cc [1v], \Uffffffff\u0425\u0415] [\u0414\u0417\u0415\u0415] [\u0415\u0420\u0418\u0417] At the end of each chapter of this book we quote such dating.

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

1. (Years 1206 or 969) ZODIAC SP FROM THE TOMB OF FARAOH SETI I. A coloured fresco on the arch of the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first variant: 14-16 August 969; the second variant: 5-7 August 1206 [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

2. (Year 1221) ZODIAC LK 'LEO OF COMMAGENE'. A stone relief in a form of a lion embedded with stars and inscriptions. Turkey, mountain range Nemrut Dagi, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the 14th 1221 [\u0414\u0417\u0415\u0415]

3. (Years 1227 or 1667) ZODIAC P1 FROM THE PETOSIRIS TOMB, THE OUTER CHAMBER. The coloured depiction on the tomb's ceiling. 'Ancient' Egypt, Dakhla Oasis, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first variant: the 5th August 1227; the second variant: the 2nd August 1667 (12 August in modern calendar) [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

4. (Year 1228) ZODIAC BG, 'ASTROLOGY' (the invention of the Ptolemy's system of the world). Italy, Vatican. The Frescos of the XV century on the vaulted ceiling of the 'Hall of the Sybils' in the chambers of the Borgia Apartments. Ptolemy's system is dated to the II century. In fact it is: the 28th August 1228. The Zodiac was created not earlier than the XV century, by the way of 'calculations into the past [VAT].

5. (Year 1230) FLINDERS PETRIE'S UPPER ATHRIBIS ZODIAC. A coloured painting on the ceiling of the burial tomb. 'Ancient' Egypt, Athribis (Wannina), allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: the 15-16th May 1230 [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

6. (Years 1240 or 1714) ZODIAC P2 FROM THE TOMB OF PETOSIRIS, THE INNER CHAMBER. The coloured painting on the ceiling of the tomb. 'Ancient' Egypt, The Dahla Oasis, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first variant: the 24-25th March 1240; the second variant: the 2nd April 1714 (13 April in modern calendar) [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

7. (Year 1268) FLINDERS PETRIE'S LOWER ARTHRIBIS ZODIAC AN. The picture painted in colour on the ceiling of the burial cave. 'Ancient' Egypt, Athribis (Wannina), allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: the 9-10th February 1268 [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]

8. (Year 1284) THE ROMAN ZODIAC GA THE GEMMA AUGUSTEA. Europe. Allegedly 'ancient' double relief cameo gem. In fact: the 8th December 1284 [\u0415\u0420\u0418\u0417]

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

10. (Years 1289 or 1586) ZODIAC RS FROM THE TOMB OF PHARAOH RAMESSES IV. An image on the ceiling of the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first variant: 4-5 April 1289; the second variant: 20-21 February April old style 1586 [\Uffffffff\u0425\u0415]